Anne
Don't know what you have been reading, and in any event not sure that
historians have to accept Clovis (it being a pre-historic technology/
culture/complex :), but Clovis is anthropologically mainstream,
accepted, and has been for decades (it was taught at U Penn back in
the dark ages when I was an undergrad). It is PRE-Clovis that is still
controversial. Like any paradigm shift, it takes time. And there are
those who will never be convinced.
The problem is that the evidence for Pre-Clovis is thin. Which is
understandable. The farther back in time you go the less survives. And
the closer you get to the first people in the Americas, the fewer of
them there were and the less evidence there is to find.
Again the first family of Virginia was just that the first. It may
have been as few as 5-10 people and as many as a band of a hundred (or
so). If they lived the way most folks did 12-20,000 years ago they
moved from camp to camp following the seasonal foodstuffs (animal and
vegetable or fauna and flora if one wants to sound more scientific).
But the problem is it was just a few people and while they might have
reused the camps, they were only there once a year for a decade or so
and after 20,000 years not much survives.
So how do we find these people? Well again location, you look in
likely spots. Not having county or city water, they lived near
freshwater. But you also have to be extremely lucky. A site that
appealed 20,000 years ago, was probably also attractive 10,000 years
ago, and may still be today. There is a reason many of the early
English settlements in Virginia are on sites used previously by the
Indian population. Regardless of the technology differences,their
basic needs were very similar. Later settlement disturbs the evidence
of earlier, and may destroy it. that is certainly the case with us
today. You prep an area for house sites and there is often nothing
left, because all of the topsoil is removed.
A few years ago an archaeologist from SC gave a talk to the ASV
(archeological Soc. of VA). He was a confirmed non-believer in Pre-
Clovis. But then it occurred to him that when he was digging a Clovis
site, as soon as he got to a sterile layer he stopped digging, because
he knew there was nothing under it. But what if there was and the only
reason he, and others, were not finding pre-Clovis was because they
never tried? So he dug through the sterile layer and lo and behold
there were artifacts below it. Now he believes in pre-Clovis. You
can't find what you don't look for.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Anne Pemberton wrote:
> James,
>
> I understand you are an archeologist so better versed in these
> things than I am. I read, and develop thoughts or theories, and then
> wait years for more reading and thoughts to develop.
>
> As I understand it, what made Peru and Chile attractive was indeed
> the rich waters for fishing off the coast. A "vertical society"
> developed with fish as food being supplied up the mountains, while
> cotton, rather than foodstuffs, were grown in the small patches of
> arable land, woven into fish nets and traded down the mountains.
> Further up the mountains some corn and alpaca wool were produced to
> round out the diet and give variety to the clothing.
>
> The last book I read said that the Clovis sites were still not
> completely accepted by mainstream historians, so your saying that
> they are now better accepted is good news.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
