This is a VERY brief layman's description of Clovis. I am really in a hurry right now and cannot check my statements, but I believe this is the bare bones of it.
The Clovis controversy is about when man first came to the Americas. Clovis points, or spear heads, were for a long time believed to be only 11,000 years old or less. There was a whole body of archaeologists who supported that, and it was very reassuring. But other archaeologists across the Americas kept digging and finding older artifacts. The original group would convolute reasons that the carbon dating could not be accurate, to the point of absurdity.
Finally spear points were found in Monte Verde, a dig in South America, that seemed to be 35,000 year old. And they were extremely similar to a tribe of Europeans who lived in Spain at that time. A more radical group of archaeologists supported the findings at Monte Verde, and a lot of research has been done about how early man had ocean-worthy vessels and could have arrived in the Americas then. And of course the land bridge theory from Asia later works as well. So the radical group argues that America could have been populated very early, and from several different directions. The discovery of Kennewick man in Washington state, who does not have the features typical of Native Americans, also supports this theory.
My point about Clovis is that in order to get your digs funded and keep your professorial status, there is a huge pressure to conform. Of course, as time goes on and there are more pre-Clovis finds, the radical group looks more correct. The verdict is still out on this one, but I find it fascinating. |
