4 ms·

During much of the 20th century, the idea of humans in North America as long ago as the Clovis industry was anathema, what we call "career-limiting". Ask your f

During much of the 20th century, the idea of humans in North America as long ago as the Clovis industry was anathema, what we call "career-limiting". Ask your father about how hard it was to overcome that. Much of the resistance was, ultimately, political: if "Indians" only arrived a short time before Europeans, their claim on the land was weaker.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
This is a pretty bad take. At no point in the 20th century was the idea of aboriginal Native Americans "career-limiting". It was actually the default narrative. Quoting Ernst Antevs in "THE SPREAD OF ABORIGINAL MAN TO NORTH AMERICA" (1935): The question of the first peopling of North America has been vigorously attacked in recent years along many lines. According to the best of our belief the findings may be summed up thus: The first man to arrive in North America was of modern type and probably at the Neolithic stage of culture. He came from northeastern Asia to Alaska and probably spread along the eastern foot of the Rocky Mountains where an ice-free corridor had formed some 20,000 to 15,000 years ago. He seems to have reached the Southwest at the age of transition between the pluvial and the post-pluvial epochs, or roughly I2,000 years ago. Reputed older finds need verification. All the human skeletal remains found in the Americas are, according to Ales Hrdlika, of modern types, closely resembling living Indians and Eskimos. Neither Neanderthal man nor any other primitive human species seems to have reached these continents. Moreover, Clovis in particular was discovered as part of the search for the oldest lithic industries in North America by looking where it was thought the material culture was most likely to have survived. [1] https://doi.org/10.2307/209605 https://doi.org/10.2307/209605
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Quoting sources from after acceptance of the Clovis timeline in support of assertions about hostility to it utterly fails to support any claim, or even make sense on its own terms.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

This is a pretty bad take. At no point in the 20th century was the idea of aboriginal Native Americans "career-limiting". It was actually the default narrative. Quoting Ernst Antevs in "THE SPREAD OF ABORIGINAL MAN TO NORTH AMERICA" (1935): The question of the first peopling of North America has been vigorously attacked in recent years along many lines. According to the best of our belief the findings may be summed up thus: The first man to arrive in North America was of modern type and probably at the Neolithic stage of culture. He came from northeastern Asia to Alaska and probably spread along the eastern foot of the Rocky Mountains where an ice-free corridor had formed some 20,000 to 15,000 years ago. He seems to have reached the Southwest at the age of transition between the pluvial and the post-pluvial epochs, or roughly I2,000 years ago. Reputed older finds need verification. All the human skeletal remains found in the Americas are, according to Ales Hrdlika, of modern types, closely resembling living Indians and Eskimos. Neither Neanderthal man nor any other primitive human species seems to have reached these continents. Moreover, Clovis in particular was discovered as part of the search for the oldest lithic industries in North America by looking where it was thought the material culture was most likely to have survived. [1] https://doi.org/10.2307/209605 https://doi.org/10.2307/209605

moloch-hai 4y ago
Quoting sources from after acceptance of the Clovis timeline in support of assertions about hostility to it utterly fails to support any claim, or even make sense on its own terms.