26
Can we talk about how everyone acts like the 'Clovis first' idea is totally dead?
I was listening to a podcast about the Gault site in Texas, and the host said 'nobody believes in Clovis being first anymore' like it was a settled fact. That got me thinking. While sites like Monte Verde are huge, I think we're throwing out the whole Clovis model too fast just to be trendy. There's still solid evidence from places like Blackwater Draw that needs a real explanation, not just dismissal. Has anyone else dug into the recent papers that aren't just jumping on the 'pre-Clovis' bandwagon?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
sarah_johnson4618d ago
Man, the pendulum didn't just swing it took a running jump off a cliff. I swear half these papers read like they're trying to win a contest for who can be the loudest about being wrong about Clovis. You can't just point at Monte Verde and pretend Blackwater Draw isn't staring you right in the face with thousands of those classic points. It's like saying you don't believe in burgers anymore because you found a taco. Both things can be real, the timeline just gets messier.
6
noraj791mo ago
Honestly, my understanding of the Clovis debate is about as solid as a screen door on a submarine. I read one paper and feel smart, then the next one completely flips it and I'm back to confused. But you're right, it seems like the pendulum has swung super hard. Sure, Monte Verde is a game changer, but what about all that classic Clovis stuff in the plains? The tools at Blackwater Draw didn't just magic themselves there. It feels like a lot of new papers just kind of hand-wave that evidence away to get a flashy headline about being 'pre-Clovis.' The whole thing needs a better story that actually fits all the pieces together, not just the new shiny ones.
3