History of the Debate

HISTORY OF THE DEBATE

The peopling of the Americas has had a long history of debate. It is often a controversial topic with a lot of potential evidence but not a lot of definitive evidence. This section contains some topics from the history of this debate.

Historical Dating Methods: Skulls to Radiocarbon

Lithograph by C. Picard, 1842

The fields of Anthropology and archaeology in the Americas have gone through extensive changes in common dating practices. Starting from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, archaeology made extensive use of skulls as a means of relative dating by comparing skull size. Working off the idea that modern humans were the pinnacle of skull development and size, archaeologists created a chronology of skulls increasing in size through time. This used to be one of the main relative dating techniques used by archaeologists and anthropologists. In addition to skulls, geological factors also played an important role in relative dating. By observing geological superposition, archaeologists could determine a relative chronology. While it was effective to some extent, these chronologies still lacked specific calendar dates. The introduction of radiocarbon dating (in addition to other dating technologies) revolutionized the discipline by determining a specific date range for sites, especially when supported by geological evidence. While other methods of dating do exist, skull dating, geological dating, and radiocarbon dating are undoubtedly the most influential methods throughout the advancement of the field.

Studying skulls used to be important to dating archaeological remains in the 19th and 20th century. Back then, the basic assumption of evolution was that the end goal was modern humans – this is known as unilineal evolution. With this assumption in mind, archaeologists of the past assumed that early humans had smaller skulls. Since contemporary human skulls were the end goal, a smaller skull was presumed to be older than a larger one. From these assumptions, archaeologists created a system of relative dating through the comparison of skull sizes. This method of dating is observed in Newton Horace Winchell’s “The Antiquity of Man in America Compared With Europe,” (1917). What is suggested by the figures from Winchell’s articles (see figures below) is that the smaller skulls are older on an evolutionary scale than the larger skulls (Winchell, 1917, 122-3).

Clovis and Archaeological Criteria

Clovis projectile points are very important to archaeology in the Americas. First, the discovery and dating of Clovis points established a period of time where we know for certain that humans were in the Americas. Secondly, the discovery of Clovis points also set a high standard for archaeological evidence found in the Americas due to them being undeniably created and used by humans. Because of the standard of evidence set by Clovis remains, any claims of pre-Clovis presence must be strong in order to become widely accepted amongst archaeologists. Furthermore, a significant amount of archaeological research in North America is done purely for the purpose of finding pre-Clovis archaeological evidence – some of which is strong, and some of which is not.

A drawing of a clovis point from Cotter, 1937, excerpted in Boldurian, 1990, p. 15.

Clovis points are human-made stone projectile points that began appearing in the North American archaeological record approximately 13,500 years ago. They were first found at the Blackwater Draw excavation site in 1932, and as the excavation of the site progressed, Clovis points were found embedded with mammoth bone. Finding Clovis points embedded in mammoth bones was a significant discovery – especially prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating – because it proved that these points were being used during a time when extinct animals roamed the continent. Finding Clovis points in association with extinct animals was a major focus of the archaeologists working on the site, as it had recently been proved to be an important piece of evidence in the related Folsom point discovery, which were also found in association with extinct fauna. Another thing that sets Clovis points apart from many other claims of human antiquity in the Americas is that they are very clearly and undoubtedly made by skilled humans, as opposed to being eoliths or geofacts (Boldurian, 1990). See pictured above:

A primary goal of archaeologists in the Americas today is to demonstrate beyond a doubt that there were humans prior to the existence of Clovis points – often called pre-Clovis, or breaking the Clovis barrier. Achieving this goal is a daunting task however, as proving beyond a doubt that there were humans in the Americas prior to Clovis is quite challenging. As such, that is why at times many archaeologists have attempted to articulate what it would take to break the Clovis barrier. The most famous criteria for archaeological evidence in the Americas was written in 1969 in C. Vance Haynes’ “The Earliest Americans” which can be summarized as such :

There must be a human skeleton or an artifact that is beyond a doubt made by a human.
The site must be geologically undisturbed with the artifacts still in their original place.
In association with the evidence. there must be either animal fossils of a known age or material for radiocarbon dating.

(Haynes, 1969, 714)

This criteria has been further built on by archaeologists such as E. James Dixon in his 1999 Bones, Boats, & Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western North America, who directly states that for sites before 11,500 years ago archaeologists must ask themselves:

Are the artifacts clearly the product of human manufacture?
Is the recovered material within clear stratigraphic context?
Are there reliable, concordant, and stratigraphically consistent radiocarbon dates from the deposit?
Are paleoenvironmental studies consistent with the ages assigned to the site?
Are there human remains that are reliably dated older than 11,500 B.P.?

(Dixon, 1999, 48)

Diagram showing 5 principles of stratigraphy by Kathryn Pauls.

While these are the standards that have been set by archaeologists themselves, oftentimes sites fail to reach these self-imposed high standards. In order to thoroughly break the Clovis barrier, these criteria must be satisfied – yet whether a given archaeological site meets these criteria is not always clear simply by reading an archaeological paper or a news article on the site. The primary goal of this website is to evaluate archaeological claims and see if they hold up to these standards of evidence – check out our claims evaluations!

References
Dixon, E. James. 1999. Bones, Boats, & Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of
Western North America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Haynes, C. Vance. 1969. “The Earliest Americans.” Science 166: 709-715. DOI:
10.1126/science.166.3906.709

Boldurian, Anthony T. 1990. “The Initial Research At Clovis, New Mexico: 1932-1937.” Plains
Anthropologist 35, no. 130: 1–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25668959.

What is Possible and What is Probable?: Pseudoarchaeology and Archaeology

With an imaginative interpretation of archaeological artifacts, many things are possible though it does not necessarily mean they are probable, or likely to have happened. This difference between the possible and the probable is a major differentiating factor between pseudoarchaeology and archaeology, yet both are vital to archaeology as a discipline. Pseudoarchaeological claims can vary widely, from former archaeological sites that are no longer considered to be credible to conspiracies involving extraterrestrials and unidentified flying objects. It is important to analyze archaeological claims with an eye for the probable, and to recognize the value in Occam’s Razor; that the simplest explanation given the evidence, often is the most likely explanation.

Art by meewtoo at http://meewtoo.deviantart.com/

In archaeology, one of the things we must keep in mind is the differences between the probability or likelihood of something having happened (probabilism), versus what possibly could have been (possibilism). Both are necessary for archaeology to do its work and to interpret archaeological sites. Probabilism is required to determine whether a given archaeological site is actually an archaeological site, as well as to determine if the archaeological site is what the archaeologists working on that site say it is. The degree to which a site is probable relates to the strength of its evidence, and whether the archaeological claim being made is the simplest and best explanation given the evidence. Some claims such as the age of the Whitesands Footprints were initially met with doubt by the archaeological community, but as stronger, newer evidence was released over time, the simplest explanation became that the age the authors were claiming is correct. This links into the criteria for determining what is an archaeological site and what is not: you can read more about this topic in North America here.

Possibilism represents the interpretive and creative side of archaeology. After all, archaeologists often do not recover an entire society frozen in an instant of time (except perhaps Pompeii), but rather in fragments of what remains of a society or group. From these fragments, archaeologists can interpret how people in ancient societies lived, organized themselves, and operated, which requires a degree of creative interpretation and possibility. Possibilism can also be applied to archaeological materials themselves. If an archaeologist finds a tool-shaped stone, it could possibly be a stone tool. The caveat is that just because something possibly could have been, does not necessitate that it is. It is possible that a tool-shaped stone can be broken into that shape purely by natural forces, rather than by tool-making humans. Tool-shaped stones are likely the case with the Calico Hills site (Haynes, 1973) – the site was once considered archaeological, but today it lives on the borderlands of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology differs from archaeology in that it heavily relies on possibility based on little or no evidence, then asserting that possibility to be true against the greater evidence suggesting otherwise.

Defining pseudo-archaeology is complicated, as pseudo-archaeology has many characteristics and there are multiple reasons for its propagation. In 2012, Pia Andersson attempted to define what is, and is not, alternative archaeology or pseudoarchaeology in her “Alternative Archaeology: Many Pasts in Our Present.” In this article, Andersson suggests that a primary characteristic of pseudo-archaeology is that it is positioned directly against academic archaeology and that pseudo-archaeological claims provide truth in opposition to the truths of academic archaeology. To this end, Andersson points out that for pseudo-archaeology or alternative archaeology to exist, there must be a mainstream academic archaeology to be opposed to. As such, Andersson suggests that when Plato wrote about Atlantis, he should not be considered a pseudo-archaeologist or alternative archaeologist, as the field of archaeology did not exist then – even if today Atlantis is considered pseudo-archaeological (Andersson 2012, 130-1). As for why pseudoarchaeology is popular and propagated, Kenneth Feder’s Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (2018) suggests eight reasons; Greed, fame, nationalism, racism, religion, a romanticization of the past, a draw to the scary and mysterious, and the mental instability of their proponents (Feder 2018, 9-11).

Anything is possible – particularly with a creative imagination, but that does not mean that anything is likely. Alternative archaeology and pseudoarchaeology are not going anywhere given their popularity, and ultimately that is why it is important to analyze archaeological claims based on the evidence in support of or against a given claim and the likelihood of it being true, rather than whether or not an archaeological claim is possible in the first place.

References
Andersson, Pia. 2012. “Alternative Archaeology: Many Pasts in Our Present.” Numen 59, no. 2/3: 125–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23244955.

Feder, Kenneth. 2018. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://archive.org/details/fraudsmythsmyste0000fede_n9k9/.

Haynes, C. Vance. 1973. “The Calico Site: Artifacts or Geofacts?” Science 181, 305-310.DOI:10.1126/science.181.4097.305.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.181.4097.305.