The original consensus on Clovis was due to the inability to get dating older than 11,500 years. A few rebel scientists and theorists postulated a more likely date of 15,000 years ago which was later confirmed in many places.
The Cactus Hill site in Virginia wielded much evidence (stone tools, many quartzite blades, and even a few pentangular projectile points all excavated from below a known Clovis site. These artifacts predate Clovis by at least a few thousand years (some say many even possibly as far back as 100,000 years). This of course means that the Clovis tale must now be retold to include the mounting evidence against it.
Textbooks and encyclopedias will have to be rewritten, but until they are I believe that the teachers and professorate in Universities must include all the evidence. The fact is human beings lived and thrived in the Americas before the crossing of the land bridge and when Clovis arrived they were greeted by other indigenous Americans already here.
Historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us the perpetrators of the Clovis tale “jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” But now too many have seen the cat out of the bag and are insisting (and have been for over a decade) that the tale be exchanged for the truth yet we are still being taught it in schools all over. I have found that changing a hypothesis based conclusion (that has been imposed by drill and repetition and accompanied with contrived image imprinting) is difficult to topple when alleged authorities insist on teaching the falsehood and selectively exclude evidence to the contrary! Or do you see it otherwise?
The Cactus Hill site in Virginia wielded much evidence (stone tools, many quartzite blades, and even a few pentangular projectile points all excavated from below a known Clovis site. These artifacts predate Clovis by at least a few thousand years (some say many even possibly as far back as 100,000 years). This of course means that the Clovis tale must now be retold to include the mounting evidence against it.
Textbooks and encyclopedias will have to be rewritten, but until they are I believe that the teachers and professorate in Universities must include all the evidence. The fact is human beings lived and thrived in the Americas before the crossing of the land bridge and when Clovis arrived they were greeted by other indigenous Americans already here.
Historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us the perpetrators of the Clovis tale “jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” But now too many have seen the cat out of the bag and are insisting (and have been for over a decade) that the tale be exchanged for the truth yet we are still being taught it in schools all over. I have found that changing a hypothesis based conclusion (that has been imposed by drill and repetition and accompanied with contrived image imprinting) is difficult to topple when alleged authorities insist on teaching the falsehood and selectively exclude evidence to the contrary! Or do you see it otherwise?
