Talk:Peopling of the Americas

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ezra kucur (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CarsonSawatzke.

Citations

• Bruce B. Huckell; J. David Kilby (2014). Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research. UNM Press. ISBN 978-0-8263-5483-9.
• Claude Chapdelaine (2012). Late Pleistocene Archaeology and Ecology in the Far Northeast. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-805-5.
• Neil Asher Silberman; Alexander A. Bauer (2012). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–78. ISBN 978-0-19-973578-5.
• Timothy R. Pauketat (2012). The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-538011-8.
• John F. Hoffecker; Scott A. Elias (2013). Human Ecology of Beringia. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50388-4.
• Vivien Gornitz (2009). Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-4020-4551-6.
• Terry L. Jones; Alice A. Storey; Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith (2011). Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World. Rowman Altamira. ISBN 978-0-7591-2006-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith; Lisa Matisoo-Smith; K. Ann Horsburgh (2012). DNA for Archaeologists. Left Coast Press. pp. 130–... ISBN 978-1-59874-682-2.
• Graeme Wynn (2007). Canada and Arctic North America: An Environmental History. ABC-CLIO. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-85109-437-0.

Surprising support for Clovis First.

Late date of human arrival to North America: Continental scale differences in stratigraphic integrity of pre-13,000 BP archaeological sites The article concludes:

"The oldest evidence for archaeological sites in the New World with large numbers of artifacts occurring in discrete and minimally disturbed stratigraphic contexts occur in eastern Beringia between 13,000 and 14,200 BP. South of the ice sheets, the oldest such sites occur in association with the Clovis complex. If humans managed to breach the continental ice sheets significantly before 13,000 BP, there should be clear evidence for it in the form of at least some stratigraphically discrete archaeological components with a relatively high artifact count. So far, no such evidence exists. These findings support the hypothesis that the first human arrival to the New World occurred by at least 14,200 BP in Beringia and by approximately 13,000 BP in the temperate latitudes of North America. Strong evidence for human presence before those dates has yet to be identified in the archaeological record."

I'm sure this will be challenged. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've always been skeptical of the pre-Clovis theory, basically because of the paucity of evidence. An organism, in my opinion, increases its population rapidly until it reaches the limits of what its environment will support. So, if man was in North America 18 or 20 or 30 thousand years ago, why is the evidence so sparse until Clovis? Surely, if mankind had arrived 20,000 years ago on a virgin continent with large numbers of slow moving large animals as prey, the numbers of humans would have increased rapidly -- perhaps explosively. Why didn't that occur if humans arrived in North America 20,000 years ago? Why did signs of human occupation only become commonplace about 13,000 years ago if people had been resident in North America for thousands of years? Anyway, that is by way of saying that I will defend the above statement being included in the article.Smallchief (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, article looks very selective in its arguments - they don't flat out say that pre-Clovis sites are invalid, just that they're not 'good enough' for them. But that might simply be an artifact of relatively little work done with the sites (lets not forget that Folsom and Clovis traditions were found in succession and these finds pushed back the previously accepted presence of humans on Americas). Also, if the sites are mixed with younger stratas, why don't we see clearly datable artifacts from later eras there - such as Clovis points themselves?

Any way, currently widely accepted 'pre-Clovis' sites are only couple of thousands of year older than the Clovis sites, making the dispute dogmatic in nature. The spread of humans would still have been 'explosive', just not 'hyper-explosive' as dictated by Clovis First.

Btw, American megafauna were not "slow moving" (well, some were). The 'Clovis First' hypothesis paints a picture of an enormous blood bath where helpless animals are slaughtered to extinction within centuries. This is very much implausible, proboscids and bovids are not easy prey in Asia or Africa, so why they would be that in America? Ecological naivety lasts only so long, especially with fairly intelligent animals such as elephants. It's worth noting that archaelogical pattern in Americas closest comparison point - Australia - is very similar. Very oldest finds are ambiguous and disputed, then there are scarce old finds, followed by a layer of abundant finds and established tool cultures and traditions. At some point, megafauna died off, but not instantly, and there is no evidence of any kind of 'explosive' cultural spread. Mikoyan21 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Discovery of the Americas" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Discovery of the Americas and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Discovery of the Americas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Australoid"

I'm not an anthropologist, so I don't know what would be the best way to edit this — but it seems strange to me that the article twice uses the term "Australoid," which is "outdated" and "potentially offensive" per the linked article. Thoughts? 2601:189:8180:3C80:A0BD:20A7:E76E:D17F (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Australo-Melanesian is used elsewhere in the article. I change the two instances of Australoid to Australo-Melanesian. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)