Talk:Clovis culture

New research for this article

Hopefully the latest study to plaster the media is useful for the sections of this article within the section "Alternatives to Clovis-first". It might apply to both sections: "Evidence of human habitation before Clovis" and "Coastal migration route". I would write something, but this is new to me and I am still trying to get a handle on it.

It looks like more evidence for a route between the glaciers in the far north and the lower 48 that both humans and bison used. Hopefully, that is an accurate summation.

Here is a really good article in the journal Science about it [1] and here is the actual scientific paper [2] and full text is available, which may be only temporary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pendejo Cave - occupied 75,000 years ago?

Part of the fall-out from creating a navbox for prehistoric caves is discovering that we have some pretty poor articles. Nothing in the stub that still is Pendejo Cave mentioned this until I happened to see the article and wonder if it was worth including in the navbox. I didn't expect to find that Richard MacNeish had dated occupation there back that far.[3] Doug Weller talk 14:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clovis culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508060759/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/seac/outline/02-paleoindian/index.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline/02-paleoindian/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to Clovis-first

I suggest that the Austronesian Migration Hypothesis merits some mention. Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Other sites section

The "Other sites" section is a mess. It largely duplicates the sites included in the "Evidence of human habitation before Clovis" section, it has chunks of unsourced material that look suspiciously like original research, some of the sites are not actually older than Clovis, and it is not in the "approximately reverse chronological order" promised at the top of the section. I'm not sure why the section exists. I propose that we remove the section as unnecessary to the article. - Donald Albury 03:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Anzick-1 age?

Anzick-1 is seen as about 12,700-12,500 yrs old. While the article says that Clovis culture vanished about 12,900 yrs ago. There is surely something wrong with this dates, please is there someone who can clear this problem, as we know, Clovis culture was really so short lived, that even 100-200 yrs are very important. Thanks. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to compare radiocarbon dates reported by different sources, as they may differ in uncalibrated versus calibrated, and it is not always clear what, if any, calibration has been used. We have to report what the sources says, and cannot adjust the numbers ourselves to resolves discrepancies. - Donald Albury 01:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

yes i know but i ask: is there any source that can clarify that discrepance? If not, we should say that the late survival of Clovis is shown by Anzick-1. We cannot quote una source that say 12,900 yrs and another that say Anzick was 12,600 yrs old and still be a Clovis. Someone could find a study that can relate the two things? I don't say to do a 'original research', just not to fall in a non-sense stating in which the article Clovis stating they endured until 12,900 yrs ago and then, their member Anzick-1 was both a Clovis but survived atleast 200 years further. Wikipedia often do this with generally success, so it should be out of the realm of possibilities to 'fix' this dates. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We can only go with what reliable sources tell us. Reliable sources do not always agree with each other. Unless and until we find reliable sources that reconcile the differences, all we can do is note that reliable sources do not agree. We cannot say, as you suggest, that "the late survival of Clovis is shown by Anzick-1". That would amount to original research. If you can find a reliable source that says that, you can use it in one or the other of the articles. - Donald Albury 23:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

errrr no i do not agree with you. I checked the problem: in the same wikipedia, there are simply conflicting datas: in Anzick-1 the age is 12,700-12,550, in anzick site article it's about 13,000 yrs. So the problem must be discussed and atleast, checked if there are or not possibilities to solve the question. The problem is caused by different articles HERE in wikipedia, and talking about OR while this article says Anzick-1 is younger than late clovis timeline, and equally wikipedia says that no clovis culture survived after 12,900-12,800 yrs BP is pure nonsense. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

this is what i find at anzick site: Discovery

In 1961, while hunting marmots at a sandstone outcrop on the Anzick family property, about one mile south of Wilsall, Montana, Bill Roy Bray found a stone biface and small human infant bones that were covered with red ocher.[3] In the same area, in May 1968, Ben Hargis and Calvin Sarver of Wilsall, Montana were removing talus from the same outcrop and inadvertently found the partial remains of a one- to two-year-old child associated with some 115 red ocher-covered, stone, bone and antler artifacts[3] that are dated at about 13,000 cal BP.[4] In another location in the same area, not associated with the Clovis child, the men found a partial skull fragment of a 6- to 8-year-old male child that dated 2,400 years later.[5] Dr. Larry Lahren, a North American archaeologist from Livingston, Montana was the first researcher to examine and record the site (24PA506), artifacts and human remains at the request of Ben Hargis not long after discovery in 1968.[6]

So definitively, before speaking about (nonsense)OR, we must clear this issue to dating better the clovis/anzick as it's ridicolous that clovis culture lasted until 12,800 yr ago while anzick -clovis-boy lived 12,600 yr ago. If the this issue cannot be assessed, then it must be said that this discrepance exists and not cover it in several different articles.62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on original research states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Radiocarbon dating is not as precise as many people assume. Although often dropped in popular presentation of results, every radiocarbon date has an error range, which may be quite large. If two radiocarbon dates have error ranges out to, say two standard deviations, that overlap, then all that can be said with certainty is that they are nearly contemporarious. For discussions of the problems with determining radiocarbon dates, see Radiocarbon dating#Measurement and results and Radiocarbon dating considerations. Any editor can check the sources cited in Wikipedia articles, and ensure that the contents of those sources are reported correctly in Wikipedia. But, if those sources are more or less equalloy reliable, and those sources disagree, then all we can do is report what they say, and note they disagree. If you want to change how any of the articles relating to the Anzick skeleton are written, I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of such article proposing the changes (i.e. the wording) you want to make. - Donald Albury 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Radiocarbon dating

I recommend that the terms cal BP and C14 BP be used. Both academic and mainstream publications are sourced. Academic sources usually indicate C14, mainstream sources often do not indicate which, but often use calendar years. A reader does not know what standards are used without that. Also, with AMS and IntCal13 calibration greater accuracy can be achieved. When dating technology is known and included in articles, readers can decide how much confidence should be given to results. Some results have been challenged on the grounds that contamination was possible, that animal and human activity may have mixed layers. This should be a talk point.

Update needed

• Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum (2021) Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the article

My view is that Clovis First should be split into a separate article, leaving Clovis Culture as what it should be ie about the palentology, history, and archaeology of the culture. The CF idea causes all sorts of contention which makes what should be a straightforward science/history wiki article a mess and controversial. Just MHO.Ploversegg (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree and please see my message below under "Poor Organization and Too Much Off-Topic Information." SpringDraw (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary modifier

"this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,200 to 12,900 calendar years ago."

Calendar years? For a range as broad as "13,200 to 12,900" the detail of "calendar" years is superfluous. 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:1DC8:7E3A:BA5F:8540 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Calendar years as opposed to radiocarbon years. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

History

This article leaves the impression that Clovis First was not challenged by archaeologists until perhaps mid first-decade of the 21st century. This is not true. In the last third of the 20th century there were a number of archaeologists who questioned Clovis First. Work done at Monte Verde reported in 1982 indicated a pre-Clovis date, and in 1990 (The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990 | American Antiquity | Cambridge Core) there was already a review of the debate over radiocarbon dates the preceded Clovis at Meadowcroft. And not a few North American archaeologists not specializing in Paleo-Indians informally voiced openness to earlier dates. See also Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil - ScienceDirect (published around 2003 but with references to somewhat earlier arguments), Sandia Cave (not pre-Clovis, but for some time considered a candidate), the Solutrean Hypothesis (only held by a very small number of archaeologists, but nevertheless a pre-Clovis hypothesis, dating to the 1970s), and a review in the '80s: Waters, Michael R. "Early Man in the New World: An evaluation of the radiocarbon dated Pre-Clovis sites in the Americas." Environments and extinctions: man in late glacial North America (1985): 125-144. Given all these data, the presence of onl-going nay-sayers and skeptics should be mentioned in the article. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D44:D7F8:84F1:F3FB (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free. – Joe (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect location on map...

The image in the article of pre-Clovis sites: File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svg, has the Buttermilk Creek site (Gault site) in the entirely wrong location. It is near Salado, Texas, and this is pointing to somewhere in Mississippi. @Pratyeka: Could this be fixed? The original uploader, User:Pratyeka, seems to have resigned from Wikipedia. Can anyone else with the appropriate skills fix it? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Poor organization and too much off-topic information - offering an overhaul by archaeology students

The archaeological information on Clovis seems largely accurate, but is minimal and poorly organized. The larger problem is that the clear majority of information on this page is not about Clovis so much as it is about reactions to Clovis first and pre-Clovis arguments. These are fine, but they should be made into a separate page. My archaeology class on Paleoindians is overhauling this page as a group project. We aim to address these issues by uploading a substantial amount of new content focused specifically on Clovis period archaeology, and making recommendations for splitting other content off to a new article. SpringDraw (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. This article is already too big. I will therefore move a lot of material to a new article, temporarily called Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. Some of this material could perhaps be absorbed into the existing article Peopling of the Americas, although that article is already much too big itself, so maybe material from there might be moved here etc. Wdford (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent - in my opinion the site is greatly improved, and that is exactly where I would have separated things topically. I am working with students to compile a document that combines existing content with expanded information on dating, technology, diet and subsistence, art and aesthetics and some key sites - all strictly related to Clovis. We'll be uploading new content soon. Thanks for helping to clear a path! SpringDraw (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am finally getting around to posting the updated material that my students compiled. Although I've done some general editing, I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement. I'll be uploading over the course of the next day or two. SpringDraw (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringDraw: I've reverted your new version for now because your version had many problems 1. the lead is way too short. 2. Though you provide brief in section citations, oftentimes these have no corresponding references, for instance you cite "Boldurian 2008", but there's no sources by Boldurian listed at all in the article, effectively making them uncited, and it's not fair to force editors to try to track down the sources you are referencing based on just the name and year. That said, there are many good things about your new version that are much better than the old one, but the citation issues really need to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've gone ahead and rewritten the article from the ground up, using some of the citations and text from your version where there was usable sourcing, and extensive additions from my own research Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Created a spin-off article at Alternatives to the Clovis First theory

I created a spin-off article from the article Clovis culture at Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. This article was getting too big, and the content was becoming incoherent. Much of the work done in that article was therefore done by editors at this article. Much clean-up work is required over there. Please help. Wdford (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BP vs BC

Hi @Hemiauchenia, I've gone ahead and reverted your edit once more. I don't think adding BC with a different date range clarifies things for the average reader, as you may be suggesting. While I agree that BC is still more familiar than BP, the latter is linked in that very sentence, so all a reader has to do is click on it. Not only is BP the preferred term nowadays, but since the date range you're introducing with the BC abbreviation is different from the previous one, it is difficult to make sense of it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

BC/BCE (I don't really care between them) is standard per MOS:ERA, so it makes sense to give it as an equivalent in the introduction given that in my experience, the vast majority of casual readers are unfamilar with the BP system (see for example Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_162). I get that in scientific literature, the Clovis culture is just early enough that most scientific papers use BP over BC for this time period (only a few thousand years later during the Neolithic it's standard to use BC dates), and I would be opposed to making the dates primarily BC when they're typically given in BP. I'm not massively opposed to leaving BC dates out of the opening sentence as long as it remains in the infobox (where it has been unopposed for at least the last several months). Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ERA also states that In scientific and academic contexts, BP (Before Present) or YBP (years Before Present) are often used, so that isn't really an issue. – Joe (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean as I said this is really dependent on time period. For the Paleolithic BP dates are standard, but from the Neolithic onwards BC/BCE dates tend to be common in my experience. Take the Neolithic site Göbekli Tepe for example. The article uses BC/BCE dates despite being only being a few thousand years younger than Clovis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Clovis is a bit on the edge. It's Pleistocene, but also unusually tightly dated (13,050–12,750 BP), to the point where the fifty year difference between the BP Present and the actual present starts to make a difference (i.e. I usually argue for making BP more approachable by substituting it for "years ago", but that wouldn't work here). Switching to BC/E throughout this article actually might make sense. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I SO hate to get into these chrono debates so I will just opine once. First, I have read a number of source papers for this and similar period paleoindian sites and the essentially all use Before Present. My principle is to Follow the Sources unless there is a good reason not to. Secondly, I would not use the Ancient Near East as a model. It is built on the rock of Biblical Archaeology so its pretty much BC/BCE across the board from way back in the day. Even things like Shanidar Cave. Ploversegg (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think follow the sources works for stylistic issues like this one. Scientists use BP when they're writing papers because they are written primarily for other scientists, and it's taken for granted they're comfortable with that system. We're writing for a general audience, many of whom will have never heard of it. Personally I tend to think in BP but always try to convert to BCE when communicating to a broader audience. – Joe (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The real reason I prefer BP (or CYBP) when possible is that it prevents all the arguments (and even edit warring) about BC vs BCE. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a plus. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Caches

The source cited for the Caches section states that Clovis caches, while not common, are distinguishing for Clovis, and not for the subsequent Folsum tradition. Discussion of later (post-Folsum) caching may or may not be appropriate for this article, but does require appropriate sourcing if included. Donald Albury 18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)