Why is everyone so sure about the Clovis first theory, one dig in Texas shook me

I was reading about the Debra L. Friedkin site near Austin, Texas and they found stone tools dated to around 15,500 years ago, which is well before Clovis points at 13,000. Nobody wants to talk about how the original dating method, OSL, can be contested, and I feel like the whole field has a bias toward the textbook timeline. Has anyone else looked at the Buttermilk Creek findings and come away less convinced about the standard story, or am I missing some follow up work?

1 comments

1 Comment

cole_walker262d ago

The Friedkin site is interesting, but I think people lean on Clovis first because the evidence for it is still a lot stronger when you look at the whole picture. The OSL dates you mention have been questioned, and the follow up work from the same team has not fully settled the debate about whether those sediments were really undisturbed. Also, a few stone tools in one layer do not erase the fact that we have thousands of Clovis points spread across North America, all with a clear, consistent style. I think it is fair to keep an open mind, but calling the whole field biased because one site does not fit the timeline seems like a stretch. The textbook story changes all the time, but it changes when the evidence shows up, not just when one dig makes us uneasy.