Wait... is this true? Sure, archaeology forms theories about the past, but those theories are supported by actual, physical, evidence. Can someone explain this statement to me (I could well be wrong), or should we delete it?
Nightsky00:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, this article has been listed on Slashdot, so expect a flood of vandalism. PhilHibbs 10:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see any vandalism on this article, just poor structure. I'm also surprised there is not much more discussion on this article, it seems so interesting.
Ernestleonard02:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be more discussion, this is fascinating. I was going to add a link to a controvertial early man site, http://calicodig.com/, but I'm not sure if I should do that. "main stream" sites already listed include Topper, Meadowcraft, and Monte Verde. But, for those interested, the Calico early man site in Yermo, CA was the only site in the new world where Dr. Louis Leakey worked. Leakey was convinced the Calico site was bona fide. But, they came up with a date around 250,000 years old. That didn't bother Leakey but the rest of the archeological community would not accept those dates, they are just too old. But, the artifacts are good and the dates (using optically stimulated luminescence and thermal luminescence dating) are IMHO solid dates. I think the Calico artifacts are much more convincing then the Meadowcraft artifacts, and the Calico tools are much older. Check out the link. Rich.lewis23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Night, (responding to you over five years later) if I've understood it right from the good Professors Susan Johnston and Jeffrey Blomster (and I guess Eric Cline) over the years, I think I can explain this statement, but it will be a bit of my own conclusion in the wording. In archaeology you form a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses (theories) and then test them by finding and interpreting the evidence. Usually the theory that accounts for the most evidence while doing the least violence to it is the best theory. So, we (or dig directors and square supervisors really) typically go with that approach. Sorry I didn't put it more eloquently. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom!06:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this section: "One such site, Monte Verde in Chile, appear to have remains from before Clovis mixed with Clovis technology. Archaeologists do not currently agree, however, that anything found at these sites establishes a human presence prior to Clovis." -- is this really the case? A History Channel program I saw this morning stated that some of the staunchest, Clovis-people-were-first proponents had travelled to Monte Verde and were convinced by the findings presented to them that there indeed was a human presence in the Americas prior to the time generally associated with the Clovis people. Is the statement above, as it appears in the Wikipedia article, truly accurate? --cdjaco17:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The statement quoted above does appear to be obsolete; Monte Verde is older than the Clovis culture, according to:
I'm having a hard time discovering via Google if the challenge was ever settled to the satisfaction of a majority of the archeological community.
Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World is unequivocal that pre-Clovis dates at Monte Verde are accepted; either that article is wrong, or this one... The Clovis_culture article *APPEARS* to be incomplete (at best; possibly incorrect!) on the issue of Monte Verde -- at the least, implying the site is more-widely-debated than seems to be the case. --Steve
The Mount Verde site is strange in that the 14C BP date is younger than the calibrated (eg, with tree-ring) date - this is in reverse of the usual order as I understand it. A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date. Radio carbon dating suggests an age of on average 12500 14C BP, while the calibrated date is actually 14,800 years ago. See Recent press coverage on Mount Verde which makes clear the distinction. --— robbiepagetalk11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that editors do not always distinguish between radiocarbon and calendar years BP when adding information to WP. (Some of the sources cited in this article also do not specify which type is meant.) The Monte Verde site dates are comparable to dates for the Page-Ladson site; eleven artifacts from the earliest occupation level radiocarbon dated 12,570 ± 100 to 12370 ± 90 (average 12,425 ± 32) 14C years BP, 15,405 to 14,146 calendar years (2∑ range) BP. (First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site on the Aucilla River, page 414.) -- Donald Albury14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Latter Day Saints Movement article is extensive, and I read that Smith believed his sacred plates which had the Book of Mormon written on them were written by ancient Americans. Should there be a link to this bit of info on this page?
There actually is substantial evidence correlating Indian cultures such as the clovis and archaic to what is mentioned in the Book of Mormon (But in whose opinion eh?). One simple example is that the Book of Mormon mentions that the first inhabitants of the America’s lived around used elephants and two other forms of megafauna for which Joseph Smith did not give translations (he leaves them in the original language “curlome and cumon”, presumably because he did not know what what they were and thus could not translate the words). Now archeologists have verified that paleoindians did in fact use mammoths, giant sloths and giant bison. For scholarly references see http://www.weaverresearch.org/tomsfinalpaper.htm However, I agree that perhaps not enough evidence has been accumulated to put it into wikipedia yet
But according to smith, the book of mormon people only date back to 600bc. not 11,000bc. Cutlerite
That is not substantial evidence. You even admit this, contradicting yourself, in your final sentence. What you have described is innuendo, not even closely resembling the standard of evidence required to make even minor statements in archaeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.129.229 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that any link to Mormons becomes a huge digression from Clovis. Wikipedia may need an article on the book of Mormon, archeological claims, and contradictions between them, but I don't think it should be this article. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this page is archeological, not theological. The Book of Mormon has no place here, given the complete lack of serious evidence. Smith posited that ancient peoples tamed strange animals, long ago. That's hardly valuable insight, to this article or to science. Not to mention the fact that Smith also stated that American Indians were the direct descendents of the Jewish people, which has been proven false by DNA testing. The Cap'n (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the arguments listed above by several other editors, any attempt to add pseudohistorical religious nonsense to this article will be staunchly opposed. Heiro17:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody wants to start, here's a link to an extensive bibliography on Clovis at About:com. I don't want to copy and paste because i think that, although it's just a list, it might violate their copyright.Profhum16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my field. I came to it by fact-checking one of Jared Diamond's assertions for something of my own. I remember reading, in some authoritative place like the New Yorker or the Atlantic, an absolutely withering analysis of the academic politics involved in the Clovis First debate. Yet Professor Diamond, an extremely reputable source, accepts Clovis. I must be mistaken. Does anybody remember that article? Profhum16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising to notice my comment above, four years ago, and realize nobody else remembered that article. The evidence against Clovis First increases, however, and this month's article in Science on the "Debra L Friedkin site" (so called) seems all but conclusive. The one thing sure is that whenever I have something overwhelming i have to start writing about, in my proper field, my writer's block starts me reading Clovis articles. Profhum (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the date first paragraph to say that the Clovis culture first appeared around 13,500 years ago; rather than 11,500 that someone had changed this to.
Interestingly, the BBC "Stone Age Columbus" Horizon documentary [1] used the 11,500 BP date; but the revised PBS Nova version "America's Stone Age Explorers" [2] had this changed to 13,500 BP.
This site [3] from the U.S. National Parks service also uses the 13,500 BP date. It seems that although radiocarbon dating gives 11,500 BP, there is good reason to systematically revise the radiocarbon dates when you compare them with other dating methods; 13,500 BP is the date you get if you consolidate all the dating methods into a single best "calendar date" chronology. Jheald09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved all the discovery information into its own section. In doing so, I noticed that the first discovery mentioned (the 1926 one) is not of a Clovis culture point but a Folsom culture point. That makes it maybe 3000 years younger. Is the 1926 discovery really relevant to this article, then, or should it be moved to the Folsom culture page? Nightsky23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis do not claim that Solutrean-era migrants became the Clovis culture, as this article states. They merely say that the Solutreans may have been the donor culture of a tool-making complex. Also, the Solutreans were not completely displaced until 15000 BCE, not 17000. Twalls20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this in mind I'm not sure why a subsection about recent genetic studies is needed. I agree with Twalls and am thinking about deleting the subsection or reducing it to a wikilink pointing to whatever article I can find where the information would be relevant. In any regard I'm going to delete the request for help expanding it until I can make up my mind whether it is worth keeping at all.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Texas-arrowheads-clovis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Please clarify the dating in this sentence: "A more substantiated claim is that of Paisley Caves, where rigorous carbon-14 and genetic testing appears to indicate that humans related to modern Native Americans were present in the caves over 1000 14C years before the earliest evidence of Clovis." Does this mean that humans were present over 1000 years before the Clovis culture? or 14 centuries before the Clovis culture? or in the 14th Century, 1000 years before the Clovis culture? Thank you. 65.54.98.27 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2005, our project identified a few bifacial points which feature the “flute” flaking technique, widely present in North America. If proven to be a true flute technology, similar to the Clovis technique of North America dated to 12,000 – 11,000 BP, it presents additional evidence of the technological connection between Old World and New World." [5]dougweller (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "coprolites" is carelessly used. If the Paisley Cave material was fossilized, very little if any DNA should have remained. Very old human and animal droppings have been found in desert caves in the western U.S. that were dried organic material not silicified. Usage should be clarified. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution for citation #8 is incorrect. I actually wrote the article; Allen West and Albert Goodyear were the people I interviewed for it. It should be attributed to Floyd Largent. I've make the change myself, but I can't figure out how.
Cheers! Floyd --User:Stormwriter
Hi guys, sorry for a mass edit I've just tried to reference all the pre-clovis sites having just read a new scientist article about it. I've had to remove a couple, where I couldn't find an RS source or they seem to fall fater the 'clovis cut off', and added a couple with their approximate ages, from the references. I've left the refs as ugly refs for the time being, in case anyone has any objections and I'll tidy them up later. I've also put them in chronological order where possible as I couldn't see a structure geographical etc for it. Any probs or anything give me shout. Cheers Khukri13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
looking at it a bit more detail can the first list not just be got rid of entirely and add any new information into the more detailed chronological list below? Cheers Khukri14:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is too much material in the "Clovis culture" article devoted to debunking "Clovis first". Was there a merger of these two at some point. Kortoso (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how are you?
just wanna tell you that there has ALWAYS been settlements of the ancestors of mankind, whoever the ancestors of humans are.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.122.245 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since they didn't originate in the Americas, human settlement definitely started here during a specific time, although it is still currently under debate which calendar year exactly that was. Now, if you'd be so kind, drop the remarks and snark and propose ways help to make the article better, or don't post here.Heiro01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously need more references than this, but this article states categorically that Clovis culture was not the earliest wave of human habitation of the Americas. A dying paradigm is apparently now dead.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.8.27 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This word assumes far too much at this time, and it implies a lot that it shouldn't. We have too little evidence of their culture; we don't know their marriage customs, we don't know their language(s), we don't yet know what they wore. We do not know if they assimilated or if they died out, or if they were murdered by incoming wave(s) of people. So far, we know things like, they loved to eat turtles and ponies. That doesn't make somebody an Indian. :)
If the Pre-Clovis Argentinians arrived, say, by canoing and/or walking on ice all the way from New Zealand, they're not "Indians". They may have come from Siberia; indigenous people of Kamchatka are not "Indians". If they migrated from Europe, they are not "Indians" the way the early Sami of Norway are not Indians.
We don't know what color their skin was, what color their hair and eyes were. Genetic analysis might provide insight soon, but that info isn't in yet. Most of these sites have not yet provided any skulls. We don't know what shape their heads, their faces, were.
Mainly, we know they came to America during the Late Paleolithic. "Paleoamerican" is a better term.
The term "Paleoindian" is well embedded in the literature. We summarize what others have said in reliable sources; we don't present our own analyses and/or conclusions. That would be original research. If you can cite reliable sources that make the above arguments, you can incorporate them into the article. -- Donald Albury11:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged Solutrean connection relies partly on stone tool flaking sequence. There are so many ways stoneworking can be done that flint-working methods are almost like an incidental encryption of memetic lineage. Flaking sequences can be analyzed and accurately reverse-engineered. In addition to superficial similarity of the proportions and shape of a stone point, flaking sequences are consistent within a region and a culture.
There are so many points of similarity between the American points and the Solutrean points that the likelihood it came about serendipitously are very very poor. It would be like finding people using what looks like the Roman alphabet *and* they're using markings A, E, I, and O as vowels. It's crucial to the case that "coincidence" is no longer a possible explanation.
At the outset, the individual bits of information were initially merely circumstantial evidence,a circumstance for which there are yet multiple interpretations possible. Sometimes evidence dovetails in such a way as to cease being 'circumstantial' evidence and become actual evidence. When this happens, there is only one solution and all the others are eliminated. The solution to a Sudoku puzzle demonstrates how circumstantial evidence that dovetails can become real evidence while simultaneously ruling out all rivals. The lithic evidence for a Solutrean connection is strong in just that fashion.
As I said above, we don't add our original research to Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. Summarize what authorities have said and cite the sources. -- Donald Albury11:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Clovis Culture" is not just an archaeological site...it is an entire theory of human habitation of the Americas that has been completely proven wrong by recent discoveries in Oregon and many others.
Clovis requires migration via Bering Straight landbridge **only** and recent finds absolutely dispute that notion.
We don't need to wait on stodgy old Archaelogy journals to kill Clovis off...we can do it here and now
I'm sorry I don't have links. The truth is, if you know about archaeology you at least **know of** the argument I am making. Others have made it much much better than I.
I'm saying lets let wikipedia be wikipedia. The proper sources are out there...
I trust the wiki community and I think we can edit this with properly cited sources to reflect the fact that **Clovis Theory Has Been Disproven** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.69.8 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 September 2013
The "Clovis culture" has not been "completely proven wrong", just significantly proven wrong. We just need to update the article to reflect more recent scholarship. Here are some good (readable) sources to help: [6][7]. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Front page of Wikipedia & article update re DNA evidence - 15/02/14
I have to say I am absolutely disgusted with the front page "clarifying the origin of the indigenous peoples of the Americas" link. They sequence one infant and this means ALL Clovis is of that ethnic background? This is horrible bias, and bordering racism. This is like sequencing one ancient Egyptian remains and saying they were all X. It then says in this article "The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Native American populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population". This can be understood in different ways. Many people will read this as ALL Solutreans descended from Siberia. The "all existing Native American populations" is inaccurate. There are uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. The bias towards the one population movement during the break in the ice 13kya should really have gone away by now. Topper and Pedra Furada exist. 86.149.103.53 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course pretty sorry state of affairs for one's pet theory if its remaining hope of empirical support would be the odd chance that an uncontacted tribe will turn out to have a substantially different genetic make up from all other populations on the continent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question you should be asking: is the article content - and the front page blurb - supported by the references? I haven't seen the Nature paper, but the BBC news reference seems to support it. No bias, just report what the WP:RS says. Vsmith (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article that is used as source for the recent research says "The researchers found that around 80% of today's Native Americans are related to the "clan" from which the boy came". Yet, our article seems to say that it's now established that 100% of contemporary Native Americans hails from the Clovis people. There seems to be some overstating of the new findings in the article. Iselilja (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to 80% per the interview with Willerslev. He does state that the remaining 20% are still omre closely relate to the clovis boy than to any other living population. But I left that detail out of the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the study, many Canadian tribes did not descend from the Clovis, which I why I changed the sentence in the lead (which has since been reverted). Kaldari (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Inuit and Athabascan speaking groups and of course those who share genes with them in neighboring populations are considered to hae crossed into American quite a bit later. But as Willerslev himself states ee nthose populations are still more closely related to the Clovis boy tha to any other contemporary population.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a bit strong? Walking the Earth: The History of Human Migration by Tricia Andryszewski says "The Clovis people, a group of Paleo-Indians, were among the first human inhabitants of the Americas. Paleo- Indians are ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of North and South America. "[8] page 20. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent DNA analysis showed that the Clovis were not the ancestor of Canadian indigenous populations, but they were the ancestor of most indigenous populations in Central and South America: "This week, geneticists announced that the boy is the earliest ancient American to have his entire genome sequenced. Incredibly, he turns out to be a direct ancestor of most tribes in Central and South America – and probably the US too – as well as a very close cousin of Canadian tribes."[9]Kaldari (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, it was the removal of North America leaving only Central and South America that was the problem. It didn't match what the article says. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: It's quite unlikely that this little boy had offspring. Willerslev explains it better: "The Clovis boy’s family is the direct ancestor to roughly estimated 80 percent of all present day Native Americans."[10]---88.73.131.201 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup!..We need to recognize 2 things here and perhaps metion them in more detail so our readers dont have to read every article on the subject or simply because the article Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas is to complicated. The fact most of the lands in the north besides the Mackenzie corridor and western coast line were covered in ice till 10,000 or so years ago ..so there was basically no one there for long period of time. Secondly that there were later migrations that added genetic marital to northern peoples after original settlement. Yes all genetic contributors come from the Bering Sea area but much more of a mix in the north then the south...especially south America. All this makes me realizes we need an article called Mackenzie Corridor-- Moxy (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
X2a and Oppenheimer - peer reviewed material contradicts him
I have no idea why Oppenheimer is making this claim. "Mitochondrial haplogroup C4c: A rare lineage entering America through the ice-free corridor?"[11] is a 2011 report - the abstract says "The similarities in ages andgeographical distributions for C4c and the previously analyzed X2a lineage provide support to the scenario of a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. Taking into account that C4c is deeply rooted in the Asian portion of the mtDNA phylogeny and is indubitably of Asian origin, the finding that C4c and X2a are characterized by parallel genetic histories definitively dismisses the controversial hypothesis of an Atlantic glacial entry route into North America". Am J Phys Anthropol, 2012 Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This outside of my field of "expertise", so I'll leave it to you and others to deal with that material, but I just did a quick search and also noticed that the C4c DNA is not mentioned, either. Since you have that source, maybe you could place it and edit in a way to present the basis of the competing claims.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've now got a sound byte from Oppenheimer saying "there is genetic evidence that only the Solutrean hypothesis explains." - I would argue that such sound bytes without even any attempt to make a specific claim don't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Oppenheimer states the following in the article
One variant of DNA that is inherited only from a mother, called mitochondrial DNA, and is found in many Native Americans has been traced to western Eurasia but is absent from east Eurasia, where Beringia was before the sea covered it, Oppenheimer explained. For the variant, called X2a, to have such a high frequency in Native Americans "it must have got across the Atlantic somehow," he said. The new study "completely ignored this evidence, and only the Solutrean hypothesis explains it."
I only posted a minimal amount of text stating the gist. Apparently you are confident that his statement about X2a is incorrect, and I don't have an opinion on that as it is not something I've studied.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not that we are confident that his statement is incorrect. we dont need to make such an evaluation. It is that it is the fact that it is not a part of the mainstream literature that makes it unsuitable and the quotation gives undue weight to a single persons unpublished view, relatively to the view of scientists publishing in a peereviewed journal. When Oppenheimer publishes his critique in a similar scholarly venue, and it is taken up by the literature then it belongs.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A recent mainstream article:"Mitochondrial Genome Sequencing in Mesolithic North East Europe Unearths a New Sub-Clade within the Broadly Distributed Human Haplogroup C1"[12] "clade X2a was observed in Europe in the West, in the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, Siberia as well as North America [43]. One model for the present-day distribution of hg X2 suggests that clade X2a split early from the rest of the X2 lineages in the Near East, and reached east Siberia before participating in the second wave of migration into the Americas through admixture with Beringian populations " Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed an edit on February 16 by an editor with an IP address beginning 70, in which the editor changed the word "stuff" to "artifacts" in a link, with an edit summary saying that "stuff is awkward here – he's talking about artifacts". I agree that "artifacts" is a better word than "stuff", but I saw that this was within a quote. I thought it was best not to change words in a quote.CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I've looked and I cannot seem to find the quote in order to correct it. Where is it? If you find it, feel free to make the correction.CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not the place to dump all the claims against the Clovis being first, per WP:UNDUE. Also, may I say that some WP:Fringe material is getting into this article. There is excessive quoting of denialists who can't let go of their belief in a non-Clovis peoples preceding the Clovis into the new world. Here are some key points to keep in mind.
There may be sites that predate the Clovis culture, but they may be from the ancestors of the Clovis.
There is not one shred non-Clovis DNA in any ancient site.
The existence of Haplogroup X (mtDNA) in people in Europe and America is interesting, but this demonstrates nothing since that haplotype is much older than the migration itself.
After I posted to 23andMe on facebook that is absurd to claim Amerindians are Slavic, because they blatantly are not of Slavic origin... Sciencedaily started push blatantly fake evidence that they are Siberian (Slavic). It has to be fake, because you can tell by just looking at people, looking at the culture, etc. that the claims are preposterous. And, the timing of the feature... It's a lie. And, it's propaganda. So, claims of a Siberian origin of the Clovis, and of them proving the ice bridge theory... All BS. Further, how TF did they get there if via an ice bridge? They would have DIED trying to cross an ice bridge. Yes... Walk across ice... No food... No fires for heat, or light... No technology to do it (f.e. sleds)... No animals to take that could survive the journey... Etc. The ice bridge theory is IMPOSSIBLE. But, just to not have to change away from ludicrous dogma, "scientists" are LYING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very. Or reading some real rubbish. - no one suggests a migration across an ice bridge. The Bering land bridge was at one point 1,000 miles (1,600 km) wide (north to south). And no one says that Native Americans are Slavic (certainly not this article). Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
