See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268149509

The First Americans: A Review of the Evidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of
the Americas

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

16 2,887

2 authors, including:

Michael R Waters
Texas A&M University
78 PUBLICATIONS   3,548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spatial analysis of the Debra L. Friedkin Site, TX View project

Ohio Valley View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael R Waters on 11 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas 543

Chapter 31
The First Americans: A Review of the
­Evidence for the Late-Pleistocene
Peopling of the Americas
Michael R. Waters1 and Thomas Wier Stafford, Jr.2,3

Abstract
Archaeological evidence from North America shows that Clovis complex sites date between 13,000 and
12,600 cal yr BP. The evidence for the Clovis complex pre-dating 13,000 cal yr BP is equivocal. Artifact as-
semblages are found at a number of sites in South America that date to 13,000 cal yr BP that have no affin-
ity to Clovis. These data show that both continents were contemporaneously occupied at 13,000 cal yr BP.
The absence of Clovis artifacts in Beringia and the geographic concentration of the Clovis complex in North
America south of the continental ice sheets indicate that Clovis likely originated somewhere in the continen-
tal United States from an antecedent group. Several archaeological sites in North and South America provide
credible evidence for the occupation of the Americas before Clovis, and these sites date back to ca. 15,000
cal yr BP, some 2000 calendar years before Clovis. Artifacts from these sites show that these early people
made and utilized bifaces, blades, bladelets, and osseous tools. A migration of people into the Americas, a
few thousand years prior to Clovis, is supported by the modern genetic evidence. The presence of people
in the Americas prior to Clovis also correlates with the initial decline in megafaunal populations during the
fifteenth and fourteenth millennia. We propose the term “Exploration Period” to encompass the sites pre-
dating the emergence of the recognizable hallmarks of the Clovis complex.

Keywords:  Clovis, Older-than-Clovis record, Exploration Period, Chronology

Introduction
The discovery of lanceolate, fluted projectile points that we
now call Clovis, associated with mammoth remains underly-
ing a Folsom horizon at Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, in
1933 and the work that followed showed that people had
1
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Departments of
­Anthropology and Geography, Texas A&M University, 4352
TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4352.
2
Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark,
Geological Museum, Oester Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350, Copenha-
gen, Denmark and
3
AMS 14C Dating Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Aarhus, Ny Munkegade 120, Aarhus, Denmark.
Corresponding author e-mail:  1mwaters@tamu.edu
entered North America by 13,000 years ago. Since that time,
some archaeologists have been looking for evidence that
people occupied the Americas even earlier, while others have
worked on issues related to Clovis and the post-Clovis time
period. In the decades since the discovery of Clovis, several
sites were investigated and presented as evidence of older-
than-Clovis occupation of the Americas. In most cases, this
evidence did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. There was
always something wrong with the geological context, the
dating of the site, or archaeological evidence from the site
(Haynes 1967; Waters 1985). At the same time, more Clovis
sites were being discovered. Clovis sites were found scattered
across North America, they yielded consistent late-Pleisto-
544
cene radiocarbon ages, and these sites had a regionally rec-
ognized and diagnostic set of artifacts. Thus, as we learned
more about Clovis and as the older-than-Clovis sites failed to
pass muster, the Clovis-First paradigm became entrenched in
our teaching, research, and thinking. Building on a few of the
older-than-Clovis sites that stood their own over time and
the discovery and publication of new data, we need to reeval-
uate this long-held paradigm in North American archaeology
and develop a new, more inclusive paradigm for the peopling
of all the Americas.
The Clovis-First Paradigm
The Clovis-First paradigm states that the ancestors of Clovis
originated from northeast Asia and crossed over the Bering
Land Bridge into what is now Alaska at the end of the last ice
age (Haynes 2005). These people did not have recognizable
Clovis technology, but had some sort of non-Clovis anteced-
ent technology—likely biface, blade, and osseous technology.
Haynes (2005) believes that this ancestral population, with
a non-Clovis technology, came through the Ice-Fee Corridor
and exited into what is now southern Alberta around 13,500
years ago. Upon leaving the corridor and encountering a new
environment with unfamiliar plants and animals, they im-
mediately developed Clovis technology and weaponry. In his
most recent statement on this topic, Haynes (2005) suggests
that this ancestral population was the Nenana peoples from
south-central Alaska. Regardless of who these people were,
what is important is that Clovis developed south of the ice
sheets and is a North American invention. Haynes believes
that the earliest people passing through the corridor were
skilled hunters especially adapted to cold environments.
Upon entering non-glacial terrain, they soon dropped their
arctic-adapted gear and developed a new technology and
weapons (Clovis) at the mouth of the Ice-Free Corridor. These
people with their new Clovis technology then spread rapidly
across uninhabited North America, with their descendants ar-
riving at the southern tip of South America about 800 years
later. Paul Martin (1967) went on to suggest that this rapid
spread of well-armed folks hunted scores of species of mega-
fauna into extinction.
Over the years, several definitions of Clovis have arisen.
To some, Clovis is a time period or era (Haynes 2002). To
others, Clovis is a culture (Haynes 2005). And to still oth-
ers, Clovis is a techno-complex (Bradley et al. 2010). In
this paper, we subscribe to the latter view, that Clovis is
a techno-complex that has very well defined biface, blade,
and osseous technologies. People making Clovis artifacts
selected the finest lithic raw materials to make their tools,
and their lithic tools were made in a specific and prescribed
way (Bradley et al. 2010; Waters et al. 2011a). These techno-
logical traits are consistent over a defined geographic area
(continental United States and Mexico), and they occur dur-
ing a short time period.
While the Clovis-First model provides an elegant expla-
nation of the peopling of the Americas, we must ask—Does
the Clovis-First paradigm still work? Does it explain and tie
Waters and Stafford
together all the existing data from the Americas, especially
new data that have emerged over the last decade?
What Is the Age of Clovis?
Before we can talk about Clovis origins, older-than-Clovis
occupation of the Americas, mobility, and colonization, we
need to understand the age of Clovis. This is absolutely criti-
cal. All calibrated ages presented in this paper were derived
using Calib6.01, which utilizes the IntCal09 database (Reimer
et al. 2004).
Accurate and precise radiocarbon ages from 13 sites
with technologically diagnostic Clovis artifacts place this
complex from 11,080 ± 40 14C yr BP (Lange-Ferguson, SD) to
10,705 ± 35 14C yr BP (Anzick, Montana) (Waters and Stafford
2007). There are a number of additional sites with Clovis ar-
tifacts with dates in this range, but these have large standard
deviations (e.g., Clovis levels at Cactus Hill, Virginia, McAvoy
and McAvoy 1997). There also are at least five sites—Indian
Creek, Montana (Davis and Baumler 2000); Lubbock Lake,
Texas (Johnson 1987); Bonneville Estates, Nevada (Goebel et
al. 2006); Kanorado, Kansas (Mandel et al. 2005); Arlington
Springs, California (Johnson et al. 1999)—that date to the
Clovis time period, but have no Clovis diagnostic artifacts
and therefore make their identification as Clovis not possible
(Waters and Stafford 2007). This is the empirical record—the
hard data (Figures 31.1 and 31.2).
Some authors espouse the belief that there are “older”
Clovis sites. By this they mean older than the age of the
Lange-Ferguson site, South Dakota. Morrow and others
(2012) have even claimed that Waters and Stafford (2007)
have “­biased . . . the temporal limit of Clovis at 11,100
rcybp.” They and others suggest that there are older Clovis
sites that are several centuries older than 11,100 14C yr BP.
The specific “older” Clovis sites vary depending upon the au-
thor, but boil down to four sites—Casper, Wyoming; Aubrey,
Texas; East Wenatchee, Washington; and Sheaman, Wyoming
(Prasciunas 2008; Hamilton and Buchanan 2007; Morrow et
al. 2012). Let’s review the evidence from these four “old” Clo-
vis sites.
At the Casper site, Wyoming, a single Clovis point was
found by two avocational archaeologists in loose disturbed
sand in an area where 8 m of dune sand had been removed
by mechanical equipment. After the discovery of the point,
they dug into the sand and found bison bones. This discov-
ery led to the investigation of the site by Frison (1974), who
uncovered numerous Hell Gap–style projectile points asso-
ciated with the remains of over 100 bison. Two dates from
the bone bed, one on charcoal of 9830 ± 350 14C yr BP (RL-
125) and the other on a bison bone of 10,060 ± 170 14C yr
BP (RL-208), place the Hell Gap bison kill at about 11,400
cal yr BP. Below the bison remains, a single camel was un-
earthed, and purified collagen extracted from the bone dated
to 11,190 ± 50 14C yr BP (CAMS-61899) or 13,075 ± 110 cal yr
BP (Frison 2000). No artifacts were associated with the camel,
but the bones did show several green-bone fractures. Clearly,
there is no stratigraphic association between the buried and
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
dated camel remains, and the stray Clovis point found at the
surface. However, Hamilton and Buchanan (2007) believe the
dated camel bone “suggests that a Clovis occupation under-
lies the Hell Gap kill at the site.” Because there is no asso-
ciation between the Clovis point and the camel remains, the
date obtained from the camel cannot unequivocally be as-
sociated with the point. The date on the camel provides no
information on the age of Clovis. Whether or not the camel
represents an archaeological site is presently unknown.
Morrow and others (2012) suggest that the Clovis arti-
facts from the East Wenatchee site, Washington, date to ca.
13,600 cal yr BP. Their age estimate of the cache is based on
the reassessment of the age of the Glacier Peak Ash to ca.
11,600 ± 50 14C yr BP or ca. 13,410–13,710 cal yr BP (Kuehn
et al. 2008) and the belief that the Glacier Peak Ash and Clovis
artifacts are contemporaneous.
The age of the Glacier Peak Ash, which was originally
estimated to be ca. 11,200 14C yr BP (Mehringer, 1989; Meh-
ringer and Foit, 1990), has been reassigned an age of ca.
11,600 ± 50 14C yr BP (Kuehn, et al 2008). Multiple radiocar-
bon ages from many sites support this age for the Glacier
Peak Ash (Carrara and Trimbel 1992; Kuehn, et al. 2008). The
crucial question is the relationship between the Clovis arti-
facts and Glacier Peak Ash. Are the artifacts contemporane-
ous with the Glacier Peak Ash, or do they post-date the ash?
At the cache site, there are no recognizable lenses or
beds of the Glacier Peak Ash or even the later Mazama Ash
(Mehringer and Foit 1990). The only discrete lenses or beds
of these ashes were found 500 m north of the cache site in a
swale (Mehringer 1989). Glacier Peak pumice particles were
found at the site, but these particles occurred in low den-
sities and were dispersed in the sediments making up the
site matrix. Mehringer and Foit (1990) note that the pumice
fragments were most abundant in the sediments below the
artifacts. However, Glacier Peak pumice particles were also
identified in the sediments between and above the Clovis
artifacts, although in lower concentrations than below the
artifacts (Mehringer 1989). The absence of a discrete lens of
the Glacier Peak Ash, and the dispersed nature and low con-
centrations of Glacier Peak pumice particles in the sediments
suggest that the ash particles do not occur in primary con-
text and were likely redeposited at the site. Finally, some of
the artifacts in the cache are coated on their undersides and
edges with a botryoidal silica cement that likely represents
a duricrust (Birkeland 1999) derived from the dissolution of
SiO2 from the underlying ash-bearing sediments (Mehringer
and Foit 1990). This crust could have been precipitated al-
most any time after the deposition of the artifacts.
Clearly, the Glacier Peak Ash pre-dates the deposition of
the Clovis artifacts. How much time elapsed between the em-
placement of the Glacier Peak Ash pumice fragments and the
deposition of the artifacts is unknown. Therefore the Glacier
Peak Ash provides only a maximum limiting date on the East
Wenatchee site.    10,305 ± 15 14C yr BP (Waters and Stafford 2007). Consider-
Prasciunas (2008) and Haynes and others (2004) suggest
that the Clovis component at the Sheaman site, Wyoming,
545
dates to 11,225 ± 50 14C yr BP, or 12,975 to 13,200 cal yr
BP. However, there are several problems at the Sheaman site.
First, cultural material from at least two different time pe-
riods appears to be mixed on a common surface. Debitage
from the site, especially overshot flakes, suggest the pres-
ence of Clovis biface technology (Bradley 1982). However,
the projectile point recovered from the site is typologically
Goshen (Frison 1991; Frison et al. 1996). These artifacts are
coming from the same horizon, possibly an eroded surface.
Second, bioturbation is an identified problem at the Sheaman
site (Haynes et al. 2004). Third, there is only one accurate age
for the site, and it is much younger than the proposed date
for the site.
Dating the Sheaman site has been difficult. Frison (1982)
reports three ages from the site. Two dates on charcoal are
10,140 ± 500 14C yr BP (RL-1241) and 10,100 ± 2800 14C yr
BP (RL-1000). These dates are considered by Frison (1982) to
represent post-occupation burning of the site and thus post-
date the artifact-bearing horizon. The large standard devia-
tions are the result of small sample sizes. Frison (1982) also
dated bison long-bone fragments from the artifact zone and
they yielded an unpurified collagen age of 10,030 ± 280 14C
yr BP (RL-1263). To clarify the age of the site, Haynes and oth-
ers (2004) attempted to redate the site. They obtained two
dates on dispersed pieces of charcoal below the artifact zone.
These are 10,153 ± 90 14C yr BP (AA-42979) and 1820 ± 170
14
C yr BP (AA-42535). Another sample of dispersed charcoal
was dated from the artifact-bearing zone. This sample yielded
a charcoal (HCL-insoluble fraction) age of 10,251 ± 72 14C yr
BP (AA-42533) and a humate (alkali-soluble fraction) age of
10,026 ± 86 14C yr BP (AA-42534). Another date on dispersed
charcoal above the artifact layer yielded a date of 9086 ± 70
14
C yr BP (AA-42532). Directly from the artifact-bearing zone,
a large bulk sediment sample was collected and dated.
Haynes and others (2004) report that these samples consisted
of charcoal and other acid-insoluble organic matter removed
from the sediment. Three ages were obtained, 11,040 ± 70
14
C yr BP (AA-40989), 11,379 ± 70 14C yr BP (AA-40991), and
11,810 ± 300 14C yr BP (AA-40988). These ages, even though
they do not overlap by one standard deviation and one has
a 300-year standard deviation at one sigma, were averaged
to obtain a date of 11,225 ± 50 14C yr BP. Haynes and others
(2004) rejected the dispersed charcoal ages and accepted the
average age of 11,225 ± 50 14C yr BP as the correct age of
the site. However, the bulk sediment and charcoal samples
may be contaminated by coal as occurs at the Mill Iron site,
Montana (Frison 1996), and thus do not date the cultural
horizon. To clarify the age of the site, Waters and Stafford
(2007) directly dated an artifact from the cultural horizon.
An osseous projectile point made of cervid bone or antler
(previously identified as ivory) was found with the Clovis ar-
tifacts and the Goshen point. Three dates on XAD-purified
collagen from this osseous artifact yielded an average age of
ing all the ages from Sheaman, we believe the most accurate
ages are those derived from the osseous artifact because the
546
dates were obtained on an artifact directly associated with
the cultural horizon and the ages were derived from highly
purified collagen. The artifact technology and reliable ages
suggest that the Sheaman site is likely a mixed assemblage of
Clovis and Goshen artifacts and that the osseous tool appears
to be dating the Goshen occupation. The age of the Clovis
component at Sheaman remains unknown. covered new hearths. Samples from these hearths showed
The Clovis component at the Aubrey site, Texas (Fer-
ring 2001), is reported to date to ca. 13,400 cal yr BP. Re-
cently, Haynes and others (2007) and Morrow and others
(2012) championed these ages as accurately dating the earli-
est Clovis occupation in the Americas. However, prior to the
reevaluation of Clovis chronology by Waters and Stafford
(2007); Haynes (2002) and Fiedel (2004) questioned the ages
from Aubrey. Haynes (2002) described these dates as “outli-
ers” and “possibly not accurate.” Fiedel has repeatedly chal-
lenged these ages as too old, and most recently Morrow and
others (2012) wrote, “The Aubrey dates are anomalous. The
charcoals are not closely associated with Clovis artifacts or
features, and they may reflect an “old wood” effect.” The
authors offer no new analyses of samples from the site or
any other empirical data to explain their new stance on these
ages; the shift in interpretation appears to be a reaction to
our 2007 study.
The evidence for early Clovis occupation at the Aubrey
site, Texas, is based on two radiocarbon dates on charcoal,
11,540 ± 110 14C yr BP (AA-5271) and 11,590 ± 90 14C yr BP
(AA-5274), which average 11,570 ± 70 14C yr BP or 13,395 ± 80
cal yr BP (Ferring 2001). This charcoal was obtained from the
Clovis occupation surface; it did not come from an archaeo-
logical feature or a discrete geological stratum. The dated
charcoal was found dispersed on an eroded surface. Alluvial
sediments underlying the Clovis surface have yielded radio-
carbon ages on humates ranging from 12,335 ± 170 14C yr
BP (SMU-2478) to 14,200 ± 220 14C yr BP (SMU-2236). The
samples used to date the Clovis horizon may have originated
from these older deposits. Further, the Late Quaternary
sediments at the site are predominately derived from coal-
bearing Cretaceous bedrock that contains large amounts of
14
C-free carbon. Large amounts of 14C-depleted carbon occur
in the late-Pleistocene deposits in the form of recycled Cre-
taceous palynomorphs (Hall 2001). Consequently, Cretaceous
sediments represent a potential source for the disseminated,
solid organic matter that was collected as human-produced
charcoal in the Clovis horizon. This geological environment
could enable geologically ancient carbon to become commin-
gled with and contaminate the samples. Finally, the precise
provenance of the two dated samples from Camp B has not
been reported. Interestingly, humates from Unit E1 over-
lying the Clovis surface in the west Pond Area yielded an
age of 10,940 ± 80 14C yr BP (SMU-2194). These sediments
were directly above the Clovis horizon, and their age is well
within the range of ages for Clovis reported in Waters and
Stafford (2007). This situation has raised concerns about the
validity of the early ages from the site. One other concern is
the possibility of lignite contamination of the samples. The
Waters and Stafford
Lewisville site (Crook and Harris 1958) is located about 30
km downstream of the Aubrey site. Both sites are situated
along the Elm Fork or the Trinity River. At Lewisville, char-
coal samples from hearths around which Clovis points and
artifacts were found yielded ages of > 37,000 14C yr BP (O-
235 & O-248). Reinvestigation of the site in the 1980s un-
minor amounts of lignite contamination that skewed the
radiocarbon dates (Stanford 1983; Shiley et al. 1985). This
lignite is from the late Cretaceous-Woodbine Formation,
which occurs in the drainage basin of both sites. Until more
samples of chemically distinct and taxonomically identified
charcoal are dated from the Aubrey site, the true age of the
site will remain unknown.
In conclusion, 13 Clovis sites still provide the most ac-
curate and precise ages for the Clovis complex. The ages from
these sites range from 11,080 ± 40 14C yr BP to 10,705 ± 35
14
C yr BP or 13,000 ± 85 to 12,615 ± 40 cal yr BP (Figure
31.2). This is a small sample size, but it is what we have. We
must be diligent in our efforts to date more Clovis sites as
they continue to be discovered.
Is Clovis Found in Siberia or Alaska?
Clovis projectile points or other artifacts distinctive of Clovis
technology have not been reported from Siberia. A “fluted”
biface was reported from the Uptar site in the Magadan re-
gion of northeast Russia (King and Slobodin 1996). However,
the “flute” on this biface turned out to be an impact scar ex-
tending from the tip and was not technological end thinning
from the base.
In Alaska, fluted, lanceolate projectile points are rare and
occur at about two dozen sites (Clark 1991). Most of these
artifacts have been found on the surface, especially in the
northern part of Alaska. Buried fluted-point sites are rare.
When they are found, fluted points are usually mixed with
younger microblades and wedge-shaped cores. Recently, two
sites with buried fluted projectile points in a secure geologi-
cal context have been reported—Serpentine Hot Springs and
Raven Bluff.
The Serpentine Hot Springs site is located on a knob
overlooking a broad upland valley on the Seward Peninsula
(Young and Young 2007; Goebel et al. 2013). Here, fluted pro-
jectile points are associated with five fire hearths that are
buried in a thin loess. Twenty-four radiocarbon ages on the
charcoal from these fire hearths showed that the fluted points
are no older than 12,400 cal yr BP and likely date between
12,000 and 12,400 cal yr BP (Goebel et al. 2013). The Raven
Bluff site is located on a small knoll above the Kivalina River
about 30 miles from the Chukchi Sea at the western end of
the Brooks Range (Hedman 2010). Here Alaskan fluted points
are found in buried contexts that appear to be dating to the
same time period as those from the Serpentine Hot Springs
site. These two recent finds show that fluted points in Alaska
are about 200 to 600 years younger than Clovis (Figures 31.1
and 31.2).
Morphologically and technologically, fluted points from
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
Alaska are different from Clovis fluted points (Clark 1991).
The Alaskan points are smaller and narrower than Clovis
points, and they appear to have been made on flakes rather
than by bifacial reduction. Alaskan fluted points have deep
concave bases and multiple narrow flute scars on both faces
(typically two to three) that extend from the base. This flut-
ing appears to have been done with the aid of a punch (in-
strument-assisted fluting technology). Flaking extends to the
midline of the points, and no overshot or overface flake scars
extend past the midline.
The Alaskan fluted points are morphologically and tech-
nologically similar to post-Clovis instrument-assisted fluted
point technologies. Chronologically, Alaskan fluted points
post-date Clovis by up to 600 years and are thus too young to
be antecedent to Clovis. The Alaskan fluted points represent
the movement of fluted-point-making peoples or this tech-
nology into Alaska from the south during post-Clovis times
(Goebel et al. 2013).
The most securely dated fluted point in Canada was
found at Charlie Lake Cave (Figures 31.1 and 31.2) in Brit-
ish Columbia (Driver 1996, 1999; Fladmark et al. 1988). Here,
a single heavily resharpened point with multiple flute scars,
similar to the Alaskan fluted points, was found in a buried
context and associated with bison. A previous date on colla-
gen extracted from bison bone associated with the point gave
an age of 10,770 ± 120 14C yr BP (SFU-454). Two new ages
were obtained on XAD-purified bison bone collagen from this
level. These samples yielded ages of 10,435 ± 25 14C yr BP
(UCIAMS-11346) and 10,430 ± 30 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-11347).
These dates average 10,435 ± 20 14C yr BP or 12,355 ± 155
cal yr BP. This age is hundreds of years younger than Clovis to
the south, and the date is comparable to the ages on fluted
points from Alaska.
Clearly, Clovis-complex artifacts are not present in Sibe-
ria or Alaska. This agrees well with the Clovis-First paradigm
that states Clovis originated in the New World and south of
the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets.
Are There Clovis-age Sites in South America, and
Are They Clovis?
Yes, there are credible archaeological sites in the Southern
Cone of South America that date to the same time as the ear-
liest known Clovis sites in North America. There are at least
five well-dated South American sites that are contemporane-
ous with Clovis (Figures 31.1 and 31.3), but these sites lack
Clovis tools and technologies (Waters and Stafford 2007).
In Argentina, one site is Cerro Tres Tetas 1 (Paunero
2003; Prates et al. 2013). In the lowest stratigraphic unit, six
radiocarbon ages were obtained on charcoal from hearths.
These ages range from 11,100 ± 150 14C yr BP (AA-22233)
to 10,850 ± 150 14C yr BP (LP-781). Charcoal from a single
hearth from the lowest layer yielded four ages that average
10,995 ± 35 14C yr BP or 12,845 ± 95 cal yr BP. At Casa del
Minero 1, Argentina (Paunero 2003), charcoal from hearths
in stratigraphic Unit 4 yielded dates of 10,967 ± 55 14C yr
BP (AA-37208) and 10,999 ± 55 14C yr BP (AA-37207). These
547
two ages average 10,985 ± 40 14C yr BP or 12,835 ± 95 cal
yr BP. Two radiocarbon ages were obtained from the lowest
occupation level (Unit 6) at Piedra Museo, AEP-1, Argentina
(Miotti and Salemme 2003; Prates et al. 2013). Charcoal from
this layer yielded an age of 11,000 ± 65 14C yr BP (AA-27950)
which calibrates to 12,890 ± 155 cal yr BP. At all these sites,
the lithic assemblages are mostly composed of cores, infor-
mal modified flake tools, bifacial knives, scrapers, choppers,
hammerstones, and debitage. No stone projectile points have
been found in these assemblages. Fishtail points appear in
the Southern Cone after this time.
Along the Pacific coast is the Quebrada Santa Julia site,
Chile (Jackson et al. 2007; Maldonado et al. 2010). Buried in a
peat deposit about 9 m below the surface is an archaeologi-
cal horizon with numerous artifacts (Figure 31.1). A hearth
yielded three radiocarbon ages on charcoal and wood that
averaged 11,025 ± 45 14C yr BP. This yields a calibrated age of
12,925 ± 140 cal yr BP (Figure 31.3). In this artifact horizon
were found four retouched knives, several informal modified
flake tools, a scraper, a graver, a fracture pebble, unidirec-
tional core, two bifaces, and numerous flakes. Also along the
Pacific Coast is the site of Quebrada Jaguay, Peru (Sandweiss
et al. 1998). Here two radiocarbon ages of 11,088 ± 220 14C
yr BP (BGS-2024) and 11,105 ± 260 14C yr BP (BGS-1942) were
obtained on charcoal from buried deposits containing expe-
dient flake tools, bifaces (but not points), and debitage (Fig-
ures 31.1 and 31.3). These two dates average 11,095 ± 170
14
C yr BP or 12,955 ± 180 cal yr BP.
It has been suggested that the similarity between the
dates for Clovis in the Northern Hemisphere with those at sites
with non-Clovis assemblages in the Southern Hemisphere is
due to carbon-reservoir issues, with ocean upwelling creat-
ing an atmosphere over South America that is depleted in 14C
relative to the Northern Hemisphere. This would make sites
in South America younger than their associated radiocarbon
dates suggest (Kelly 2003; Fiedel and Kuzmin 2010). Thus,
the calibration curve for radiocarbon dates established for
Northern Hemisphere samples cannot be used in the South-
ern Hemisphere with accuracy. Several studies of the offset in
the radiocarbon record between the two hemispheres indi-
cate that wood from the Southern Hemisphere dates slightly
older than contemporaneous Northern Hemisphere samples.
Studies have shown that the calculated offset is minimal and
not constant over time. Southern Hemisphere samples are
older than Northern Hemisphere samples by an average of
43 ± 23 years (Hogg et al. 2013). Even with this correction,
the dates from the older South American sites are still con-
temporaneous with those of Clovis in North America.
Are there Credible Archaeological Sites Pre-Dating
Clovis in the Americas?
There are a handful of North and South American archaeolog-
ical sites that provide solid cases for occupation before Clovis
(Figures 31.3 and 31.4). They all have a strong geological con-
text, are well dated, and have clear human-made artifacts. All
these sites are 1000 to 2000 years older than Clovis.
548
Historically, Monte Verde II is the most important of
these early sites. Monte Verde II, buried in terrace deposits
along Chinchappi Creek in southern Chile, provides evidence
of early human occupation of the Southern Cone of South
America (Dillehay 1989, 1997). Here, extensive excavation
uncovered wood tent remains, structural foundations and
Figure 31.1  Map of Clovis complex, Clovis-
age, and later fluted-point sites in North
America, as well as Clovis-age sites in South
America that are mentioned in the text.
Waters and Stafford
floors, hearths and braziers, digging sticks, lances, numer-
ous stone tools including a bi-pointed El Jobo–like point, bi-
faces, bolo stones, human footprints, medicinal and edible
plant remains, animal bones, hide, and soft tissue. Dillehay
interprets the evidence to represent year-round occupation
of the site. These people exploited a wide variety of habitats,
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
Serpentine Hot Springs, AK
Charlie Lake Caves, Canada
Waugh, OK
Mountaineer site, CO
Folsom site, NM
12-Mile Creek, KS
Cooper, OK
Black Mountain, CO
Lindenmeier site, CO
Agate Basin, WY
Debert site, NS
Vail, ME
Big Eddy, MO
Anzick, MT
Jake Bluff, OK
Colby, WY
Murray Springs, WY
Sheriden Cave, OH
Blackwater Draw, NM
Shawnee-Minisink, PA
Lehner, AZ
Domebo, OK
Paleo Crossing, OH
Dent, CO
Sloth Hole, FL
Lange Ferguson, SD
including the coast and mountains. He feels the people oc-
cupying the site were settled into and were familiar with the
local environment. Dillehay (1997; Dillehay and Pino 1989,
1997) originally dated the site based on five dates on wooden
artifacts from the site (Table 31.1). These ages ranged from
12,230 ± 140 14C yr BP (Beta-6755) to 12,780 ± 240 14C yr
BP (Beta-59082). In 2008, two new ages were reported from
samples derived from hearths from two of the structures at
the site (Dillehay et al. 2008). These two dates were on sea-
weed—12,290 ± 60 14C yr BP (Beta-238355) and 12,310 ± 40
14
C yr BP (Beta-239650). Because seaweed is short-lived and
grows in the upper part of the water column that is well aer-
ated, these dates likely represent the most accurate ages for
the occupation of the site (Erlandson et al. 2008). These dates
average 12,305 ± 35 14C yr BP or 14,260 ± 220 cal yr BP. These
more precise ages agree well with the previous younger age
estimate for the site. Despite numerous critical examinations
of Monte Verde, the site remains a key First Americans ar-
chaeological site. With the acceptance of Monte Verde as a
site dating 1200 to 1400 years before Clovis comes the re-
alization that there must be early sites in North America as
well. Whether the early migrants traveled by boat or on foot
or a combination of both, they had to have transited North
America on their way to the Southern Cone. Undoubtedly,
some people remained behind and occupied North America.
Evidence for older-than-Clovis occupation of the Americas
comes from several of these North American sites.
549
Figure 31.2 Ages for Clovis complex,
Eastern fluted (Gainey), Folsom, and Northern
fluted sites in cal yr BP. The gray shaded area
indicates the time of megafauna extinctions;
bison and caribou occur in the post–12,700
cal yr BP sites, while mammoth and mastodon
occur in the pre–12,700 cal yr BP sites.
Note that fluting technology lasted in North
America for a maximum of 1000 years from
13,100 to 12,100 cal yr BP. Because of the
nature of the radiocarbon method, it should
be noted that while a range spanning many
years is shown for each site, many of these
sites are single-event sites and represent just
one time in this range of possible dates.
The Schaefer site, located in southeastern Wisconsin, is
one of these key localities (Figures 31.3 and 31.4). Here the
remains of a single woolly mammoth were found sealed in
pond clays that also contained stone tools (Johnson 2006,
2007; Joyce 2006). This is an isolated find; there are no other
archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the site, and
no younger archaeological components overlie the bones.
The mammoth remains show multiple signs of butchering,
including cut and pry marks. Two blade-like flakes made on
local cherts were recovered in association with the mam-
moth. Thirteen radiocarbon ages on XAD-purified bone col-
lagen obtained from different elements of the mammoth
(Table 31.1) yielded an average age of 12,460 ± 15 14C yr
BP or 14,490 ± 250 cal yr BP. Additionally, 16 radiocarbon
ages on wood, including spruce, were obtained from below,
within, and on top of the mammoth bones. Thus, some of
the materials predate the bone deposit, others are contem-
poraneous with it, and other dates post-date the bone bed.
These ages range from 12,290 ± 60 14C yr BP (CAMS-72140)
to 12,570 ± 45 14C yr BP (CAMS-95521). One wood specimen
dated to 12,300 ± 70 14C yr BP (Beta-141277; 14,270 ± 240
cal yr BP) lay atop the bone pile in direct contact with the
bone. This age agrees well with the ages from the bone. The
evidence from the Schaefer site clearly shows people were
butchering a woolly mammoth at 14,490 ± 250 cal yr BP. It
is interesting to note that unpurified bone collagen from a
mammoth bone at the site initially provided a Clovis-age of
550 Waters and Stafford

Table 31.1  Radiocarbon dates from Initial Colonization Period sites.

Site Date, 14C yr BP Lab. number Material dated Reference Remarks

Monte Verde, 12,230 ± 140 Beta-6755 Wood Dillehay & Pino 1997 Artifact
Chile 12,450 ± 150 OxA-381 Wood Dillehay & Pino 1997 Artifact
12,650 ± 130 TX-4437 Wood Dillehay & Pino 1997 Artifact
12,740 ± 440 TX-5375 Wood Dillehay & Pino 1997 Artifact
12,780 ± 240 Beta-59082 Wood Dillehay & Pino 1997 Artifact
12,290 ± 60 Beta-59082 Seaweed Dillehay et al 2008 From hearth
12,310 ± 40 Beta-239650 Seaweed Dillehay et al 2008 From hearth
Schaefer, 10,960 ± 100 Beta-62822 Unpurified collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus bone—rejected
Wisconsin 12,290 ± 60 CAMS-72140 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus mandible
12,310 ± 60 CAMS-30171 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus pelvis
12,320 ± 50 CAMS-61135 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus rib
12,390 ± 40 CAMS-61143 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus femur
12,440 ± 40 CAMS-72141 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus cranium
12,460 ± 45 CAMS-95516 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus right femur
12,485 ± 45 CAMS-95518 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus left scapula
12,490 ± 40 CAMS-95514 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus right tibia
12,490 ± 50 CAMS-95517 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus left innominate
12,525 ± 45 CAMS-95515 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus left femur
12,540 ± 45 CAMS-95520 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus left tibia
12,550 ± 45 CAMS-95519 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus right tusk
12,570 ± 45 CAMS-95521 XAD-collagen Joyce 2006 Mammuthus left humerus
Hebior, 12,590 ± 50 CAMS-61137 XAD-collagen Overstreet 2005 Mammuthus bone
Wisconsin 12,480 ± 60 CAMS-28303 XAD-collagen Overstreet 2005 Mammuthus bone
12,520 ± 50 CAMS-24943 XAD-collagen Overstreet 2005 Mammuthus bone
Paisley 5 Mile 12,265 ± 25 UCIAMS-76190 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite
Point Caves, 12,165 ± 25 UCIAMS-79707 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite
Oregon 12,140 ± 70 OxA-16495 Macroflora Gilbert et al. 2008 Coprolite
12,260 ± 60 Beta-2164742 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite (same as OxA-16495)
12,290 ± 60 Beta-2134263 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite
12,345 ± 55 OxA-16497 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite (same as Beta-2164742)
12,400 ± 60 Beta-2134244 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite
12,275 ± 55 OxA-16498 Macroflora Jenkins et al. 2012 Coprolite (same as Beta-2134244)
Manis, 11,975 ± 35 UCIAMS-11350 XAD-collagen Waters et al. 2011b Mammut ivory
Washington 11,975 ± 35 UCIAMS-12046 XAD-collagen Waters et al. 2011b Mammut ivory
11,890 ± 35 UCIAMS-11677 XAD-collagen Waters et al. 2011b Mammut ivory
11,990 ± 30 UCIAMS-29113 XAD-collagen Waters et al. 2011b Mammut rib with point
Meadowcroft 12,800 ± 870 SI-2489 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
Rockshelter, 13,240 ± 1010 SI-2065 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
Pennsylvania 13,270 ± 340 SI -2488 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
19,800 ± 280 SI-2488a Humates Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
14,925 ± 620 SI -1872 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth

10,960 ± 100 14C yr BP (Beta-62822) for the site. This date
underscores the need to obtain purified collagen ages to ac-
curately date a site and explains why some older-than-Clovis
sites could go unidentified and mistaken as Clovis occupa-
tions.
The second site, in southeastern Wisconsin, is the He-
bior site (Figures 31.3 and 31.4), which is 1 km south of the
Schaefer site. Here the remains of a single woolly mammoth
were found sealed in pond clays (Johnson 2006, 2007; Over-
street 2005). These bones have cut and pry marks—indica-
tors of butchering. Also, four lithic artifacts, including two
non-diagnostic bifaces, were found in direct association
with the mammoth bones. Three radiocarbon dates on
XAD-purified bone collagen on the mammoth bone (Table
31.1) yielded dates of 12,590 ± 50 14C yr BP (CAMS-61137),
12,480 ± 60 14C yr BP (CAMS-28303), and 12,520 ± 50 14C yr
BP (CAMS-24943). These ages average to 12,535 ± 30 14C yr
BP or 14,775 ± 200 cal yr BP. These ages show that the Hebior
site dates to 14,775 ± 200 cal yr BP.
Additional solid evidence of older-than-Clovis occupa-
tion of the Americas comes from Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves in
south-central Oregon (Gilbert et al. 2008; Jenkins et al. 2012).
In some of the lowest levels of Cave 5, three human copro-
lites dating before Clovis were found along with a few stone
artifacts (Figures 31.3 and 31.4). Six radiocarbon dates (Ta-
ble 31.1), from two laboratories, on these coprolites ranged
from 12,140 ± 70 14C yr BP (OxA-16495) to 12,400 ± 60 14C
yr BP (Beta-213424). Preserved mitochondrial (mtdna) from
these coprolites corresponds to Native American founding
haplogroups A and B. Because these initial results were chal-
lenged (Poinar et al. 2009), additional work was conducted
at the caves to address the issues raised by critics (Jenkins
et al. 2012). The stratigraphic integrity of the site is now
confirmed by 190 new radiocarbon dates. Two additional
older-than-Clovis coprolites contained ancient human dna of
haplogroup A. This finding was confirmed independently in
two different ancient dna laboratories. Dates on the macro-
flora from these two coprolites were 12,265 ± 25 14C yr BP
(UCIAMS-76190) and 12,165 ± 25 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-79706).
All eight radiocarbon dates on human coprolites overlap by
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas 551

Table 31.1  Cont’d.

Site Date, 14C yr BP Lab. number Material dated Reference Remarks

Meadowcroft 15,120 ± 165 SI -1686 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
Rockshelter, 16,175 ± 975 SI -2354 Charcoal Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
Pennsylvania 28,100 ± 800 SI-2354a Humates Adovasio & Pedler 2004 Hearth
Page-Ladson, 12,570 ± 100 AA-8759 Seed Webb 2006 Unit 3
Florida 12,480 ± 100 Beta-116493 Seed Webb 2006 Unit 3
12,460 ± 100 Beta-116499 Wood Webb 2006 Unit 3
12,420 ± 130 Beta-116500 Wood Webb 2006 Unit 3
12,400 ± 110 Beta-116497 Seed Webb 2006 Unit 3
12,370 ± 90 AA-11048 Seed Webb 2006 Unit 3
Huaca Prieta, 11,500 ± 50 Beta-290621 Charcoal Dillehay et al. 2012 Unit 15/Strat 9
Peru 11,800 ± 50 Beta-299536 Wood Dillehay et al. 2012 Unit 15/Strat 13
12,240 ± 50 Beta-310273 Charcoal Dillehay et al. 2012 Unit 15/Strat 13a
11,780 ± 50 Beta-290620 Wood Dillehay et al. 2012 TP 22/Strat 28
12,280 ± 60 Beta-310272 Collagen Dillehay et al. 2012 Deer; Strat 13a
12,950 ± 50 Beta-310274 Collagen Dillehay et al. 2012 Sea lion Strat 25
Arroyo Seco 2, 11,000 ± 100 OxA-4590 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Equus1, spiral fracture
Argentina 11,250 ± 105 AA-7964 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Equus1, spiral fracture
11,320 ± 110 AA-39365 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Hippidon
11,590 ± 90 AA-7964 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Toxodon2
11,750 ± 70 CAMS-16389 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Toxodon2
11,730 ± 70 OxA-9294 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Indeterminate, spiral fracture
12,070 ± 140 OxA-9243 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Indeterminate, spiral fracture
11,770 ± 120 AA-62514 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Megatherium3
12,200 ± 170 CAMS-58182 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Megatherium3
12,155 ± 70 OxA-10387 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Megatherium3
12,170 ± 55 OxA-15871 Collagen Steele & Politis 2009 Megatherium3, ultrafiltration
12,240 ± 110 OxA-4591 Collagen Steele & Politis n.d. Indeterminate
Lindsay, 9490 ± 135 I-7028 Unpurified collagen Davis & Wilson 1985 Mammuthus bone; minimum age
Montana 10,700 ± 290 WSU-652 Unpurified collagen Davis & Wilson 1985 Mammuthus bone; minimum age
10,980 ± 225 I-9220 Unpurified collagen Davis & Wilson 1985 Mammuthus bone; minimum age
11,500 ± 80 Beta-102031 Unpurified collagen Davis & Wilson 1985 Mammuthus bone; minimum age
11,925 ± 350 S-918 Unpurified collagen Davis & Wilson 1985 Mammuthus tibia; minimum age
12,105 ± 40 CAMS-82416 KOH-collagen Huber & Hill 2003 Mammuthus rib
12,175 ± 40 CAMS-80541 Gelatin fraction Huber & Hill 2003 Mammuthus rib
12,330 ± 50 CAMS-72348 XAD-collagen Huber & Hill 2003 Mammuthus rib
12,230 ± 35 UCIAMS-127306 KOH-collagen This report Mammuthus femur
12,290 ± 35 UCIAMS-127307 Gelatin fraction This report Mammuthus femur
12,300 ± 35 UCIAMS-127308 XAD-collagen This report Mammuthus femur
12,220 ± 35 UCIAMS-127309 KOH-collagen This report Mammuthus humerus
12,255 ± 35 UCIAMS-127310 Gelatin fraction This report Mammuthus humerus
12,270 ± 35 UCIAMS-127316 XAD-collagen This report Mammuthus humerus
1,2,3
Same bone.

one standard deviation and average 12,240 ± 15 14C yr BP or
14,340 ± 65 cal yr BP (Table 31.1).
At the Manis site, Washington (Figures 31.3 and 31.4), a
single male mastodon (Mammut americanum) was excavated
from sediments at the base of a kettle pond (Gustafson et al.
1979; Waters et al. 2011b). The bones of the right side of the
mastodon were disarticulated and moved 0.6 to 3 m from the
rest of the skeleton and toward the bank of the pond. Some
bones were spirally fractured, multiple flakes were removed
from one long-bone fragment, and other bones showed cut-
marks. The only associated artifact was the tip of a projectile
point made of mastodon bone that was embedded into one
of the mastodon’s ribs. Four dates on XAD-purified collagen
from the rib with the bone point and from the tusk ivory of
the skeleton were averaged and yielded an age of 11,960 ± 17
14
C yr BP, or 13,815 ± 50 cal yr BP (Table 31.1). The Manis site
provides further evidence of a human presence in the new
World 800 years before Clovis and demonstrates that people
were hunting with bone weapons. known occupation periods correspond with the known age
The Debra L. Friedkin site is located in central Texas
(Figures 31.3 and 31.4) at the edge of the Edwards Plateau
(Waters et al. 2011c). The site lies in a small valley incised
into chert-bearing, Cretaceous Edwards Limestone along But-
termilk Creek and is about 250 m downstream of the Gault
site. In 1.4 m of floodplain clays accumulated on the second
terrace above the creek is an archaeological record span-
ning back to 15,500 yr BP. From the top to bottom of the
sequence are found artifacts, including 60 time-diagnostic
artifacts, dating to the Late Prehistoric, Late Archaic, Early
Archaic, Paleoindian (Golondrina and Dalton), Folsom-Mid-
land, and Clovis. Below the Clovis horizon is a 20-cm-thick
layer containing artifacts that represent repeated visits to the
site and together define the Buttermilk Creek Complex. Be-
low this horizon, which can be up to 25 cm thick, no in situ
artifacts occur. Forty-nine optically stimulated luminescence
(OSL) ages from two sediment columns have been obtained
from these floodplain clays. The OSL ages derived from the
552 Waters and Stafford

of these components as defined at other sites. Eighteen OSL
ages obtained from the Buttermilk Creek Complex layer place
it between 13,200 to 15,500 yr BP. Older ages ranging back
to 32,000 yr BP were obtained from the underlying archaeo-
logically sterile deposits. The Buttermilk Creek Complex as-
semblage consists of over 16,000 artifacts, mostly debitage.
Fifty-six stone tools identified as of 2009 include 12 bifaces
(point preform and chopper/adze), a discoidal core, 23 edge-
modified flake tools (notches, gravers, and scrapers), 5 blade
fragments, 14 bladelets, and a piece of polished hematite.
The bifaces appear to be made through core reduction. Nu-
merous radially broken tools also found in the assemblage
show extensive usewear under high magnification along their
stout chisel-like edge and corners, likely produced while
working wood and osseous materials. All flaked-stone tools
and debitage are Edwards chert. In general, the Buttermilk
Creek Complex tools and cores are small and lightweight, and
represent a toolkit designed for high residential mobility. Ar-
tifacts in a similar, dated geological context are reported at
the Gault site, Texas, just 250 m upstream (Collins and Brad-
ley 2008). Morrow and others (2012) recently questioned the
accuracy of the OSL ages and the geological context of the
artifacts at the site, but provided no new data from the site to
support this claim. For an accurate and critical discussion of
the stratigraphic position of diagnostic artifacts found at the
site and the specific ages associated with them, see Waters

Serpentine Hot Springs, AK

Charlie Lake Caves, Canada
Waugh, OK
Mountaineer site, CO
Folsom site, NM
12-Mile Creek, KS
Cooper, OK
Black Mountain, CO
Lindenmeier site, CO
Agate Basin, WY
Debert site, NS
Vail, ME
Big Eddy, MO
Anzick, MT
Jake Bluff, OK
Colby, WY
Murray Springs, WY
Sheriden Cave, OH
Blackwater Draw, NM
Shawnee-Minisink, PA
Lehner, AZ
Domebo, OK
Paleo Crossing, OH
Dent, CO
Sloth Hole, FL
Lange Ferguson, SD
Casa del Minero 1, Argentina
Cerro Tres Tetas 1, Argentina
Piedra Museo, Argentina
Quebrada Santa Julia, Chile
Quebrada Jaguay, Peru
Manis, WA
Meadowcroft, PA
Friedkin, TX
Monte Verde II, Chile
Lindsay, MT
Paisley, OR
Schaefer, WI
Figure 31.3  Ages for the Exploration Period, Hebior, WI
Clovis complex, Clovis-age sites in South
America, Eastern fluted (Gainey), Folsom, and
Northern fluted sites in cal yr BP. The gray
shaded area indicates the maximum period
for Clovis—12,600 to 13,100 cal yr BP.
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
and others (2012) and Jennings (2012). For a comprehensive
appraisal of the geological and pedological site context and
site formation processes that is based on data, see Driese and
others (2013) and Lindquist and others (2011).
The Lindsay site in eastern Montana (Figures 31.3 and
31.4) provides an especially interesting case for older-than-
553
Figure 31.4  Map of sites dating to the
Exploration Period in the Americas mentioned
in the text. Pre-LGM age sites that require
additional testing are not shown.
Clovis occupation of the Americas. In 1967, a nearly complete
skeleton of a mammoth was excavated from late-Pleistocene
loess by Les Davis (Davis and Wilson 1985). The pivotal im-
portance of this site is that it provides solid evidence for
older-than-Clovis occupation of the Americas, even though
no stone tools were found.
554
A recent analysis of the Lindsay site mammoth bones by
Krazinski (2010) identified 15 unequivocal butchery marks
made by stone tools on 4 different bone elements. Cutmarks
include eight on one long-bone fragment, one on the dis-
tal end of a radius, one on a rib, and three on a calcaneus
proximal epiphysis. These elongate marks are perpendicular
to the long axis of the bone. The high cutmark frequencies
on the long bones suggest meat stripping and disarticulation
of a fully fleshed carcass. The cutmarks on the calcaneous are
interpreted to have been produced while dismembering feet
or accessing fat pads. The cutmark on the rib shaft was pro-
duced during meat stripping. There were additional broken
bones and bones with chop marks, both of which indicate
human activity at the site.
No stone artifacts were found at the Lindsay site. However,
directly associated with the mammoth remains were eight sand-
stone blocks. These boulders occurred beneath the mandible,
beneath the vertebrae and articulated ribs, and beneath and be-
side one modified humerus. Davis and Wilson (1985) suggested
that these were manuports (a reasonable assumption given that
there is no geological explanation for their occurrence within a
loess) and were used as percussion implements to break open
the long bones for extracting marrow. Krazinski (2010) found on
the bones notches and other breakage patterns that suggested
to her that the bones were broken intentionally by humans to
extract marrow and splinter the bone. Also, some of the mam-
moth elements were stacked. Two femora were found on top
of a pile of ribs. Also, the cranium and mandible were disarticu-
lated. Wilson and Davis (1985) infer that humans were respon-
sible for this patterned distribution of bones.
Five radiocarbon dates were initially obtained from the
bones of the Lindsay mammoth (Hill 2006; Davis and Wil-
son 1985; Hill and Davis 1998; Huber and Hill 2003). These
dates are 9490 ± 135 14C yr BP (I-7028), 10,700 ± 290 14C yr
BP (WSU-652), 10,980 ± 225 14C yr BP (I-9220), 11,500 ± 80
14
C yr BP (Beta-102031), and 11,925 ± 350 14C yr BP (S-918).
All these dates were obtained on unpurified bone collagen
and represent minimum ages. Subsequently, three additional
dates were run on a mammoth rib from the site: KOH col-
lagen yielded an age of 12,105 ± 40 14C yr BP (CAMS-82416),
Gelatin-KOH collagen yielded an age of 12,175 ± 40 14C yr
BP (CAMS-80541), and the XAD-purified collagen yielded an
age of 12,330 ± 50 14C yr BP (CAMS-72348; Table 31.1). To
estimate the age of the Lindsay mammoth, Krazinski (2010)
averaged all eight radiocarbon measurements—from those
on unpurified and purified collagen and spanning 9490 to
12,330 14C yr BP—to derive an average age of 11,210 ± 190
14
C yr BP or 13,110 ± 190 cal yr BP for the site. Based on this
averaging method, she suggested that this butchering likely
represented the work of Clovis hunters. Evaluation of the
radiocarbon record indicates that the unpurified bone col-
lagen ages are minimum ages and cannot be used for valid
age interpretations. Based on the chemical fractions dated,
the XAD-purified collagen that gave the age of 12,330 ± 40
14
C yr BP or 14,295 ± 215 cal yr BP (CAMS-72348) provided
the most accurate age from this second group of dates.
Waters and Stafford
Recently, we obtained six additional dates on Lindsay
mammoth remains, three each from the femur and humerus;
two of the dates were on XAD-purified collagen and were
12,300 ± 35 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-12308) for the femur and
12,270 ± 35 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-127316) for the humerus. The
three XAD ages average 12,300 ± 25 14C yr BP or 14,255 ± 215
cal yr BP. See Table 31.1 for the other dated chemical frac-
tions extracted from the femur and humerus.
Krasinski (2010) states unequivocally that the cutmarks
on the bones from the Lindsay site were made by people
butchering the mammoth with stone tools. She believes that
even when stone tools are absent from a site, if prehistoric
cutmarks can be found, they provide absolute evidence of
human activity. Krasinski (2010:391) states, “In the absence of
stone tools and diagnostic site structure, bone surface modi-
fications may be used to determine whether the remains
were altered by humans in the past. It requires the preserva-
tion of cortical surfaces and identification of a single genuine
prehistoric mark.” The Lindsay mammoth site “demonstrated
clear evidence of mammoth utilization in the form of cut-
marks” (Krasinski 2010:392). If these statements are true, the
Lindsay mammoth site represents evidence of humans butch-
ering extinct megafauna 1200 calendar years before Clovis.
The Lindsay site is unique in that it produced strong evi-
dence for older-than-Clovis occupation of the Americas based
on taphonomic evidence alone, as stone tools are absent from
the site. The Lindsay site opens the door to accepting other
similar sites as predating Clovis. A few examples of these situ-
ations include the Burning Tree Mastodon from Ohio dated
to 13,255 ± 80 cal yr BP (Fisher et al. 1994), the ground sloth
remains from northern Ohio dated to 13,580 ± 90 cal yr BP
(Redmond et al. 2012), and the bison remains from Ayer Pond,
Washington, dated to 13,840 ± 55 cal yr BP (Kenady et al.
2010). At these sites and others, taphonomic evidence (cut-
marks, bone-breakage patterns, and arrangements of bones)
suggests human butchering, but where stone tools are ab-
sent. Careful analysis, as exemplified by the work of Krasinski
(2010) at the Lindsay site and at the other sites mentioned
above, is needed at other localities containing tantalizing evi-
dence for humans significantly predating Clovis.
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania (Figure 31.3),
provides compelling evidence of human occupation at
12,800 cal yr BP (Adovasio and Pedler 2004). Meadow-
croft Rockshelter is a deeply stratified rockshelter located
southwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Here about 700 ar-
tifacts occur in the lower and middle parts of Stratum IIa,
and older-than-Clovis horizon. Lithic debitage includes
secondary and tertiary core reduction and biface thinning
from late-stage manufacture and the refurbishing of fin-
ished tools. Flaked-stone artifacts include small prismatic
blades that were detached from small prepared cores, uni-
facial and bifacial knives and gravers, and edge-modified
flakes. A small unfluted lanceolate projectile point, called
the Miller lanceolate projectile point, was found in situ on
the uppermost living floor of lower Stratum IIa. This floor is
dated by bracketing radiocarbon dates above and below of
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
11,300 ± 700 14C yr BP (SI-2491) and 12,800 ± 870 14C yr BP
(SI-2489), respectively. Bone, wood, and plant fibers were
also recovered from the older-than-Clovis levels, including
simple plaited basketry, a bone punch, bone awl fragments,
and a bi-pointed wooden tool. Over 50 radiocarbon ages
have been obtained from the site. Six samples of charcoal,
from six different hearths, were obtained from Stratum IIa
(Table 31.1). These range from 12,800 ± 870 14C yr BP (SI-
2489) to 16,175 ± 975 14C yr BP (SI-2354). At a minimum, the
upper date bracketing the Miller point provides a minimum
age for the Meadowcroft assemblage of 12,160 to 14,050
cal yr BP. The date under the point yielded a calibrated age
of 14,085 to 16,565 cal yr BP. Thus, the minimum age for
the Miller point is ca. 14,000 cal yr BP. The remaining five
ages, directly from the middle and lower Stratum IIa, indi-
cate that these artifacts range from 13,240 ± 1010 14C yr BP
(SI-2065) to 16,175 ± 975 14C yr BP (SI-2354), or 14,240 to
20,475 cal yr BP. This wide range of calibrated ages is in part
the function of the large standard deviations of the radio-
carbon samples and the uncertainty of the calibration curve
for this period of time and as such should be treated with
caution. One issue still clouds the dating of samples from
stratum IIa. While all the radiocarbon ages throughout the
entire sequence in the shelter are in correct stratigraphic
order and seem to correlate with known age time periods,
the possibility of geologically older carbon contamination
of the lower samples has never been fully resolved despite
studies by Goldberg and Arpin (1999). The alkali-soluble
fractions (humates) from two of the dated charcoal samples
from unit IIa were dated. In one case the charcoal yielded
a date of 13,270 ± 340 14C yr BP (SI-2488) while the alkali-
soluble humate fraction yielded a date of 19,800 ± 280 14C
yr BP (SI-2488a). A second charcoal sample yielded an age
of 16,175 ± 975 14C yr BP (SI-2354) and the soluble humates
from this sample were 28,100 ± 800 14C yr BP (SI-2354a).
These charcoal-humate date pairs indicate the presence of
older soluble carbon, as the alkali-soluble fraction typically
dates younger than the charcoal fraction (Haynes 1980).
That said, the bracketing ages surrounding the Miller point
indicate that at a minimum, the older artifacts from Mead-
owcroft Rockshelter date to about 14,000 cal yr BP. New
dates from the shelter are needed to refine the chronology
and lay to rest chronological questions.
The Page-Ladson site, Florida (Figure 31.4), is another
site with compelling evidence for older-than-Clovis occupa-
tion of the Americas (Dunbar 2006; Webb 2006). Here, seven
pieces of chert debitage, one expedient unifacial flake tool,
and a possible hammerstone were found within a distinct
geological layer buried beneath several meters of sediment
in a sinkhole that is now submerged in the Aucilla River. As-
sociated with the artifacts were the remains of a mastodon,
including a tusk with six deep grooves at the location where
the tusk emerged from the alveolus. These are interpreted
to have been made when humans were removing the tusk
from its socket. Six radiocarbon dates from this geological
layer on wood and seeds average 12,450 ± 40 14C yr BP or
555
14,475 ± 250 cal yr BP (Table 31.1). While these data provide
compelling evidence of an early human occupation, more in-
formation is needed about the site’s stratigraphic context to
confirm the early human presence at this site.
Two sites from South America are reported to be older-
than-Clovis. Information from these sites is sparse, but they
deserve mention. The Huaca Prieta site, Peru (Figure 31.4),
offers potential evidence of early occupation along the Peru-
vian coast (Dillehay et al. 2012). Buried within discrete layers
within terrace deposits of the Chicama River were 42 arti-
facts including edge-retouched flakes and cobbles used for
cutting, scraping, and gouging, and debitage. No evidence of
biface technology is present. These artifacts are associated
with bones of deer, sea lion, birds, fish, crab, and shellfish.
Four dates (Table 31.1) on wood and charcoal yielded dates
of 11,500 ± 50 14C yr BP (Beta-290621), 11,800 ± 50 14C yr
BP (Beta-299536), 11,780 ± 50 14C yr BP (Beta-290620), and
12,240 ± 50 14C yr BP (Beta-310273). These ages range from
13,350 ± 55 to 14,090 ± 95 cal yr BP. Two unpurified bone
collagen ages were obtained from deer and sea lion bone
from these layers, and these samples yielded similar results.
More information is needed about this discovery to properly
evaluate it.
Arroyo Seco 2, Argentina (Figure 31.4), is a multi-com-
ponent open-air site situated on a low ridge overlooking a
lagoon (Steele and Politis 2009; Prates et al. 2013). Here, bur-
ied in loess, are lithic artifacts, mostly unifacial, marginally
retouched quartzite tools that are associated with bones of
extinct megafauna including Megatherium, Equus, Hippidion,
and Toxodon. Many of the bones of these animals were spirally
fractured. Radiocarbon ages (Table 31.1) on collagen from the
Equus remains average 11,120 ± 70 14C yr BP or 13,015 ± 100
cal yr BP. Dates on unpurified collagen from bones of the
Toxodon average 11,670 ± 55 14C yr BP or 13,515 ± 90 cal yr
BP. There are a number of ages for the Megatherium, but the
most accurate age is 12,170 ± 55 14C yr BP (OxA-15871) or
14,015 ± 90 cal yr BP, which was obtained on collagen iso-
lated by ultrafiltration. The excavators interpret the range of
ages as sequential occupation of the site. These ages on bone
collagen must be considered minimum ages until XAD-puri-
fied collagen ages are obtained. Further, no report has been
produced that shows the position of the artifacts, bones, and
radiocarbon ages. More information is needed to evaluate
this proposed early site.
It has been proposed by some researchers that the
Americas were colonized before 15,000 cal yr BP—before
the Last Glacial Maximum. A handful of sites—Cactus Hill,
Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; Feathers et al. 2006); La
Sena, Nebraska (Holen 2006); Lovewell, Kansas (Holen 2006);
Topper, South Carolina (Goodyear 2005); Miles Point, Mary-
land (Lowery et al. 2010); and Monte Verde I, Chile (Dillehay
1989, 1997)—are dated between 20,000 and 25,000 cal yr BP.
The evidence from these sites is intriguing and suggestive of
an even older human presence in the New World; however,
these discoveries require more study to address questions at
each site.
556
What Does the Biological and Genetic Evidence
Tell Us?
All prehistoric human skeletons that have been found in the
Americas are anatomically modern (Homo sapiens). Modern
humans did not colonize central and northeast Asia until
roughly 30,000 to 40,000 years ago (Goebel et al. 2008). This
puts an absolute basement date on the arrival of people to
the Americas. Further, all the skeletal remains from North
America have Asian characteristics.
Genetic data from modern indigenous populations pro-
vide more information about the homeland of the First Amer-
icans and when these people may have spread to the New
World (O’Rourke and Ralf 2010; Kitchen et al. 2008; Mulligan
et al. 2008; Tamm et al. 2007). Genetic studies of mitochon-
drial (mtdna) diversity identified five major haplogroups (A,
B, C, D, and X) present in indigenous American populations.
All these haplogroups are found in Native peoples of Siberia
and this evidence indicates that all extant indigenous people
in the Americas originated from Asia. The mtdna lineages of a
small number of prehistoric individuals have been identified
at four archaeological sites dating 8000 cal yr BP or earlier.
Haplogroups A, B, C, and D were identified at these sites in
coprolites or human bone (Goebel et al. 2008). This sample,
even though it is small, corresponds with the known mtdna
lineages of modern Native Americans.
After several decades of research, analysis of the mtdna
evidence of extant populations is showing a similar popula-
tion story (Mulligan 2008; O’Rourke and Raff 2010). Some
30,000 years ago, the ancestors of Native Americans diverged
from the Asian gene pool. These people became genetically
isolated for at least 7000 to 15,000 years (Kitchen et al. 2008;
Mulligan et al. 2008; Tamm et al. 2007). This is thought to
have occurred somewhere in greater Beringia. During this
isolation, genetic variants specific to and present throughout
the New World were generated. This was followed by a rapid
expansion of people from this population into the Americas
about 16,000 years ago. Geneticists indicate that there was a
single migration into the Americas by a population of about
1000 to 2000 individuals (Kitchen et al. 2008; Mulligan et al.
2008). While it is likely they did not all come over at the exact
same time, small bands from this source population made
their way to the Americas over a number of years. A recent
study of some of the early human skeletal remains from North
America provides physical anthropological data that support
this genetic scenario (Auerbach 2012).
Does the Clovis-First Paradigm Still Work?
One of the objectives of science is to formulate models or
paradigms that will account for as many observations as pos-
sible within a coherent framework. According to Kuhn (1970),
a paradigm is based on one or more past scientific achieve-
ments, such as the discovery of Clovis at Blackwater Draw
and the subsequent discovery and investigation of other
Clovis sites. These discoveries affirm that the newly founded
paradigm is valid. The paradigm attracts a group of research-
ers and is open-ended enough that it leaves problems to be
Waters and Stafford
resolved. Over time, research sometimes reveals anomalies,
information that is difficult to explain within the context of
the existing paradigm. Many anomalies are ignored, require
small adjustments to the current paradigm, or are dismissed
as errors. Discoveries contrary to the paradigm are rare
because expectations of the paradigm obscure our vision.
However, if enough anomalies accumulate, the paradigm is
eventually stretched beyond its limits of credibility. Failure
of a paradigm occurs when it cannot account for observed
phenomena. Anomalies can no longer be ignored. This leads
to a paradigm shift and the formulation of a new paradigm
that better incorporates recent information.
At least three major anomalies cannot be explained or no
longer ignored by the Clovis-First paradigm. First, at 13,000
cal yr BP both North and South America were occupied by hu-
mans. In North America there is the Clovis complex, with its
distinctive technologies and tools. In South America the sites
of this age are characterized by generalized toolkits with
many flake tools and some bifaces, but no diagnostic artifact
type. Thus, at the time of Clovis in North America, you have
sites of the same age and with different stone-tool technolo-
gies and assemblages in South America. Second, there are
several credible sites dating before the time of Clovis. These
sites have biface, blade, bladelet, and osseous technologies
that date at least to 15,000 cal yr BP. These sites are found
in both North and South America in well-dated and secure
geologic contexts. Third, the current genetic evidence sug-
gests an older-than-Clovis colonization of the Americas be-
tween 16,000 and 15,000 cal yr BP. It is now time to create a
new model for the peopling of the Americas and explore new
questions about the first inhabitants of the Americas.
A New Model for the Peopling of the Americas
A new model for the peopling of the Americas will be formu-
lated in the coming years by merging interpretations from
archaeological field data and ancient genetic information
from fossil human skeletal remains and perishable materials
discarded by these early inhabitants.
Genetic data will play an ever-increasing role in our under-
standing of the First Americans. Already, modern genetic data
from living Native Americans show that the First Americans
originated from central Asia, probably from a single source
population, and that their ancestors were present south of
continental ice sheets by 15,000 to 16,000 cal BP. The new ge-
netic frontier is the recovery and analysis of dna from prehis-
toric human skeletons and coprolites. Pioneering studies have
already confirmed that haplogroups A, B, C, and D, found in
modern Native populations, also occur in ancient skeletons
and coprolites. Haplogroup X has yet to be identified in an
ancient specimen, and its ultimate ancestral origin remains
uncertain. Paleo-genetic studies provide unambiguous infor-
mation regarding the origin and dispersal of ancient human
populations—data not obtainable from other methodologies.
We need more empirical archaeological data—field
data—from the older-than-Clovis time period. Numerous
sites in North and South America predate Clovis by at least
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
2000 years. In terms of technology, these early sites show that
biface technology (Meadowcroft, Friedkin, Hebior, Monte
Verde), blade and bladelet technology (Friedkin, Meadow-
croft), and osseous technology (Manis) were present in the
Americas before Clovis. These sites also show that these
early people exploited different environments and resources
across the Americas.
We need a new term for the older-than-Clovis occu-
pation of the Americas. The term “pre-Clovis” has several
meanings—most commonly the term is used to describe a
separate and older group unrelated to Clovis, or it is used
as a chronological term to denote sites older than Clovis.
Then there is “proto-Clovis,” which infers that an ancestral
population with a different but Clovis-related technology ex-
isted in the Americas for a short period before Clovis, but
this term infers a direct ancestral relationship between the
earliest colonists of the Americas and Clovis. Proto-Clovis has
a North American bias and ignores different late-Pleistocene
cultural trajectories in the Southern Hemisphere where Clo-
vis is absent. Because pre-Clovis and proto-Clovis are conten-
tious terms, a different descriptor is needed for the period
before 13,000 cal BP. We propose the term, “Exploration Pe-
riod” for the time period of the early entry of humans into
the Americas before Clovis. This is a neutral term that does
not define the trajectory of cultural development in either
North or South America. This is solely a chronological term
for the time period before Clovis—current evidence shows
that people were in the Americas at least 2000 years before
Clovis, and only more research will determine if there is a
longer time depth of human occupation of the New World.
As the evidence mounts in the coming years, more will be
learned about this period of human colonization and rela-
tionships between the initial colonists and later complexes.
We need to know more about Clovis origins. Clovis
emerged as a recognizable complex by 13,000 cal yr BP and
by 12,900 cal yr BP had spread across North America. Clovis
developed in North America south of the ice sheets and post-
dates, by at least 2000 years, the entry of humans into the
Americas. While Clovis technology is distinct and gives the
impression that it is distinct from complexes before and after
Clovis, present paleo-genetic evidence indicates Clovis peo-
ples were no different genetically than later American Indians
and that there is no evidence of a separate Clovis migration
to the Americas. Also, humans already in the New World pos-
sessed technologies that could have been ancestral to Clovis
lithic and bone manufacturing techniques.
The Clovis-First model required that Clovis originated
from an antecedent technology immediately south of the Ice-
Free Corridor. It is now clear that Clovis did indeed develop
south of the ice sheets from an antecedent technology, but
farther south of the Ice-Free Corridor, perhaps in the south-
eastern United States, from people already there. In this re-
gard Aubrey, Texas, might be a key site. If the Aubrey site dates
to 13,400 cal yr BP, it could represent a transitional site into
Clovis. With one exception (a point fragment that appears to
have an end-thinning termination), Aubrey lithic artifacts are
557
similar to those from the Friedkin site, with small expedient
tools made on flakes. Blades and bladelets are present, and
the core tablet flake that was found at the Aubrey site is from
a bladelet core. Why did Clovis emerge suddenly at 13,000
cal yr BP, flourish for only two hundred years from 12,700 to
12,900 cal yr BP, and disappear equally fast? Is the sudden ap-
pearance and disappearance of Clovis and its short time span
caused by the equally rapid environmental changes occurring
at the end of glacial period, the massive and rapid extinction
of tens of megafauna genera, and the establishment of new
faunal regimes?
With a new understanding of the timing of the arrival of
the First Americans, we need to rethink the role that humans
played in the extinction of the megafauna at the end of the
Pleistocene. Recent work on Sporormiella, a dung fungus as-
sociated with herbivores, from cores extending back into
the late Pleistocene has been used as a proxy for megafauna
population declines at the end of the Pleistocene (Gill et al.
2009). These studies indicate that the megafauna population
was stable until 14,800 cal yr BP, when megafauna populations
began a serious decline, with a dramatic decline at 13,700 cal
yr BP, and extinction at 12,700 cal yr BP. It is interesting that
each of these juncture points in megafauna population his-
tory coincides with human migration into the Americas and
technological changes. The decline of megafauna at 14,800 cal
yr BP coincides with the archaeological and genetic evidence
for the arrival of people into the Americas. The rapid popu-
lation decline at 13,700 cal yr BP is coincident with the age
of many Exploration Period sites. Evidence of early human-
mammoth interaction comes from the Schaefer site, Wisconsin
(14,490 ± 250 cal yr BP), Hebior site, Wisconsin (14,775 ± 200
cal yr BP), Lindsay mammoth, Montana (14,295 ± 215 cal yr
BP), and likely others. We have human-mastodon interaction
at the Manis site, Washington (13,815 ± 50 cal yr BP). Finally,
the disappearance of the megafauna at 12,700 cal yr BP is coin-
cident with the florescence of Clovis technology, which lasted
from 12,900 to 12,700 cal yr BP (Figure 31.2). Most Clovis sites
dating to this interval are mammoth kill sites. While we have
emphasized the potential role of humans in megafauna extinc-
tion, we acknowledge the huge role that climate and habitat
change played at the end of the Pleistocene.
We must learn more about the routes taken by the first
colonizers into the Americas. Because both the modern and
ancient genetic evidence points to Asia as the homeland of
the First Americans, there are two viable routes—the Ice-Free
Corridor and the Pacific coast. Little research has been done
on the timing of the opening of the Ice-Free Corridor for
decades. This recently changed with the work of Munyikwa
and others (2011) who show that the corridor at about 55° N
latitude was open much earlier than previously thought. Ar-
eas that were once thought to be covered with glacial ice
or proglacial lakes are now shown to be covered by eolian
dunes by 15,000 cal yr BP or earlier. What does this mean
for the rest of the corridor to the north? Clearly, deglaciation
was much more extensive at 15,000 cal yr BP than previously
believed. Was the rest of the corridor open at this time? The
558
coastal route is another viable route into the Americas. The
coastal route offers a way for people to move quickly into the
Southern Cone and avoid the treacherous disease corridor
of Central America. Proof of the early use of boats is sup-
ported by the evidence from Arlington Springs on the Chan-
nel Islands off the coast of California. Here, human remains
are accurately dated using XAD-collagen to 10,960 ± 80 14C
yr BP (CAMS-16810) or 12,815 ± 115 cal yr BP (Johnson et
al. 2002). Because the Channel Islands were never connected
to the mainland, boats must have been used to reach the
island. Unfortunately, no artifacts were found with the hu-
man remains. It is possible that people could have come via
land or sea or even both, as long as they came from the same
genetic ancestral source population that had been isolated in
Beringia. More work is needed on both routes to determine
when these corridors were viable and passable and to find
the archaeological evidence of the people who passed along
them.
As we build a new understanding of the peopling of the
Americas, we need to do this with solid field and laboratory
data. Three factors challenge the search for the earliest in-
habitants of the Americas—archaeological expectations, ge-
ology, and geochronology.
We may not be recognizing the early sites. Our archaeo-
logical sight image, until now, has been to expect large lithic
artifacts and diagnostic projectile points. However, the evi-
dence is showing that the earliest artifacts in the Americas
are nondescript and utilitarian tools with no obviously di-
agnostic artifact that is as readily recognizable as a Clovis
point. These assemblages are recognized as older-than-Clo-
vis only because they occur in a securely dated pre–13,000
cal yr BP geological context. If these artifacts were on the
surface, their significance would go unrecognized. Maybe a
diagnostic artifact type exists, but has not yet been found.
Recall that it took almost 20 years to clarify the picture of
Clovis—Clovis was first discovered in 1933, but it was not
until Sellards’s publication in 1952 that the regional nature
of Clovis was understood. Further, sites like Lindsay show
us that early sites can be recognized on taphonomic criteria
even if artifacts are absent. Thus, many early sites may be
dismissed as paleontological sites. In short, we cannot be
biased by expectations; we must be guided by the empirical
evidence, even if it confounds us.
Late Quaternary geological processes have affected the
early archaeological record and our chances for site discov-
ery. Erosion and sedimentation over the millennia destroy
archaeological sites and buries them beyond normal access
during site surveys. While we cannot undo the ravages of
time that diminish the increasingly older deposits, we can in-
vestigate alluviated valleys and marshes that are infrequently
explored. The iconic Clovis sites in the American West would
have never been found had it not been for artificial gravel
quarrying or late-Holocene erosion and valley incision. The
geographic area of these small windows into Quaternary al-
luvium is orders of magnitude smaller than is present in al-
luviated drainages. The enormous volume of deeply buried,
Waters and Stafford
unexplored sediments portends the discovery of our oldest
human records.
The enormous potential of absolute geochronology has
eluded us as often as it has come to our aid. Chronology hin-
ders us in two ways, first when it is sometimes used to delete
sites from further investigation, and second, when inaccurate
radiocarbon ages have sometimes falsely dated older-than-
Clovis sites to the Clovis time period or later.
Geological or paleontological localities older-than-Clovis
have often been overlooked or ignored for archaeological ex-
ploration. This Clovis chronological filter causes researchers to
under-explore paleontological and geological contexts that are
older-than-Clovis. By predetermining that a late-Pleistocene
fossil discovery cannot have human associations or that the
sediments are “too old” to contain artifacts, scores of older-
than-Clovis sites are likely being lost to discovery every year.
Until archaeological and paleontological field explorations are
unified, our discovery of sites older than Clovis will be mini-
mal.
At the Hebior, Schaefer, and Lindsay sites, among others,
initial radiocarbon dates, often directly on megafauna bone, in-
dicated the site’s age was Clovis. Had later, more accurate ra-
diocarbon dating not been done, these older-than-Clovis sites
would never have been recognized for the discoveries they have
become. Because ages of 11,000 14C yr BP are “accepted” for
mammoth or mastodon bones associated with artifacts, archae-
ologists and radiocarbon labs rarely question if the dates are
accurate. Consequently, many sites pre-dating Clovis may go
undiscovered owing to simple radiocarbon dating errors. These
too-young age determinations extend to human bones, the best
example being the Kennewick skeleton (Stafford 2014). This
important human skeleton was originally dated by three differ-
ent AMS radiocarbon labs that returned measurements ranging
from 8410 to 5750 14C yr BP. The skeleton’s established 14C age
is 8358 ± 21 14C yr BP (average of two XAD-purified collagen
ages). These degrees of error dating the Kennewick skeleton
and the above proboscidean fossil sites imply that if the ultimate
proof of older-than-Clovis presence were ever found—a human
skeleton—the skeleton could be dated too young by thousands
of years, thereby causing incontrovertible, pre–13, 000 cal yr BP
evidence of humans in the New World to be lost. Accurate dat-
ing of late-Pleistocene archaeological sites and their deposits
and fossils requires the strongest adherence to stratigraphy, fos-
sil taxonomy, paleontology, biogeochemistry and radiocarbon
chemistry, and physics.
We also need to keep an open mind to new ideas and
concepts such as the Solutrean hypothesis (Stanford and
Bradley 2012), the hypothesis that an extraterrestrial im-
pact occurred at the start of the Younger Dryas (Firestone et
al. 2007), or pre-LGM occupation of the Americas (Madsen
2004). These and other seemingly radical concepts require
critical evaluation and testing. We should not just dismiss
radical ideas out of hand without a fair and honest evalua-
tion. However, it is incumbent upon the researcher propos-
ing a radical idea to provide a solid case for the idea. Strong
beliefs are not a substitute for solid science.
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
In conclusion, current data support that the First Ameri-
cans originated in Central Asia from a population that was
isolated from 30,000 to 16,000 years ago. Beginning ca.
16,000 cal BP, as few as 1000 to 2000 individuals from this
population began entering the New World and started its ex-
ploration. These initial explorers carried with them bifaces,
blades, bladelets, and osseous tools. Abruptly around 13,000
cal yr BP, Clovis technology exploded onto the landscape and
within a few score years spread across North America. While
many questions remain, what is unquestionable is that the
Clovis complex does not represent the first evidence of hu-
mans exploring and occupying the New World. The Clovis-
First paradigm served well for decades, but it is now time to
realize that earlier peoples preceded Clovis and possibly by
much more time than we accept even today.
Acknowledgments
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments
on the manuscript. Funding for many of the radiocarbon
dates was provided by M. Payn, the North Star Archaeologi-
cal Research Program established by J. Cramer and R. Cra-
mer, and the Chair in First Americans Studies at Texas A&M
University.
References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., and D. R. Pedler  2004  Pre-Clovis sites and their
implications for human occupation before the Last Glacial Maxi-
mum. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last
Glacial Maximum, edited by D. M. Madsen, pp. 139–58. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Auerbach, B. M.  2012  Skeletal variation among early Holocene
North American humans: Implications for origins and diversity in
the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149:525–36.
Birkeland, P. W.  1999  Soils and Geomorphology, 3rd Edition. Ox-
ford University Press, Oxford.
Bradley, B. A.  1982  Flaked stone technology and typology. In The
Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the North-
western High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. J. Stanford, pp.
181–208. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Bradley, B. A., M. B. Collins, and A. Hemmings  2010  Clovis Tech-
nology. International Monographs in Prehistory, U.S.A.
Carrara, P. E., and D. A. Trimble  1992  A Glacier Peak and Mount
Saint Helens J volcanic ash couplet and the timing of deglaciation
in the Colville Valley area, Washington. Canadian Journal of Earth Sci-
ences 29:2397–2405.
Clark, D. W.  1991  The northern (Alaska-Yukon) fluted points. In
Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turn-
mire, pp. 35–48. Peopling of the Americas Publications, Corvallis.
Collins, M. B., and B. A. Bradley  2008  Evidence for pre-Clovis oc-
cupation at the Gault site (41BL323), central Texas. Current Research
in the Pleistocene 25:70–72.
Crook, Jr., W. W., and R. K. Harris  1958  A Pleistocene campsite
near Lewisville, Texas. American Antiquity 23:233–46.
Davis, L. B. and M. F. Baunler  2000  Clovis and Folsom occupa-
tions at Indian Creek. Current Research in the Pleistocene 17:17–19.
Davis, L. B., and M. C. Wilson  1985  The late Pleistocene Lindsay
559
mammoth (24DW501), eastern Montana: Possible man-mammoth
association. Current Research in the Pleistocene 2:97–98.
Dillehay, T. D.  1989  Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in
Chile, Volume I: Palaeoenvironment and Site Context. Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press, Washington, D.C.
Dillehay, T. D. ed.  1997  Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement
in Chile: Volume 2: The Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smith-
sonian Institution Press, Washington. D.C.
Dillehay, T. D., and M. Pino  1989  Stratigraphy and chronology.
In Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 1, edited
by T. D. Dillehay, pp. 133–45. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-
ington, D.C.
———  1997  Radiocarbon chronology. In Monte Verde: A Late
Pleistocene Settlement in Chile: Volume 2: The Archaeological Context and
Interpretation, edited by T. D. Dillehay, pp. 41–52. Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press, Washington. D.C.
Dillehay, T. D., D. Bonavia, S. L. Goodbread, Jr., M. Pino, V. Vasquez,
and T. R. Tham  2012  A late Pleistocene human presence at Huaca
Prieta, Peru, and early Pacific Coastal adaptations. Quaternary Re-
search 77:418–23.
Dillehay, T. D., C. Ramirez, M. Pino, M. B. Collins, J. Rossen, and J. D.
Pino-Navarro  2008  Monte Verde: seaweed, food, medicine, and
the peopling of South America. Science 320: 784–86.
Driese, S. G., L. C. Nordt, M. R. Waters, and J. L. Keene  2013  Anal-
ysis of site formation history and potential disturbance of strati-
graphic context in vertisols at the Debra L. Friedkin archaeological
site in central Texas, USA. Geoarchaeology 28:221–48.
Driver, J. C.  1996  Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating and culture
history of Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia. Arctic 49:265–77.
———  1999  Raven skeletons from Paleoindian contexts, Charlie
Lake Cave, British Columbia. American Antiquity 64:289–98.
Dunbar, J. S.  2006  Paleoindian archaeology. In First Floridians and
Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson site in the Aucilla River, edited by S. D.
Webb, pp. 403–35. Springer, The Netherlands.
Erlandson, J. M., T. J. Braje, and M. H. Graham  2008  How old
is MVII? – seaweeds, shorelines, and the Pre-Clovis chronology at
Monte Verde, Chile. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3:277–81.
Feathers, J. K., E. Rhodes, S. Huot, and L. McAvoy  2006  Lumi-
nescence dating of sand deposits related to late Pleistocene human
occupation at the Cactus Hill site, Virginia, USA. Quaternary Geochro-
nology 1:167–87.
Ferring, C. R.  2001  The archaeology and paleoecology of the Au-
brey Clovis site (41DN479) Denton County, Texas. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Fort Worth District.
Fiedel, S. J., and Y. V. Kuzmin  2010  Is more precise dating of
Paleo­indian expansion feasible? Radiocarbon 52:337–45.
Fiedel, S. J.  2004  Clovis age in calendar years: 13,500–13,000
CALYBP. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by B. T. Lep-
per and R. Bonnichsen, pp. 73–80. Texas A&M University Press, Col-
lege Station.
Firestone, R. B., A. West, J. P. Kennett, L. Becker, T. E. Bunch, Z. S.
Revay, P. H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D. J. Kennett, J. M. Erlandson, O. J.
Dickenson, A. C. Goodyear, R. S. Harris, G. A. Howard, J. B. Klooster-
man, P. Lechler, P. A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah,
S. S. Que Hee, A. R. Smith, A. Stich, W. Topping, J. H. Wittke, and W.
S. Wolbach  2007  Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900
years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the
Younger Dryas cooling. PNAS 104:16016–21.
560
Fisher, D. C., B. T. Lepper, and P. E. Hooge  1994  Evidence for
butchery of the Burning Tree mastodon. In The First Discovery of
America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio
Area, edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 43–57. The Ohio Archaeological
Council, Columbus.
Fladmark, K. R., J. C. Driver, and D. Alexander  1988  The Paleo­
indian component at Charlie Lake Cave (HbRf 39), British Columbia.
American Antiquity 77:376–85.
Frison, G. C. ed.  1974  The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the
High Plains. Academic Press Inc., New York.
Frison, G. C.  1982  The Seaman site: A Clovis component. In The
Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwest-
ern High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. J. Stanford, pp. 143–57.
Academic Press, Inc., New York.
———  1991  The Goshen Paleoindian complex: New data for Pa-
leoindian research. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R.
Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 133–51. Center for the Study of
the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
——— 1996 The Iron Mill Site. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
——— 2000 A 14C date on a Late-Pleistocene Camelops at the
Casper-Hell Site, Wyoming. Current Research in the Pleistocene 17:28–29.
Frison, G. C., C. V. Haynes, Jr., and L. M. Larson  1996  Discussion
and Conclusion. In The Iron Mill Site, edited by G. C. Frison, pp. 205–
16. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gilbert, M. T. P., D. L. Jenkins, A. Gotherstrom, N. Naveran, J. J. San-
chez, M. Hofreiter, P. F. Thomsen, J. Binladen, T. F. G. Higham, R.
M. Yohe II, R. Parr, L. S. Cummings, and E. Willerslev  2008  DNA
from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North American. Sci-
ence 320:786–89.
Gill. J. L., J. W. Williams, S. T. Jackson, K. B. Lininger, and G. S. Robinson
2009  Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities,
and enhanced fire regimes in North America. Science 326:1100–03.
Goebel, T., B. Hockett, K. Graf, and D. Rhode  2006  An update
on the Paleoindian archaeology of Bonneville Estates Rockshelter,
Eastern Nevada. Paper presented at the 30th Great Basin Anthropo-
logical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, and D. H. O’Rourke  2008  The Late
Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science
319:1497–1502.
Goebel, T., H. L. Smith, L. DiPietro, M. R. Waters, B. Hockett, K. E. Graf,
R. Gal, S. B. Slobodin, R. J. Speakman, and D. Rhode  2013  Ser-
pentine Hot Springs, Alaska: Results of Excavations and Implications
for the Age and Significance of Northern Fluted Points. Journal of
Archaeological Science, in press.
Goodyear, A. C.  2005  Evidence for pre-Clovis sites in the Eastern
United States. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R.
Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters, pp. 103–12.
Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Goldberg, P., and T. L. Arpin  1999  Micromorphological analysis
of sediments from Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania: Implica-
tions for radiocarbon dating. Journal of Field Archaeology 26:325–41.
Gustafson, C. E., D. Gilbow, and R. Daugherty  1979  The Manis
mastodon site: Early man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal
of Archaeology 3:157–64.
Hall, S. A.  2001  Palynology of the Aubrey site. In The Archaeology
and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis Site (41DN479) Denton County, Texas,
edited by C. R. Ferring, pp. 79–88. University of North Texas, Denton.
Waters and Stafford
Hamilton, M. J., and B. Buchanan  2007  Spatial gradients in Clo-
vis-age radiocarbon dates across North America suggest rapid colo-
nization from the north. PNAS 104:15625–30.
Hannus, L. A.  1989  Flaked mammoth bone from the Lange/Fer-
guson site White River badlands area, South Dakota. In Bone Modi-
fication, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 395–412. Peo-
pling of the Americas Publications, Orono.
Haynes, C. V., Jr.  1967  Carbon-14 dates and early man in the New
World. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. S.
Martin and H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. 267–86. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
———  1980  Paleo-Indian charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshel-
ter: Is contamination a problem? American Antiquity 45:582–87.
———  2005  Clovis, pre-Clovis, climate change, and extinction.
In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B.
T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters, pp. 113–32. Texas A&M
University Press, College Station.
Haynes C. V., Jr., M. Kornfeld, and G. C. Frison  2004  New geo-
chronological and archaeological data for the Sheaman Clovis site,
eastern Wyoming, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 19:369–79.
Haynes, G.  2002  The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis
Era. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hedman, B.  2010  The Raven Bluff site: Preliminary findings from
a late Pleistocene site in the Alaskan Arctic. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Hill, C. L.  2006  Stratigraphic and geochronologic contexts of
mammoth (Mammuthus) and other Pleistocene fauna, Upper Mis-
souri Basin (northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains), U.S.A. Qua-
ternary International 142–143:87–106.
Hill C. L., and L. B. Davis  1998  Stratigraphy, AMS radiocarbon
age, and stable biogeochemistry of the Lindsay mammoth, eastern
Montana. Current Research in the Pleistocene 15:109–12.
Hogg, A. G., Q. Hua, P. G. Blackwell, M. Niu, C. E. Buck, T. P. Guil-
derson, T. J. Heaton, J. G. Palmer, P. J. Reimer, R. W. Reimer, C. S. M.
Turney, and S. R. H. Zimmerman  2013  SHCAL13 Southern Hemi-
sphere calibration, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1–15.
Holen, S. R.  2006  Taphonomy of two Last Glacial Maximum
mammoth sites in the Central Great Plains of North America: A pre-
liminary report on La Sena and Lovewell. Quaternary International
142:30–43.
Huber, J. K., and C. L. Hill  2003  Paleoecological inferences based
on pollen and stable isotopes for mammoth-bearing deposits of the
Oahe Formation (Aggie Brown Member), eastern Montana. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 20:95–97.
Jackson, D., C. Mendez, R. Seguel, A. Maldonado, and G. Vargas  2007
Initial occupation of the Pacific Coast of Chile during the Late Pleis-
tocene times. Current Anthropology 48:725–31.
Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, P. F. Campos, B. Hockett, G. T.
Jones, L. S. Cummings, C. Yost, T. J. Connolly, R. M. Yohe II, S. C. Gib-
bons, M. Raghavan, M. Rasmussen, J. L. A. Paijmans, M. Hofreiter, B. M.,
Kemp, J. L. Barta, C. Monroe, M. T. P. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev  2012
Clovis age western stemmed projectile points and human coprolites
at the Paisley Caves. Science 337:223–28.
Jennings, T. A.  2012  Clovis, Folsom, and Midland components at
the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas: Context, chronology, and assem-
blages. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3239–47.
Johnson, E. ed.  1987  Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary Studies on the
Southern High Plains. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
The First Americans: A Review of the E
­ vidence for the Late-Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas
Johnson, E. 2006 The taphonomy of mammoth localities in south-
eastern Wisconsin (USA). Quaternary International 142–142:58–78.
———  2007  Along the ice margin–the cultural taphonomy of
Late Pleistocene mammoth in southeastern Wisconsin (USA). Qua-
ternary International 169–170:64–83.
Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris  1999  In
Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D.
Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 541–44. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Pacific OCS Region.
Joyce, D. J.  2006  Chronology and new research on the Schaefer
mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) site, Kenosha County, Wiscon-
sin, USA. Quaternary International 142–143:44–57.
Kelly, R. L.  2002  Maybe we do know when people first came to
North America; and what does it mean if we do? Quaternary Interna-
tional 109–110:133–45.
Kenady, S. M., M. C. Wilson, R. F. Schalk, and R. R. Mieren-
dorf  2011  Late Pleistocene butchered Bison antiquus from Ayer
Pond, Orcas Island, Pacific Northwest: Age confirmation and tapho-
nomy. Quaternary International 233:130–41.
King, M. L., and S. B. Slobodin  1996  A fluted point from the Up-
tar site, Northeastern Siberia. Science 273:634–36.
Kitchen, A., M. M. Miyamoto, and C. J. Mulligan  2008  A three-
stage colonization model for the peopling of the Americas. PLoS
ONE 3: 1-7.
Krasinski, K. E.  2010  Broken bones and cutmarks: Taphonomic
analyses and implications for the peopling of North America. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, U.S.A.
Kuehn, S. C., D. G. Froese, P. E. Carrara, F. F. Foit, Jr., N. J. G. Pearce,
and P. Rotheisler  2008  Major- and trace-element characteriza-
tion, expanded distribution, and a new chronology for the latest
Pleistocene Glacier Peak tephras in western North America. Quater-
nary Research 71:201–16.
Kuhn, T. S.  1970  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Vol. 2, No. 2.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lindquist, A. K., J. M. Feinberg, and M. R. Waters  2011  Rock mag-
netic properties of a soil developed on an alluvial deposit at But-
termilk Creek, Texas, USA. G3 Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems.
12:1–11.
Lowery, D. L., M. A. O’Neal, J. S. Wah, D. P. Wagner, and D. J. Stanford
2010  Late Pleistocene upland stratigraphy of the western Delmar-
va Peninsula, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 29:1472–80.
Madsen, D. B., ed.  2004  Entering America: Northeast Asia and Berin-
gia Before the Last Glacial Maximum. The University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Maldonano, A., C. Mendez, P. Ugalde, D. Jackson, R. Seguel, and C.
Latorre  2010  Early Holocene climate change and human occupa-
tion along the semiarid coast of north-central Chile. Journal of Qua-
ternary Science 25:985–88.
Mandel, R. D., S. Holen, and J. L. Hofman  2005  Geoarchaeology
of Clovis and possibly pre-Clovis cultural deposits at the ­Kanorado
Locality, northwestern Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene
22:56–57.
Martin, P.  1967  Prehistoric overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The
Search for a Cause, edited by P. S. Martin and H. E. Wright, Jr., pp.
75–120. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.  1997  Archaeological Investi-
gations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research
Series No. 8, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
561
Mehringer, P. J., Jr.,  1989  Age of the Clovis Cache at East
Wenatchee, Washington. A Report to the Washington State Historic
Preservation Office. 60 p.
Mehringer, P. J., and F. F. Foit, Jr.  1990  Volcanic ash dating of the
Clovis cache at East Wenatchee, Washington. National Geographic Re-
search 6:495–503.
Miotti, L., and M. C. Salemme  2003  When Patagonia was colo-
nized: People mobility at high latitudes during Pleistocene/Holocene
transition. Quaternary International 109–110:95–111.
Morrow, J. E., S. J. Fiedel, D. L. Johnson, M. Kornfeld, M. Rutledge,
and W. R. Wood  2012  Pre-Clovis in Texas? A critical assessment
of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex.” Journal of Archaeological Science
39:3677–82.
Mulligan, C. J., A. Kitchen, and M. M. Miyamoto  2008  Updated
three-stage model for the peopling of the Americas. PLoS ONE 3: 1-4.
Munyikwa, K., J. K. Feathers, T. M. Rittenour, and H. K. Shrimpton
2011  Constraining the Late Wisconsin retreat of the Laurentide
ice sheet from western Canada using luminescence ages from post-
glacial aeolian dunes. Quaternary Geochronology 6:407–22.
O’Rourke, D. H., and J. A. Raff  2010  The human genetic history
of the Americas: The final frontier. Current Biology 20:R202–R207.
Overstreet, D. F.  2005  Late-glacial ice-marginal adaptation in
southeastern Wisconsin. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, ed-
ited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters,
pp. 183–95. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Paunero, R. S.  2003  The presence of a Pleistocene colonizing cul-
ture in La Maria archaeological locality, Casa del Minero. In Where
the South Winds Blow: Ancient Evidence of Paleo South Americans, edited
by L Miotti, M. Salemme, N. Flegenheimer, and R. Bonnichsen, pp.
127–40. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
———  2003  The Cerro Tres Tetas (C3T) locality in the central
plateau of Santa Cruz, Argentina. In Where the South Wind Blows:
Ancient Evidence of Paleo South Americans, edited by L. Miotti, M. Sa-
lemme, and N. Flegenheimer, and R. Bonnichsen, pp. 133–40. Texas
A&M University Press, College Station.
Prasciunas, M. M.  2008  Clovis first? An analysis of space, time,
and technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyo-
ming, U.S.A.
Poinar, H., S. Fiedel, C. E. King, A. M. Devault, K. Bos, M. Kuch, and R.
Debruyne  2009  Comment on “DNA from Pre-Clovis human cop-
rolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325: 148-a.
Prates, L., G. Politis, and J. Steele  2013  Radiocarbon chronology
of the early human occupation of Argentina. Quaternary International
301:104–22.
Redmond, B. G., H. G. McDonald, H. J. Greenfield, and M. L. Burr
2012  New evidence for late Pleistocene human exploitation of
Jefferson’s ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersonii) from northern Ohio,
USA. World Archaeology 44:75–101.
Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, C. J. H.
Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E.
Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P. Guilderson,
A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, S. Manning,
C. B. Ramsey, R. W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J. R. Southon, M. Stuiver,
S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer
2004  INTCAL04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 CAL
KYR BP. Radiocarbon 46:1029–58.
Sandweiss, D. H., H. McInnis, R. L. Burger, A. Cano, B. Ojeda, R. Pare-
des, M. C. Sandweiss, and M. D. Glascock  1998  Quebrada Jaguay:
Early South American maritime adaptations. Science 281:1830–32.
 562
Sellards, E. H.  1952  Early Man in America: A Study in Prehistory.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Shiley, R., R. Hughes, C. Hinckley, R. Cahill, K. Konopka, G. Smith,
and M. Saporoschenko  1985  Moessbauer analysis of Lewisville,
Texas, archaeological site lignite and hearth sample. Environmental
Geology Notes 109, Illinois State Geological Survey.
Stafford, T. W., Jr.  2014  Chronology of the Kennewick skeleton.
In Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American
Skeleton, edited by D. W. Owsley and R. L. Jantz. Texas A&M Univer-
sity Press, in press.
Stanford, D.  1983  Pre-Clovis occupation south of the ice sheets.
In Early Man in the New World, edited by R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 65–72.
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Stanford, D., and B. A. Bradley  2012  Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin
of America’s Clovis Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley.
14
Steele, J., and G. Politis  2009  AMS C dating of early human oc-
cupation of southern South America. Journal of Archaeological Science
36:419–29.
Tamm, E., T. Kivisild, M. Reidla, M. Metspalu, D. G. Smith, C. J. Mul-
ligan, C. M. Bravi, O. Rickards, C. Martinez-Labarga, E. K. Khusnutdi-
nova, S. A. Fedorova, M. V. Golubenko, V. A. Stepanov, M. A. Gubina,
S. I. Zhadanov, L. P. Ossipova, L. Damba, M. I. Voevoda, J. E. Dipierri,
R. Villems, and R. S. Malhi  2007  Beringian standstill and spread
of Native American founders. PLoS ONE 9: 1-6.
View publication stats
Waters and Stafford
Waters, M. R.  1985  Early man in the new world: An evaluation of
the radiocarbon dated pre-Clovis sites in the Americas. In Environ-
ments and Extinctions: Man in Late Glacial North America, edited by J. I.
Mead and D. J. Meltzer, pp. 125–43. Center for the Study of Early
Man, Orono.
Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford  2007  Redefining the age of Clovis:
Implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315:1122–26.
Waters, M. R., C. D. Pevny, and D. L. Carlson  2011a  Clovis Lith-
ic Technology: Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site,
­Texas. Texas A&M University Press, U.S.A.
Waters, M. R., T. W. Stafford Jr., H. G. McDonald, C. Gustafson, M. Ras-
mussen, E. Cappellini, J. V. Olsen, D. Szklarczyk, L. J. Jensen, M. T. P.
Gilbert, and E. Willerslev  2011b  Pre-Clovis mastodon hunting
13,800 years ago at the Manis site, Washington. Science 334:351–53
Waters, M. R., S. L Forman, T. A. Jennings, L. C. Nordt, S. G. Driese,
J. M. Feinberg, J. L. Keene, J. Halligan, A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C. T.
Hallmark, M. B. Collins, and J. E. Wiederhold  2011c  The Butter-
milk Creek complex and the origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin
site, Texas. Science 331:1599–1603.
Webb, S. D. ed.  2006  First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-
Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Springer, The Netherlands.
Young, C. and S. Gilbert-Young  2007  A fluted projectile-point
base from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, northwest Alaska.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 24:154–56.