In my previous post about a paper published in Science by Surovell et al, suggesting that the Monte Verde site in Chile is far younger than previously reported, I hinted at a Clovis-first bias in Surovell. I mentioned some of his work that revealed his preference for a late peopling of America, today's post wants to make clear that Surovell does not agree with the notion of an early peopling of the New World.
Below I quote an article that quotes Surovell on this new paper. (Source).
In this article published in a Wyoming newspaper, Surovell states that he was struck by the notion of an early peopling of America. He said: "How do you get people to southern Chile over 14,000 years ago, while leaving basically an invisible record further north? Occasionally, we find remarkable things, but Monte Verde was a statistical outlier in terms of age, location, and human behavior" My reply is lack of imagination.
I can suggest how this happened: people reached America long ago, say 30 kya, and marched south, dispersing across the New World (this is equally valid for any date, 50, 100, 900 kya) and some groups died out, others survived, but as this happened long ago, they are several meters (or feet) below the level commonly dug up by archaeolgists. Nobody digs deep enough to unearth anything older than the orthodox age of 15 (max) kya.
If you don't dig deeper you will not find evidence. Nevertheless, there are several sites across the Americas showing pre-Clovis remains. But, mindsets are hard to crack!
The article in the Wyoming paper says "Even as he taught classes at UW that included Monte Verde, he was stuck on how unusual it was for a site of that age to exist so far south. It left him with a desire to return to the important site, collect more evidence, and either confirm or refute the work from the past."
Well, if people arrived 50 kya, why should a site 18 ky old surprise us! Only if we believe that humans reached America much later (bias!)
Surovell goes on record stating that "All of these pre-Clovis sites are unusual, unreplicated finds." Well, considering that most scholars, including this guy are so reluctant to consider other alternatives, it is not unusual to find that these sites are "unreplicated", funding goes to mainstream, orthodox academics. Those on the fringe find it difficult to finance their research.
Considering the mindest of current U.S. average citizens (flat-earthers, antivaxxers, anti-evolution - pro-creationists, and science deniers) I am not surprised that they stand by outdated ideas from the early 1900s and support a late peopling of America.
Surovell admits his preference for the Clovis First hypothesis: "Based on his career of research, buffeted by the findings at Monte Verde, Surovell believes there’s more merit to the original “Clovis First” model that many archaeologists have discounted because of the discovery of Monte Verde." Surovell says: "We have hundreds of Clovis sites that have been independently found by hundreds of people... Of those sites, a couple dozen have produced the exact same style of spear point that are all unusual in the way they’re made, and date exactly to the same time. We’ve found the same thing at different locations in North and South America. You can say that for Clovis. You can’t say that for pre-Clovis." I rest my case. Prejudice and preconceptions should not guide science.
In case you are wondering about me, this is a blog, not a scientific paper, I am not a paid University academic, I hold no chair in any College, I am a layman. However, I expect a higher standard from formal scholars, paid researchers, people who should go into the field with an open mind and let the facts show the way. In this case, I feel that prejudice, bias, and preconceptions lead to finding "evidence" to support dogma.
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
—Thomas Jefferson
I believe that science should try to uncover objective facts. But, it is flawed by human shortcomings like preconceptions. The scientific method should help avoid bias due to errors in the design of research, and the interpretation of data. However, I see paper after paper reinforcing previous (unchallenged) beliefs, something known as "confirmation bias" or, outright papers whose aim is to discredit 50 years of thorough research based on the unconfirmed assumption that humans reached America less than 15 kya. Open minds, let the facts show the way... that is the way.
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©
No comments:
Post a Comment