That stone tool exhibit at the natural history museum changed my mind about Clovis points

I used to buy into the whole Clovis-first story hook line and sinker. Thought those distinctive fluted points were the first real evidence of people in North America, full stop. Then I hit the archaeology wing at the natural history museum in Chicago last month. They had this case showing pre-Clovis sites like Monte Verde in Chile and the Gault site in Texas with radiocarbon dates older than 13,000 years. What got me was the actual stone tools sitting there. The Gault stuff had these simple bladelets and scrapers that looked nothing like the fancy Clovis points. No fluting at all. The museum notes explained how the Clovis points were probably just a later specialized hunting tool, not the first tech. I hate admitting I was wrong about something I argued about online for years. Has anyone else here actually handled pre-Clovis material and seen the difference up close?

2 comments

2 Comments

elliotc1029d ago

The Gault stuff really is eye-opening in person. Those crude blades make you realize how much we romanticize the Clovis people as some kind of ultimate hunter-gatherers when they were just regular folks working with what they had.

mason28329d ago

elliotc10 hit it - "regular folks working with what they had" is exactly right. So much for my internet debate victories about Clovis being the first and best, guess I've been farming downvotes on a dead horse for years. Next thing you'll tell me is my high school history teacher was wrong about the pyramids too.