NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE CLOVIS VS PRE-CLOVIS CONTROVERSY

We consider the Clovis vs. pre-Clovis debate from three perspectives: migration models; petroglyph and surface-artifact ages; and scientific method. First, we test the hypothesis that a Clovis migration can acc ount for the temporal and spatial distribution of South American Paleo indian sites ''accepted'' by Clovis-first advocates. Using a Clovis-fi rst model, site ages are underpredicted by approximately 1,500 years, suggesting that the Clovis hypothesis cannot be reconciled with accept ed empirical data. Second, we present North American accelerator mass spectrometry(AMS) C-14 minimum-limiting ages from petroglyphs and surf ace artifacts that demonstrate continued support for a pre-Clovis occu pation of the dryland west, as well as a Beringian entry into the hemi sphere. Third, the debate has been confounded by a widespread misstate ment of the problem. Though Clovis occupation is a ''solved'' issue, t he competing hypotheses are whether the first migration was Clovis or pre-Clovis; the presence of Clovis sites is simply a necessary predict ion of both migration theories. The empirical implications of the Clov is-first hypothesis are virtually untested. Scientifically evaluating the first peopling controversy requires scrutinizing the empirical tes t implications and logical coherency of both competing hypotheses.