How do you square that with the small percentage of Neanderthal DNA found in the genetics of people today? Would you consider the Neanderthal to have been replaced by a genetically different people?
Sorry for the delayed reply.
I had a long reply, wrote it, brought in the other species of Homo that also co-existed at the same time as sapiens and Neanderthal, and then thought, what am I doing, and discarded it.
Because, more to the point, I read the paper you cited, and found a good summary as well:
Scientists have found DNA evidence for the southward migration of the people who spread the so-called Clovis culture of North America. But starting about 9,000 years ago, these people were replaced by a distinct population.
www.hhmi.org
I’m not used to thinking of Clovis in South America. I knew true Clovis points had been found there, although no further south than Venezuela. I don’t dispute the findings in the study in Cell. I’ll just point out why this statement by you puzzled me at the time. I better understand your point now:
“… the Clovis people being wiped out by a genetically different people 9,000 years ago”…
Confusion #1: Clovis, in its narrow description, refers to a technology and a stone tool kit, more than to a people. It cannot be said with certainty who developed it, only that it was developed in North America. It spread throughout the continent, and as you noted, as far south as South America. And lasted only 300 years. It can be time constrained from 13,200-12,900 years ago. It’s distinctive tool was the Clovis point, with its basal thinning channel to facilitate hafting. I may have said 500 years earlier, but it’s 300, and it’s end is coincident with the start of the cold snap, known as the Younger Dryas, and which may, or may not, have been triggered by a meteorite impact in Greenland at about 12,900 years ago. Because post-Clovis fluted points are so similar, and obviously descended from Clovis, it’s still a mystery to me why the technology was altered at all. Perhaps changing game fauna was behind it, but I’m skeptical of that as a reason.
Confusion #2. Because Clovis, as a technology for producing fluted points, and an associated tool kit, is very time constrained, I had trouble understanding how we could still speak of “Clovis people” 9000 years ago, roughly 4000 years after the end of Clovis. Archaeologists, at least, do not think in terms of “Clovis people” existing 9000 years ago. Archaeologists think of Clovis ending 12,900 years ago. Since the immediate post-Clovis projectile points were also fluted, and obviously descended from Clovis, but not its exact method of fluting, it’s fair to assume it’s the same people, but archaeology, at least, no longer applies the term Clovis to the people producing those points. When they speak of “Clovis culture”, they speak of that brief 300 year period.
In other words, it seems like the geneticists who authored the study in Cell are applying the term “Clovis people” to people living long after Clovis technology ended, simply because their genetics is related to the genetics of people who made Clovis points. Although, as far as I know, the Anzick child Clovis burial is the only Clovis burial known to date. The only place we’ve obtained DNA of an individual associated with Clovis. But, my point would be, and one source of my confusion, is that Paleo archaeologists, unlike apparently some geneticists, don’t speak of “Clovis people” existing post 12,900 years ago. “Fluted point hunters” is a more general term, and covers all the bands that used both Clovis and post-Clovis fluted projectile points. I’ve not seen “Clovis people” used to describe post-Clovis culture before. And 9000 years ago is not even the Paleolithic era in North America. It’s the Early Archaic by that date.
Thanks for re familiarizing myself with Paleolithic studies in South America. I’m not a professional, but there has always been a disconnect among Paleo archaeologists working in the two continents. I vaguely do recall the study, but genetics will never be my strong point. One thing I can say with certainty is we are only at the beginning of understanding the peopling of the Americas. The fossil footprint discovery opens up all the early dates like no new discovery to date.