I'm the Devil's candy, boys. Trust me. (mehinda) wrote in indi_issues,
I'm the Devil's candy, boys. Trust me.

Looking for some more information

I'm currently reading The World Without Us by Alan Weisman and came across this passage:
"All [America's late Pleistocene megafauna] existed, the fossil record shows, but not everyone agrees on what happened to them. One challenge to [paleoecologist Paul] Martin's theory [that early human settlers in the Americas pushed the megafauna numbers to extinction] questions whether Clovis people were actually the first humans to enter the New World. Among the objectors are Native Americans wary of any suggestion that they immigrated, which would undermine their indigenous status; they denounce the idea that their origins trace to a Bering land bridge as an attack on their faith."

He then goes on to describe some archaeological challenges to Clovis First theory as well. But the above passage caught my attention and while I hope that the author is trying to depict accurately cultural responses to predominantly white attempts to frame origins, the language he uses troubles me.

The book, while having an extensive bibliography, is not well foot- or end-noted. So I am unsure what sources Weisman is drawing his information from. I did an online search of the most predominant articles on challenges to Clovis First theory, but most of the argument is framed from a paleontological / archaeological / genome mapping perspective.

I am curious if anyone can recommend articles or books that voice the above, quoted challenge?

Thanks in advance and I hope this post is appropriate here.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded