The Strait & Narrow:
On the Origin of the First Americans

Stephen Moore

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He arrived in a land inhabited by many nations and tribes (Loewen, 75). Priests and scholars alike could not explain the origin of the inhabitants of this “New World.” Judging from the outcome of the recent “Clovis & Beyond” Conference, they are still not sure.

The issue of the First Americans is very emotional. “Native” Americans enjoy many rights from the United States government because they arrived in America first (Beagley & Murr, 55). Would the American Government still give those rights to the Native Americans if they were not the first to arrive?

Paleoanthropologists cannot have human beings settling the Americas before 25,000-40,000 years ago, either. The first Homo sapiens did not appear until about 40,000 years ago (Vlahos, 19). Any sites that archeologists find over 35,000 years ago in North America requires Paleoanthropologists to redraw or throw out the tree of human evolution (Cremo & Thompson, 18). Archeologists answer the question of who arrived in America first more with paradigm and assumption than with objective fact.

I believe that the first settlers probably sailed to the Americas from Southeast Asia or Australia via an all water route. Later, various ethnic groups crossed over to the “New World” at different times and from several directions both by land and by sea. This includes, but is not limited to, the Bering Strait crossing. Before I examine these alternative routes to America, I will briefly discuss the Bering Strait theory and some of its problems.

Traditional theorists teach that between 25,000 and 9000 BC, the freezing of ocean water in the Wisconsin Ice Sheet during the last Ice age opened a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska (Buschnell, 13-14). Archeologists call this land bridge “Berringia” (Fagan, 101). Brian Fagan, respected archeologist and author of The Great Journey, believes that the first Americans entered the New World about (c.) 14,000 years ago without even knowing it (11, 117).

Descendants of the Asian immigrants settled in a place called Clovis, New Mexico c. 9500 BC (Buschnell, 15). Early hunters left behind arrow points that can pierce armor. Clovis people hunted mammoths with these points (Vlahos, 29). The Folsom people replaced Clovis around 8000 BC (30).

Other ethnic groups migrated to the Americas via the Bering Strait for the next several millennia. The Eskimos arrived last ( Fagan, 95). Clovis descendants eventually moved southward to populate all of South America over a period of several thousand years (CNN Interactive). Or so the story goes.

Archeologists have excavated many problems with the Clovis First/Berringia hypothesis. Some problems include older sites, other races, Linguistic and migration problems, and the nature of the crossing itself. First I will discuss a few pre-Clovis sites (although there are more than a few).

The most widely accepted pre-Clovis site is in Monte Verde, Chili. In 1977, Tom Dillehay of the University of Kentucky unearthed evidence that hunter-gathers occupied Monte Verde 12,500 years ago (Beagley, Murr, 56). According to Dillehay, the first Americans had to settle the New World at least 20,000 years ago in order to have time to migrate south to Chili (CNN Interactive).

Dillehay founds yet another query with the Monte Verde site: Charcoal from a hearth radiocarbon dated at 33,000 years (Boyle). Peat bogs preserved the Monte Verde site in tact. Dillehay found several huts and the footprint of an 8 year old child (Cremo & Thompson, 208-209).

Although Dillehay first excavated artifacts from Monte Verde in 1977, other archeologists did not acknowledge the authenticity of the site until 1998 (Boyle). This site predates Clovis by 1000 years. Excavation of Monte Verde also suggests that the residents had neighbors 60 miles away ( Beagley).

Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dr. James Adovasio of Mercyhurst College unearthed the perplexing Meadowcraft Rockshelter more than twenty years ago. Slowly the academic community is considering Adovasio’s claims that the site may be at least 17,000 years old (Beagley & Murr, 56).

The lowest strata is possibly 19,600 years old. Respected geologist and archeologist Vance Haynes does not trust the dates for Meadowcraft, but Brian Fagan, a defender of Clovis First theory, considers the Meadowcraft a possibility (151-152). For example, the flora and fauna found in Meadowcraft strata did not populate the area until after the Wisconsin glaciacian. However, the area does experience a more temperate climate than surrounding areas. This could explain the existence of warmer plants and animals during the last glaciation (151-152).

George Carter discovered a site on Texas St., in San Diego. In the mid-fifties, Carter uncovered hearths and tools at least 90,000 years old. While critics laughed, Harvard University publicly humiliated Carter in various classes. Twenty years later, Carter invited his critics to visit the site but not one came. San Diego State University refused to sand anyone to view an excavation just down the street form the school! (Cremo & Thompson, 200-201)

Finally, in 1976, Brian Reeves, critic of Carter, examined Texas St. Himself. He concluded that while the tools Carter found were naturally formed, early man carried them from their original location to the Texas St. Site. Reeves dated some artifacts at 120,000 years in age (202). Texas St. Also yielded an abundance of cores, flakes, etc. From 50,000 and 15,000 years ago (202-203).

Another pebble in archeologists’ sandals exists at the Lewisville site in Texas. There hearths and flake tools dated at c. 37,000 years old (Claiborne, 17; Cremo & Thompson, 353). Then workers excavated a Clovis point (Fagan, 149). Here are Clovis points that predate Clovis.

At the Old Crow river basin site, archeologists unearthed broken mammoth bones which they dated at 25,000-40,000 years old. The bones show signs that humans worked them (Beagley). Archeologists also found a1300 year old tool found at the site (Mammoth Trumpet). Now, archeologists ignore the mammoth bones simply because the tool is not that old, according to Alan Bryan, speaker at Clovis & Beyond last November. Bryan also stated that scientists ignore unexplained evidence at the Bluefish Cave near Old Crow (Mammoth Trumpet).

Meanwhile, Alan Bryan, with Ruth Gruhn (University of Alberta, Edmonton) dug up Taima-taima in Venezuela. They found a mastodon that humans killed 13,000 years ago. Brian Fagan believes that the date of 13,000 years is unreliable (167). However, researchers also uncovered spear points and tools unlike anything else in South America (Beagley).

Older sites are not the only problem with the Clovis First theory. Archeologists have uncovered evidence of other races in the Americas as well. On July 28, 1996, two college students accidentally came across Kennewick Man (Beagley & Murr, 54). Kennewick Man resembles the Aimu of Japan and is 9300 years old. While he may not be the first American, he is out of place because he could not have crossed over Berringia 9000 years ago (Stengel).

Immediately after the discovery of Kennewick Man, local Native American tribes demanded that the government rebury him. Eight archeologists and anthropologists then sued to run DNA tests on Kennewick Man. The government had previously refused DNA testing on the 9300 year old skull (Nova Online).

However, on February 1, 2000, the U.S. Interior Department decided to test Kennewick Man’s DNA (Us Seeks DNA Analysis of Ancient Skeleton). In April, 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers complicated the situation when they covered the Kennewick site with 500 tons of rock fill. Apparently, the Corp. wanted to protect any other skeletons and artifacts from the curious hands of archeologists (Stengel).

Reburial is a major problem for archeologists and anthropologists. At the Clovis & Beyond Conference, Douglas Owsley of the Smithsonian Institution showed his disgust with the reburial of “Minnesota Woman.” Although physical anthropologists stated 40 years ago that she was a Sioux, they did not explain that more tests could answer many unknowns about her origin (Mammoth Trumpet).

Spirit Caveman lived in Nevada at about the same time as Kennewick Man. When he died, his tribesmen wrapped him in rabbit fur and buried him in a Rockshelter. The problem is that he does not look anything like Native Americans (Beagley & Murr, 52); rather he appears to be of Japanese or South Pacific Origin, much like Kennewick Man (Wilford, F1).

Buhl Woman, a 10,600 year old find, resembles Polynesians, according to Richard Jantz, University of Tennessee (Beagley & Murr, 53). Also Nevada’s Wizard’s Beach Man, c. 9000 years old, appears to be a mosaic of Norse, Polynesian, and Native American (54). Other problematic skulls include Arlington Springs Woman, Browns Valley Man, and Pelican Rapids Woman (54).

The most conclusive evidence that the first Americans were not mongoloids who crossed Berringia come out of Lopa Vermelha in Brazil. There archeologists discovered “Lucia”, the oldest skull in the Western Hemisphere. She arrived nearly 12.,000 years ago but she is an Australian aborigine (Wilfed, F1).

Apparently, Lucia had relatives at the Serra Da Capivara site in northeast Brazil. Radiocarbon dates from the site’s charcoal yield an age of at least 50,000 years. Grahame Walsh, Australian Rock Art Specialist, claims that cave drawings prove watercraft were used to make the journey (BBC News).

This theory suggests that the first Americans were Negroid in origin but that Mongoloid races later eliminated these first settlers (BBC News). However, there is evidence that Mongoloid and Negroid races lived side by side in Mexico. In Mexico, the ancient Olmecs carved several heads out of basalt rock which stand above 6 feet (Buschnell, 35-36). Archeologists found four such heads in La Venta alone, dating c. 1000 BC (37).

G.H.S. Buschnell, author of The First Americans, believes that these carvings represent infants (37). But James Loewen, University of Vermont, believes that these faces have Negroid characteristics (50-51). Graham Hancock, researcher and writer for the London Sunday Times agrees (123-124). Hancock adds that archeologists would know far more about ancient La Venta and the Olmec Heads. Unfortunately, modern developers bulldozed over many of La Venta’s ruins before archeologists could excavate and study them (125). Thus the origin of the Olmec Heads remains a mystery.

There is other evidence that Native Americans had contact with other humans in the Old World. All over the Americas, people keep finding ancient Roman coins (Loewen, 46). A tablet of the Ten Commandments , written in Hebrew, found its way to New Mexico (Stengel). More recently, a temple sculpture from India was found holding corn, which grows predominately in the Americas (Stengel). From the Negroid Olmec heads to the New Mexican Ten Commandments, it appears that the New World was never as new as once thought.

Louis Leakey, father of Richard Leakey and household name among physical anthropologists , never believed that the New World was new. Towards the end of his life, Leakey believed early humans and huminids would turn up in the Americas. He found such evidence in 1964 at the Calico Hills site in California (Fagan, 10-11).

In nearly two decades, Leakey unearthed 11,400 artifacts from various rock layers. The oldest layer dated at 200,000 years ago (Cremo & Thompson, 203-204). In 1968, archeologists and anthropologists met at a Conference concerning Calico Hills where they decided all controversial artifacts were naturally formed. Leakey disagreed with his colleagues (Fagan, 65). Brian Fagan calls the Calico site “biologically impossible” (71) and “an archeological myth” (66). Others disagree. Many paleoanthropologists remain uncertain over the site and some believe it is genuine (Cremo & Thompson, 203-206).

Even if archeologists can somehow explain away pre-Clovis sites, Negroid races, and other anomalies, they still have to explain the migration question. Could Clovis settlers reach South American sites by the radiocarbon dates given for the sites? In 1993, David Whitley, UCLA and Ronald Dorn, Arizona State University, studied the migration question to South American sites. They dated the South American sites based upon the dates given by Clovis first advocates and omitted more controversial dates (626, 629). Dorn and Whitley concluded from their study that people crossing Berringia and stopping at Clovis could not have reach South America before 10,200 years ago, based on “realistic migration and colonization rates” (644).

Dorn and Whitley caution that this study does not “prove” pre-Clovis settlement but that it does open the door for further investigation (645). This means that the Clovis First theory cannot account for Lucia’s arrival in Brazil, the Taima-taima site, or the youngest Monte Verde dates. Dorn and Whitley also list other South American sites that remain unaccounted for (630).

There are over 140 Native American languages . According to Professor Johanna Nichols, University of CA, Berkeley, more than 30,000 years are required to account for all these languages (Boyle). Dr. Morris Swedish, linguistics expert, reached similar conclusions thirty years ago (Vlahos, 17). Professor Nichols adds that the Clovis settlers traveled north from South America based on linguistics.

In light of these criticisms, archeologists now offer several solutions. A majority of researchers simply push the date of the Bering Strait crossing back several thousand years. Robert Claiborne pushes the date back and maintains a land bridge crossing (13-14). Olivia Vlahos agrees (19). This theory does not account for Serra Da Capivara (50,000 y.a.), part of Monte Verde (33,000 y.a.), Lewisville (37,000 y.a.), or the more controversial Texas St. and Calico Hills sites (greater than 100,000 years).

The problem is the last Ice Age. During this period, parts of the North American ice sheets melted (forming a corridor to travel through) and refrozen (closing that door) on several occasions (Buschnell, 13-15). Berringia (the land bridge only existed c. 25,000-8000 B.C (13-14). But around 18,000-10,000 BC, ice covered all of North America (Claiborne, 16).

The first Americans’ journey did not end when they crossed over Berringia. They still had to pass through the southern corridor. Otherwise, they would be stuck in Alaska between Berringia and a wall of ice (16). So the crossing could only take place either 36,000-32,000 BC, or 28,000-20,000 BC (16-17). Other archeologists argue that the first Americans sailed through the Bering Strait on hide-covered watercraft instead of crossing by land. Then they sailed down the Pacific Coastline, quickly covering territory (Wilford, F4). This eliminates the time constraints of the land corridor and accounts for all the pre-Clovis sites.

It also raises the question, “why?” Were the first Americans hunting mammoths and mastodons as anthropologists previously thought? (Vlahos, 26, Fagan, 10). Did the mastodon build watercraft too?? Fagan argues against the Pacific Coastal theory, claiming that the first settlers lacked proper watercraft (10). He adds that the “boats” would be too small, not wooden and impossible to navigate through the Bering Strait (106-107).

It is hard to navigate through the Bering Strait today. During the last Ice Age, floating glaciers and icebergs would make the journey impossible. In addition, the Bering Strait is completely dark for six months of the year. Fagan asserts that early hunters would not be so reckless (107).

Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution suggests a European migration. At last November’s Clovis & Beyond Conference, Stanford and Bruce Bradley presented research indicating that the Clovis people “came from Iberia, not Siberia” (Mammoth Trumpet). Stanford and Bradley believe that there are similarities between Clovis and the French Solutrean Culture (Mammoth Trumpet).

One obstacle to this idea is the time interval between the two cultures. In addition, European migration does not explain Lucia, Kennewick Man, or the Olmec Heads with Negroid characteristics. The other major obstacle is emotional, not factual. Many archeologists ignore Stanford and Bradley’s theory because they argue that it is “Eurocentric” (Mammoth Trumpet). Some archeologists play the “Racism Card” whenever a site or find contradicts the Clovis model (Stengel). Complicating matters, the U.S. government passed a law in 1990 stating that all bones and artifacts predating 1492 belong to the Native Americans (Beagley & Murr, 53). This law assumes the accuracy of the Clovis hypothesis while denying any pre-Columbian contact between the Old and New World. This is bad science and history.

The three solutions proposed so far do not stand up to scrutiny. While an number of people most likely entered America from Berringia, the Pacific Coastal Crossing, and European migration, I seriously doubt that the first Americans traveled by any of these routes. The only other option is a Trans.-Pacific (or Atlantic) water crossing.

Ancient man has navigated the seas virtually since the dawn of civilization. By 600 BC, Egyptians had sailed to Ireland, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and around the Cape of Good Hope (Loewen, 45). The Phoenicians may have reached Grave Creek, West Virginia (Stengel).

Linguistics Professor, Mike Xu of Texas Christian University found carvings in Guatemala that he believes are of Chinese influence. These date back to 1100 BC (Stengel). In addition, shipwrecked Native Americans landed in Holland in 60 BC (Loewen, 46). Similar cultural traits suggest that the Japanese may have reached Ecuador c. 5000BC (47).

In 1929, Halil Edhem, director of Turkish Museums, discovered a map of South America dating back to 1513 (Afetinan). Piri Re’is, a Turkish Admiral, drew the map from ancient source maps dating back to Alexander the great (Hapgood, 2). Re’is also claimed to use a map that Columbus drew himself (1). This map may show the subglacial coastline of Antarctica. That it shows any coastline raises many questions, since Re’is drew the map 300 years before the discovery of the continent of Antarctica (72).

Dr. Thor Heyerdhal, member of the Pacific Science Conference and the International Congress of Anthropology & Ethnology, led many breakthrough expeditions to learn how early man populated the Pacific Islands (Thor Heyerdahl’s Homepage). He also made the “Ra”, a papyrus reed water vessel, according to ancient traditions (Thor Heyerdahl’s Homepage).

In 1969, Heyerdahl left Morocco for Barbados with seven crewmen, but abandoned the trek one week from his destination. Several months later, he successfully sailed the “Ra II” through the widest section of the Atlantic in under 60 days (Heyerdahl’s Homepage, Fagan, 87). He proved that it was possible to cross the Atlantic using ancient know-how.

On March 11, 1998, the Associated Press reported that scientists found 800,000 Indonesian tools. Archeologist Mike Morwood concluded that Home Erectus sailed across 12 miles of water on bamboo rafts to Indonesia (Ritter). If human ancestors sailed across 12 miles of water nearly 1 million years ago, then couldn’t the first Homo sapiens navigate the Pacific?

Lucia, the oldest skeletal remain in the Americas (11,500y.a.) probably crossed the Pacific from Australia (Wilford, F1). She may not have been first, judging by artifacts at Monte Verde and Lewisville. What about her ancestors at Serra Da Capivara? The Trans.-Pacific (or Atlantic) theory needs more research. Archeologists need to examine the theory more seriously than they now do.

The Berringia theory explains the arrival of several Native Americans, as long as they were not first. The Coastal Pacific crossing might have happened, if it did not happen 30,000 years ago. European migration theory could explain the arrival of some, but not all American ethnic groups. All of these theories can work, as long as other people migrated to America first. In this paper, I have only scratched the surface; there are many sites and artifacts that do not fit conventional historical theories. While research is needed, the evidence continues to build against mainstream historical wisdom.

So why do historians and archeologists persist to walk the strait and narrow?

Works Cited

Afetinan, Dr. “The Oldest Maps of America Drawn by Piri Re’is. Trans. Lenian Yolac. 1954.

Online. Dr. Joseph Richardson, Mcneese State University. Accessed 2/10/00 [www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/afet/afet0.htm]

Beagley, Sharon. “The First Americans”, Newsweek. Fall/Winter, 1991: 15-20.

Online. Age of Discovery Website. Accessed 2/2/00 [marauder.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/BEGLEY01.ART] Begley, Sharon & Murr, Andrew. “The First Americans,” Newsweek. 26 April 1999: 50-57.

Boyle, Alan, “Retrace the trek of the First Americans,” MSNBS News. Online. Accessed 2/28/00 [www.msnbc.com/news/144348.asp]

Buschnell, G.H.S. The First Americans. 1968. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

“Charting A New Era: Clovis & Beyond Draws Over 1400,” Mammoth Trumpet. 15(1) 2000. Accessed 2/2/00 [www.peak.org/csfa/ntl15-1.html]

Claiborne, Robert. The First Americans. New York: Time Life Books, 1973.

Cremo, Michael & Thompson, Richard. Forbidden Archeology. Los Angelos: Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, 1993.

“Dr. Thor Heyerdahl,” Thor Heyerdahl Home Page. November, 1999 Green Cross International. Last Updated 12/1/99. Accessed 2/22/00 [www.gci.ch/GreenCrossFamily/board/bios/heyerdahl.html]

Fagan, Brian M. The Great Journey. London: Thames & Hudson, 1987.

“First Americans May Have Arrived 33,000 Years Ago,” CNN Interactive. 1998; Time Warner, Online. Accessed 2/28/00 [www.cnn.co.jp/US/9802/17/briefs.am/first.americans/]

“First Americans Were Australian,” BBC News, 26 August 1999. Online. Accessed 3/2/00 [news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_430000/430944.stm]

Hancock, Graham. Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995.

Hapgood, Charles. Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. Kempton: Adventures Unlimited Pres, 1966.

Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

“Mystery of the First Americans.” NOVA Online. Last Updated, February, 2000. Accessed 2/28/00 [www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/]

Ritter, Malcolm. “Study: Human Ancestors Made Watercraft Much Earlier than Thought.” Associated Press. 1998 Nando.net. Accessed 11/1/99 [www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/031198/health14_3176_noframes.html]

Stengel, Mark K. “The Diffusionists Have Landed,” Atlantic Monthly Online. January, 2000. Accessed 2/10/00 [www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001stengel.htm]

“US Seeks DNA Analysis of Ancient Skeleton”, Science Headlines, Associated Press. 1February, 2000. Online. Accessed 2/2/00 [dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000201/sc/science_remains_1.html]

Vlahos, Olivia. New World Beginnings. New York: Viking Press, 1970.

Wilford, John Noble. “New Answers to an Old Question: Who Got Here First?” New York Times 9 November, 1999, natl.ed., sec F: 1,4.