Texas Almanac, 1992-1993 Page: 27
656 p. : ill. (some col.), maps ; 23 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Origins of American Indians I
Debate on the origins of American Indians, as dis-
cussed in a related article on this page, is not new. It
began a bit after Columbus' contact with the New
World.
Columbus, of course, thought he had reached the
Indies. Consequently, there was no mystery about the
natives' origins. They were Asiatic, an idea supported
by their oriental appearance.
It became apparent that the New World was not
the Orient, however. Scholars and theologians began
to seriously ponder the origin of these strange new
people. Early speculation had to be consistent with the
teachings of the church at the time and had to have
origins confirmed in the Bible. That required an expla-
nation based on Noah's family, the only eight humans
to have survived the great flood.
Most early thought held that ancestors of the na-
tives were descendent of Carthaginians, the greatest
of ancient mariners. Or, surprisingly, some thought
the inhabitants were survivors of the doomed conti-
nent of Atlantis, as revealed in Plato's writings. In
Mexico, where the missionaries heard the Aztec leg-Ancient
How did the first human beings get to Texas? How
did they live? What record of their existence did they
leave behind? So go the questions about Texas' prehisto-
ric past. These are not new queries. When applied to the
New World, the speculations go back to the earliest days
of the Spanish conquest. (See previous article.)
Some bits of bone dredged from Texas coastal wa-
ters have opened a new avenue of inquiry about the
state's earliest settlers and, indeed, about the entire set-
tlement process in the New World.
The question has been raised that maybe, the people
of the Clovis culture, long thought to be the first Texans,
were actually descendants of an earlier populace. Why,
then, have we not found evidence of the earlier inhabit-
ants? The answer is complicated.
The standard theory is that the earliest immigrants
got to North America about 11,500 years ago. These big-
game hunters lived off large animals, such as mam-
moths, mastodons and giant bison that roamed the
Archaeology
prairies and woodlands of the period. Settlers of Texas,
according to this scenario, were either immigrants from
Northeast Asia or the successors of those who first ven-
tured across the Bering Strait during recent ice ages.
These nomads left maior diagnostic artifacts across
Texas' prehistoric landscape. The most notable is the
Clovis point. (See pictures on page 29.) This is a large, bi-
faced, fluted projectile point. Usually between three and
six inches long, this point is thought to have been used on
spears to kill these huge beasts. The point also could
have been hated and used as a knife for butchering.
Often shortened versions of the points, obviously reshar-
pened by chipping, are found at butchering sites. A
tallow buildup on the edge of the point during the butch-
ering of an animal would have required frequent sharp-
ening.
Texas apparently was a friendly hunting ground for
these prehistoric immigrants. More than 300 Clovis
points have been found across the state, mostly on the
South Plains and on the beaches of Jefferson County in
Southeast Texas. They were scattered across more than
95 counties, according to a survey by Dr. David Meltzer
of Southern Methodist University. These results may be
deceiving, however, since they represent pieces found in
public collections and in holdings of reputable amateur
archaeologists. The number of points in unreported pri-
vate collections cannot even be estimated. To an extent,
the distribution of the artifacts reflects the archaeologi-
cal activity in the counties in which they are found. Also
a dearth of the points in a broad band just east of the
Caprock does not mean that Clovis man was not in the
area. But more than 30 feet of dirt now covers the land
on which the ancient hunters would have walked. There-ends of migration, speculation often centered on the
possibility that the natives were descendents of the
Lost Tribes of Israel.
In 1589, Joseph de Acosta did the first comprehen-
sive review of American origins, and the first book de-
voted to the subject was published in 1607.
No great controversy arose on origins of the in-
habitants before 1550 because of Columbus' assump-
tion. Some surprisingly modern notions began to
develop, however. Bartoleme de las Casas, a vigorous
defender of the New World inhabitants, acknowledged
the principal of stratification. In his history of the
Indies, de las Casas described visiting mines in which
strata could be seen that held burned wood and ashes
that looked to be only a few days old. He acknowledged
that water washed over the fire pits burying them in
silt and that the process took many years to build the
strata over them. From this observation, he concluded
that man had been in the New World from very
ancient times.
Most attempts at determining the origins of the na-Texans
fore the points, if there are any, are probably several
feet underground.
Texas has long figured in the debate over the arrival
and presence of man in the New World. Actually, one of
the first so-called Clovis points was found in the state be-
fore the site near Clovis, N. Mex., was excavated. A man
and boy walking along Wolf Creek near Colorado City in
Mitchell County in 1923 found the bones of an ancient
bison sticking out of the embankment. The skeleton was
excavated by workers who thought they were only re-
trieving the skeleton of an ancient beast. Then three pro-
iectile points were found within the rib cage, indicating
that the animal had been killed by humans. Unfortu-
nately, the points were discovered long after proper sci-
entific protection for the dig had been ignored. The site
could not be used to prove that man had been in North
America much longer than thought at the time. (This
missed opportunity did prompt Cyrus Ray, an Abilene
physician, to organize what became the Texas Arche-
ological Society in 1928, launching the modern era of ar-
chaeology in the state. )
A Clovis point found near Lake Lewisville in Denton
County in the 1950s sparked one of the state's longest
standing archaeological controversies. Initial radiocar-
bon dating of material found with the point indicated an
age of more than 30,000 years. That threw scientifically
accepted calculations about the presence of humans in
the New World out of kilter. A second excavation of the
site in the late 1970s, however, caused a revision of the
projected age. It probably is in the 10,000-11,000 year
range. In the original dig, some of the dated material
apparently was contaminated with lignite, which looks
much like charcoal, but, of course, is much older. The
presence of lignite in the test sample would have given a
false reading.
A second Clovis site was found below the dam at
Lake Ray Roberts also in Denton County. About 20 miles
north of the Lake Lewisville find, this site, discovered in
the December 1988, may be one of the largest ever
found, covering several acres. Archaeologist Reid Fer-
ring and his eight-year-old son, Taylor, came upon the
site while looking for fossils. The site was secretly exca-
vated by North Texas State University under contract to
the Fort Worth District Army Corps of Engineers for
more than a year to avoid the threat of vandalism.
What has been uncovered are two campsites about
120 yards apart along the old bed of the river. They may
be parts of the same campsite that could cover up to five
or six acres, although today much of it is under 25 feet of
dirt.
Bones of several types of animals, large and small,
have been discovered, many with apparent butchering
marks on them. Various tasks also have been identified
with specific locations within the camp. Areas where
tools were made have been found, separate from the
butchering operations and from the cooking area.
More on Page 29.27
ANCIENT TEXANS
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Kingston, Mike. Texas Almanac, 1992-1993, book, 1991; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth279642/m1/31/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.