Map showing the location of the Tennessee River Valley and the distribution of Clovis and Cumberland points with known provenience data. Hatching indicates geologic deposits containing chert-bearing deposits. Inset indicates the location of study area.
Some 13,000 years ago, people in what is now the Tennessee River Valley were making stone spear points, maintaining their equipment and adapting to the demands of their surroundings. For young-Earth creationism, this presents a rather fundamental difficulty: these human societies were living in North America thousands of years before the supposed ‘Creation Week’. They were getting on with the practical business of survival before a literal reading of Genesis permits either them or their continent to have existed.
These inconvenient people are the subject of a study published in the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory by Jesse W. Tune and D. Shane Miller. The researchers examined approximately 500 projectile points from the region, comparing the earlier Clovis tradition with the later Cumberland tradition. Their question was how the treatment of these tools might reveal changes in people’s knowledge of the landscape.
The contrast was revealing. Clovis toolmakers tended to resharpen their points more extensively, extracting more use from the stone before discarding it. Cumberland toolmakers more often discarded points with useful life remaining. The authors interpret this as evidence that growing familiarity with local stone sources changed the economics of keeping or replacing a tool. People uncertain where their next suitable supply would come from had stronger reasons to conserve what they already carried; later communities could draw on knowledge accumulated and transmitted across generations.
That explanation is an inference tested against patterns in the artefacts, not a direct observation of prehistoric intentions. The distinction matters: archaeology can compare explanations of ancient behaviour without pretending that discarded tools tell us everything about the people who made them. What is not dependent on accepting this particular explanation is the broader chronological problem for creationists. These toolmaking traditions belong to the closing stages of the last Ice Age, well before the 6,000–10,000-year timescale commonly assigned to the entire universe by young-Earth believers.
Nor does the wider evidence support a recent arrival from the Mesopotamian world of biblical mythology. This particular study does not investigate ancestry, but ancient DNA research places Indigenous American origins within a much older population history involving northeast Asia and Beringia, the region that once connected Siberia and Alaska. There is no evidential basis here for replacing that history with a recent dispersal from Babel or a repopulation of the Americas by Noah’s descendants. The biblical account supplies the assertion; the archaeological and genetic records supply a different history.
What emerges is a recognisably human story of ingenuity, experience and cultural inheritance. Long before the supposed beginning of the world, people were already making decisions about resources, refining their technologies and passing useful knowledge to the next generation. Science asks how those societies lived and learned. Young-Earth creationism must first explain how they managed to exist before its creation date.
Who Were the First Americans? Archaeology and genetics place the origins of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas within the population movements of the last Ice Age. The broad picture is well established: their principal ancestral populations came from northeast Asia through Beringia, long before the dates assigned to creation by young-Earth biblical chronologies. The precise timing, routes and number of early movements remain active subjects of research.The paper in the Journal of Archaological Method and Theory was supported by an accompanying University of Mississippi news release:
Beringia: a landscape, not simply a bridge
During the Ice Age, so much water was locked in continental ice sheets that sea levels were substantially lower than today. Exposed land connected Siberia and Alaska across what is now the Bering Strait. Together with neighbouring regions, this formed Beringia, an extensive environment in which people could live for generations, rather than merely a narrow crossing between continents.
Ancient DNA links the founding ancestry of Indigenous Americans to populations related to ancient East Asians and ancient northern Eurasians. Genetic models suggest a period of relative isolation before major expansion through the Americas, often called the Beringian standstill. Its duration and exact geographical setting remain uncertain. A genetic population split also does not, by itself, establish when people crossed a particular geographical boundary.
People were present before Clovis
For much of the twentieth century, the influential “Clovis-first” model placed the first widespread settlement of the Americas around 13,000 years ago. Archaeological discoveries have overturned the idea that Clovis people were the continent’s first inhabitants. Clovis now represents a distinctive technological tradition within an older human history.
Among the strongest evidence for a substantially earlier presence are human footprints at White Sands, New Mexico, dated to approximately 23,000–21,000 years ago. Initial dates based on aquatic plant seeds prompted concerns that old carbon in the water might have made the samples appear too ancient. Subsequent work using terrestrial pollen and luminescence dating of sediment supported the earlier chronology.
Footprints establish that people were present; they do not reveal those people’s genetic ancestry. Connecting the earliest archaeological evidence to particular ancestral populations therefore remains a separate research problem.
How did people travel south?
Reaching Alaska was only part of the journey. Vast ice sheets obstructed movement into much of North America. An inland corridor between them eventually opened, but evidence indicates that it became suitable for sustained human passage too late to explain the earliest securely established settlement farther south.
A Pacific coastal route is therefore a leading explanation for early dispersal, potentially involving boats and the exploitation of marine resources. Much of the coastline available to Ice Age travellers is now submerged, making the evidence difficult to recover. Coastal and inland routes need not have been mutually exclusive: different populations could have used different routes at different times.
A branching history, with repeated movements
The peopling of the Americas was not one migration followed by complete isolation. Populations divided, spread, met and exchanged genes. Later movements from Siberia made additional contributions, particularly to Arctic peoples and some northern North American populations.
Research continues to uncover this complexity. A 2026 study of Indigenous American genomes inferred at least three dispersals into South America, followed by regional differentiation and long-term continuity. These are movements within the Americas, not evidence for three separate crossings from Asia. Nor should genetic ancestry groups be confused with archaeological tool traditions, languages or present-day Indigenous nations.
What remains uncertain—and what does not?
Researchers continue to debate the earliest arrival date, the routes available at particular times, and how the oldest sites relate to populations identified through ancient DNA. These uncertainties concern the details of a deep Ice Age history. They provide no support for a recent founding population from Mesopotamia following a biblical Flood or dispersal from Babel.
By the time Clovis and Cumberland toolmakers were adapting to the Tennessee River Valley, the Americas already had a human past. Revising that past in response to new evidence is how archaeology progresses; it does not make a chronology beginning only a few thousand years ago a viable alternative.
Brief glossary
- Beringia
- The Ice Age region encompassing parts of northeast Asia, Alaska and the exposed land between them.
- Ancient DNA
- Genetic material recovered from ancient remains, allowing researchers to investigate relationships between past and living populations.
- Gene flow
- The transfer of genetic variants between populations through reproduction.
- Clovis
- A North American archaeological tradition recognised particularly by its distinctive fluted stone projectile points, dating to approximately 13,000 years ago.
- Luminescence dating
- A method that can estimate when mineral grains were last exposed to sunlight, helping establish when sediments were buried.
Ancient Tools Reveal How Ice Age Humans Learned the Land Study of projectile points offers clues about how knowledge shaped early human behavior
At the end of the last Ice Age, early humans crisscrossed the Americas following seasons, rivers and game, often with a trusty spear in hand. Nearly 13,000 years later, archeologists are using those spearheads to study how America's first inhabitants understood risk.
Stone projectile points are among the few surviving traces from the Tennessee River Valley's earliest settlers, but the chipped stone weapons can be an indicator of how humans adapted to unfamiliar environments, according to a new study published in the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.
We're talking about Ice Age hunter-gatherers, people that looked and acted just like us and had the same needs that we do, but they're living in a world that is dominated by mastodons, mammoths, giant sloths – all these animals that are totally unfamiliar to us today. What we're looking at – the points – is a tiny part of their life, but we're trying to see the rest of their behaviors through the lens of these spear points because that's what we have.
Associate Professor Jesse W. Tune, first author.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Mississippi
University, MS, USA.
[Jesse Tune is] associate professor of anthropology at the University of Mississippi and director of its Center for Archaeological Research.
Tune and Shane Miller, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Alabama, studied some 500 spear points recovered from the Tennessee River Valley region to glean insights into the lives of the Clovis and Cumberland people.
The Clovis people are thought to be among the earliest inhabitants of the Tennessee River Valley region, with the earliest evidence of the group being dated to around 13,200 years ago. Being in a new landscape meant not knowing where to find resources such as chert, a type of sedimentary rock ideal for making weapons.
How did they adapt to a place no one has ever been before? We can't interview these people, so we have to look at the things they left behind. There aren't that many archeological sites for these people that we can dig, but what we have instead are lots and lots of points that people have found in this region.
D. Shane Miller, co-author
Department of Anthropology
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.
Tune and Miller found that the Clovis groups were more likely to resharpen spearheads, possibly signaling that they were concerned about managing their resources.
We hang on to stuff today, but when we're talking about mobile hunter-gatherers, they had a different understanding and worldview when it came to personal possessions. Spear points were designed to be disposable objects, and that makes what the Clovis were doing interesting.
Associate Professor Jesse W. Tune.
By the time the Cumberland people came along several hundred years later, they inherited the knowledge of where chert deposits and other resources were located from their predecessors.
When we look at the Cumberland points, we can see where they got the raw material, roughly the time period that they lived and that they've used the point multiple times, but (the point) was rarely completely broken to the point that it couldn't be used anymore. So how did it end up in what was essentially the trash, and then in the archeological record?
Associate Professor Jesse W. Tune.
Being more knowledgeable of the landscape allowed the Cumberland people to discard points that were still useable, evidence that they had learned where to gather new resources and were more comfortable in their surroundings, the researchers said.
When you think about a people who are moving around a lot, understand that they didn't have any pack animals. That puts limitations on what tools you discard and what you carry around. You really don't want to be carrying around a bag of rocks, and so you're going to be judicious about balancing what you need versus what you can carry.
D. Shane Miller.
While the question of what to discard and what to keep from local resources may seem like a problem of the past, humans are making the same decisions today, Tune said.Think about space exploration. There really is no difference between Ice Age hunter-gatherers and the people sending missions and rovers to Mars. We're moving into an area, deciding what to take with us, learning the resources and slowly expanding. It's the exact same process. What we learn and how we pass on that knowledge are the same things that we're still dealing with today. The only thing that's changed is the technology.
Associate Professor Jesse W. Tune.
Publication:
The amount of resharpening and wear on 13,000-year-old spearheads, similar to these replicas, is helping archeologists understand how North America's first inhabitants understood risk during the last Ice Age. On the right is a replica of a projectile point from the Clovis people, who were among the first people to live in the Tennessee River Valley region. On the left are two spear points from the Cumberland people, who inhabited the region after the Clovis.
Photo by Kevin Bain/Ole Miss Digital Imaging Services.
The difficulty for biblical literalism begins with the chronology. Around 13,000 years ago, people in the Tennessee River Valley were making sophisticated stone tools and adapting their use to the demands of everyday life. These communities existed thousands of years before the supposed ‘Creation Week’ of young-Earth mythology. Their discarded tools are tangible evidence of a human history for which that chronology has no room.
The authors’ interpretation adds another dimension: differences in tool maintenance may record the accumulation of environmental knowledge and its transmission between generations. That explanation remains open to testing and refinement, but revising it would not make the artefacts younger or remove the people who made them. Uncertainty about precisely why a hunter discarded a spear point is not uncertainty about whether human societies existed before a creationist timetable permits them.
Nor does the wider evidence reveal a recent American population descended from survivors of a Mesopotamian flood. Archaeology and ancient DNA instead reveal a much longer history involving northeast Asia, Beringia, migration, population divergence and adaptation within the Americas. A literal Genesis chronology cannot accommodate that history simply by invoking Noah’s descendants or a dispersal from Babel. Those claims require evidence of their own, and the evidence we actually possess tells a different story.
This is the fundamental contrast between the two approaches. Archaeologists examine what people left behind and revise their explanations when new evidence demands it. Biblical literalism begins with a prescribed history and must explain away whatever fails to fit. The Tennessee River Valley’s ancient inhabitants left no written account of their lives, but their stone tools are sufficient to expose the inadequacy of a mythology that places the beginning of the world after they had already lived in it.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.