In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Charles C. Abbott spent years studying the North American lithic industry. At the time many of his claims were rejected and dismissed by other archaeologists of the era. Today many of the same lithics documented in his publications can be found in collections gathered from pre Clovis sites where they are now accepted as flake tools etc. However it is unlikely he will ever receive credit for his extensive body of work regardless of these latest discoveries. Archaeology seems to have a problem adjusting out dated theories as new data becomes available. The Clovis first model which many of these theories are based upon has had it's foundations chipped completely away over the last couple of decades. Even though these misconceptions were obviously based on a lack of data from a century ago, archaeology seams completely unable to move towards a new direction. The evidence from San Diego of 130,000BP is all but ignored by mainstream archaeology. If due consideration is not given now then we will likely wait another century until paleontology once again performs the task which archaeology has yet to address. Has it dawned on anyone that if not for paleontology we would still be looking at 10,000BP as the earliest presence of man in North America?
I am reminded of a conversation from a couple decades ago about the long standing theory of man's arrival to North America becoming law. Proponents harping about the search which lasted well over a century. The search? There has been no active search since Ales Hrdlicka's theory of 10,000BP a century ago and the record can prove that very fact. Even the controversial sites with dates which have been dismissed by archaeological skepticism over the last century have all been accidental discoveries. Why is it seemingly impossible to correct the errant archaeology of the past? Has humanity really gotten sufficient returns for the amount it has invested? Will Charles Conrad Abbott ever receive recognition for his contributions? Is there any point in our continued investment in the "science" of archaeology?
I am reminded of a conversation from a couple decades ago about the long standing theory of man's arrival to North America becoming law. Proponents harping about the search which lasted well over a century. The search? There has been no active search since Ales Hrdlicka's theory of 10,000BP a century ago and the record can prove that very fact. Even the controversial sites with dates which have been dismissed by archaeological skepticism over the last century have all been accidental discoveries. Why is it seemingly impossible to correct the errant archaeology of the past? Has humanity really gotten sufficient returns for the amount it has invested? Will Charles Conrad Abbott ever receive recognition for his contributions? Is there any point in our continued investment in the "science" of archaeology?
