> Yes, the "Clovis" date of about 15,000 years ago has
> been
> challenged by various researchers, but no such
> challenge has yet
> gained wide acceptance.

Paleodiet has also not gained wide acceptance :)

> A web search on
> "pre-clovis" will turn
> up some hits.

Thanks, Todd. I stumbled upon the articles some time
ago by pure chance, but I had no idea how to find them
again. I believe this is the first article I read
about it (or at least a version of it):

http://www.msnbc.com/news/144348.asp?cp1=1

Note the citation at the end of this next article that
suggests 40,000 bp.

http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/divisions/socsci/anthro/index/mverde.html

Here a good one with (I think) and interesting twist:

http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm

As for whether that is enough time
> for adaptation,
> there is no simple answer to that.

I believe that in the Chet Day/Ward Nicholsen
(sp?)interview at beyondveg.com they come up with
40,000 as a benchmark.

One variable is,
> adaptation
> by whom?  As you've pointed out, this is most
> directly relevant
> to those of Native American descent. Those of
> European descent
> have been eating New World foods only since the time
> of Columbus.

Well, after reviewing some of the other articles
produced by my "pre-clovis" search, all I can say is
"all bet's are off". Some are suggesting a much
greater non-asian interaction with the new world than
I had thought. Geez, the more we learn, the less we know.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/