How widely is the Clovis First theory still held in paleoanthropology? I’m not a paleoanthropologist or even that widely read in it, but the impression from what reading I’ve done is that there are a few (like 3 or 4) strong proponents that keep raising potential objections whenever a site is determinded to be older than Clovis culture. Doesn’t matter how carefully the researchers were to avoid contamination or other possible problems, they still raise objections.
But other than those few, do most paleoanthropologists accept Clovis First or not? I get the impression the answer is “not”. If that’s the case, is there any sign that these few proponents will become marginalized by the rest of that community?
IANAPaleoanthropologist, so I can’t speak to the argument for or against Clovis, though it looks like there are plenty of viable candidates for predecessors.
The reason why there’s such strong, heated opposition to anything refuting Clovis First? Because many of those folks hung their hat on Clovis and their credibility takes some flak if a new theory comes along. This sort of thing happens all the time. Also, just like some folks like to get credit for discovering things, some also like to get credit for shooting other folks’ discoveries down.
Just bumping this thread. But yes, I understand that ego is why some are stuck on Clovis First. I just want to know how widespread it still is. Is it just a few or do the majority of researchers in the field still hold to it?
IANAPaleoanthropologist either, but I am an anthro undergrad who had a couple as professors. The Clovis First theory is held by only a few researchers; the current consensus is that there were migrations into the New World by at least one (and maybe two) waves of people (one of which may have come by canoe down the Northwest coast!).
The Monte Verde cite in Chile has “forked” the Clovis first theory, to use a phrase that has become common in GD these days. 
The findings there were very controversial when first published, but they are very well established now. The fossils at that site predate Clovis by at least 1,000 years. The current thinking is that there was a coastal migration before the ice sheets retreated, getting people down to South America pretty quickly. There are other pre-Clovis sites, too, but this one is probably the most thoroughly documented and accepted.