Pre-Clovis: 2011

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Charles T. Hatchett III

In 2008 Ted Goebel, Michael Waters, and Dennis H. O’Rourke published a very popular paper (Goebel 2008) among mainstream archaeologists and anthropologists researching the problem of the peopling of the Americas. The paper discusses the most current, mainstream ideas in genetics, archaeology, anthropology and human migrations.

The paper starts with a summary of Goebel et al. opinions:

“…When did humans colonize the Americas? From where did they come and what routes did they take? These questions have gripped scientists for decades, but until recently answers have proven difficult to find. Current genetic evidence implies dispersal from a single Siberian population toward the Bering Land Bridge no earlier than about 30,000 years ago (and possibly after 22,000 years ago), then migration from Beringia to the Americas sometime after 16,500 years ago. The archaeological records of Siberia and Beringia generally support these findings, as do archaeological sites in North and South America dating to as early as 15,000
years ago. If this is the time of colonization, geological data from western Canada suggest that humans dispersed along the recently deglaciated Pacific coastline…(Goebel 2008)”

Goebel et al. claim the limit of human habitation of the Americas has been pushed back to ca. 15,000-16,500 CALYBP. But is this really something with which to be interested? I believe it is in terms of strengthening the consensus that man inhabited the Americas prior to the manufacture of the first Clovis tool (Waters 2007). One of Ted Goebel’s co-authors, Mike Waters, is quite familiar with the Hueyatlaco Site. Mike conducted geoarcheological research at the Hueyatlaco Site during the 2003 and 2004 field seasons (Payn 2007):

http://www.valsequilloclassic.com/

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

According to U.S. Geological Survey researchers (Steen-McIntyre 1981), the beds from where the artifacts were recovered all underlay the Hueyatlaco Ash. The Hueyatlaco Ash was dated by: the USGS to a minimum of 250,000 CALYBP via the fission track method; Ray Donelick (University of Idaho at the time) to a minimum of 250,000 CALYBP via the fission track method; Ken Farley (Caltech) to ca. 430,000 CALYBP via (U-Th)/He and Sam VanLandingham to ca. 80,000-430,000 CALYBP via biostratigraphy (Payn 2007; VanLandingham 2009; VanLandingham 2006; VanLandingham 2004; Steen-McIntyre 1981).

Hueyatlaco is not addressed in Goebel et al. (Goebel 2008).

Goebel et al. continue:

“…Since the discovery and definition of Clovis, researchers have searched for evidence of an even older occupation of the Americas, but most sites dating before Clovis investigated between 1960 and 1995 [e.g., Calico (California)…] have not held up to scientific scrutiny… (Goebel 2008)”

Goebel et al. claim that Calico has not held up to scientific scrutiny, but don’t address the site in depth. They do make references to research conducted by Gary Haynes and Jim Dixon (Haynes 2002, Dixon 1999), but don’t cite specific page numbers or quotes.

Figure 1. Example of subsurface specimens recovered at Calico.

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide02_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide03_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide04_large.html

Anywhere in the Old World this specimen would be accepted as an artifact. It would also be accepted as an artifact by most North American archaeologists if it had been found in deposits dating to 13,000 CALYBP or younger. But, because of the dating (Bischoff 1981, Bischoff 1984), which no researcher has refuted, current mainstream archaeological theory dictates that this specimen could not be the product of man. Man simply was not in the New World at such early dates. So, to maintain congruence between archaeological theory and physical observations, a significant number of North American archaeologists seem compelled to interpret artifacts, such as this specimen, as the product of natural phenomena. In my opinion, this is an example of the “tail wagging the dog”.

The Calico Site’s surface has been dated between 80,000 CALYBP to 125,000 CALYBP and the subsurface has been dated to ca. 400,000 CALYBP. Jim Bischoff, USGS geochemist emeritus, has produced two reports (Bischoff 1981, Bischoff 1984) concerning the dating of the artifact bearing deposits at Calico. The following are summaries of each report:

“…Lithic specimens identified as artifacts have been recovered from near the base of the Yermo fan deposits at Calico, California. The soil on the fan surface is a strongly developed relict paleosol. Comparison of this soil with dated paleosols elsewhere in the southwestern United States suggests that the surface is about 80,000 to 125,000 yr old. Clasts near the base of the deposit are well cemented by laminated CaCO3 that probably formed from groundwater action while the fan was still active. Uranium-thorium assays on the CaCO3 indicate an age of 200,000 yr…( Bischoff 1981)”

“…TL/ESR measurements were made to test whether a semicircular arrangement of cobbles at the Calico site was a man-made hearth. Results of an earlier magnetic study of one of the cobbles suggested the inner portion had been heated to 360C. Such a temperature would destroy radiation-induced defects on the inner portions of the cobbles, which can then be measured by TL/ESR. TL/ESR signals of the inner and outer portions of four cobbles were measured and showed no significant differences. Moreover, all samples appeared to be at full TL and ESR saturation. Progressive heating of a control cobble taken from outside the hearth feature indicated that destruction of the TL/ESR signal occurs at 2OOC. Estimates of the dose rate at the site indicates that at least 400,000 years are required for an annealed rock to attain full TL/ESR saturation, a much longer time than the estimated 200,000-year age of the deposit…(Bischoff 1984)”

Another well-documented site not addressed by Goebel et al. (Goebel 2008) is the National City Mastodon Butchering Site. Thomas Demere, Richard Cerutti and Paul Majors, Department of Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum, wrote the site report (Deméré 1995). The following are excerpts from Deméré et al.:

“…Radiometric dating of ivory and soil carbonate from the quarry yielded dates of 335+/-35Ka (thousands of years before present) and 196+/-15Ka respectively…”

“…Overall, the collecting localities and their contained fossil remains represent the most significant Pleistocene paleontological discoveries yet known from coastal San Diego County…”

“…Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of breakage. . . Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side by-side, one with its articular surface up (#252) and one with its articular surface down (#258)…”

“…There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend to their placement in quarry…”

“…Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which (#253) was found lying directly on a plutonic cobble (#254). Also found in this concentration was a large piece of a long bone shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing. In units J4 and K4 a large, sharply fractured piece of long bone (#340) was found with a distinct impact scar on its internal surface. This fractured bone occurs adjacent to two complete thoracic vertebrae and two complete ribs…”

“…In contrast to the disarticulated condition of the mastodon remains was the discovery of a partially articulated skeleton…American Coot…The entire pectoral region including right and left wings and coracoids was found still articulated with the sternum. Articulated portions of the legs were also recovered…”

“…Several rodent skulls recovered from Bed E were found with articulated lower jaws…”

“…In Unit B2 the distal 70 cm of a tusk (#56) was found distal end down in an upright orientation (62°-64° dip), concave portion of curvature to the south. The proximal end of the tusk had been removed by the backhoe at the level of Bed E . . . The tusk extended from Bed E through Bed D, reaching 65 cm into Bed C . . .Coarse sand from Bed D was found as an infilling alongside the tusk some 40 cm into Bed C…”

“…In one case, portions of a single mastodon molar were found scattered over three units…”

“…The boulders and rock fragments recovered from Bed E consisted of fine-grained metavolcanic rocks (andesite) and coarse-grained plutonic rocks (pegmatite)…”

“…The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces, indicative of stream transport. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that lacked signs of abrasion…”

“…There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled after laboratory preparation…”

Mike Waters’ late colleague, Rob Bonnichsen, participated in the fieldwork at the National City Mastodon Butchering Site. See page 3 of the site report (Deméré 1995).

In summary there are three well researched, North American sites indicating the presence of man between 200,000 CALYBP and 430,000 CALYBP: Calico, Hueyatlaco and National City. Goebel et al. (Goebel 2008) briefly addressed one: Calico. Note that each of the early sites discussed in this article are well documented and dated using the same methods that are used to date early sites in Africa. Few archaeologists have objections to early dates in Africa. All researchers involved with investigations at each of these early sites in North America are very well respected in their fields (geology, geochronology, biostratigraphy, archaeology, paleontology, etc…). So why is there stiff resistance to these early sites by many North American archaeologists? In my opinion it is because consensus archaeological and anthropological theory dictates that man could not have been in the Americas at such early dates. Should archaeological and anthropological theory trump physical evidence? This appears to be a good case of “the tail wagging the dog”.

1. Bischoff, J.L., R.J. Shlemon, T.L. Ku, R.D. Simpson, R.J. Rosenbauer, F.E. Budinger 1981 Uranium-series and soil-geomorphic dating of the Calico archaeological site, California. Geology 9: 576-582

2. Bischoff, J.L., M. Ikeya, F.E. Budinger 1984 A TL/ESR Study of the Hearth Feature at the Calico Archaeological Site, California. American Antiquity, 49(4): 764-774

3. Deméré, T.A., R.A.Cerutti, and C. P. Majors 1995 State Route 54
Paleontological Mitigation Program, Final Report. Prepared for Caltrans, District 11: 1, 22, 27, 31, 32, 33

4. Dixon, E. J. 1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City

5. Goebel, T., M.R. Waters, D.H. O’Rourke 2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of
Modern Humans in the Americas. Science 319: 1497-1502

6. Haynes, G. A. 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge

7. Payn, M., 2007 Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma. BC Video, Inc.

8. Steen-McIntyre, V., R. Fryxell, H.E. Malde 1981 Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico. Quaternary Research, 16: 1-17

9. VanLandingham, S.L. 2009 Use of diatom biostratigraphy in determining a minimum (Sangamonian = 80,000 - ca. 220,000 yr. BP) and a maximum (Illinoian = ca. 220,000 - 430,000 yr. BP) age for the Hueyatlaco artifacts, Puebla, Mexico. Nova Hedwigia, Beiheft, 135: 15-36

10. VanLandingham, S.L. 2006 Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP)). J. Paleolimnol, 36: 101-116.

11. VanLandingham, S.L. 2004 Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico by means of diatom biostratigraphy. Micropaleontology, 50:4: 313-342.

12. Waters, M.R., T.W. Stafford 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science, 315: 1122-1126

Charlie Hatchett
[preclovis.blogspot.com]

Pre-Clovis

Translate

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Malde et al. paper, The stratigraphic debate at Hueyatlaco, now online

Saturday, July 2, 2011

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Monday, May 16, 2011

Bed Igl- Pleistocene Gravels

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Calico Man Made Attributes- Chi Square Goodness of Fit

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Clovis and Paleo Artifacts from Central Texas

PreClovis Projectile Points and Bifaces from Central Texas

Thursday, February 24, 2011

PreClovis Unifaces/ Blades from Central Texas

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

PreClovis Cores from Central Texas

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas- Quadrilateral Tools

PreClovis Flake Tools from Central Texas

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas: Core/ Choppers

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas: Bifaces/ Cores

Monday, February 21, 2011

Starting at Rock Bottom: I-XI