"...Although microwear and technological analyses have determined that
the Angus biface is an authentic artifact, TL and IRSL dates have shown
that the matrix above the mammoth is much too old for a mammoth/fluted
point association to be valid..."
"...Mr. A. M. Brooking of the Hastings (Nebraska) Museum was called in to investigate the find. Mr, Brooking identified the bones as mammoth and immediately began excavation of the skeleton (Figure 2) with the assistance of Earl Brooks. Brooks was digging a tunnel under the left scapula in order to secure bindings around it for its removal (Figure 3) when he encountered a hard object. The object was removed from the tunnel and was identified as a fluted artifact (Figure 4)..."
"...Figgins (1931) published a preliminary article on the association of the artifact with the mammoth. He accepted the association as authentic and stated, "While it is unfortunate that the artifact was removed from the position where it was uncovered, the nature of the undisturbed matrix, its situation and the integrity of the discoverers exclude doubt of its original association with the mammoth skeleton. It must be regarded as contemporaneous"
(p. 23)..."
"...On the other hand, Schultz (1932) determined that the deposits in which the mammoth was found were mid-Pleistocene in age, or about 300,000 years old; this seemed to preclude the fact that the artifact was associated with the mammoth; Schultz's position was supported by A. L. Lugn, Professor of Geology at the University of Nebraska, and by Strong (1932, 1935)..."
"...The age of the silt about 1.5 m above the bone bed is 63,500 ± 5,130 years and 60,400 ± 4,190 years (IRSL, quoted in calendar years). The age of the sands about 1 ill above the bone bed are 69,100 ± 6,220 years and 66,300 ± 3,750 years (again IRSL, calendar years)(Figure 8)..."
"...However, studies of the Angus site stratigraphy along with IRSL dates ranging from 56,200-75,300 years old, have determined that the matrix above the mammoth is more than 45,000 years too old for the mammoth/fluted point association to be valid. It is now evident that those early researchers, W. D. Strong (1932), A. L. Lugn, and C. B. Schultz (1932), had correctly challenged the association of the fluted artifact with the Angus mammoth based on site geology, even though the alluvial fill may not be as old as they had suggested. A mammoth buried in Early Wisconsin geological deposits is probably a Mammuthus columbi, which was the predominant mammoth species on the central Great Plains in the Wisconsin. The question remains, however, as to how the artifact became "associated" with the mammoth. The evidence suggests that H. Marie Wormington (1957:43) was correct when she stated that the artifact was, "deliberately introduced into the deposits by some unknown individual..."
Holen, S. R., May, D. W., and Mahan, S. A. 2011. The Angus Mammoth: A Decades-Old Scientific Controversy Resolved. American Antiquity 76(3), 487-499.
Charlie Hatchett
www.pre-clovis.com
www.forum.pre-clovis.com
www.blog.pre-clovis.com
"...Mr. A. M. Brooking of the Hastings (Nebraska) Museum was called in to investigate the find. Mr, Brooking identified the bones as mammoth and immediately began excavation of the skeleton (Figure 2) with the assistance of Earl Brooks. Brooks was digging a tunnel under the left scapula in order to secure bindings around it for its removal (Figure 3) when he encountered a hard object. The object was removed from the tunnel and was identified as a fluted artifact (Figure 4)..."
"...Figgins (1931) published a preliminary article on the association of the artifact with the mammoth. He accepted the association as authentic and stated, "While it is unfortunate that the artifact was removed from the position where it was uncovered, the nature of the undisturbed matrix, its situation and the integrity of the discoverers exclude doubt of its original association with the mammoth skeleton. It must be regarded as contemporaneous"
(p. 23)..."
"...On the other hand, Schultz (1932) determined that the deposits in which the mammoth was found were mid-Pleistocene in age, or about 300,000 years old; this seemed to preclude the fact that the artifact was associated with the mammoth; Schultz's position was supported by A. L. Lugn, Professor of Geology at the University of Nebraska, and by Strong (1932, 1935)..."
"...The age of the silt about 1.5 m above the bone bed is 63,500 ± 5,130 years and 60,400 ± 4,190 years (IRSL, quoted in calendar years). The age of the sands about 1 ill above the bone bed are 69,100 ± 6,220 years and 66,300 ± 3,750 years (again IRSL, calendar years)(Figure 8)..."
"...However, studies of the Angus site stratigraphy along with IRSL dates ranging from 56,200-75,300 years old, have determined that the matrix above the mammoth is more than 45,000 years too old for the mammoth/fluted point association to be valid. It is now evident that those early researchers, W. D. Strong (1932), A. L. Lugn, and C. B. Schultz (1932), had correctly challenged the association of the fluted artifact with the Angus mammoth based on site geology, even though the alluvial fill may not be as old as they had suggested. A mammoth buried in Early Wisconsin geological deposits is probably a Mammuthus columbi, which was the predominant mammoth species on the central Great Plains in the Wisconsin. The question remains, however, as to how the artifact became "associated" with the mammoth. The evidence suggests that H. Marie Wormington (1957:43) was correct when she stated that the artifact was, "deliberately introduced into the deposits by some unknown individual..."
Holen, S. R., May, D. W., and Mahan, S. A. 2011. The Angus Mammoth: A Decades-Old Scientific Controversy Resolved. American Antiquity 76(3), 487-499.
Charlie Hatchett
www.pre-clovis.com
www.forum.pre-clovis.com
www.blog.pre-clovis.com
