The Blue Fish Caves in Canada’s
Old Crow Basin have excited controversy since the lead archaeologist, Jacques
Cinq-Mars, reported early Radiocarbon dates for the site of ca. 28000 years BP
on human altered remains of mid-Wisconsinian age fauna. The author experienced
a great deal of difficulty having his results published. He explains these
difficulties in the forward of an online, translation of his eventual French
language publication1:
“This is a translation of a paper originally published, in French, in Revista de Arqueología Americana, No. 1, (1990): pp. 9-32. But for a few minor corrections and the presentation of upgraded illustrations (Fig. 1- 5) and faunal list (Table 1), this Web version is essentially the same as the original one.
The 1989 article by Cinq-Mars and Morlan (referred to in the text as
“Cinq-Mars and Morlan 1989”) was finally published as:
Cinq-Mars, Jacques and Richard E. Morlan. 1999. “Bluefish Caves and Old
Crow Basin: A New Rapport,” in Ice Age Peoples of North America, ed. by Robson
Bonnichsen and Karen L. Turnmire, pp. 200-212. Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press for the Center for the Study of the First Americans.
On the other hand, the article by Cinq-Mars and Nelson (1989 — also
referred to in the text) has not as yet appeared.”
Site location
The Blue Fish Caves lie 54km southwest of the Vuntut Gwichin
community of Old Crow, itself being approximately 300km N of Dawson City, Yukon
Territory, Canada.
Cinq-Mars1 Fig 1.
Map from “Ice Age Old Crow”2 drawn by Tanya
Handley
The authors describe the setting
of the site in their initial section Location
and environment:
“As previously noted the Bluefish Caves lie 54 km sw of the village of
Old Crow, overlooking the middle course of the Bluefish River, a tributary of
the Porcupine River (Fig.1). This is a region of Devonian limestone hills at
the northern end of the Keele Range, which in turn forms the foothills of the
great massif of the Ogilvie Mountains that mark the centre of the Yukon. These
hills also mark the southwestern edge of the enormous network of lacustrine
basins, which during the upper Pleistocene were inundated by the waters of the
Bluefish, Old Crow and Bell glacial lakes (Hughes 1972).”
A good representation of the
approximate paleogeography at the time from Ice Age Old Crow2:
They continue: “The environment [in the late
Pleistocene] is characteristic of boreal
forest in mountainous regions (Ritchie et al., 1982)15, with spruce
trees (Picea glauca and Picea mariana) on the pediments and more or less
continuous tundra zones along ridges over 750 m high. The climate is typical of
this boreal type of environment, and the landscape has been shaped by multiple
periglacial processes characteristic of continuous permafrost regions.”
The Geomorphological
context is explained thus:
“The caves are found at the western extremity of
a ridge dominating a narrowing of the Bluefish River. They are nestled at the
foot of a series of limestone outcrops standing about 250 m above the river
valley. There are three caves (I, II and III), actually small cavities whose
volume ranges from about 10 m3 to 30 m3 (Fig. 2). These
cavities are the remains of a former, greatly reduced karst network uncovered
by the erosion of the slopes.” Noted later: “cliff faces rise
about 10 m over the entrances."
A better view of Blue Fish Cave II by Ruth Gotthardt3
Cinq-Mars1 sampled and excavated the cave
deposits both inside and outside the 3 caves, the mode and sequence of
deposition that he found, can summarised thus:
• A floor is a bedrock surface studded with cryoclastic
fragments
• The sediment overlying this, is of eolian (windblown) origin,
and is a relatively homogeneous loess. This reaches 1m deep and contains some of
cryoclastic elements, fallen from the walls and ceiling
• Granulometric and sedimentological analyses demonstrate
that the loess can be divided into three facies, analysis indicates their place
of origin as lake basins to the north
• Overlying the loess, gradually or discomformably, is a
layer of humus-rich cryoclastic rubble. Outside of the caves is ca. 1m deep and
declines rapidly at the cave entrances and becomes, on towards the interior, a
simple organic enrichment of the upper portion of the loess.
• Finally, the surface fill is characterised by herbaceous
and shrubby vegetation on the exterior of the caves, and by a discontinuous
cover of ferns, mosses and lichens on the interior.
These layers can be seen in Cinq-Mars’ Fig 3:
The authors explain the
difficulty in reading the sedimentation history and their response: “action of periglacial phenomena such as
cryoturbation and congelifluction, and which can sometimes make interpretation
difficult. These deposits do not lend themselves readily to a precise stratigraphic
reading, and more than in most locations, decoding them requires the
contribution of other types of data.”
“Palynological data
The analysis of sediments from the interior of Cave I and the exterior
of Cave II has provided pollen diagrams which, despite the nature of the
deposits, are indicative of a certain degree of depositional integrity. ..diagrams
published (Cinq-Mars 19799; Ritchie et al. 198215).. the
most significant details:
•First,.. lower level of the loess, a pollen assemblage presenting the
characteristics of tundra rich in herbaceous species.
•Above.. the upper level of the loess, is a zone characterised by.. a predominance
of birch (Betula).
•Finally, in the..
humus-rich rubble, a third assemblage is characterised by a.. decrease of herbaceous
species and a significant increase in spruce (Picea) and alder (Alnus).
The authors, although admitting that the pollen
biostratigraphy is somewhat weakly defined, conclude, especially with reference
to other studies carried out in the immediate region confirm that the
stratigraphy is largely intact despite some periglacial mixing.
They thus envisage this sequence of biomes:
1. Xeric herbaceous tundra environment to 14Kya BP
2. Shrubby birch Tundra rich in herbaceous plants 14-13.5Kya
BP
3. Boreal spruce forest by 10Kya BP.
Next the authors review the Palaeontological data collected, in summary these were:
·
All three cave yielded thousands of bones
·
These were located in the humus rich (more
recent) layer and the late Pleistocene, loess layers
·
Large and small mammals were found including
microtines (mice, voles and muskrats), and also fish and birds
·
Extinct megafauna characteristic of late
Beringinian mammoth steppe were found in abundance, these included “horse (Equus lambei), caribou or reindeer
(Rangifer tarandus), sheep (Ovis dalli), bison (Bison priscus), moose (cf.
Alces alces), wapiti or elk (Cervus elaphus) and mammoth (Mammuthus
primigenius). There are also saiga (Saiga tatarica), muskox (Ovibos moschatus),
bear (Ursus), wolf (Canis lupus) and lion (Panthera).”
The authors also noted that the humus-rich rubble showed an
impoverishment in the megafauna characteristic of the continent-wide mass
extinction event
Next the authors move on to explain their early radiocarbon
dates in the Chronological context section:
“As we have seen, the sedimentological, palynological and
palaeontological data enable us to place the cave deposits on a chronological
scale that definitely includes the Holocene (humus-rich rubble) and the end of
the late Pleistocene, or Late Glacial (loess). Several 14C measurements made
early in the research (Cinq-Mars 1979;9 Morlan and Cinq-Mars 198210)
roughly confirmed this chronostratigraphic estimate and even gave some
indication of precision. We were able to date an episode of forest fire,
definitely Holocene, in the (cryoturbated) upper sediments of Cave I. We also
obtained a date of 12,900 BP from the femur of a horse, collected in the upper
level of the lower loess of Cave I; and a date of 15,500 BP from a mammoth
scapula found in the lower loess of Cave II, where the palynological signs of
the herbaceous tundra were identified.”
However at this point news of the
finds and their dates seems to have spread throughout the archaeological
community thus when new Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) had been run by
R.M. Brown (Atomic Energy of Canada) and E. Nelson (Simon Fraser University)
Cinq-Mars and Nelson simply could not get their data published! In fact the
site results were quietly ignored for 8 long years!!
However, in 1997 with the
acceptance of Monte Verde site as pre-Clovis Cinq-Mars was able, once again to
obtain funding. To allay all doubts from the archaeological community he had
his best samples re-tested using exclusively AMS technology. The results were
stunning, even the mammoth scapula described above tested older that
previously.
Cinq-Mars’ samples of human
modified bone ranged from 17000 to nearly 25000BP.
The authors however do not give a
summary of the dating results, but refer readers to the Canadian Archaeological
Radiocarbon Database (CARD). Although this website is not particularly user
friendly, once the site designation for the Blue Fish Caves is found (MgVo
I-III), the results can be accessed. I have collected the results4
together in a table for ease of viewing:
Whilst these dates for human
modified megafaunal bones was impressive in itself, the authors felt that some
of their paleoecological data are equally if not MORE important. Here is what they say: “More importantly, these results demonstrate that the mammoth steppe
fauna mentioned above, in a combination that remains to be precisely
determined, constituted an essential element of the Glacial Maximum biotope of
eastern Beringia (between about 17,000 and 25,000 BP).” Basically what they
are saying is that their data show that as mammoth step did exist at the time
of the sediment formation over height of the last glacial maxima (ca. 22000BP).
In other words their data refute the “productivity paradox” of Schweger et al.11
(1982) and the position of Cwynar and Ritchie (1980)12 and support the
position of Guthrie (1985)13 and Matthews (1982)14 that
the environment was extremely rich and capable of supporting an extensive
megafaunal assemblage.
In their next section Cultural
Manifestations the authors present their lithic and other finds. They
explain their discoveries thus:
“Like other Beringian sites that have yielded very ancient
archaeological material, the cultural remains found in the Bluefish Caves are
exasperatingly sparse. They consist of three classes of lithics, some
butchering marks found on various megafaunal remains and some examples of
simple bone tools. With a few rare exceptions,, these were all found in the
loess layer of Caves I and II, and in a context which, once again, is not
always easy to read.”
The lithic artefacts included cores, microblades, angle
burins on truncated blades or flakes, burin spalls, notches, etc. and, various
flakes and flake fragments that may be debitage. Examples are shown in
Cinq-Mars’ Fig 4 below:
The raw materials were primarily
high-quality cherts, usually blue, but occasionally speckled or more rarely,
black, and definitely exotic to the region. “So
far, such artefacts have been recovered only in Caves I and II.” Cinq-Mars
later notes: “Bluefish limestone does not
contain chert. The few examples of this material found in the region (in
several rocky outcrops to the east of the caves or in the form of pebbles on
the river bars) are of very poor quality. We also know that cherts similar to
those found in Caves I and II occur in a number of archaeological sites located
about 100 kilometres to the north, in the Cordilleran foothills (Brooks,
British and Barn mountains).”
This is an important finding.
Only humans could have moved these artifacts to the cave. On the dating of
these stone artifacts, the authors say this:
“Most of them occurred mainly in the interior and at the entrance of
Cave II, both at the bottom and the upper limit of the (lower) loess level
where were also found most of the faunal remains. Several technological
characteristics of the burins (all angle burins on truncated supports) may
indicate that much of the assemblage represents either a specific episode in
the use of the cave, or consecutive visits by a particular group. Although the
context does not allow us to date these lithics with precision, we know that
they considerably predate the end of the period in which the loess was
deposited; i.e., before 10,000 BP. Their provenance and association with the remains
of extinct species suggest that they may have been incorporated into the
deposit around 12,000 BP or perhaps even earlier.”
The detrital debitage come from
older layers of the site “Their
distribution inside the cave parallels that of the tools described above and is
also suggestive of some cultural sedimentation in that portion of the loess
unit whose pollen is characteristic of the herbaceous tundra which dates, as
noted above, from between 25,000 and 13,500 BP.”
Lastly the authors found a number
of small cobbles at the very base of the loess near bedrock. Although unsure of
their origin the authors note: “several
of the larger specimens that could, after all, have been used as hammerstones”.
Now we come to the really juicy bit of the paper: Cut or butchering marks, the details
were given as:
“The evidence consists of a variety of cut marks, incisions, scrape
marks, chopping marks and striations resulting from the intentional butchering
and defleshing of animals with stone tools, and penetrating, more or less
deeply and in various places, the external walls of the bones. (Morlan and
Cinq-Mars 1982: Fig. 10)16. It is important to note that we refer
here to undeniable cultural indicators and not to similar marks made by
carnivores, rodents, various geological processes or even excavators. Thus far,
we believe that we have been able to identify examples on numerous elements of
the skeleton of nearly every large mammal species, with the possible exception
of wolf, moose, wapiti and saiga. Almost all were found in Caves I and II.”
They conclude:
“This type of data also enables us to refine the time frame of the
cultural content of the deposit. As there are no such markings on the faunal
remains found in the humus-rich rubble, it is evident that this type of
evidence and its causes date to the Pleistocene. This is confirmed by the 14C
dates mentioned earlier and which were obtained from some of the specimens
exhibiting such modifications. These dates suggest that cultural activities
relating to the exploitation of the Bluefish fauna occurred sporadically
between about 25,000 BP and 10,000 BP.”
Whilst objections were raised at
the time, a subsequent publication by Morlan5 in 2003 with analysis
of some of the human modified bones by the world renowned taphonomic specialist
Pat Shipman, have silenced most critics of the site’s authenticity.
The authors also found objects
worked from bone into tools.
These included fleshers for
processing hides, one shaped from a caribou tibia, initially dated 24,820 BP
but recently found to be much younger, and secondly and more importantly a
human worked mammoth long bone.
The bone tool made from the
mammoth long bone is explained in some detail by the authors: “...obtained through a relatively complex
sequence of actions or “chaîne opératoire”, which can be summarised as follows:
•the raw material, namely a mammoth long bone, was first reduced to a
fragment consisting of an epiphysis and the contiguous portion of the
diaphysis;
•what could be described as a rough striking platform was then prepared
at the end of the diaphysis segment;
•from this platform, a series of three flakes, ranging from 7 to 10 cm
in length, were subsequently detached by percussion from the cortical face of
the diaphysis segment;
•finally, one of these flakes, the longest one, was further worked
and/or retouched bifacially and reduced diagonally, from its proximal end, by
more than a third of its original size.”
Cinq-Mars Fig 5 showing the tool preparation sequence
detailed above.
A number of different photographs of worked bone artifacts
exist from the Old Crow Basin, adjacent to the Blue Fish Cave site and from the
Blue Fish cave itself. A selection is shown below:
Morlan5 2003 Fig 3, dated 33700 ± 8006
Bison rib with human made, cut mark SEM photograph by P.
Shipman7, sample dated
42000 ± 1200 BP8
Taphonomic experiment, 1980’s by Morlan, showing replication of fracture
types on found archaeological material ONLY with green bone and thus confirming
human working of mammoth bone. From Ice Age Old Crow2.
Verdict:
·
Blue Fish caves used by man to butcher megfauna at
ca. 25000BP and possibly as early as 31000BP
·
Humans hunting and butchering animals in the Old
Crow Basin from 42000BP - wow that’s old!
References
1. Revista de Arqueología Americana, No. 1, (1990): pp.
9-32.
Translation retrieved from:
2. Image from:
3. Image credit Ruth Gotthardt in Beringian Research notes
no. 19.
4. Accelerometer Mass Spectrometer (AMS) dates for Blue Fish
Cave II
5. Morlan, R. E. 2003. Current perspectives on the
Pleistocene archaeology of eastern Beringia. Quaternary Research Volume 60,
Issue 1, July 2003, Pages 123–132.
6. Data retrieved from:
7. Photograph from The Mammoth Trumpet Vol 1 no. 1. Winter
1984
8. Data retrieved from:
9. Cinq-Mars J.1979 “Bluefish Cave 1: A Late Pleistocene
Eastern Beringian Cave Deposit in the Northern Yukon”, Canadian Journal of
Archaeology No. 3, pp. 1-32.
10. Morlan, R.E. and J. Cinq-Mars. 1982 “Ancient Beringians:
Human Occupation in the Late Pleistocene of Alaska and the Yukon Territory.”
In: Paleoecology of Beringia, ed. D.M. Hopkins et al. (New York, Academic
Press) pp. 353-381.
11. Schweger, C.E., J.V. Mathews, Jr., D.M. Hopkins and S.B.
Young (eds.)
1982 “Paleoecology of Beringia – A Synthesis.” In: Paleoecology
of Beringia, ed. D.M. Hopkins et al. (New York, Academic Press) pp. 425-444.
12. Cwynar, L. and J.C. Ritchie. 1980. “Arctic steppe-tundra:
A Yukon perspective”, Science Vol. 208, pp. 1375-1377.
13. Guthrie, R.D. 1985 “Woolly Arguments Against the Mammoth
Steppe – A New Look at the Palynological Data”, Quarterly Review of Archaeology
Vol. 6.
14. Matthews, J.V., Jr. 1982 “East Beringia During Late
Wisconsin Time: A Review of the Biotic Evidence.” In: Paleoecology of Beringia,
ed. D.M. Hopkins et al. (New York, Academic Press) pp. 127-150.
15. Ritchie J.C., J. Cinq-Mars and L. Cwynar. 1982
“L’environnement tardiglaciaire du Yukon septentrional, Canada”, Géographie
physique et Quaternaire Vol. XXXVI, pp. 241-250.
16. Cinq-Mars J.1982 “Les grottes du Poisson-Bleu”, Geos
Vol. 11, pp. 19-21.
No comments:
Post a Comment