Bluefish Caves Revisited – Seminal new paper reviewed: Earliest Human Presence in North America Dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New Radiocarbon Dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada. Bourgoen, et al. (2017)

Key findings:

·         The site has at last been accepted as pre-Clovis due to assiduous work carried out by Bourgeon et. al. (2017)

·         Site now firmly established as 24,000 BP, exceeding by at least 5000 years any other accepted site in the Americas

·         Cinq-Mars’ samples used in the analysis proved to be of the dates and to exhibit the human-made, cut-marks he originally contended, thus vindicating his long-held contention of the antiquity of the site

This post is a follow-up to the first long piece I wrote on this site: Pre-Clovis Archaeological Sites of the Americas 6: Blue Fish Caves - Old Crow Basin, Canada. See here.

The site location is:

This is an extremely important paper. I would say a seminal paper, but only time will tell.

Here’s the abstract:

“The timing of the first entry of humans into North America is still hotly debated within the scientific community. Excavations conducted at Bluefish Caves (Yukon Territory) from 1977 to 1987 yielded a series of radiocarbon dates that led archaeologists to propose that the initial dispersal of human groups into Eastern Beringia (Alaska and the Yukon Territory) occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This hypothesis proved highly controversial in the absence of other sites of similar age and concerns about the stratigraphy and anthropogenic signature of the bone assemblages that yielded the dates. The weight of the available archaeological evidence suggests that the first peopling of North America occurred ca. 14,000 cal BP (calibrated years Before Present), i.e., well after the LGM. Here, we report new AMS radiocarbon dates obtained on cut-marked bone samples identified during a comprehensive taphonomic analysis of the Bluefish Caves fauna. Our results demonstrate that humans occupied the site as early as 24,000 cal BP (19,650 ± 130 14C BP). In addition to proving that Bluefish Caves is the oldest known archaeological site in North America, the results offer archaeological support for the ªBeringian standstill hypothesisº, which proposes that a genetically isolated human population persisted in Beringia during the LGM and dispersed from there to North and South America during the post-LGM period.” Bourgeon et. al. (2017).

Why is this paper SO important?

Firstly, it answers, unequivocally, a basic question in archaeology:

“What is the earliest date we have so far for when were the Americas were first peopled?”

Secondly, it illustrates that science, although it (meaning the scientific community), presents itself as even-handed and unbiased, is riven by vested interests, self-serving small minded people and bigotry just like the rest of society. As such, this sorry, slow burning episode in archaeology reminds us all, to go back to basics and follow the evidence as good scientists should.

Stepping back a minute, to fully answer the above question, however, requires a, thorough and detailed, examination of the background context to the events surrounding these archaeological discoveries and subsequent claims made by the chief excavator.

This is the story of one scientist’s fight for the acceptance of the facts he had brought to light through his excavation of three small caves in the Yukon territory of Canada. That scientist was Jacques Cinq-Mars and this paper is a vindication of his work which offered firm evidence, that man first colonised the Americas way before the Clovis people.

Jacques Cinq-Mars excavating at the Bluefish caves, from Pringle (2017). Original caption reads: While excavating at Bluefish Caves in northern Yukon during the 1970s and 1980s, Canadian archaeologist Cinq-Mars found cut-marked horse bones and other traces of human hunters that seemed to date to 24,000 years ago—thousands of years before the Clovis people. Photo by Ruth Gotthardt

As Pringle (2017) explains:

“In three hollows known as the Bluefish Caves, he [Cinq-Mars] and his team had discovered something remarkable—the bones of extinct horses and woolly mammoths bearing what seemed to be marks from human butchering and toolmaking. Radiocarbon test results dated the oldest finds to around 24,000 years before the present.

Bluefish Caves directly challenged mainstream scientific thinking. Evidence had long suggested that humans first reached the Americas around 13,000 years ago, when Asian hunters crossed a now submerged landmass known as Beringia, which joined Siberia to Alaska and Yukon during the last ice age. From there, the migrants seemed to have hurried southward along the edges of melting ice sheets to warmer lands in what is now the United States, where they and their descendants thrived. Researchers called these southern hunters the Clovis people, after a distinctive type of spear point they carried. And the story of their arrival in the New World became known as the Clovis first model.”

“Cinq-Mars, however, didn’t buy that story—not a bit. His work at Bluefish Caves suggested that Asian hunters roamed northern Yukon at least 11,000 years before the arrival of the Clovis people..”

“But relatively few of Cinq-Mars’s peers shared his confidence..”

“..rather than launching a major new search for more early evidence, the finds stirred fierce opposition and a bitter debate, Cinq-Mars, however, was not intimidated. He fearlessly waded into the fight. Between 1979 and 2001, he published a series of studies on Bluefish Caves.”

“It was a brutal experience, something that Cinq-Mars once likened to the Spanish Inquisition. At conferences, audiences paid little heed to his presentations, giving short shrift to the evidence. Other researchers listened politely, then questioned his competence. The result was always the same” [rejection and/or denial].

 “In general, the critics focused their attacks on two major fronts. They questioned whether key artifacts at proposed pre-Clovis sites were really, made by humans, as opposed to natural processes. And they pored over presentations and reports for any possible errors in dating.”

“At Bluefish Caves, the crucial evidence consisted of animal bones that were dated to around 24,000 years ago and seemed to be cut, shaped, or flaked by humans. So critics focused on those. They dismissed Cinq-Mars’s identification of butchery marks and tools, and offered alternative explanations. Rockfall from the caves, they suggested, had fractured the bones, leaving splinters that merely looked like human artifacts. Or large carnivores had chomped on a carcass, producing grooves that resembled cut marks or fragments mirroring artifacts. Some skeptics even suggested that living mammoths could have taken bad tumbles nearby, accidentally splintering limb bones. Other critics wanted to see multiple lines of evidence for the presence of early humans at Bluefish Caves, including dated hearths with stone tools in close association.”..

“Stung as he was by the criticism, Cinq-Mars refused to back down. None of the explanations for splintered bones, he noted, could account for the complex chain of steps that produced the mammoth-bone flake tool his team found. But by then, serious doubts about the Bluefish Caves evidence had been sown, taking firm root in the archaeological community: hardly anyone was listening. Cinq-Mars couldn’t believe it. At one presentation he gave, “they laughed at me,” he says angrily today. “They found me cute.” Embittered by the response, he stopped attending conferences, and gave up defending the site publicly. What was the point? To Cinq-Mars, the Clovis first supporters seemed almost brainwashed”

“When Jacques proposed [that Bluefish Caves was] 24,000 BP, it was not accepted,” says William Josie, director of natural resources at the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in Old Crow. In his office at the Canadian Museum of History, Cinq-Mars fumed at the wall of closed minds. Funding for his Bluefish work grew scarce: his fieldwork eventually sputtered and died.”

Looking back at the archaeological establishment’s reaction to Cinq-Mars’ work two comments summarise how the prevailing attitudes and entrenched orthodoxy then, is viewed now:

“The scientific atmosphere, recalls Dillehay [excavator and – eventually - vindicated, discoverer of Monte Verde see here and here] was “clearly toxic and clearly impeded science.””

““one of the most acrimonious—and unfruitful [episodes] —in all of science,” noted the journal Nature.”

How does the current paper establish the date of the site and avoid the same criticisms as the original investigator?

Clearly, entering the debate by studying the most contentious bone artifacts attributed as human-modified from Bluefish Caves, could be counter-productive, as it could undermine the authors aim: to re-evaluate the physical evidence gathered and unequivocally date the site.

Therefore, whilst the authors examined a huge number of the specimens collected at Bluefish Caves by Cinq-Mars, some of the oldest and most controversial samples were not included in their analysis.

For example, the unpublished Mammoth limb bone and its attendant re-fitted bone flake (RIDDL-224 and RIDDL-225 respectively) whilst mentioned, were perhaps, wisely not given prominence in the current paper.

However, as we will see later, there may be another reason for this glaring omission. Let’s park that for a minute.

The authors begin by giving an exhaustive explanation in their Materials and Methods section, on the taphonomic processes that affected the bone samples collected and how non-cultural and cultural bone modification can be differentiated. It is worth looking at the criteria they use in detail to underscore how well founded their conclusions are:

·         “A full taphonomic analysis is required, in order to, contextualise and thus correctly identify culturally modified bone. The sedimentary and geological context of an archaeological site affects the taphonomic signature of the faunal assemblages it contains.

·         The faunal material from Bluefish Cave derives from wind-blown (aeolian) loess, which should not produce scratches on bones but can lead to polished surfaces.

·         Cryoclastic debris incorporated into the loess], however, may have abraded the bone surfaces.

·         Rockfall can also modify bone, producing striations and patterns of bone breakage

·         In some cases, these natural traces can mimic cut marks, raising the spectre of equifinality (Equifinality is the principle that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means). This has led some researchers, in the past, to question the cultural origin of some of the bone modifications reported in the literature.”

The authors go on to detail other processes that may mimic human modification of bones:

·         “..large canids, which are capable of applying static pressure on bone resulting in the production of spiral bone fractures and bone flakes similar to the ones produced by human marrow extraction.” 

The authors are at pains to point out the co-indicators for this type of bone-modification in ALL samples studied:

·         “Carnivore activity is also usually accompanied by the presence of digested bone, as well as pits, punctures, scoring and furrows altering the bone surface

·         Carnivore teeth produce traces with characteristically “U” shaped profiles when viewed in cross-section and which are wider and shallower than cut marks, making them easily distinguishable from human modifications” 

The authors are strict in their categorisation of bone modification:

·         “The frequency of tooth marks, spiral fractures and bone flakes were recorded; tooth marks were noted as “certain” or “probable” when the identification couldn't be confidently assessed.”

Further factors affecting the taphonomic state of the bones sample are also considered:

·         “The climatic context of a site is also important because weathering and freeze-thaw cycles can lead to cracks and desquamation of bone surfaces, potentially removing or altering traces of cultural activities.

·         Damage due to climatic factors (e.g., weathering) but also due to biological agents (e.g., root etching, trampling and rodent gnawing) were carefully recorded and quantified”

Next the authors selected those bone samples, most likely to be human-modified for further analysis, highlighting the morphological and morphometrical features used to distinguish human modification from animal (carnivore) and other environmental causes of bone modification:

·         “Shape: cut marks made with stone tools are usually V-shaped (narrow \/ or wide \_/) while carnivore tooth marks or even metal tools will produce grooves with more parallel walls (U or |_|). The cross-sectional shape of a cut mark can be symmetrical (\/) or asymmetrical (√) depending on the inclination of the tool relative to the bone surface. Morphometrical analyses allow us to quantify the profile of potential cut marks by measuring the breadth at the top and at the bottom of the groove

·         Trajectory: cut marks are commonly straight but can sometimes be curved; they are rarely sinuous, as in the case of trampling or root etching

·         Number of striae, size and overlapping: butchering activities can produce multiple striae that should be parallel in orientation and roughly the same size a scraping motion to remove meat may produce overlapping striae; trampling marks will not be oriented in this fashion.

·         Shoulder effect and shoulder flaking: shallow striations along the main groove and edge flaking can sometimes be observed under the microscope at high magnifications in marks produced by butchering; they are rarer in marks created by trampling

·         Internal microstriations: microstriations are common on the inner walls of marks produced by stone tools during butchery; they may also be produced by trampling but will not be observed in cases of root etching or tooth mark scoring

·         Anatomical location and orientation: the anatomical location and orientation of cultural bone modifications must be consistent with the marks produced by specific butchery tasks described in the literature; marks produced by natural processes, however, will not reflect any predetermined intention. Assigning a precise function to a cut mark is subject to equifinality since marks resulting from skinning, defleshing and dismembering can occur in very similar locations and because variability exists in the placement and orientation of butchery marks. Keeping this in mind, we noted the anatomical location and orientation of each cut mark and we proposed a potential butchery task based on comparisons with ethnozooarchaeological data.” 

The authors give further explanation of the diagnostic value of one morphometrical measurement, in particular: 

“The breadth ratio (the ratio between the breadth at the top and the breadth at the bottom of the cut mark) better illustrates the shape of the groove (\/ or |_|) and is a good criterion for distinguishing between cut marks made with stone tools and modifications produced by other effectors. Small ratios are associated with grooves with parallel walls while large ratios are associated with narrow \/ or wide \_/-shaped grooves such as the ones produced by stone tools..” 

Finally from the 36,000 bone samples collected by Cinq-Mars and analysed by Bourgeon and her team 6 were deemed unequivocally human-modified and sent for radio-carbon dating:

“In summary, in order for, a bone modification to be identified as a cut mark in this study, all of the above criteria had to be met. If one of the criteria couldn't be confidently assessed, the mark was consigned to a, ”probable” category of human bone modification.

We selected six bone samples bearing indisputable evidence of butchery activity for radiocarbon dating. The samples were sent to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) for analysis.”

The ¹⁴C BP dates and the calibrated age BP are given in the following table:

The authors therefore come to some firm conclusions in their Discussion section:

1. “While the Yana River sites indicate a human presence in Western Beringia ca. 32,000 cal BP [14, 15], the Bluefish Caves site proves that people were in Eastern Beringia during the LGM, by at least 24,000 cal BP”

2. Our results, therefore, confirm that Bluefish Caves is the oldest known archaeological site in North America.

Emphasis in bold my own.

The two oldest bone samples are shown below:

The oldest specimen, a horse jaw-bone dated to between 23,314 and 24,033 years BP Fig 1 from Bourgeon (2017). Original caption reads: Fig 1. Cut marks on a horse mandible from Cave II. The specimen (# J7.8.17) is dated to 19,650 ± 130 14C BP (OxA-33778). The bone surface is a bit weathered and altered by root etching but the cut marks are well preserved; they are located on the medial side, under the third and second molars, and are associated with the removal of the tongue using a stone tool.

The second oldest specimen, a caribou pelvic bone dated to between 22,176 and 22,731 years BP Fig 2 from Bourgeon (2017). Original caption reads: Fig 2. Cut marks on a caribou coxal bone from Cave II. The specimen (# I5.6.5) is dated to 18,570 ± 110 14C BP (OxA-33777) and shows straight and parallel marks resulting from filleting activity.

Unfortunately, the authors chose to conflate their results with the Beringian standstill theory. In this hypothesis, humans were isolated, physically and genetically, in Beringia from about 23,000 B.P. to 15,000 cal. B.P. and then continued their migration further into the rest of the Americas as an ice-free corridor formed between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets opened:

(our results) “thus providing long-awaited archaeological support for the “Beringian standstill hypothesis”

Why the authors, feel the need to hang their paper off the coat tails of the current orthodoxy is inexplicable and ironic considering they have just, effectively put the last nail in the coffin of the Clovis-first paradigm!

A good, simple explanation of why this new ‘line in the sand’ rejecting the pre-Ice Age peopling of the Americas, is being drawn was written recently by Marnie Dunsmore (2017), in a blog post with provocative title “Trading One Zombie Model for Another: Why I am Fed Up with the Beringia Standstill Model and the journals and conferences that don't consider alternatives”.

Here are a couple of quotes to give you a different perspective:

“The distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplogroups in the Americas, namely haplogroups A, B, C, and D, according to Behar[3], split from the mitochondrial tree earlier than 30,000 thousand years ago (before the last Ice Age).  Given the distribution for these haplogroups[4][5], it is equally likely that the branching of these mitochondrial haplogroups occurred in the Americas, as in Asia or Beringia. Given that Beringia and Siberia were cold, while many areas in the Americas were temperate [2], during the Ice Age, the likely expansion of the A, B, C and D haplogroups during the Ice Age was in the Americas south of the glaciers, not Beringia or Siberia (as proposed in the Beringia Standstill Model.”

 ..“There is ample evidence that Modern Humans were in Siberia and Beringia tens of thousands of years before the Ice Age.  Given that sea level data indicates that there were long periods before the Ice Age (when Modern Humans were in Beringia) when there was an easily walkable path from Beringia to Florida, to the American Central Plains, to the American East Coast and to points further south, it is highly improbable that highly mobile large game hunters over tens of thousands of years would not easily have moved back and forth between the Americas and Eastern Eurasia[5][8][9][10].”

If you want to check out the timings of the existence of Beringian Land Bridges I put together a detailed post on that here.

An inconvenient truth..

Something really, bothered me about this paper. I read it and re-read, scrolled the screen for several minutes, up and down, up and down. Frustratingly, nothing jumped out. Finally, I went away and thought about something else. Of course THAT did the trick! It was a sin of omission I was missing. Consider the following adapted version of Bourgeon’s table 1:

Notice anything? Two of the oldest specimens, RIDDL-224 and 225 (remember them?) from the Mammoth tibia and the associated refitted flake, are of comparable dates to those determined in the current paper aren’t they? Nothing to see here – move along.

Wrong. Dead wrong. They are radiocarbon (¹⁴C) dates and therefore need calibrating to give actual calenderic ages, i.e. cal. BP years as has been done with the bone samples in this paper.
So let’s calibrate them! I used the Monrepos Museum online Calpal resource (Danzeglocke 2007). Also included is the oldest specimen, a butchered caribou tibia.

Wow now that is quite a bit older isn’t it. So why this omission?

I gave Cinq-Mars’ explanation of how the flake (RIDDL-224) was made from the core (RIDDL-225) by human agency in a previous post, see here.

Although the specimens (RIDDL-224 and RIDDL-225) were described in a peer reviewed journal in 1990, their publication history is quite complex. From the outset, based on contextual, bone taphonomic and sample comparison criteria, Cinq-Mars insisted these bones were pre-Ice Age. It could be argued, that at first, he did not have sufficient high quality evidence to support this assertion. This caused resistance from the archaeological establishment, who firmly rejected this timeframe for the peopling of the Americas and publication problems, after his initial paper appeared. For clarity sake I will summarise the publication history and the radiocarbon ages below:

Looking at the initial date of publication (Cinq-Mars 1990) and the first time, firm dates are attributed to the samples we find they are different. Checking the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database (CARD) we find the dates of submission for AMS radiocarbon dating are on the same day in April 1997 (Anon 2017 a and b).

And that’s the problem that Cinq-Mars caused. Whilst the argument of how they were produced is detailed and robust, (see here), and Cinq-Mars’ refutation of all published objections, for example Beebe (1983), to these and other specimens is unassailable, he simply did not follow scientific convention. He therefore left himself open to justifiable scientific criticism. This coupled with the extremely old dates, ensured then, and still does today, that Cinq-Mars oldest specimens remain unaccepted.

Image comparisons of RIDDL-224 and RIDDL-225

RIDDL-224 and RIDDL 225 from Harington and Cinq-Mars (2008)

RIDDL-224 and RIDDL 225 from Cinq-Mars (2001)

We can therefore see that these bone artifacts, given their proven human manufacture and most particularly their pre-Ice Age dating would cause Bourgeon et al. great difficulties were they included in their paper. This is because, the authors draw a firm dating ‘line in the sand’ when they link their results so strongly to the Beringian ‘standstill hypothesis’, in their closing discussion.

Conclusions

1. A seminal paper as Bourgeon et al. (2017) prove conclusively that people were in the Americas by 24,000 BP

2. Disappointingly they see the evidence they have gathered as support for the current orthodoxy (the Beringian Standstill hypothesis).

3. Evidence from their own paper regarding the true dates of the peopling of the Americas is ignored.

4. The date of the peopling of the Americas, from data presented above should be at a minimum 27,000 cal BP and perhaps as old as ca. 30,000 cal BP.

Lastly a couple of quotes to which summarise my feelings on the Bluefish Caves saga.

Dunsmore (2017) again:

“I note that prominent conferences such at the Paleoanthropology Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia at the end of March (by the way, to be held on never ceded Salish territory in downtown Vancouver), continue to entertain papers supporting only the Beringia Standstill model, but not alternatives.  Given the weight of evidence, this cannot be seen as objective, and the unlevel funding supporting the Beringia Standstill Model can only be seen as another example of formerly Clovis First too cozy ancient DNA researchers, archaeologists, and their supporters, feeding at the trough.”

The last word should be Cinq-Mars’ (1999), quoting Morlan:

“A program of AMS dating was undertaken on bone cores and flakes “to determine whether the distribution of ages would be random or grouped in time. A random distribution, including ages beyond the limits of radiocarbon measurement, could be explained by the action of one or more long-term natural processes of bone alteration, whereas a restricted distribution younger than the limits of measurement would require the onset of a new process of bone alteration” (Morlan et al. 1990:75). The resulting ages were found to be restricted to “a 15,000 year time span, beginning around 40,000 BP. and ending around 25,000 BP. Since we believe that our measurement methods would have allowed us to measure samples 10,000 years older than those encountered here, this implies that a new agency or process enters into the taphonomic histories of large vertebrates in the Old Crow Basin around 40,000 BP” (Morlan et al. 1990:86).”

Translation: Morlan and Cinq-Mars believe man arrived in the Americas 40,000BP. Enough said.

References

Anon (2017a). Canada / YT / MgVo-2 (Bluefish Cave II) / RIDDL-224. [ONLINE] Available at: http://card.anth.ubc.ca/samples/4593. [Accessed 12 April 2017].

Anon (2017b). Canada / YT / MgVo-2 (Bluefish Cave II) / RIDDL-225. [ONLINE] Available at: http://card.anth.ubc.ca/samples/4592. [Accessed 12 April 2017].

Bourgeon, L. (2015). Humans and Carnivores at the Bluefish Cave ii (Northern Yukon, Canada): Interpretation of the faunal remains [Poster]. Exhibited at Society for American Archaeology 80th Annual Meeting, Session 357: Peopling of the New World and Archaeology of Paleoindians. Hilton Hotel, San Francisco. 18^th April 2015.

Download available at: https://www.academia.edu/24719435/Humans_and_carnivores_at_the_Bluefish_Caves_II_Yukon_-_SAA_San_Francisco_2015

Beebe, B.F., 1983, Evidence of carnivore activity in a Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeological site (Bluefish Cave I), Yukon Territory, Canada, in Lemoine, G.M., and MacEachern, A.S., eds., Carnivores, Human Scavengers, and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, University of Calgary, p. 1–14.

Bourgeon L, Burke A, Higham T (2017). Earliest Human Presence in North America Dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New Radiocarbon Dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada. PLoS ONE 12 (1):  e0169486. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169486

Cinq-Mars, J, 1990. La place des grottes du Poisson-Bleu dans le Préhistoire béringienne. Revista de Arqueología Americana, No. 1, 9-32.

Cinq-Mars, J. 2001. Canadian Museum of History, Significance of the Bluefish Caves in Beringian Prehistory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.historymuseum.ca/learn/research/resources-for-scholars/essays/significance-of-the-bluefish-caves-in-beringian-prehistory/. [Accessed 12 April 2017].

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.

Download available from: https://www.academia.edu/5521801/Bluefish_Caves_and_Old_Crow_Basin_A_New_Rapport._Cinqmars_et_al._1999_

Danzeglocke, U 2007. CalPal Online. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.calpal-online.de/index.html. [Accessed 11 April 2017].

Dunsmore, M. 2017. Trading One Zombie Model for Another: Why I am Fed Up with the Beringia Standstill Model and the journals and conferences that don't consider alternatives. [ONLINE] Available at: http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/why-i-am-fed-up-with-beringia.html. [Accessed 12 April 2017].

Harington, C. R., 2011, Quaternary Cave Faunas of Canada: A Review of the Vertebrate Remains: Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 73, no. 3, p. 162-180.

PDF download available at https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5771b897e4b07657d1a6c8e8

Harington, C.R., and Cinq-Mars, J., 2008, Bluefish Caves – fauna and context, Beringian Research Notes, no. 19, p. 1–8.

Download Available at: http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/publications/Blue_Fish_Caves_2008.pdf

Morlan, R,E,, et al. 1990 Accelerator mass spectrometry dates on bones from Old Crow basin, northern Yukon Territory, Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14:75-92.

Pringle, H.. 2017. From Vilified to Vindicated: the Story of Jacques Cinq-Mars. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-long/vilified-vindicated-story-jacques-cinq-mars. [Accessed 12 April 2017].







Pre-Clovis Archaeological Sites of the Americas 7: Santa Elina Rock Shelter, Mato Grosso, Brazil 25,000BP

As readers of this blog must be aware, I am quite fascinated by the peopling of the Americas. I often look at websites which take an unbiased view of the possible evidence of the earlier claims of man in the Americas. Of particular interest is the Center for the Study of the First Americans (CSFA). A marvellous resource is their archive of the publications Mammoth Trumpet and Current Research in the Pleistocene. They are often a goldmine of information about less well known archaeological sites. Recently, while reading a back issue (1) I came across information on a site I have long been interested in: Santa Elina rock shelter in Brazil.

The rock shelter was first discovered due to the thousands of both geometric and human figures, such as this one from Vialou (6):

 

 

 

One of the 1000’s of human figures and geometric designs up to ca. 10,000 BP painted at Santa Elina rock shelter from Vialou (6), original caption: Rock Shelter, Santa Elina: Indian painting.

Here’s the information from the Mammoth Trumpet article:

“Another Brazilian site, the Santa Elina rockshelter, located in central Mato Grosso state, has produced early radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates on stratigraphic levels containing remains of Glossotherium (a giant ground sloth) and associated lithic artifacts. This large limestone rockshelter is currently under excavation by Agueda and Denis Vilhena Vialou; and only preliminary reports are presently available (2).

To date, three major units have been identified in the known stratigraphic record. Unit III, a 60-cm-thick sandy deposit with rock rubble, is subdivided into four subzones. Bones of one individual Glossotherium, together with thousands of osteoderms (small spherical bones within the skin of a ground sloth), were found clustered within a limited area in subzone III-4/3, in association with 27 retouched tabular pieces and percussion flakes of limestone or flint. Notched or denticulate tools are common in the assemblage, and some pieces show use wear. There are also ca. 50 unmodified percussion flakes. Also found on this level were several small quartz crystals and a hematite fragment. Two of the sloth osteoderms feature smooth circular perforations, and the faces of one of these show abrasion.

Radiocarbon dates of 22,500 ± 500 RCYBP and 23,320 ± 1000 RCYBP have been obtained on wood recovered by flotation from stratigraphic subzone III-3/2, just above the level of the lithic artifacts and sloth remains in subzone III-4. A sample of osteoderms from subzone III-4 was dated at 27,000 ± 2000 yr B.P. by the

uranium/thorium method. Further AMS dating of charcoal and OSL dates on sandy sediments in subzone III-4 are reported to range around 25,000 years ago.

The III-4 subzone is at a depth of ca. 3 m within the rockshelter fill. One meter above, separated by virtually sterile deposits, is a younger occupation level (in Unit II-2) with Glossotherium bones and ca. 200 lithic artifacts. This level has produced a radiocarbon date of 10,010 ± 60 RCYBP on charcoal from a hearth. Research at the Santa Elina rockshelter continues, so we must await final results. As of the 2003 report, bedrock had not been reached.”

Location:

About 100km north west of Cuiabá the capital of Matto Grosso state.

 

 

Location of Santa Elina rock shelter within South America. Left hand map of the continent adapted from Cione (3) showing that surrounding region at the height of the Last Glacial Maxima (LGM at ca. 20Kya BP) was a mosaic of open forest and savanna. Right hand map adapted from Bachelet (4), showing similar current vegetation known as cerrado.

Environment

According to Cione at al. (3), the habitat in the region of the central Matto Grosso was similar to that of the present if a little cooler around the height of the LGM. Today the habitat in the area of Santa Elina rock shelter is described by Bachelet and Scheel-Ybert (5) as “This region is dominated by the Cerrado biome, comprising wooded savannas (cerrado stricto sensu, veredas), park and gramineous-woody savannas (campo sujo, campo rupestre, campo limpo), and forest formations (riparian forest, dry forests, Cerradão). The local landscape is defined by deciduous and semideciduous forests, cerrado, riparian forests, and anthropogenic areas (deforested areas, pastures) (Ceccantini, 2005). The climate is tropical hot (Aw in Köppen classification), with a dry season of 4-5 months from May to September; mean temperature is 25⁰C, with maxima over 40⁰C in the summer; mean precipitation is around 1700 mm.”

 

Cerrado types (Portugese) from Ecel Capoeira blog (7).

Santa Elina excavation details

The main publication about the Santa Elina rock shelter is that of Vialou (8), who excavated the site between 1985 and 2005. Unfortunately he published his discoveries in a monograph, in book form, in Portuguese and thus is unavailable to me. Unlike the situation with many other American archaeological sites there are few papers by about this site available on the internet. Thus details about the excavation must therefore be gleaned from translations of French papers by Vialou and Vilhena Vialou or from secondary sources.

 

 

Excavations at Santa Elina rock shelter. The cave is ca. 60 m long and situated in the Serra das Araras at the base of a  Precambrian limestone bed of dimensions 40 to 50 km wide, up to 800 m high and 500 km long. The cave is tilted in both longitudinal and vertical axes as shown in Vialou (6), original caption: Fig 1. Rock Shelter, Santa Elina: long stratigraphic sequence, 25 000 years to 2000 years BP.

 

 

The discoveries were summarised by Bachelet and Scheel-Ybert (5) thus:

“Three main archaeological assemblages were identified in the stratigraphy: The upper archaeological layers (assemblage I), containing the more recent occupations dated between 2000 and 6000 BP, are characterized by the exceptional preservation of many plant remains. The anthropogenic sediments, fine and powdery, are formed primarily of ash. The site shows habitation structures, numerous combustion structures, rich in charcoal and sometimes containing fruits and other plant remains, food remains, lithics, and adornments. Fruits, seeds, braided fibres and ropes, artefacts such as sandals, penian sheaths, and packages, wooden stakes, wood, charcoal, and even leaves abound. Lithics and pigments are very common (Vilhena Vialou, 2005).

An intermediate archaeological layer (assemblage II) was dated between 6000 and 10,000 BP, when several human groups are thought to have succeeded each other in the shelter. In these levels, sediments are sandy and non-charred plant remains are rare. The material culture is characterized by lithic material, extinct fauna remains of Glossotherium lettsomi, several hearths, and charcoal (Vilhena Vialou, 2005). The lower archaeological levels (assemblage III), dated to the Late Pleistocene (22,500 ± 500 BP), present are many megafauna remains of G. lettsomi, frequently identified in direct association with lithic material. The sediments are sandy and stony, and plant remains are scarce. Only lithics and a few fragments of charcoal dispersed in the sediments were retrieved (Vilhena Vialou, 2003, 2005).”

A useful stratigraphic diagram is also included in their paper:

 

Stratigraphic profile of Santa Elina from Bachelet and Scheel-Ybert (5), note caption for level III4 ‘couche a megafaune’ dates to 27,000BP - at variance with the text giving a date of 22,500BP. Original caption reads: Fig. 3. Schematic stratigraphic section of the square 29-ABCD in Santa Elina rock shelter, representing the three archaeological assemblages: “assemblage I” (2000-6000 yrs BP) top gray; “assemblage II” (6000-10000 yrs BP) in white; “assemblage III” (around 25000 yrs BP) bottom gray (from Benabdelhadi, 2005).

Vilhena Vialou and Vialou on the archaeological finds made:

“For various occupation floors uncovered at the base of the upper sequence, dated by ¹⁴C between 9,400 and 10,120 years BP, is associated with a well characterized lithic industry: many breakdown products (cores, flakes, cassons), mainly of silicified limestone but also of flint and sandstone, all rocks encountered near the shelter, within a few hundred meters; some quartz fragments, material taken in small outcrops visible in the mouth of the canyon, about 2 km from the site.  The tools consist of summarily retouched pieces and notches, cruder than at higher levels, also produced little except some remarkable pieces such as large projectile points (Vilhena Vialou and Vialou 1994 Vilhena Vialou et al. 1999; Vilhena Vialou 2005; Aubry 2005).

In this large occupation floor of 30 m² extent, lithic pieces are clearly associated with many skeletal remains of a giant sloth (Glossotherium Letsomii), a species of the South American megafauna that became extinct at the end of Pleistocene.

The lower sedimentary layer of the chrono-stratigraphic sequence was also stripped of 30m² between 2.80 and 3.50 m depth from the current surface.  The anthropogenic remains are in a compacted sediment amongst large weathered limestone blocks.  In places, a thin slightly greyish film contains fine ash and micro-fragments of coals.

The level of human occupation floor contained about 200 lithic pieces and, in abundance, the bones of Glossotherium.

 

 

Lithics from the lowest human occupation levels at Santa Elina rock shelter. Image source Vialou (8).

Osteoderms (dermal bones of 1 to 4 cm in length), revealed the number of 5000, were repeatedly grouped into small piles by prehistoric man.  Some are broken and two were redesigned conclusively by abrasion of their natural surfaces; these may be ornamental elements.  About 200 bones mostly, split are anatomically identified: ribs, vertebrae, maxilla and mandible.  They show that only the front part of a single animal was introduced into the occupation.  The animal died naturally or was killed by hunters, or was carrion was brought into the shelter (Vilhena Vialou et al 1995. Vilhena Vialou 1997-1998 Vilhena Vialou 2003 and 2005; Cartelle 2005).

 

Glossotherium osteoderm [Glossotherium chapadmalense] from López-Mendoza (9). Original caption: Figure 7a. : An undamaged dermal bone from Baño Nuevo-1;

 

The three dating methods have used at the site: Uranium-Thorium on osteoderms of Glossotherium, optical stimulated luminescence (OSL) on the quartz grains of sediment coating the archaeological and faunal material (with dosimeters placed in the layer section), accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) from micro-charcoal collected in the layer.  These three methods have provided dating around 25,000 years BP.  A Uranium-Thorium dating attempted on osteoderms collected in the upper  archaeological hearths of the upper layers has provided a date of around 13,000 years, corresponding to 10,000 years BP obtained by ¹⁴C dating.  Similarly, OSL dating on Glossotherium remains of the sandy levels inserted between the two occupations gave interim dates.  The intercalibration of the three methods (both being the lower limit of their validity) gives a result that further strengthens the remarkable dating of anthropogenic deep level, the oldest now obtained in archaeological contexts is stratigraphically well established ( Falguères 2005 Feathers 2005 Fontugne, Hatté and Noury ​​2005 Valladas 2005).”

 

Some authors such as Bueno, et al. (10), comment on the lithic assemblage from Santa Elina:

“During the 10th ¹⁴C millennium BP, the Itaparica Tradition reaches its greatest spatial extent in the cerrado and caatinga biomes of the Central Plateau and Northeast. On the Central Brazilian Plateau there are at least 23 known occupation events, fairly evenly distributed across that time range. With three exceptions e Santa Elina, Morro Furado and Boqueirão do Soberbo - all the occupied sites can be associated with the Itaparica Tradition.

..There is one site in this period in Central Brazil that we cannot assign to the Itaparica Tradition: Santa Elina, MT. The site is a limestone rockshelter, located at Serra das Araras, 100km northeast from Cuiabá, MT. Based on a series of different samples that have been dated by different analytical methods, the researchers responsible for work at this site have defined four main periods of occupation, extending from 25,000 ¹⁴C BP until the colonial period (Vialou, 2005). During their second period, between 10,000 and 7000 14C BP, one of the most important aspects of the lithic assemblages is the virtual absence of formal artefacts. In all levels related to this period a lithic assemblage predominates with simple and cortical flakes made of limestone, chert and quartz. These raw materials are all found in the vicinity of the rockshelter and the flaked limestone is the same as the rock of the rockshelter. Most of the flakes were used without retouch; when it is present, it is frequently marginal, producing small and abrupt edges. Beside the absence of retouching and the short extension of the edge, most of the flakes are large and wide, offering very robust cutting edges (Vialou, 2005).”

 

Verdict:

1. This site is little known outside Brazil and France due to the dearth of published material in English. The main source of detail is Vialou 2005, a monograph in book form published in Portuguese. Some review article has been published in French. Consequently it is a little hard to assess the the quality of the evidence to support the dating of the site to 25,000BP.

2. Secondary sources largely lend support to the site as being occupied by humans who utilised Giant Ground Sloth for food at 25,000BP.

3. The three independent lines of dating strongly support each other lending weight to point 2 above.

4. The lithic assemblage is unusual. It seems more primitive than the well-known and recorded Itaparica tradition. This fits well with the early dates obtained by the investigators of the site: If the site is early it should have primitive lithics.

5. The lithic style of tool production changed little over a long period of time. A similar phenomena has been noted at similarly controversially early dated site such as Pedra Furada.

6. If the site really IS as old as 25,000BP who were the people that occupied it and why did their lithic toolkit change so little over thousands of years? Perhaps they represent an earlier wave of migration into the Americas by archaic Homo sapiens?

 

See Here for a post on human migration rate and the possible early entry date into the Americas.

 

 

 

 

References

1.  Gruhn, R. 2007. The Earliest Reported Archaeological Sites in South America.

The Mammoth Trumpetv 22/1, Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.

 

2. Where the South Winds Blow, the 2003 CSFA publication edited by Laura Miotti, Mónica Salemme, and Nora Flegenheimer).

 

3. Chione, A.L. et al. 2010. Did Humans Cause the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Mammalian Extinctions in South America in a Context of Shrinking Open Areas? In American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene, G. Haynes (ed). Springer Netherlands, 2010

 

4. Bachelet, C. 2014. Pré-História no Cerrado: Análises antracologicas dos abrigos de Santa Elina e da Cidade de Pedra (Mato Grosso) [Prehistory in the Cerrado: Anthracological analysis of Santa Elina and Cidade de Pedra rocks shelters (Mato Grosso)] FRONTEIRAS: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science v.3, n.2, jul.-dez. 2014, p.96-110.

 

5. Bachelet, C and R Scheel-Ybert Landscape and firewood selection in the Santa Elina rock shelter (Mato Grosso, Brazil) during the Holocene. Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1-9 · JANUARY 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.019

 

6. Àgueda Vilhena Vialou et Denis Vialou, « Peuplements préhistoriques au Brésil », Les nouvelles de l'archéologie [En ligne], 111/112 | 2008, mis en ligne le 15 juin 2011, consulté le 05 avril 2016. URL : http://nda.revues.org/214  ; DOI : 10.4000/nda.214

 

7. Retrieved from: http://ecelcapoeiraacpe.blogspot.co.uk/

 

8. Vilhena Vialou, A., 2005. Habitat e cronoestratigrafia. In: Vilhena-Vialou, A. (Ed.),

Pre-historia do Mato Grosso, vol. 1. Santa Elina. Edusp, S~ao Paulo, pp. 87e102.

 

9. López-Mendoza, Patricio and  Mena-Larraín, Francisco. 2011.

Extinct ground sloth dermal bones and their role in the taphonomic research of caves: the case of Baño Nuevo-1 (Andean Central Patagonia, Chile)

Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, vol. 28, núm. 3, pp. 519-532 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Querétaro, México

 

10. Bueno, L., et al., The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeological record in Brazil: A geo-referenced database, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.03.042

 

 

More False Face masks from the Iroquois

I cited a paper by Jean Hendry (1) in my post about Native American mythological art (see Here). Originally written in the 1950’s it remained unpublished until 1964.The variety and exquisite nature of the False Face masks shown in the paper was quite breath-taking. Therefore I show some of them below as the images are almost unknown today.

 

 

On the origin of the masks Hendry recounts a number of facts, noting initially that they may have been as late as the 1600’s in their first use by the Iroquois.

 

On first observation by Europeans:

 

“The first positive evidence of false faces among the New York Iroquois comes from De Nonville in 1687. Writing about the Seneca he says, "They make some very hideous masks with pieces of wood which they carve according to their fancy . . . one foot and a half wide in proportion. Two pieces of kettle very neatly fitted to it and pierced with small holes represent the eyes. . ."”

 

Whilst Hendry attributes the above quote to De Nonville i.e. Jacques-René de Brisay de Denonville, the Marquis de Denonville, it is more likely quote originates from De Baugy (2) who was the Marquis’ aide-de-camp.

 

Hendry explores the probable earlier use of the False Face masks in the prehistoric period:

 

“The fact that the first travellers and missionaries found no public use of masks, and for a long time knew of none among the Iroquois, led Fenton (3) and Beauchamp (4) to the conclusion that false faces and their rituals made their appearance among the Seneca in western New York not earlier than the middle of the 1600's and from there spread slowly eastward to the other four tribes. Those students who take issue with this theory find support for the antiquity of masks in archaeological materials.

Parker (5) cites the small stone masks and the faces on pots and pipes, some of which he takes to represent masked figures. In his opinion, this evidence and some accounts of idols in the early 1600's that may refer to masks are proof that the Iroquois masking complex can be dated before the period of White contact. Converse and Keppler (6) take the same view and point out that the failure of early writers to mention masks is no guarantee that they did not exist at that time, as it is probable that the first Europeans were never permitted to see a mask or to witness the more secret ceremonies in which they were used.

The new archaeological evidence bearing on the problem of Iroquois provenience has done much to resolve previous differences of opinion. The probability that Iroquois culture originated and developed in New York State, and the discovery of representations of masked faces on clay pipe bowls in prehistoric Iroquois sites near Onondaga, offers support to those who insist that masking was an indigenous and ancient trait.”

 

Amongst the False Face masks accompanying Hendry’s paper were these:

 

False Face mask of the Iroquois from Hendry (1) plate 100a

Original caption: Crooked-mouth mask.

 

It is important to note the fact that Hendry did not give an attribution to this mask in terms of the exact source of the image, or any of the ones which follow. She comments thus: “I had hoped to obtain some information concerning the artistic standards of the carvers by showing them photographs of masks which have been made on the reservation during the last few years. This plan was blocked by difficulties of an interpersonal sort since after I had taken pictures of a group of Onondaga masks, the carver who had originally given me permission to do so was told that under no circumstances should he allow Whites to photograph them [possibly by Pete Hest - see note at the end of this post]. He asked me to refrain from mentioning to anyone that I had already taken pictures, a request which obviously prevented me from showing them to my other informants. However, I was able to use photographs of Iroquois masks which I had obtained from museums, and I found them very effective as a means of eliciting the carvers’ judgments and opinions about masks and as a rapport device.”

 

Thus the best photos in Hendry’s paper seem to be from museum collections or earlier sources (see refs 14-19 for possible sources). It is interesting however, to compare the above image with that of the cover photograph from Fenton’s 1991 book (7). It seems to be the same mask.

There are several other interesting masks. Here is the next:

 

Hendry (1) plate 100b. Original caption: Tongue-protruding mask.

Hendry (1) plate 103. From the style probably Seneca. Original caption: Straight-lipped wooden mask.

 

Hendry (1) plate 102. Original caption: Onondaga 1888 De Costa Smith (8) tongue-protruding masks.

Update:
I had assumed that these masks would be illustrated in one of De Cost Smith's publications. However having consulted the relevant works I find no illustrations of these masks. I can therefore only conclude that these masks were collected in 1888, as it is well known that De Cost Smith collected masks.

 

Hendry (1) Plate 103. Original caption: Husk Face Society mask.

Other Iroquois False Face masks culled from internet:

 

 

False Face mask. Image Source: Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin.

 

 

False Face masks of unknown origin and provenance, however the left hand mask is almost certainly the same as the image above, therefore it seem likely they are both from the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin.

Image source: Iroquoisantroinfo (9)

 

False Face mask, age and tribal source unknown. Original image from pinterest, (10) but re-posted from the auction site Dorotheum where the item was presumably for sale. The item is no longer listed and therefore assumed sold.

 

 

False Face mask Musee Barbier Mueller, Geneva, Switzerland (11).

 

 

These last four masks illustrate the dual problems that the Iroquois tribes face today, some of their ‘live’ masks - that is those that have been used in ceremonies, by their makers embody the spirits of the False Face himself and are therefore seen as sacred. Tribes have therefore sought their return from museums. In the USA and Canada, this has often been achieved, especially from museum collections. Private sales still occur in the continental USA, and prices for genuine masks have ranged from $1000-$12000 in 2015.

An example of the Iroquois attitude is the statement on the Support Native American Art website (12):

“Many Iroquois masks have produced and sold to collectors and tourists. The Iroquois leadership responded with a statement against the sale of these sacred masks and called for their return. Traditional Iroquois object to labelling these as masks since they are not "things" but the living representations of spirits. It is considered sacrilegious to sell, publicly display or mimic sacred False Face Iroquois masks.

Some Iroquois carvers carve "non-live" masks made especially for sale, but traditionalists disapprove of this as well. All are in agreement that it is profaning the Iroquois religion to buy or view living masks, including antiques, or non-native forgeries.

I do not have a picture because public exhibition of all Iroquois Masks is forbidden.”

An alternative view comes from an Iroquois carver Chief Jacob Thomas (13):

“I am responding to your letter of October 3, 1994 requesting clarification of masks being sold to galleries, collectors and other institutions.

First of all in the past the people carved different forms of art to help support their livelihood. Particularly today as there are no jobs this maybe the only source for the people to make a living is to sell their art. Therefore many people do carve and sell their art. I believe that this is an honest thing to do rather than living on welfare or having to steal to provide for one’s family.

The masks that I carve are not “blessed” nor given any power for healing, and there is nothing wrong to sell these masks. On the other hand, I do agree when the people say that sacred masks should not be sold. Sacred masks are blessed and given power to heal and cure. This is not a religious practice but it is a tradition that has been passed on from generation to generation.

People are very critical but they overlook the practice to sell native medicine, to compete in native dances, and to sell their culture by smudging and selling lacrosse sticks (its medicine too). Today lacrosse sticks are sold and played all over the world.

If masks are forbidden to be sold and it becomes too sacred then it will become a secret and no one will be able to carve a mask and know what it means and it will become lost among our people.

This is the way I make my living I carve many forms of art and I make an honest living. If there is anyone out there who needs more information they can contact personally. I hope that clears the confusion.

- Chief Jacob Thomas”

 

That was in the 1990’s. But where did this prohibition about selling, showing or even explaining the False Face masks originate? Strangely here, the story may come full circle.

Hendry explains a little about the recent (1950’s) reluctance by some member of the Onondaga community with whom she worked, to have the masks examined or give explanations to outsiders, specifically whites. One must remember that scarcely 10 years earlier Fenton in 1941, had received full cooperation from the Iroquois. Anyway Hendy records the changing attitudes thus:

 “..in recent years a White man from Syracuse has been admitted [to the False Face society]. He visits the reservation frequently, takes an active part in the rituals, and is considered by his associates in the society to be an authority on the meaning and use of the masks. In this sense he is more "Indian" than the Indians themselves, insisting that the ancient concepts be followed and the ancient forms observed. This man, Pete Hest, gave me little information beyond the fact that he likes Indians and has been associated with them at summer camps where he picked up his interest in Indian lore. He is regarded somewhat suspiciously by many of the Christians on the reservation who wonder what he is up to.”

Under the economic value of the masks to the Iroquois Hendy has this to say:

“Masks were originally clan property, were later acquired by the medicine society, and finally came to be individual possessions which were handed down within families. Exchange in ownership was a ritual rather than an economic transaction and was effected by the new owner adding his bag of tobacco to those already attached to the mask (Keppler, 1941, p. 17). There is not enough historical data to permit an accurate account of the economic significance of the carvings in the aboriginal culture. However, since they were ceremonial objects, masks probably had little if any commercial value within the society, an assumption which explains why the Europeans were able to purchase them at a very low price during the 18th and 19^th centuries (Beauchamp, 1905 a, p. 191). Later, when the Indians realized that the carvings had a monetary value for the Whites, their attitude began to shift in the direction of greater conformity to western standards. This change may be responsible for the fact that masks are now private rather than community property. Today at Onondaga the economic aspects of mask making are still minimized by those who identify with the traditional Iroquois patterns. In this respect the art differs from the beadwork and basket-weaving of the women, which are openly acknowledged to be commercial enterprises, as well as from carving on some other reservations where masks are made specifically for the tourist trade and it is possible to order "a genuine Iroquois false face" by mail. Some Onondagas maintain that masks, being ceremonial properties, should never be sold, although the more prevalent opinion holds that it is use which makes the carvings sacred and that they may be sold if they have never been "doctored" or worn in a ceremony. The chiefs have forbidden sales at the State Fair and from the roadside stands on the reservation and do all they can to prevent the old masks from falling into the hands of the Whites. The position which the carvers themselves have taken toward selling their work is somewhat inconsistent. They assert quite positively that although it is permissible to sell and trade masks among the members of the False Face Society and the other Council House people, it is wrong to deal with outsiders, particularly as Pete Hest has told them to keep all the carvings they make.”

 

I therefore wonder what effect this random, seemingly amateur anthropologist had on Onondaga/Iroquois militancy with regard to the lore surrounding the False Face masks?

 

References

1. Hendry, J 1964. Iroquois Masks and Maskmaking at Onondaga. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 191 Anthropological Papers, No. 74

 

2. Louis Henri ‘Le Chavalier’ De Baugy. 1883. Jourrnal D’Une Expedition contre Les Iroquois en 1687. Ernest Hubert Auguste Serrigny ed. Merch et co. Dijon

PDF retrieved from: https://dl.wdl.org/15529/service/15529.pdf

 

3. Fenton, William N. 1941. Masked medicine societies of the Iroquois. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst, for 1940, pp. 397-439.

 

4. Beauchamp, William M. 1905. Aboriginal use of wood in New York. New York State Mus. Bull. 90, Archeol. 11, pp. 87-272.

 

5. Parker, Arthur C. 1909. Secret medicine societies of the Seneca. Amer. Anthrop., n.s., vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 161-185.

 

6. Keppler, Joseph. 1941. Comments on certain Iroquois masks. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Foundation, Contr., vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1-40.

 

7. Fenton, W. N. 1991. Civilization of the American Indian. University of Oklahoma Press

 

8. Smith, De Cost. 1888. Witchcraft and demonism of the modern Iroquois. Journ. Amer. Folklore, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 184-194.

 

9. Iroquoisantroinfo at:

https://iroquoisanthroinfo.wikispaces.com/Medicine+Societies

 

10. Pinterest. Retrieved from:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/376191375100574256/

 

11. Musee Barbier Mueller. Retrieved from:

http://www.barbier-mueller.ch/collections/amerique-du-nord/fleurons/?lang=en

 

12. Support Native American Art website. Retrieved from:

http://www.support-native-american-art.com/iroquois-masks.html

 

13. The views of Chief Jacob Thomas on the Chichester Inc. website, retrieved from:

http://www.chichesterinc.com/FalseFaceMasks.htm

 

14. Speck, Frank G. 1925. Northern elements in Iroquois and New England art. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

 

15. Speck, Frank G. 1950. Concerning iconology and the masking complex in eastern North America. Univ. Pennsylvania Mus. Bull., vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 6-57.

 

16. Wissler, Clark. 1928. The lore of the demon mask. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Nat. Hist., vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 339-352.

 

17. Beauchamp, William M. 1885. The Stone Age in Onondaga County. MS., Cornell Univ. library. New York.

 

18. Beauchamp, William M. 1888. Onondaga customs. Journ. Amer. Folklore, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195-203.

 

19. Beauchamp, William M. 1905. A history of the New York Iroquois, now commonly called the Six Nations. New York State Mus. Bull. 78, Archeol. 9, pp. 125-410.