The paper all Clovis-first and
Beringian Standstill rejectionists have been waiting for. Finally, finally
someone stuck their head above the parapet! Holen et. al. (2017) have published
a rock-solid piece of evidence to support human presence in the Americas at a
shockingly, early date of 130,000 BP right smack in the middle of the of the
Pleistocene.
The route of the peopling of the
Americas at that date, must have been via Beringia. I have already and repeatedly talked about, when
and for how long the Americas were connected to Asia [see Here, Here and Here].
The humans involved could have
been, modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus or Homo
heidelbergensis depending on which narrative of human dispersals you subscribe
to.
What exactly does the paper
present? Well it’s all about the fractured and splintered bones and teeth of a
Mastodon, Mammut americanum, the
skeleton of which, from Crawford (2017) is shown below:
Anyway here’s the abstract:
The earliest dispersal of humans into North America is a contentious
subject, and proposed early sites are required to meet the following criteria
for acceptance: (1) archaeological evidence is found in a clearly defined and
undisturbed geologic context; (2) age is determined by reliable radiometric
dating; (3) multiple lines of evidence from interdisciplinary studies provide consistent
results; and (4) unquestionable artefacts are found in primary context (1, 2).
Here we describe the Cerutti Mastodon (CM) site, an archaeological site from
the early late Pleistocene epoch, where in situ hammerstones and stone anvils
occur in spatio-temporal association with fragmentary remains of a single
mastodon (Mammut americanum). The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and
molar fragments, indicating that breakage occurred while fresh. Several of
these fragments also preserve evidence of percussion. The occurrence and
distribution of bone, molar and stone refits suggest that breakage occurred at
the site of burial. Five large cobbles (hammerstones and anvils) in the CM bone
bed display use-wear and impact marks, and are hydraulically anomalous relative
to the low-energy context of the enclosing sandy silt stratum. 230Th/U
radiometric analysis of multiple bone specimens using
diffusion–adsorption–decay dating models indicates a burial date of 130.7 ± 9.4
thousand years ago. These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified
species of Homo at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e;
early late Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the
experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb
bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool production. Systematic
proboscidean bone reduction, evident at the CM site, fits within a broader
pattern of Palaeolithic bone percussion technology in Africa (3, 4, 5, 6),
Eurasia (7, 8, 9) and North America (10, 11, 12). The CM site is, to our
knowledge, the oldest in situ, well-documented archaeological site in North
America and, as such, substantially revises the timing of arrival of Homo into
the Americas.
Setting
A photomontage showing the dig at
various stages gives an idea of how the excavation was carried out:
Top: The Cerutti Mastodon site borders state highway 54. From the
San Diego Natural History Museum (2017) video on their website. As far as can work out, the site is behind the
banking on the left near the house with three windows.
Middle left: Initial stages of the rescue, excavation at the
Cerutti Mastodon site from USA today (2017).
Original caption reads: Caltrans
archaeologists Karen Crafts, Chris White, and Don Laylander excavating fossils
found at the Cerutti Mastodon site off State Route 54 in San
Diego. San Diego Natural History Museum.
Middle Right: The rescue excavation funded by the National
Geographic, was carried out in just a few short weeks between late November
1992 and the end of April 1993. Time pressure was a factor but the
palaeontologists found so much material to excavate that an extension was
granted for extensive recording of the site. Looking back, this was a very
important and farsighted decision by The State of California, Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), picture from Ritter (2017).
Original caption reads:
In this February 1993 photo
provided by the San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego Natural History
Museum palaeontologists C. Paul Majors and Matt Colbert work at the Cerutti
Mastodon site in San Diego, Calif. In a report released on Wednesday, April 26,
2017, researchers say the southern California site shows evidence of human-like
behaviour from about 130,000 years ago, when bones and teeth of an
elephant-like mastodon were evidently smashed with rocks. (San Diego Natural
History Museum).
Bottom: After the emergency, excavation the site was backfilled on
the 28th of April 1993, from Zimmer (2017). Original caption: A
bulldozer refilling the Cerutti Mastodon site after excavation and salvage of
fossils was completed in 1993. Credit San Diego Natural History Museum.
Evidence Presented
First of the all the stratigraphy was
found to be intact, with the evidence for man’s presence found in situ, within
a discrete layer. The authors state “Mastodon
fossils and cobbles were found in a 20-30 cm thick sandy silt bed (Bed E) that
was contained within a 12m thick sequence of Pleistocene sediments. The
stratigraphic section consists of multiple upward-fining sequences of silt and
fine-grained sand deposited in a low energy fluvial environment.”
This is a key statement,
basically it means that, in the opinion of the authors the fossil bone and
cobbles were not washed there.
This is more than evident from
the position of some of the bones:
The Femoral Heads: Two severed femur heads, one positioned
vertically downwards and one upwards. Recall: this is a “low energy fluvial
environment”, therefore these bones and their breakage are highly unusual. Low
energy streams do not break femur heads off in this manner, and therefore human
modification is the most likely explanation. Furthermore, they should settle
according, to, the laws of gravity on their sides. Consequently, these
positions are once again highly suggestive of placement by human hands.
The two femur heads in situ at the Caltrans site.
Photo: Greshko (2017) Original caption reads: Two mastodon
femur balls, one face up and one face down, are among the remains found at the
Cerutti site in San Diego.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAN DIEGO NATURAL
HISTORY MUSEUM
The concentration of bones and
cobbles found during excavation at the Caltrans site, adapted from Holen (2017)
extended data figure 3. Original caption reads: a, Oblique view of
concentration 1 in grid unit E3. Note the position of anvil CM-281,
spirally-fractured femoral fragments CM-288 and CM-292 and molar fragment
CM-286.
The tusk: The position of this find is inexplicable. It was found
penetrating several layers of sediment. It had an intrusive wedge of sediment
from the upper layers, running down
its length from above. This must have
been done post-deposition of the layers, otherwise there would have been no
infilling of the sediment down the side of tusk. It therefore cannot have just
been buried by normal sedimentary processes. The only sensible conclusion,
being that the mastodon tusk was shoved vertically through several layers of
sediments by human hands.
This tusk diagram also appeared
in Deméré (1995). Original 2017 caption reads: Extended Data Figure 7:
Pleistocene land mammal excavation grid maps and stratigraphic profile of in
situ tusk. c, Profile of vertically oriented mastodon tusk CM-56 recovered from
grid unit B2. Note that the tusk extends from the level of Bed E into
underlying Beds D and C through a caliche layer. Note the infilling of sediment
from Bed D along the leading margin of the embedded tusk.
Spirally Fractured Femur: This specimen is a vital piece of
evidence leading to the conclusion that humans were in California and indeed
the Americas 130,000 years ago. The spiral bone breakage pattern only occurs
when the bones are fresh. To break bones in this manner, the bones need to be
de-fleshed while the carcass is fresh either by animal or human predators. As no
carnivore tooth marks were found on the bones, hence, human hunters recovering
meat seems the most likely explanation for the de-fleshing. Additionally,
humans in African hunter-gatherer societies historically broke the long bones
of elephant to obtain the fatty marrow. Patterns of breakage observed from
these activities, and from experiments carried out by the authors match those
found on the bones at the Caltrans archaeological site. Once again, the only
logical explanation is that humans broke these bones.
Suspected human fractured femur
shaft from the Caltrans site, from Holen (2017). The spirally fractured nature
of the bones means they were broken when ‘green’ or fresh.
Original caption reads:
Extended Data Figure 4:
Diagnostic anvil wear on CM bone.
a–e, Spiral-fractured femur
segment CM-288. a, V-shaped projection with anvil polish (rectangle). b, Side
view with V-shaped projection. c, Outer, cortical surface. d, Side view with
impact surface and bulb of percussion (highlighted with a black dashed line) on
opposite side from anvil wear. e, Enlarged area from a showing impact fracture
marks (arrows) where the bone rested on the anvil. f, Spiral-fractured V-shaped
cortical bone CM-329 with anvil polish (oval). g. Spiral-fractured bone CM-255
that refits with CM-329 (white rectangle showing the location of the close-up
shown in h). h, Enlarged area from g showing anvil striations. Scale bars, 2 cm
(a), 5 cm (b–d), 5 mm (e), 10 mm (f–h).
Close-up of panel a above, from Greshko (2017). Original caption reads: A close-up view of a spirally fractured mastodon femur bone from the site. Photograph by Tom Deméré, San Diego Natural History Museum.
Shattered and flaked second femur
Found in Concentration 1, this
shattered and flaked second femur was refitted and visualised using 3D surface
models, much of the work carried out at the University of Michigan.
The authors go into great, detail
about the taphonomic processes that could have formed this bone assemblage. In
their opinion the bone was shattered by blows from the exact type of rounded
river cobbles, or ‘hammerstones’ found in the same concentrations of artifacts.
Although I am no expert in this area, being a physics graduate, their chain of
reasoning seems undeniable. Consequently, these bones, based on decades of
taphonomic work by dozens of scientists are human altered.
The assemblage is show in a
kaleidoscope of views in Holen Figure 2.
Original caption reads: Percussion-modified bone specimens (illustrated by 3D
surface models). a, b, Cone flakes CM-238a (a) and CM-230 (b). From left to
right the images show the ventral, dorsal and lateral views (as defined in
lithic technology). c, Impact flake CM-222. From left to right the images show
the ventral, dorsal and impact surface views. d, Femur fragment CM-340. Images
show the cortical surface (left) and longitudinal section showing cortical bone
thickness (right). bp bulb of percussion; c, caliche remnant on bone surface;
dfs, dorsal flake surface; hf, hinge termination; in, impact notch; is, impact
surface; lm, lateral margin (ventral surface); nbp, negative bulb of
percussion; udf, undetached flake; vfs, ventral flake surface. Impact surfaces
that are external cortical surfaces are shown in a, b, d, whereas a fracture
surface is shown in c. Scale bars, 1cm (a-c) and 5 cm (d).
A good close-up of part of the
refitted assembly can be found in Bower (2017). This clearly shows the impact
notch at the top centre border. Original caption reads: An unidentified Homo
species pounded apart mastodon bones with large stones in southern California
around 130,700 years ago, a new study concludes. Finds at what’s proposed as
the oldest archaeological site in the Americas include this mastodon leg bone.
T. Deméré/San Diego Natural History Museum.
The 3D visualisation used in the
paper can also be viewed on University of Michigan (2017a) website. The image
can be rotated or examined in extreme close-up using the zoom facility as shown
below.
Use wear on cobbles
To break Mastodon long bones (the
femur) takes a huge effort. To do so requires a ‘tool’, something that can apply an
extreme amount of force e.g. something heavy yet heftable. Large rocks or
cobbles were historically used by African hunter-gathers to break elephant
bones.
Such cobbles were found amongst
the broken bones at the Caltrans archaeological site. Again I repeat: this was
a ‘low energy fluvial environment’.
As Greshko (2017) says: “There’s also the matter of the stones’
placement. The site was entombed in siltstone, a type of sedimentary rock that
forms from fine-grained sediments—the sort that would settle out only in very
slow-moving, low-energy water. But the large stones that appear to be
rudimentary tools are far heavier than the surrounding particles. One is
roughly 30 pounds. If water didn’t move the rocks there, then perhaps people
carried them to the site.”
So, what wear/usage patterns were
found on the cobbles that indicate that they were used by humans to break the
bones?
Well the authors found quite a
lot of evidence:
Hammerstones. These the authors
contend were used to break the Mastodon bones and teeth. For each stone tool
found multiple signs of use/wear were identified, including for this specimen.
Here is a complete, andesite one (CM-383) included in the paper, here
illustrated from Joyce (2017). Original caption reads: A boulder discovered at
the Cerutti Mastodon site in San Diego County thought to have been used by
early humans as a hammerstone. Tom Démeré/San Diego Natural History Museum
Hammerstone with refitted flakes
from Callaway (2017).
The authors conclude, that the modification
of the Mastodon bones was accomplished using a ‘hammer and anvil’ technique’.
This is where the bone being worked is placed between the two rocks and
smashed. Original caption reads:
A 'hammer' stone — possibly
shaped by ancient humans — found in California and dated to 130,000 years ago.
Image from A. Rountrey, C. Abraczinskas and
D. Fisher/Univ. Michigan
As can be noted
from the picture above the hammer stone was found in several pieces. It was
refitted by scientists from the University of Michigan. They have a very nice
animation of the refitting process on their website [here]
This picture from The University of Michigan (2017b) shows a still from
that animation.
Original caption: Rock assembly associated with the Cerutti
mastodon. Includes CM 109, 254, 262, 283, 284, 304, and 423 (largest). CM 423
was found meters away from the refitting fragments.
Note: The caption read in conjunction with the ‘low fluvial energy’
environment that the authors establish in their paper basically means that the
University of Michigan believe this rock was moved by humans and is indeed a
hammer stone.
The in-situ Anvil
The purpose of an anvil in a
Palaeolithic context, is much the same as its use in a blacksmith’s shop: You
place objects on it when you want to hit them. In this case the authors believe
the anvils found at the Cerutti Mastodon (CM) site were used to break bones/teeth
for the extraction of marrow or to obtain raw materials for tool making.
Anvil CM-281 made of andesite,
was found right, plumb in the middle of concentration 1 amongst many of the,
bones which the authors contend were broken by humans. Here it is, centre
picture, in situ from Holen (2017) Extended data figure 3:
Original caption reads:
Extended Data Figure 3: Bones and
cobbles exposed during excavation. a, Oblique view of concentration 1 in grid
unit E3. Note the position of anvil CM-281, spirally-fractured femoral
fragments CM-288 and CM-292 and molar fragment CM-286.
Here is another view
of it from the media release pictures showing it after its recovery, but still
on site, from Adams State University (2017).
The import of the find was the tiny
molar fragments found around and under the anvil. In a fluvial environment with
enough energy to cause collisions between rock and these huge molars, and break
them, one would expect small fragments to be washed away and lay scattered
across the site. This was not the case. They were found only in concentrations
near the anvil and hammerstones. Original caption reads: A researcher
holds a mastodon molar fragment found under a rock anvil discovered at the
California site.
I won’t go into the detail here,
but the authors show in great, detail how each of the above rock specimens has
use/wear consistent with their employment as tools to break the bones found at
the site yet inconsistent with natural processes. Furthermore, they carried out
experimental archaeological tests on elephant bones with cobbles of similar
mass and rock types. The results showed that identical damage resulted when
they were wielded by human hands.
The CM site dating
This is THE crucial piece of
evidence. If the rocks and bones had dated to 14,500 BP for instance, they
would be interesting to the archaeological community but unlikely to provoke
the criticism and outrage shown by some academics.
It is the very ancient, paradigm
challenging date of ca. 130,000BP that has caused the strong negative reaction.
Let us look at how the artifacts and site were dated.
In the words of Holen, et al.
(2017):
“Initial attempts to date the CM site using radiocarbon analysis at two
independent laboratories failed, because the samples lacked sufficient
collagen. Several attempts to date the site with optically stimulated
luminescence indicated that samples were near or beyond the upper limits of
dose saturation, and that the depositional age of the sediment is greater than
60-70 thousand years (kyr) (Supplementary Information7). Subsequently, multiple
bone fragments (Extended Data Fig 9e-g) were analysed by uranium-series
disequilibrium methods (Methods and Supplementary Information 8)…
Results calculated using diffusion-absorption-decay modelling for
profiles of multiple specimens (Extended Data Fig 10c) indicate a burial age estimate of 130 +/- 9.4 Kyr (weighted mean of
three maximum likelihood ages determined for bone profiles; Extended Data Fig.
10d). Isotope data are consistent with diffusion of U into interior portions of
cortical bone and show no evidence for post-burial U leaching that would yield
erroneously old ages (Supplementary Information 8).”
Here is their Extended data Fig
10d:
Original caption reads: Extended Data Figure 10: Results of
U-series isotope analyses.
See also Supplementary Table
12. d, Best estimate of burial age of 130.7 ka (solid horizontal
line) and 2σ uncertainties (±9.4 ka; dashed lines) determined as the mean of
DAD dates for profiles shown in c weighted by their respective
uncertainties.
To me that’s a pretty watertight
dating of the site and its artifacts. That being the case, the authors move
closer to providing sufficient evidence to thoroughly support their claims of
the antiquity of man in the Americas.
Now as this dating was carried
out so assiduously by scientists independent of the excavators it seems that
the scientific naysayers are reluctant to challenge this dating. However, as
they fundamentally disagree with the possibility of humans in the Americas
130,000 BP many of the other aspects of the evidence are attacked. See further down this post for some naysayer reactions.
Other Evidence
A few brief, other points to
consider:
1. The distribution of the bones,
hammerstones and anvils.
If the bones and rock
fragments/cobbles which caused the damage to them were moved through the agency
of water, the bones should, by the laws of physics be more, or less evenly
distributed across the site. They were not. They were found in concentrations
as shown by Holen et al. (2017) Fig 1:
Original caption reads: Figure 1.
Plan of CM excavation site. a, Distribution of complete and fragmentary bones,
teeth and cobbles. Note the circular cross- section of the tusk (CM-56) in grid
unit 2B. Red arrows indicate bones sampled for U-Th dating. b, Distribution of
spiral- fractured bone, molar fragments and andesite anvils (CM-281, CM-114) in
concentrations 1 and 2. c, Distribution of impact-fractured bone, cone flakes,
impact flakes, bone refits and anvils in concentrations 1 and 2. Molar refits
(yellow lines were distributed between grid units D3 and E3. Cone flakes
(CM-438a, CM-438b) that were found when screening grid unit E3 cannot be
precisely plotted. Impact flake CM-236 was found above anvil CM-281.
2. Large, thick bones with a lot of tensile strength, such as the
femora were found fractured, flaked and splintered. Smaller lighter bones, such
as ribs were found whole within a few inches of each other. If the bone
breakage were due to fluvial transport, one would expect the pattern to be
reversed, i.e. small bones would be broken, while large ones remained intact.
Overall the authors assert that
these two pieces of evidence support their theory that the bones were modified
by humans who had reached California by 130,000 BP.
Let us now turn to the conclusion of the paper:
Holen paper conclusions:
"We conclude that the reliably
dated Cerutti Mastodon site constitutes an in
situ archaeological association based on: comparative taphonomy; bone
modification like those produced by Palaeolithic percussion technology and
replicated by experimental archaeology; presence of hammerstones and anvils
that exhibit use-wear and impact marks; and the presence of rock fragments that
can be refitted to breakage scars. Bone breakage for marrow extraction and/or
bone and molar tool manufacture is the preferred archaeological interpretation
of the CM site, as there is no evidence of butchery. Concordant
interdisciplinary lines of evidence from this study suggest the presence of Homo in North America during the last
interglacial (MIS5e) and as early as 130 thousand years ago (ka) (Supplementary
Information 9). This discovery calls for further archaeological investigation
focused on North American strata of early late Pleistocene age."
Naysayer reactions
In the interests of ‘balanced
reporting’ many websites elicited quotes/opinions about the paper from
palaeontologists. I include some below:
From Zimmer (2017) in the New
York Times:
“Some experts were intrigued by the research, but many archaeologists
strongly criticized it, saying the evidence didn’t come close to supporting
such a profound conclusion.
“I was astonished, not because it is so good but because it is so bad,”
said Donald K. Grayson, an archaeologist at the University of Washington, who
faulted the new study for failing to rule out more mundane explanations for
markings on the bones.
“They present evidence that the broken stones and bones could have been
broken by humans,” said Vance T. Holliday, an archaeologist at the University
of Arizona. “But they don’t demonstrate that they could only be broken by
humans.”
Gary Haynes, an archaeologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, said
the researchers should have ruled out more alternatives. Some of the bone
fractures could have been caused by pressure from overlying sediment, he
suggested.
“Extraordinary claims require unequivocal evidence,” Dr. Waters of
Texas A&M said. Unlike the stone knife he and his colleagues found in
Florida, the stones at the San Diego site are not indisputably human tools.”
From Bower (2017)
“The ancient southern California landscape also may have included
streams. These could have washed broken mastodon bones and large stones from
separate areas. They might simply have collected at the spot where they were
eventually unearthed, says Vance Holliday. Also an archaeologist, he works at
the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Perhaps hominids used stones found at the site to break bones, he says.
Still, the new study doesn’t rule out other explanations. For instance, the
bones might have suffered a trampling by animals at locations where the bones
originated. “Making a case for [hominids] on this side of the Pacific Ocean at
130,000 years ago is a very heavy lift,” Holliday argues. “And this site
doesn’t make it.”
Michael Waters is an archaeologist at Texas A&M University in
College Station. Nothing at the mastodon site clearly qualifies as a stone
tool, he argues. Indeed, he adds, mounting genetic evidence indicates that the
first people to reach the Americas — the ancestors of present-day Native
Americans — arrived no earlier than about 25,000 years ago.”
From Letters and Kleske (2017), archaeologist
Matt Tennyson had this to say:
“I read your article on the Cerutti site (“Study revises time line on arrival
of humans,” April 27). As an archaeologist, I wanted to write because while the
mastodon is certainly a noteworthy find, I’m skeptical that this is an
archaeological site. The hammers and anvils found at the site are dubious
artifacts, at best. Not to mention that modern humans hadn’t even left Africa
130,000 years ago and other hominid species were nowhere near North America.
This isn’t just pushing back the dates when people came to North America, this
is re-writing human history.
Much of the reporting I’ve encountered on this story is all too ready
to accept the findings. The recent March for Science stressed the importance of
facts in today’s world. Right now, the facts don’t add up and the data shared
to date are incomplete at best. To his credit, Dr. Deméré has indicated he welcomes debate about the
site, so hopefully time will tell.”
From Callaway (2017):
“Before invoking humans, however, the researchers need to better rule
out the possibility that natural forces broke the rocks and bones, says David
Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
“If you are going to push human antiquity in the New World back more than
100,000 years in one fell swoop, you’ll have to do so with a far better
archaeological case than this one.””
From Wong (2017);
“We need to leave our minds open. I admire these colleagues for sticking
their necks out. They should be commended for doing that,” says archaeologist
Tom Dillehay of Vanderbilt University, who fought for years to convince the
archaeological community that remains from the controversial site of Monte
Verde in Chile predate the Clovis culture. Today most scholars accept that
Monte Verde dates, back to, around 15,000 years old, if not 18,000 to 20,000
years ago, as Dillehay would have it. “But more evidence is going to be needed”
for something this early, he says of the claims for human activity at the
Cerutti Mastodon site.”
It is really, telling to note
that NO criticism of the dating of the site has so far emerged. Instead the main,
focus of the attack is whether the surface modification of the bones and
cobbles (the anvils and hammerstones) is caused by natural processes or by
their use by humans.
All I can say is that the likes
of Dillehay, Meltzer and Waters should have known better than to voice negative
comment shot from the hip in the immediate aftermath of the paper’s
publication. Each has, had, involvement with controversial sites and so knows
how distorting uninformed commentary can be. I say uninformed because I do not
believe that any of them will have had enough time to study the use/wear evidence
provided in the paper sufficiently well to make fact-based judgements. In point of fact, none of these eminent
scientists actually, gave evidence based reasons for their criticisms. They
merely offered opinions. This is a great shame as it could, colour the argument
going forward.
Conclusion
This is a fantastic, extremely
thorough presentation of the evidence found at the site. The key points are:
1. The dating seems to be extremely thoroughly done. The Cerutti Mastodon
site is therefore established as 130,000 years old.
2. Extensive analysis of the bones found at the site, including their
surface taphonomy, secure stratigraphic position and proved modification while
still fresh point towards humans being responsible.
3. The use/wear on cobbles from the site is consistent with their being
the tools used to carry out the modification of the bones and teeth.
4. The authors carried out experiments on fresh (green) elephant femoral
bones using similar cobbles to those found at the CM site. The analysis of
which showed minutely similar damage to the bones and to the cobbles employed.
5. The in situ distribution of the bones and anomalous positions cobbles
within a undisturbed well stratified geological context characterised as a low energy
fluvial environment leave little room for argument that these specimens were
left there by humans.
6. The low energy fluvial environment rules out water motion as a
reasonable, alternate explanation for the damage to and placement of the bones,
hammerstones and anvils. Therefore, humans almost certainly placed these
materials there.
Taken together the evidence is pretty, strongly in favour of the fact,
yes the fact, that humans were in the Americas by and probably for some time
before 130,000 BP.
Overall the evidence is very
strong for humans being in the Americas by or before 130,000 BP. As far as it
goes.
However there are some unanswered
questions and a lot of back-story to this site. Three questions that spring to
mind, immediately are:
1. Why are there no cut marks
from butchery on the bones? If processing of a mastodon carcass was taking
place, why no scraping or notch marks at the usual places?
2. Why is no mention made of the
conflicting dating found in the previous report by Deméré, T. A., Cerutti, R.
A. & Majors (1995), which puts an even older date on site?
3. Who were the humans that were
in the Americas 130,000BP? What species were they?
The main weakness of this post
are that I have not had time to include details on the materials and methods
used by the authors to prove the use/wear to stone artifacts and damage to the
Mastodon bones is caused by human agency.
I will most likely update this
post, when further information regarding these questions, and others
surrounding the swirl of conspiracy theories, innuendo and rumour which have
made the Cerutti Mastodon site such a controversial one over the years, come to
light.
References
Adams State University, Colorado. 2017. Adams State
professor contributes to ground breaking research. [ONLINE] Available
at: https://www.adams.edu/news/apr1725.php.
[Accessed 10 June 2017]
Bower, B. Science News for Students. 2017. America’s
first settlers may have arrived 130,000 years ago Mastodon bones, stone tools
place unknown Homo species in California surprisingly early. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/americas-first-settlers-may-have-arrived-130000-years-ago.
[Accessed 13 June 2017].
Callaway, E.
Nature.com.. 2017. Controversial study claims humans reached Americas
100,000 years earlier than thought - Broken mastodon bones hint that Homo
sapiens wasn’t the first hominin to get to the New World.. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/controversial-study-claims-humans-reached-americas-100-000-years-earlier-than-thought-1.21886. [Accessed 12 June 2017].
Crawford, G. The Blog formerly
known as... 2017. Peale’s “Barber Farm” Mastodon. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://theclovissite.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/peales-barber-farm-mastodon/.
[Accessed 13 June 2017].
Deméré, T. A., Cerutti, R. A. & Majors,
C. P. (1995). State Route 54 Paleontological Mitigation Program: Final
Report (San Diego Natural History Museum, 1995)
Greshko, M. National Geographic News. 2017. Humans in
California 130,000 Years Ago?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science/.
[Accessed 4 June 2017].
Holen, S. R., et. al. (2017) A
130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA Nature 544,
479–483 doi:10.1038/nature22065
Can be accessed here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
Joyce, C. The Two Way, Breaking News from NPR. 2017. New
Evidence Suggests Humans Arrived In The Americas Far Earlier Than Thought.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525628056/new-evidence-suggests-humans-arrived-in-the-americas-far-earlier-than-thought.
[Accessed 4 June 2017].
Letters U. T and Kleske, A. The San Diego Union Tribune.
2017. Don’t draw conclusions from mastodon bones. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/sd-mastodon-bones-conclusions-20170502-story.html.
[Accessed 15 June 2017].
Ritter, M. WBZW online. 2017. Neanderthals in California? Maybe
so, provocative study says. [ONLINE] Available at: http://1520wbzw.com/news/national/neanderthals-in-california-maybe-so-provocative-study-says
. [Accessed 13 June 2017].
San Diego Natural History Museum. 2017. The Cerutti Mastodon
Discovery. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibitions/the-cerutti-mastodon-discovery/.
[Accessed 12 June 2017].
University of Michigan, Museum of Palaeontology, Repository of online
Fossils. 2017a. Specimen: SDSNH 49926 Taxon: Mammut americanum Element:
CM 340; bone fragment. [ONLINE] Available at: https://umorf.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/wp/specimen-data/?Model_ID=1245. [Accessed 14 June 2017].
University of
Michigan, Museum of Palaeontology, Repository of online Fossils. 2017b. Specimen:
SDSNH 49926. Element: Rock assembly. [ONLINE] Available at: https://umorf.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/wp/specimen-data/?Model_ID=1255. [Accessed 12 June 2017].
USA Today.
2017. Scientists claim humans reached North America 130,000 years ago.
[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/2017/04/26/scientists-claim-humans-reached-north-america-130000-years-ago/100890426/.
[Accessed 12 June 2017].
Wong, K. Scientific
American online. 2017. Ancient Bones Spark Fresh Debate over First
Humans in the Americas. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-bones-spark-fresh-debate-over-first-humans-in-the-americas/.
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
Zimmer, C The New York Times.. 2017. Humans Lived in
North America 130,000 Years Ago, Study Claims. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/science/prehistoric-humans-north-america-california-nature-study.html?_r=0.
[Accessed 15 June 2017].
