America Before

by Graham Hancock

  7. Ibid.

  8. J. Tyler Faith and Todd Surovell, “Synchronous Extinction of North America’s Pleistocene Mammals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 49 (December 8, 2009), 20631–20645.

  9. “Story of the Discovery.”

  10. San Diego Natural History Museum, “FAQs,” “What Were the Early Signs That Indicated the Cerutti Mastodon Site Was Different from a Typical Paleontological Site?” http://www.sdnhm.org/consulting-services/paleo-services/projects/cerutti-mastodon/cerutti-mastodon-faqs/.

  11. Ibid.

  12. Fifty thousand years is the “worldwide” limit of C-14 radiocarbon dating. See, for example, CalPal at the University of Cologne: http://monrepos-rgzm.de/research-103/amenities.html.

  13. “Story of the Discovery.”

  14. Cited in Thomas Curwen, “Archaeology as Blood Sport,” Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cerutti-mastodon-20171222-htmlstory.html.

  15. Ibid.

  16. Ibid.

  17. Ibid.

  18. Although the decisive shift came in 2014, Tom Deméré states that the tide really began to turn in 2008 when archaeologists Steve Holen and Kathleen Holen made their initial research visit to The Nat to examine the Cerutti Mastodon materials. A full timeline is available here: https://www.sdnhm.org/consulting-services/paleo-services/projects/cerutti-mastodon/cerutti-mastodon-discovery-timeline/.

  19. “Story of the Discovery.” Complete details are given in Steven R. Holen et al., “A 130,000-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Southern California,” Nature (April 27, 2017).

  20. Other members of the team were George Jefferson, Paleontologist Emeritus with the Colorado Desert District Stout Research Center; Kathleen Maule Holen, M.S., M.A., Administrative Director at the Center for American Paleolithic Research; Jared Beeton, Professor of Earth Science at Adams State University; Adam Rountree of the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology, and Lawrence Vescera, Paleontologist at California State Parks Colorado Desert District Stout Research Center in Borrego Springs. For further details, see https://www.sdnhm.org/consulting-services/paleo-services/projects/cerutti-mastodon/cerutti-mastodon-discovery-timeline/.

  21. The range of 140,000 to 120,000 years ago is approximate, and Deméré himself (personal correspondence) prefers 130,000 years ago down to about 115,000 years ago. There are nuances, as usual. For full details of recent discussions around the dating of the Eemian, see “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed from a Greenland Folded Ice Core,” Nature 493 (January 24, 2013), 489–494.

  22. Like our understanding of the origins of civilization, our understanding of human origins is undergoing somewhat of a paradigm shift. Around the time of the publication of Holen et al.’s Cerutti Mastodon paper in April 2017, multiple studies have pushed the timing of the initial migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa back so far that the “Out of Africa” paradigm—which has been firmly in place since 1924 when the first Australopithecus fossils were found in South Africa—has been questioned and alternative theories explored. In the same month as the Cerutti paper was published, the Dali skull from China was dated to 260,000 years ago, thus reviving the question of whether Homo sapiens originated in isolation in Africa. [Xuefeng Sun et al., “TT-OSL and Post-IR IRSL Dating of the Dali Man Site in Central China,” Quaternary International 434 A (April 1, 2017), 99–106.] June 2017 saw the results of Hublin et al.’s study on the 315,000–360,000-year-old modern human skeleton in Jebel Ihroud, Morocco, thus making East Africa’s status as the “cradle of mankind” redundant. [Jean-Jaques Hublin et al., “New Fossils from Jebel Ihroud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens,” Nature 546 (08 June 2017), 289–292.] July 2017 saw Clarkson et al.’s publication on the occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago, which altered the minimum date of 60,000–50,000 years ago for the dispersal of anatomically modern humans out of Africa [Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews, “Genetic and Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Modern Humans,” Science vol. 239, no. 4845 (March 11, 1988), 1263–1268.] or made more likely the possibility that humans migrated from Australia to Africa at that time. [Bruce R. Fenton, The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution (Independently Published, April 7, 2017).] In August 2017, the Dali skull was confirmed as being a hybrid Homo sapiens and Homo erectus hominin that has contributed significantly to the evolution of Chinese Homo sapiens, thus further complicating the story and entrenching East Asia as a focal point of human origins. [Sheela Athreya and Xinzhi Wu, “A Multivariate Assessment of the Dali Hominin Cranium from China: Morphological Affinities and Implications for Pleistocene Evolution in East Asia” American Journal of Physical Anthropology vol. 164 no. 4 (December 2017), 679–701.] In September 2017, Schlebusch et al.’s study of ancient southern African genomes deepened the divergence of modern humans from archaic humans to 350,000–260,000 years ago, thus supporting a much earlier initial migration event through Asia to southern China. [Carina M. Schlebusch and Helena Malmström et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 years ago,” Science 10.1126/science.aao6266 (September 28, 2017).] In light of all this, on December 8, 2017, Bae, Douka, and Petraglia wrote a review in Science calling for the official revision of anatomically modern human migrations to account for the Eurasian findings:

  The identification of Neanderthals and Denisovans in Siberia … along with growing fossil and archaeological evidence for the presence of early modern humans in East and Southeast Asia, much earlier than originally thought, places the spotlight on the evolutionary history of our species in Asia over the last 125,000 years. Exciting and unanticipated new discoveries call for a need to critically reexamine the Asian record.

  [Christopher J. Bae, Katerina Douka, Michael D. Petraglia, “On the Origin of Modern Humans: Asian Perspectives,” Science vol. 358 no. 6368 (December 8, 2017).] Shortly after, on January 18, 2018, a team led by evolutionary geneticist Deigan Yuang published a landmark paper suggesting that the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA originated in East Asia, thus calling for a serious reconsideration of the multiregional model of human origins. [Dejian Yuang et al., “Modern Human Origins: Multiregional Evolution of Autosomes and East Asia Origin of Y and mtDNA,” bioRxiv (May 1, 2018).] Since then, archaeological findings revealing characteristics of early middle Paleolithic culture in India around 385–172 ka has made certain that the traditional “Out of Africa” model must at least be reframed. [Kumar Akhilesh et al., “Early Middle Palaeolithic Culture in India Around 385–172ka reframes Out of Africa Models,” Nature 554 (February 1, 2018), 97–101.] The current consensus among those interpreting human origins from within the “Out of Africa” framework is marked by the publication of a paper written by twenty-five scholars from institutions around the world entitled, “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations Across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?” The abstract reads:

  We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.

  [Eleanor Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations Across Africa, and Why Does it Matter?” Trends In Ecology & Evolution vol. 33, no. 8 (August 2018), 582–594.] Also see the somewhat convincing, albeit controversial, interpretat
ion of anthropologist German Dziebel, “The End of Out-of-Africa: A Copernican Reassessment of the Patterns of Genetic Variation in the Old World” (November 13, 2013), http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2013/11/11/the-end-of-out-of-africa-a-copernican-reassessment-of-the-patterns-of-genetic-variation-in-the-old-world/.

  23. Tom Deméré adds (personal communication): “The site was excavated over a 5 month period and eventually unearthed 50m2 of the bone-and-stone-bearing bed. The resulting bone and stone distribution map presented a pattern of 2 work stations with concentrations of objects.”

  24. Tom Deméré adds (personal communication): “The ‘work station’ hypothesis is based on the pattern of bone and stone distribution revealed after 5 months of hard excavation of the bone bed.”

  25. Tom Deméré adds (personal communication): “Actually, we suggest that there are ‘tools’ at the CMS—the hammerstones and anvils are expedient tools not manufactured tools. Such ‘tools’ were probably the ‘first’ tools used by hominins.”

  26. Tom Deméré adds (personal communication): “We also suggest that the bones were broken to provide raw materials for the making of bone tools.”

  27. See Gary Haynes, “The Cerutti Mastodon,” PaleoAmerica 3.3 (2017), 196–199 and Donald Grayson quoted in D. Vergano, “Don’t Believe the Big Story About Humans Roaming America 130,000 Years Ago” (Buzzfeed, April 26, 2017). Also see Joseph V. Ferraro and Katie M. Binetti., “Contesting Early Archaeology in California,” Nature 554 (February 8, 2018).

  28. See David Meltzer quoted in “Don’t Believe the Big Story About Humans Roaming America 130,000 Years Ago” (Buzzfeed, April 26, 2017).

  29. G. Haynes, “The Cerutti Mastodon.”

  30. S. R. Holen et al., “Supplementary Information” for “A 150-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Southern California,” Nature (April 27, 2017), 13–25.

  31. Ibid., 4. Also see pp. 14–15, “Weathering”: “Evidence indicating weathering of bone at the CM site is variable. The majority of limb bones do not exhibit extensive weathering cracks (i.e., weathering stage 0 or 110), while ribs and vertebrae exhibit some cracks that represent wetting and drying processes and/or diagenetic processes related to formation of pedogenic carbonate (caliche). All weathering-like features appear to post-date the disarticulation and burial of CM bones. In addition, some limb element fragments (e.g., CM-288) with unweathered surfaces are spirally-fractured, with smooth curvilinear fracture planes indicating that the bone was broken while it was still fresh.”

  For visual 3D evidence of the limb element fragments on CM-288 go to the University of Michigan, “Online Repository of Fossils,” Museum of Paleontology, “The Cerutti Mastodon Site,” “Bone Fragments,” “Specimen: SDSNH 49926, Taxon: Mammut americanum, Element: CM 288; bone fragment: https://umorf.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/wp/wp-content/3d/viewer.html?name=1244&extension=ctm.

  See also “Supplementary Information,” pp. 15–16, “Geologic Processes of Proboscidean Limb Bone Modification:” “Post-depositional dry-bone fracturing, as evidenced by longitudinal and perpendicular fracture planes with rough surfaces is distinguished from the spiral fracture patterns produced by dynamic fracturing of fresh bone noted on the majority of CM limb bone fragments. There is no evidence at the CM site that geological processes caused breakage of fresh mastodon limb bones” and, “Two biologic processes, carnivoran gnawing and trampling by large mammals, are known to fracture bone. However, fresh cortical proboscidean limb bone is rarely broken by either agent.”

  See also p. 18: “Fracturing of proboscidean limb bones while still fresh is rare in modern single-elephant death sites, and no sites have been documented like the CM site, where fresh elephant limb bone is broken into numerous small spirally fractured fragments with evidence of multiple impacts. … The femoral diaphyses found at the CM site are broken into small spirally-fractured pieces, whereas more fragile bones like ribs and vertebrae are complete, or more complete than the heavier and denser limb bones. This pattern of differential breakage is exactly the opposite of what is found where proboscidean bones have been extensively trampled. Under trampling, the lightest bones (e.g., ribs and vertebrae) are broken first and into much smaller pieces than the limb bones that have thicker cortical walls resistant to breakage.”

  Also see “Extended Data,” Figure 4a–e: Diagnostic anvil wear on CM bone, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22065/figures/8, as well as Supplementary Video 3 and Extended Data Figure 8: Experimental hammerstone percussion of elephant bone: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22065/figures/12.

  32. Ibid., 13–25.

  33. Tom Deméré adds (personal communication): “Again, marrow extraction is only one possible reason for breaking up the long bones—another possible/probably reason is to produce bone ‘blanks’ from which to fashion bone tools.”

  34. Thomas M. Cronin, Principles of Climatology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 204.

  6: MILLENNIA UNACCOUNTED FOR

  1. See, for example, Michael Collins quoted in E. A. Powell, “Early Dates, Real Tools?” Archaeological Institute of America (November 17, 2004), https://archive.archaeology.org/online/news/topper.html: “I don’t believe those are artifacts. … They’re geofacts—not manmade.”

  2. M. Rose, “The Topper Site: Pre-Clovis Surprise,” Archaeological Institute of America (July/August 1999), https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/newsbriefs/clovis.html.

  3. See discussion in J. M. Adovasio and David Pedler, Strangers in a New Land (Firefly Books, 2016), 276.

  4. The Southeast-American Early Archaic period is conventionally dated to 10,000 to 8,000 BP. The beginning of the period, at 10,000 BP, was marked in accordance with conventional geological dating of the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, while the end of the period, 8,000 BP, is usually equated with the Hypsithermsal warming episode. See M. F. Johnson et al., The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast (University of Alabama Press, 1999), 15.

  5. Adovasio and Pedler, Strangers in a New Land, 275. Also see the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA), “Total Number of Reported Clovis Projectile Points.” The lack of Clovis points found at coastal regions of the southeast (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) is clearly illustrated in these two maps: http://web.utk.edu/~dander19/clovis_continent_647kb.jpg and http://web.utk.edu/~dander19/clovis_southeast_569kb.jpg.

  6. Adovasio and Pedler, Strangers in a New Land, 275: “The renown of its massive Clovis deposit is very well deserved.”

  7. Some skeptics resorted to arguing that bend-breaks can be made by natural forces or accidental breakage. See for example Stuart. J. Stewart, “Is That All There Is? The Weak Case for Pre-Clovis Occupation of Eastern North America,” In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, (eds.) J. A. M. Gingerich (University of Utah Press, 2013), 333–354. Skip to note 11 of this chapter for a list of studies that have since rendered this argument in association with the Topper Palaeolithic terrace untenable.

  8. It was in November 2004 that the radiocarbon results of carbonized plant remains where artifacts excavated in May from along the Savannah River in Allendale County first came back. See “New Evidence Puts Man in North America 50,000 Years Ago,” Science Daily (November 18, 2004), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm.

  The Pleistocene antiquity of the site and artifacts found within it were then reaffirmed in 2009 by a team led by Michael R. Waters, in a paper titled “Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree Sites, Allendale County, South Carolina,” in the Journal of Archaeological Science. See, for example, p. 1305: “Six samples of wood, nutshell, and humic acids were dated from unit 1a (Figs. 4 and 5). These dates represent minimum ages for unit 1a and indicate that this unit dates in excess of 50,000 14C yr B.P. A date of >54,700 14C yr B.P. (CAMS-79022) was obtained on a Hickory (Carya) nutshell and a date of >55,500 14C yr B.P. (CAMS-19023) on a piece of fir wood (Abies) from an organic horizon within unit 1a underlying the reported oldest cultural horizon at the Topper site.
” It was from unit 1a of the Pleistocene terrace that distinctive bend-break tools were recovered.

  9. Albert C. Goodyear, “Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States,” Paleoamerican Origins Beyond Clovis (2005), 103–112.

  10. A. C. Goodyear and D. A. Slain, “The Pre-Clovis Occupation of the Topper Site, Allendale County, South Carolina,” in A. C. Goodyear and C. R. Moore, Early Human Life on the Southeastern Coastal Plain (University Press of Florida, 2018), S30.

  11. The natural vs. human creation of the materials excavated from a Pleistocene terrace at Topper was evaluated by Douglas Slain and presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in Orlando, Florida, on April 8, 2016. The content of this presentation is documented in D. Slain, “Pre-Clovis at Topper (38AL23): Evaluating the Role of Human Versus Natural Agency in the Formation of Lithic Deposits from a Pleistocene Terrace in the American Southeast,” The Selected Works of Douglas Slain (April 8, 2016). In this paper, Slain concludes, “The weathering simulations produced lithic detachments that fit the morphological description of bend breaks. However, as these detachments did not have technological attributes consisting of either compression rings, bulbs of force, or impact markers, these items should not be mistaken for the byproducts of intentional biface, or bipolar technologies. In other words, detachments resulting from natural weathering processes often exhibit morphological similarity to cultural debitage, but lack the technological attributes of a chipped stone reductive technology” (p. 7). Consequently, “Evidence from this study supports King’s (2012) findings and demonstrates a human origin for the pre-Clovis flake assemblage at the site” (p. 8). The M. King study, “MA Thesis Title: The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pleistocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38Al23)” (University of Tennessee, 2012) is indeed consistent with Slain in concluding that “the data supports the notion that the pre-Clovis debitage was manmade” (p. 137).