Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

The Dating Game: Middle Pleistocene Human Evolution Surprise Edition!

4/27/2017

14 Comments

 
It's the end-of-semester crunch for many of us in the academic world. My Facebook feed is filled with posts by people who been grading for too long and finding too many cases of student plagiarism. The end of my road was easy this semester, as I taught a very pleasant field school populated by a good group of students. Having taught a 4/4 one year, I feel for all of you still slogging away.

I wanted to take a minute to write about two stories related to claims for sites of Middle Pleistocene age in two different corners of the world. Unless you're grading papers in a lead-lined underground bunker, you heard about the claim for a 130,000-year-old archaeological site in California that was published in Nature yesterday. That's the first one. The second one involves an age estimate of 250,000 for the Homo naledi remains first described in September of 2015. The first claim is buzz-worthy because of its extreme earliness (a good 115,000 years prior to what most archaeologists accept as good evidence for human entry into the Americas). The second claim is surprising for its lateness.  Let's do the second one first.

Homo naledi is Only 250,000 Years Old?

The announcement of Homo naledi and the results of the Rising Star Expedition made a huge splash in the fall of 2015 (I gave my take on it here). One of the main unresolved issues at the time of the initial announcement was that the remains were not dated.  The lack of an age estimate made it difficult to frame the analysis in terms of evolutionary relationships with other hominins and the implications of the claims that Homo naledi was burying its dead. If the remains are very early (say, close to 2 million years old . . . ), the claims for organized mortuary behavior are spectacular. If they're very late, the mosaic of primitive and derived features becomes very curious. 

Two days ago, the New Scientist ran a story titled "Homo naledi is Only 250,000 Years Old -- Here's Why that Matters."  Here is a quote from that piece:

"Today, news broke that Berger’s team has finally found a way to date the fossils. In an interview published by National Geographic magazine, Berger revealed that the H. naledi fossils are between 300,000 and 200,000 years old.
​

“This is astonishingly young for a species that still displays primitive characteristics found in fossils about 2 million years old, such as the small brain size, curved fingers, and form of the shoulder, trunk and hip joint,” says Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London."
If you click on the link to the interview in National Geographic, you'll find that it leads to a photograph of a magazine page posted on Twitter by Colin Wren. I'm unable to access the original piece in National Geographic. I'm not quite sure what is going on, but presumably a formal publication explaining the age estimate is in the works and will be out soon. 

A 250,000 year age would, indeed, be surprising. Previous age estimates have ranged widely, from 900,000 years old  (based on dental and cranial metrics) to 2.5 to 2.8 million years old (based on overall anatomy). Age estimates based on the anatomical characteristics of the remains are problematic, obviously, as they rely on assumptions about the pattern, direction, and pace of evolutionary change that may not be correct. Hopefully the latest age estimates are independent of the anatomy (i.e., have a geological basis). This blog has some additional background.
Picture
And now on to the second one, which concerns . . .

A Middle Pleistocene Occupation of North America?

It's hard to know where to even start with this one. The claim is bold, the journal is prestigious, the popular press has been all over it, and the reaction from professionals has been swift and (as far as I can tell) overwhelmingly negative. The reactions I have seen among my colleagues and friends have been almost universally skeptical, ranging from amusement to mild outrage. I'll just summarize all that with gif I saw in an online discussion about the paper:

via GIPHY

The claim centers around an assemblage of stones and mastodon bones that the authors interpret as unequivocal evidence of human activity in California at the Middle/Late Pleistocene transition (ca. 130,000 years ago). Here is the first part of the abstract of the Nature paper by Steven Holen and colleagues:
"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. 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 occured 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." 
The 130,000 year-old date is way, way, way out there in terms of the accepted timeline for humans in the Americas. Does that mean the conclusions of the study are wrong? Of course not. And, honestly, I don't even necessarily subscribe to the often-invoked axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think ordinary, sound evidence works just fine most of the time when you're operating within a scientific framework. Small facts can kill mighty theories if you phrase your questions in the right way.

So how should we view claims like this one? For this claim to stand up, two main questions have to withstand scrutiny. First, is the material really that old? Second, is the material really evidence of human behavior?

If we accept the age of the remains, we're left with the second question about whether those remains show convincing evidence of human behavior. As you can see from the abstract, the claim for human activity has several components (modification of the bones, the presence and locations of stone cobbles interpreted as tools, etc.). The authors contention (p. 480) is that
​"Multiple bone and molar fragments, which show evidence of percussion, together with the presence of an impact notch, and attached and detached cone flakes support the hypothesis that human-induced hammerstone percussion was responsible for the observed breakage. Alternative hypotheses (carnivoran modification, trampling, weathering and fluvial processes) do not adequately explain the observed evidence (Supplementary Information 4). No Pleistocene carnivoran was capable of breaking fresh proboscidean femora at mid-shaft or producing the wide impact notch. The presence of attached and detached cone flakes is indicative of hammerstone percussion, not carnivoran gnawing (Supplementary Information 4). There is no other type of carnivoran bone modification at the CM site, and nor is there bone modification from trampling."
My impression is that most archaeologists are, like me, are skeptical that all other possible explanations for the stone and bone assemblage can be confidently rejected. I'm no expert on paleontology and taphonomy, but as I thought through the suggested scenario, I wondered how all the meat came off the bones before before the purported humans smashed them open with rocks. The authors state that there's no carnivore damage, and unless I missed it I didn't see any discussion of cutmarks left by butchering the carcass with stone tools. So where did the meat go? If it wasn't removed by animals (no carnivore marks) and wasn't removed by humans (no cutmarks) did it just rot away? If so, would the bones have still been "green" for humans to break them open?  

The absence of cut marks would be perplexing, as we have direct evidence that hominins have been using using sharp stone tools to butcher animals since at least 3.4 million years ago. The 23,000-year-old human occupation of Bluefish Cave in the Yukon is supported by . . . cutmarks. We know that Neandertals and other Middle Pleistocene humans had sophisticated tool kits that were used to cut both animal and plant materials.

Is it possible that pre-Clovis occupations in this continent extend far back into time?  Yes, I think it is. Does this paper convince me that humans messed around with a mastodon carcass in California at the end of the Middle Pleistocene?  No, it does not. 
Picture
Some of my friends seem angry that the paper was published. I have mixed feelings. I'm not at all convinced by what I've read so far, but I think claims like this serve a useful purpose whether or not they turn out to be correct. I can understand the concerns I've heard voiced about unfairness in the standards of evidence and argument that are acceptable at various levels of publication, but I also think there should always be room for making bold claims about the past as long as those claims have some basis in material evidence that can be independently evaluated. It will be interesting to see how the buzz over this paper plays out. Will other professionals carefully examine the remains and offer up their opinions? Will the claim be quickly dismissed and forgotten about?

One thing I can guarantee is that the "fringe" will be on the 
Cerutti Mastodon like a wet diaper:  they've already got a laundry list of "Neanderthal" remains from the New World (some buried in Woodland-age earthen mounds!) and "pre-Flood" sites into which they'll weave this report into. Maybe Bigfoot will even be implicated. Maybe the mastodon was killed by Atlanteans.
​
Onward.
14 Comments
Peter de Geus
4/27/2017 03:04:46 pm

My initial reaction to the California story was, what proves the broken bones were broken 130K years ago. Sure the beast is that old but what if peoples from 10K ago came across the skeleton and used the tools/rocks at hand to splinter up what they wanted, and they moved on. This would explain weathering of the breaks and address the theory floating around that construction equipment from not too long ago caused the breakage. Recent breakage would potentially show less obvious weathering (yes/no?). If the skeleton was partially buried in a bog/marsh this would explain the lack of animal scavenger marks, and maybe just a bit was sticking out to be spotted. The finders 10K ago dug a bit to get at more and bigger bones, abandoned the work site, and mother nature refilled the shallow dig. If it was a low lying area to begin with, subject to flooding, then it could have refilled quickly thus sealing the site back up from more plundering by man or animal.

Reply
Weatherwax
4/27/2017 06:29:05 pm

The authors argue that the kind of break could only happen within a short time of death, before the bones had dried out. Whether they've actually demonstrated that is another question.

I had been told about the site several years ago by a person connected with it, whose name I don't remember, and I was skeptical at the time. He told me that the tusks had clearly been planted in the ground to form an arch, but I notice that's not mentioned in the paper, and I can't understand why it wouldn't be if it was true.

With the release of the paper I noted a comment by an acquaintance who was not directly related to the research, but is acquainted with people who are. When asked if any archaeologists had worked on the site, or were they all paleontologists, she commented that archaeologists are all ego and can't get past the mainstream paradigm, which makes me even more skeptical.

Reply
Brad Riney
7/16/2017 03:18:41 pm

One tusk was vertically oriented with the distal end punched 70 to 80 cms below the "E"bed into the underlying sediment while tusk #2 was lying horizontally next to it in the "E" Bed siltstone. The "E" bed is the unit that most of the bones and stone were preserved in. Through out the site are many refits of both stone and bone as well as microflakes of both were common. Vertical bone placement at any archaeological site is rare as are refits. Archaeologists Dr Larry Agenbroad and Dr Jim Mead were excavators/consultants in 1992-3 as well as the original discoverers being the palaeontologists from the SDNHM. Multi disciplinary from the beginning. The geological context of the site placed it in one of the sea level highs which we knew in 1992-3, with the minimum being the latest at 123.000 years. Uranium-thorium dating confirmed that it was the MIS 5e , confirmed in 2016 by DR.Jim Paces of the USGS.

Bob Jase
4/28/2017 08:58:44 am

Well floreseinses is even more primitive than nadali so maybe its just a straggler population.

As to California, maybe it wasn't sapiens that was there. I suspect primitive humans got around a lot more than we give them cedit for doing - no, I'm NOT claiming ancient civilizations just itchy feet.

Reply
Greg Little
4/28/2017 11:42:37 am

Your last paragraph is prophetically true--even before it was written. Andrew Collins and I have been working on a book about this very subject for about 3 months. But it'll take a year for the book to be released by the publisher. It was several years ago when Andrew first proposed that Denisovans were the Adena elite. I don't know if that's true, but it is interesting. I haven't seen any definitive Neanderthal in the US evidence but there have been journal reports of "neanderthaloid" skeletons, reports made up until about the 1950s or so. And I've been accumulating all the DNA reports from ancient US skeletal remains to see what emerges. But I can't say that what has been found thus far (in terms of how I perceive the evidence) is anything for the mainstream to attack. I'd love to know about claims of neanderthals in the Americas.

Reply
Andy White
4/28/2017 03:07:20 pm

The Denisovans known only from a couple of teeth and finger bones . . . ? (There may actually be a partial skull now, if I remember correctly).

The Denisovans seem to be.a "one-size-fits-all" because of the paucity of remains. Kind of like Gigantopithecus.

Reply
Greg Little
4/28/2017 04:31:51 pm

Well .......
I agree that the "Denisovan explanation" has been put forth entirely too much. And all of the initial excitement came from a tiny piece of a finger bone and a couple molars. Then a toe bone. I don't think the skulls that have been found elsewhere have yet been shown to be Denisovan, but they suggest they could be. The more surprising bits of evidence came from the mtDNA and other genetic studies showing that their nDNA is part of Native American nDNA--and others. And then there is the neanderthal DNA in modern humans. To be bluntly honest, I don't know what to make of the Denisovan and neanderthal nDNA being in modern humans other than just saying that ancient human-like beings interbred and that's that. As you know I don't agree with the "giants" assertions but rather that the Adena elite were an unusually tall group that were genetic or hereditary rulers. I think there are now about 30 archaeological reports I have found of them and they are all between 6'6 to 7'8. There is some mtDNA research on the Adena, but very, very limited nuclear DNA research. There is a link to South America in all of this genetic research and the trail of the mtDNA is my main interest with the Adena--along with where and when their ideas about the Path of Souls originated. I doubt that I'll be able to squeeze Bigfoot or Gigantopithecus in there. But if someone gets ahold of a Bigfoot I'll "foot" the bill for the mtDNA testing.

Neil Barden link
12/28/2017 06:54:13 pm

Hi Andy, thanks good balanced discussion of the paper. I have been fascinated by it for months and just wrote a blog post on it if you'd like to take a look - http://thefuzzysasquatch.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/were-denisovans-first-humans-in.html
I have no qualifications whatsoever in the area having majored in physics at university, however they did try to teach us how to assess data/evidence. From reading the paper very carefully and all the additional research I've done on this site, I can't really find many holes in the authors arguments.
Your comment about 'where are the cut-marks' is one of the few valid criticisms I've seen. Now that does need answering. Overall I regard this paper as good evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000BP.
Neil Barden

flip
4/28/2017 01:32:20 pm

My first thought was "isn't this a teleological argument?" Seriously, have they eliminated a bunch of rocks falling onto the mammoth? (One would hope so)

Completely off topic, but I'm curious about your opinion Andy... I recently found a jeweller locally who makes things using mammoth tusk. They commented that they do so because it's not classed as ivory (and therefore gets around various legal/moral issues presumably). I think their use of mammoth tusk sucks because surely that's something worth preserving, not chopping up into bits for rings. Are mammoth tusks that commonly found that it doesn't pose as much of a conservation issue?

Reply
Weatherwax
4/28/2017 02:55:26 pm

There's a large mammoth tusk collection industry in parts of Siberia and I believe on Wrangel Island. It's lightly regulated, if it's regulated at all, and they're prone to tear through a lot of stuff to yank out the tusks.

Reply
Andy White
4/28/2017 03:03:53 pm

My understanding is that, yes, fossil ivory is pursued because it gets around "fresh" ivory prohibitions. I also believe that it's not as easily worked, which makes it less desirable commercially.

Reply
flip
4/28/2017 07:17:44 pm

Thanks both. I guess what I'm curious about is whether or not it might affect archaeological sites and data collection. That is, is it prone to create issues such as looting, destruction of sites/objects, and of course, the information that could be gathered from such sites. If it's something easy to find on the surface, there's less chance of it interfering with scientific efforts... I don't know, I'm a layperson so I'm not quite knowledgeable on how it all works or if there's any point to trying to preserve every fossil found (if common) as is.

Reply
jaap link
5/3/2017 10:31:50 am

Yes, the absence of cutmarks is puzzling! Also the context cannot be examined afresh. So if no similar finds are made, nothing will come of it. The good news is that the research was thorough, and the claim bold! And that means we´re finally able to look way below the Clovis-horizon. Dates older than 30 kya have been emerging in both South and North America, by serious researchers! The blindness seems to lifting somewhat ...

Reply
Bill Wagner
7/20/2017 07:13:41 pm

The absence of cut marks evidencing stone tool use is easily enough accounted-for by assuming they used bone cutting tools -- especially if the find was in a lithic-poor area (ref. Tony Baker). This would be congruent with the oldest known projectile point (fragment) currently on record in a megafauna context was of bone (the Manis Mastodon).

In the view of an outsider (me), the paleontologists' take on the mentality of US archaeologists was spot on. FWIW

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly