RECENT
EXAMPLES OF EOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS FROM THE AMERICAS
Despite
the best efforts of Barnes and Breuil, the eolith question continues to haunt
archeologists. Several anomalously old crude stone tool industries of Eolithic
type hav 737p1519h e been discovered in the Americas.
Most
archeologists say Siberian hunters crossed into Alaska on a land bridge that existed when
the last glaciation lowered sea levels. During this period, the Canadian ice
sheet blocked southward migration until about 12,000 years ago, when the first
American immigrants followed an ice free passage to what is now the United States.
These people were the so-called Clovis
hunters, famous for their characteristic spear points. These correspond to the
highly evolved stone implements of the later Paleolithic in Europe.
Nevertheless,
many sites, excavated with modern archeological methods, have yielded dates as
great as 30,000 years for humans in America. These sites include El
Cedral in northern Mexico, Santa Barbara Island
off California, and the rock-shelter of
Boquierao do Sitio da Pedra Furada in northern Brazil. Other controversial sites
are far older than 30,000 years.
GEORGE
CARTER AND THE TEXAS STREET
SITE
A good
example of a controversial American early stone tool industry reminiscent of
the European eoliths is the one discovered by George Carter in the 1950s at the
Texas Street
excavation in San Diego.
At this site, Carter claimed to have found hearths and crude stone tools at
levels corresponding to the last interglacial period, some 80,000-90,000 years
ago. Critics scoffed at these claims, referring to Carter's alleged tools as
products of nature, or "cartifacts," and Carter was later publicly
defamed in a Harvard course on "Fantastic Archeology." However,
Carter gave clear criteria for distinguishing between his tools and naturally
broken rocks, and lithic experts such as John Witthoft have endorsed his
claims.
In 1973,
Carter conducted more extensive excavations at Texas Street and invited numerous
archeologists to come and view the site firsthand. Almost none responded.
Carter stated: "San Diego
State University
adamantly refused to look at work in its own backyard."
In 1960,
an editor of Science, the journal of the American
Academy for the Advancement of
Science, asked Carter to submit an article about early humans in America.
Carter did so, but when the editor sent the article out to two scholars for
review, they rejected it.
Upon
being informed of this by the editor, Carter replied in a letter, dated
February 2, 1960: "I must assume now that you had no idea of the intensity
of feeling that reigns in the field. It is nearly hopeless to try to convey
some idea of the status of the field of Early Man in America at the moment. But just for
fun: I have a correspondent whose name I cannot use, for though he thinks that
I am right, he could lose his job for saying so. I have another anonymous
correspondent who as a graduate student found evidence that would tend to prove
me right. He and his fellow student buried the evidence. They were certain that
to bring it in would cost them their chance for their Ph.D' s. At a meeting, a
young professional approached me to say, 1 hope you really pour it on them. I
would say it if I dared, but it would cost me my job.' At another meeting, a
young man sidled up to say, 'In dig x they found core tools like yours at the
bottom but just didn't publish them.'"
The
inhibiting effect of negative propaganda on the evaluation of Carter's
discoveries is described by archeologist Brian Reeves, who wrote with his coauthors
in 1986: "Were actual artifacts uncovered at Texas Street, and is the site really Last
Interglacial in age? . . . Because of the weight of critical 'evidence'
presented by established archaeologists, the senior author [Reeves], like most
other archaeologists, accepted the position of the skeptics uncritically,
dismissing the sites and the objects as natural phenomena." But when he
took the trouble to look at the evidence himself, Reeves changed his mind. He
concluded that the objects were clearly tools of human manufacture and that the
Texas Street
site was as old as Carter had claimed.
LOUIS
LEAKEY AND THE CALICO SITE
Early in
his career, Louis Leakey, who later became famous for his discoveries at Olduvai
Gorge in Africa, began to have radical ideas about the antiquity of humans in America.
At that time, scientists thought the entry date for the Siberian hunters was no
greater than 5,000 years ago.
Leakey
recalled: "Back in 1929-1930 when I was teaching students at the University of Cambridge
... I began to tell my students that man must have been in the New World at least 15,000 years. I shall never forget
when Ales Hrdlicka, that great man from the Smithsonian Institution, happened
to be at Cambridge, and he was told by my professor (I was only a student
supervisor) that Dr. Leakey was telling students that man must have been in
America 15,000 or more years ago. He burst into my rooms-he didn't even wait to
shake hands."
Hrdlicka
said, "Leakey, what's this I hear? Are you preaching heresy?"
"No,
Sir!" said Leakey. Hrdlicka replied, "You are! You are telling
students that man was in America
15,000 years ago. What evidence have you?"
Leakey
answered, "No positive evidence. Purely circumstantial evidence. But with
man from Alaska to Cape
Horn, with many different languages and at least two civilizations,
it is not possible that he was present only the few thousands of years that you
at present allow." Leakey continued to harbor unorthodox views on this matter,
and in 1964 he made an effort to collect some definite evidence at the Calico
site in the Mojave Desert of California. This site is situated near the shore
of now-vanished Pleistocene Lake Manix. Over a period of eighteen years of
excavation under the direction of Ruth D. Simpson, 11,400 eolith like artifacts
were recovered from a number of levels. The oldest artifact-bearing level has
been given an age of 200,000 years by the uranium series method.
However,
as happened with Texas Street,
mainstream archeologists rejected the artifacts discovered at Calico as
products of nature, and the Calico site is passed over in silence in popular
accounts of archeology. Leakey' s biographer Sonia Cole said, "For many
colleagues who felt admiration and affection for Louis and his family, the
Calico years were an embarrassment and a sadness."
Yet the
artifacts of Calico also have their defenders, who give elaborate arguments
showing that they were human artifacts, not geofacts resulting from natural
processes. Phillip Tobias, the well-known associate of Raymond Dart, discoverer
of Australopithecus, declared in 1979: "When Dr. Leakey first showed me a
small collection of pieces from Calico... I was at once convinced that some,
though not all, of the small samples showed unequivocal signs of human
authorship."
Ruth D.
Simpson stated in 1986: "It would be difficult for nature to produce many
specimens resembling man-made unifacial tools, with completely unidirectional
edge retouch done in a uniform, directed manner. The Calico site has yielded
many completely unifacial stone tools with uniform edge retouch. These include
end scrapers, side scrapers, and gravers." Flake tools with unifacial,
unidirectional chipping, like those found at Calico, are typical of the European
eoliths. Examples are also found among the Oldowan industries of East Africa. Among the best tools that turned up at
Calico was an excellent beaked graver. Bola stones have also been reported.
In
general, however, the Calico discoveries have met with silence, ridicule, and
opposition in the ranks of mainstream paleoanthropology. Ruth Simpson nevertheless
stated: "The data base for very early man in the New World is growing
rapidly, and can no longer simply be ignored, because it does not fit current
models of prehistory in the New World.. ..
there is a need for flexibility in thinking to assure unbiased peer
reviews."
TOCA DA ESPERANCA, BRAZIL
Support
for the authenticity of the Calico tools has come from a find in Brazil.
In 1982, Maria Beltrao found a series of caves with wall paintings in the state
of Bahia. In 1985, a trench was cut in the
Toca da Esperansa (Cave
of Hope), and excavations
in 1986 and 1987 yielded crude stone tools associated with Pleistocene
mammals. When the bones were tested by the uranium series method, ages in
excess of 200,000 years were obtained. The maximum age was 295,000 years.
The
discovery was reported to the scientific world by Henry de Lumley, a famous
French archeologist.
The tools
were fashioned from quartz pebbles and were somewhat like those from Olduvai Gorge. The nearest source of quartz pebbles is
about 10 kilometers from the cave site.
De Lumley
and his coworkers said in their report: "The evidence seems to indicate
that Early Man entered into the American continent much before previously
thought." They went on to say: "In light of the discoveries at the
Toca da Esperanga, it is much easier to interpret the lithic industry of the
Calico site, in the Mojave Desert, near Yermo, San Bernardino County,
California, which is dated at between 150,000 and 200,000 years."
According
to de Lumley and his associates, humans and human ancestors entered the Americas from northern Asia
several times during the Pleistocene. The early migrants, who manufactured the
tools in the Brazilian cave, were, they said, Homo erectus. While this view is
in harmony with the consensus on human evolution, there is no reason why the
tools in the Toca da Esperanga could not have been made by anatomically modern
humans. As we have several times mentioned, such tools are still being
manufactured by humans in various parts of the world.
MONTE VERDE, CHILE
Another
archeological site that has bearing on the evaluation of crude stone tools is
the Monte Verde site in south central Chile. According to a report in Mammoth
Trumpet (1984), this site was first surveyed by archeologist Tom Dillehay in
1976. Although the age of 12,500 to 13,500 years for the site is not highly
anomalous, the archeological finds uncovered there challenge the standard Clovis hunter theory. The culture of the Monte Verde
people was completely distinct from that of the Clovis
hunters. Although the Monte Verde people made some advanced bifacial
implements, they mostly made minimally modified pebble tools. Indeed, to a
large extent, they obtained stone tools by selecting naturally occurring split
pebbles. Some of these show signs of nothing more than usage; others show signs
of deliberate retouching of a working edge. This is strongly reminiscent of the
descriptions of the European eoliths.
In this
case, the vexing question of artifacts versus nature facts was resolved by a
fortunate circumstance: the site is located in a boggy area in which perishable
plant and animal matter has been preserved. Thus two pebble tools were found
hafted to wooden handles. Twelve architectural foundations were found, made of
cut wooden planks and small tree trunks staked in place. There were large
communal hearths, as well as small charcoal ovens lined with clay. Some of the
stored clay bore the footprint of a child 8 to 10 ye»s old. Three crude wooden
mortars were also found, held in place by wooden stakes. Grinding stones
(metates) were uncovered, along with the remains of wild potatoes, medicinal
plants, and sea coast plants with a high salt content. All in all, the Monte
Verde site sheds an interesting light on the kind of creatures who might have
made and used crude pebble tools during the Pliocene and Miocene in Europe or
at the Plio-Pleistocene boundary in Africa. In
this case, the culture was well equipped with domestic amenities made from
perishable materials. Far from being subhuman, the cultural level was what we
might expect of anatomically modern humans in a simple village setting even
today.
By an
accident of preservation, we thus see at Monte Verde artifacts representing an
advanced culture accompanying the crudest kinds of stone tools. At sites
millions of years older, we see only the stone tools, although perishable
artifacts of the kind found at Monte Verde may have once accompanied them.
RECENT PAKISTAN
FINDS
Eolith
like implements that do not fit into standard ideas of human evolution continue
to be found in parts of the world outside the Americas. Some fairly recent finds
by British archeologists in Pakistan
provide an example. These crude chopping tools are about 2 million years old.
But according to the dominant African homeland idea, the human ancestor of that
time period, Homo habilis, should have been confined to Africa.
Some
scientists considering the Pakistan
tools tried to discredit the discovery. Anthropologist Sally McBrearty
complained in a New York Times report that the discoverers "have not
supplied enough evidence that the specimens are that old and that they are of
human manufacture." Our review of anomalous stone implements should make us
suspicious of this sort of charge. Scientists typically demand higher levels of
proof for anomalous finds than for evidence that fits within the established
ideas about human evolution.
A 1987
report from the British journal New Scientist suggests that McBrearty was being
overly skeptical. Concerning doubts expressed about the stratigraphical context
and age of the stone tools, the New Scientist stated: "Such doubts do not
apply in the case of the stone pieces from the Scan
Valley southeast of Rawalpindi,
argues Robin Dennell, the field director of the Paleolithic Project of the
British Archaeological Mission and the University of Sheffield.
He and his colleague Helen Rendell, a geologist at the University
of Sussex, report that the stone
pieces, all of quartzite, were so firmly embedded in a deposit of conglomerate
and grit stone called the Upper Siwalik
series, that they had to chisel them out." According to the New Scientist,
the dating was accomplished using a combination of paleomagnetic and stratigraphic
studies.
What
about McBrearty's suggestion that the stone objects were not made by humans?
The New Scientist gave a more balanced view: "Of the pieces that they
extracted, eight, Dennell believes are 'definite artifacts.' In Dennell's view,
the least equivocal artifact is a piece of quartzite that a hominid individual
supposedly struck in three directions with a hammer stone, removing seven
flakes from it. This multifaceted flaking together with the fresh appearance of
the scars left on the remaining 'core' make a 'very convincing' case for human
involvement."
So what
is going on with the find in Pakistan?
Scientists holding the view that Homo erectus was the first representative of
the Homo line to leave Africa, and did so about a million years ago, were
apparently quite determined to discredit stone tools found in Pakistan, about 2
million years old, rather than modify their ideas. We can just imagine how such
scientists would react to stone tools found in Miocene contexts.
SIBERIA
AND INDIA
Many
other discoveries of stone implements around 2 million years old have been made
at other Asian sites, in Siberia and northwestern India.
In 1961,
hundreds of crude pebble tools were found near Gorno-Altaisk, on the Ulalinka
river in Siberia. According to a 1984 report
by Russian scientists A. P. Okladinov and L. A. Ragozin, the tools were found
in layers
1.5-2.5
million years old.
Another
Russian scientist, Yuri Mochanov, discovered stone tools resembling the
European eoliths at a site overlooking the Lena
River at Diring Yurlakh, Siberia. The formations from which these implements were
recovered were dated by potassium-argon and magnetic methods to 1.8 million
years before the present. Recent evidence from India also takes us back about 2
million years. Many discoveries of stone tools have been made in the Siwalik
Hills region of northwestern India.
The Siwaliks derive their name from the demigod Shiva (Sanskrit Siva), the
lord of the forces of universal destruction. In 1981, Anek Ram Sankhyan, of the
Anthropological Survey of India, found a stone tool near Haritalyangar village,
in the late Pliocene Tatrot Formation, which is over 2 million years old. Other
tools were recovered from the same formation.
The
above-mentioned Siberian and Indian discoveries, at 1.5 -2.5 million years old,
do not agree very well with the standard view that Homo erectus was the first
representative of the Homo line to emigrate from Africa, doing so about a
million years ago. Here is an example from an even more remote time. In 1982,
K. N. Prasad of the Geological Survey of India reported the discovery of a
"crude unifacial hand-axe pebble tool" in the Miocene Nagri formation
near Haritalyangar, in the Himalayan foothills of northwest India. Prasad stated in his report:
"The implement was recovered in situ, during remeasuring of the geological
succession to assess the thickness of the beds. Care was taken to confirm the
exact provenance of the material, in order to rule out any possibility of its
derivation from younger horizons."
Prasad
thought the tool had been manufactured by a very apelike creature called
Ramapithecus. "The occurrence of this pebble tool in such ancient
sediments," said Prasad, "indicates that early hominids such as
Ramapithecus fashioned tools, were bipedal with erect posture, and probably
utilized the implements for hunting." But today most scientists regard
Ramapithecus not as a human ancestor but as the ancestor of the living
orangutans. This newly defined Ramapithecus was definitely not a maker of stone
tools.
So who
made the Miocene tool reported by Prasad? The makers could very well have been
anatomically modern humans living in the Miocene. Even if we were to propose
that some primitive creature like Homo habilis made the Miocene tool, that
would still raise big questions. According to current ideas, the first tool
makers arose in Africa about 2 million years
ago.