March ■ 2006 21

Center for the Study of the First AmericansDepartment of Anthropology, Texas A&M University4352 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4352http://centerfirstamericans.org

Volume 21, Number 2 ■■■■■ March, 2006

he Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans fosters research and publicinterest in the Peopling of the Americas.T

The Center, an integral part of the Departmentof Anthropology at Texas A&M University,promotes interdisciplinary scholarly dialogueamong physical, geological, biological andsocial scientists. The Mammoth Trumpet,news magazine of the Center, seeks to involveyou in the peopling of the Americas by reportingon developments in all pertinent areas ofknowledge.

Exploiting the South American forestThe timeless quality that seems to surroundthis image of a magnificent Brazilian Indianfishing with wooden spear isn’t deceptive.

Paleoamericans were finding valuable food-stuff in the plants, animals, and aquaticresources of the Amazonian rain forest

when at the same time Clovis peoples far tothe north were perfecting their skill at

taking megamammals and the otheranimals and plants that made up their diet.

In this newest installment of her series onPaleo South America starting on page 4,

Ruth Gruhn introduces us to astonishing—and neglected—discoveries made of

human colonizers in the forests of Brazil.

BORY

S M

ALK

IN

Volume 21, Number 2 Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology

March, 2006 Texas A&M University, 4352 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4352 ISSN 8755-6898

World Wide Web site http://centerfirstamericans.org and http://anthropology.tamu.edu

4 Making a home in the rainforest of early BrazilThey lacked bison and mam-moths, but Paleoamericanslearned how to take advantageof nature’s bounty in nativeplants and animals.

8 Putting a human face onFolsom bison huntersTheir kill sites tell Leland Bementa lot about these efficient hunt-ers. Tornadoes and calamitoushailstorms are just his cost ofdoing business.

14 Plant templates of stoneOpal phytoliths speak volumesabout ancient ecology and whatanimals and people were eating.

17 Stepping carefully in earlyMexicoHuman footprints left in volcanicash are many thousands of yearsolder even than Monte Verde.Trouble is, experts can’t agree onhow old the ash is or whetherthey are really footprints at all.

The Columbia Metropolitan ConventionCenter in Columbia, South Carolina, washost October 26–29 to the Clovis in theSoutheast Conference (www.clovisinthesoutheast.net). The event was organizedby Albert Goodyear and Tom Pertierra ofthe Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey atthe South Carolina Institute of Archaeol-ogy and Anthropology, University ofSouth Carolina; Dennis Stanford of theSmithsonian Institution; Mike Waters ofthe Center for the Study of the First Ameri-cans; and David Anderson of the Depart-ment of Anthropology, University ofTennessee.

Among the 450-plus participants wereprofessional and avocational archaeolo-gists, geologists, paleontologists, histori-ans, private collectors, and the generalpublic. The combination proved to be apowerful one. Over the course of three

days the participants listened, lectured,discussed, viewed artifacts, and on thefinal day took a trip to Allendale County,South Carolina, the location of the Top-per site.

According to Goodyear, “There hasnever been a conference done before onClovis in the South. In the past decademuch work has been done on importantSouthern sites such as Gault, Topper,Aucilla River, Carson-Conn-Short, andCactus Hill.” The result was a consciousdesire among active researchers to cometogether to look more closely at Clovis inthe Southeast. The organizers chose Co-lumbia for two reasons. First, the city ishome to Goodyear and the SoutheasternPaleoamerican Survey. Secondly, the Top-per site, with major Clovis and pre-Cloviscomponents, lies just two hours away. Theplan was to bring the leading researchers

Clovis in the SoutheastConference 2005Clovis in the SoutheastConference 2005

on prominent Southeastern Paleo-indian sites and topics together withimportant Paleoamerican artifact col-lections, both institutional and pri-vate. Goodyear believes it was the“largest exhibition of Paleoamericanartifacts from the eastern UnitedStates ever displayed,” and he maynot be far off the mark.

The display hall did a booming business.The display hall did a booming business.

ALL

PH

OTO

S: D

ARY

L P.

MIL

LER

SCIA

A–U

SC

2 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

Mammoth Trumpet, Statement of Our PolicyMany years may pass between the time an important discovery is made and the acceptance of researchresults by the scientific community. To facilitate communication among all parties interested in stayingabreast of breaking news in First Americans studies, the Mammoth Trumpet, a science news magazine,provides a forum for reporting and discussing new and potentially controversial information importantto understanding the peopling of the Americas. We encourage submission of articles to the ManagingEditor and letters to the Editor. Views published in the Mammoth Trumpet are the views ofcontributors, and do not reflect the views of the editor or Center personnel.

–Michael R. Waters, Director

The Mammoth Trumpet (ISSN 8755-6898) is published quarterly by the Center forthe Study of the First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University,College Station, TX 77843-4352. Phone (979) 845-4046; fax (979) 845-4070; e-mailcsfa@tamu.edu. Periodical postage paid at College Station, TX 77843-4352 and atadditional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:Mammoth TrumpetDepartment of Anthropology, Texas A&M University4352 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4352

Copyright © 2006 Center for the Study of the First Americans. Permission is herebygiven to any non-profit or educational organization or institution to reproduce withoutcost any materials from the Mammoth Trumpet so long as they are then distributed atno more than actual cost. The Center further requests that notification of reproductionof materials under these conditions be sent to the Center. Address correspondence to theeditor of Mammoth Trumpet, 93 Range Road, Blue Hill, ME 04614-5110.

Michael R. Waters Director and General Editore-mail: mwaters@tamu.edu

James M. Chandler Editor, Mammoth Trumpete-mail: wordsmiths@acadia.net

Ted Goebel Editor, Current Research in the Pleistocene

Laurie Lind Office Manager

C & C Wordsmiths Layout and Design

World Wide Web site http://centerfirstamericans.org

The Center for the Study of the First Americans is a non-profit organization. Sub-scription to the Mammoth Trumpet is by membership in the Center.

Displays were an integral part of thesuccessful conference. Thousands of ar-tifacts from all over the Southeast andthe Northeast were exhibited in a spaceadjacent to the lecture hall. Among fa-mous sites represented were Topper andBig Pine Tree, Williamson, Gault, CactusHill, Page Ladson, Carson-Conn-Short,Thunderbird, and Shawnee Minisink. Inaddition to professional displays, manyoutstanding private collections on ex-hibit completed the picture of Clovis inthe Southeast. The Williamson site ofVirginia, displayed by Rodney Peck, hasthe largest concentration of fluted pointsin North America. The Virginia McCaryfluted-point collection, exhibited by JackStallings and Jack Hranicky, probablythe oldest and most complete collectionfrom a single region in North America,dates back to the 1940s. Other notabledisplays included Brian Evensen’s Paleo-american artifacts from Florida rivers,the Ed and Richard Kilborne Collectionof the Alabama Archeological Society,

Thorne Compton of the University ofSouth Carolina. The first paper, “A FreshLook at Clovis,” presented by MichaelCollins of the University of Texas, was ahemispheric review of what is Clovis andhow it is recognized beyond fluted points.

C. Andrew Hemmings, University ofTexas, presented a detailed listing of or-ganic tools (bone, antler, and ivory) asso-ciated with Clovis. His abstract notesthat 60 percent of the 235 known toolshave been found in underwater contextsin Florida. His presentation was aug-

mented by examples of Clovis bone toolsand other organic artifacts from theAucilla River Pre-History Project.

Following Hemmings, Goodyear andcolleagues reviewed evidence for theClovis culture in Allendale County,South Carolina. Excavations of the Top-per and Big Pine Tree sites producedabundant technological patterns thatidentify the Clovis culture. A variety oftools such as scrapers and denticulatessuggest habitation related to toolstonequarries.

and Carl Yhanig’s Little River site com-plex of Christian County, Kentucky. Theexhibition hall also played host to Paleo-american artist Dean Quigley, demon-strations by flintknappers, and a loopingvideo presentation about the Toppersite.

Day 1—What is Clovis, and wheredid Clovis peoples come from?The conference began with a welcome by

CSFA Director Mike Waters (left)and Topper site principalinvestigator Al Goodyear

CSFA Director Mike Waters (left)and Topper site principalinvestigator Al Goodyear

March ■ 2006 3

Joseph McAvoy nicely summarized significant Clovis sitesof the Nottoway River drainage system in southeast Virginia.Each of these sites, which include Williamson, Conover, andCactus Hill, represents a unique piece of the overall Clovislandscape. Conover and Cactus Hill, for example, lie southeastof Williamson, and both sites containWilliamson chert. The famous CactusHill site, situated on a Pleistocene ter-race, has yielded Clovis and pre-Clovisartifacts.

“From Iberia not Siberia” was themotto for Dennis Stanford and BruceBradley’s controversial Solutreantheory, which runs counter to the long-supported theory that the peopling ofthe Americas began with a migrationacross the Bering Strait and continuedin a southward migration between twoice sheets in Canada during the LastGlacial Maximum (LGM). Instead,Stanford argues, Clovis first appearedon the East coast of North America,then spread to Canada. He suggeststhat radiocarbon dates support this no-tion, since they tend to progress in anorthwesterly direction. Having re-searched extensively in Siberia, Stan-ford finds more commonality betweenthe Solutrean region of the Iberian Peninsula and Clovis thanbetween Northeast Asia and Clovis. He cites as an example thezigzag pattern Hemmings has found on organic tools, a patternStanford also saw in the Solutrean culture. Several possibilitiesexplain how Solutrean people were able to migrate to NorthAmerica. Boats are central to Stanford’s theory. “Of coursethey had boats,” he states matter-of-factly. “We need to stopseeing oceans and rivers as barriers—they’re highways.” Henotes that as early as 30,000years ago people were navigat-ing rivers in Asia, proof that thetechnology was there. In addi-tion, people of the Solutreanculture, a marine-based habita-tion, etched marine mammalsand fish onto cave walls andhunted seals during the wintermonths. Stanford brings to-gether key points to account fortheir migration across the At-lantic. Chief among them wasopportunity, afforded by a sig-nificantly lower sea level and anice bridge that connected New England to Europe. Regardingnavigation, our thoughts harken back to the Vikings, who wereable to navigate by sight because they could see from point topoint. Moreover, the reflection of mountains could be seen formiles, and possibly from Europe. Seals, foxes, birds, and polarbears would have made up the bulk of their diet during thecrossing.

Day 2—More about the Clovis culture, and an openforumFriday’s schedule began with interdisciplinary papers fromDavid Leigh, David Webb, and Thomas Stafford. Leigh, aprofessor of Geography from the University of Georgia, recon-

structed how the shift from cooler anddryer climate at 20,000 yr B.P. towarmer moist climate at 15,000 yr B.P.changed braided rivers in the south-eastern United States to meanderingwaterways, altering the landscape ofriver areas. Webb, of the University ofFlorida, reviewed Pleistocene mega-faunal mammals in the Southeast, in-cluding Mammuthus columbi, Mam-mut americanum, Bison antiquus,Palaeolama mirifica, and Equus spe-cies, that were of economic importanceto Clovis-age peoples. Stafford, a geo-chronologist and biogeochemist, andcolleagues presented evidence for twofinal extinction events at 11,200 and10,800 yr B.P.; they cite as evidenceradiocarbon dates on extinct mega-fauna.

After a lunch break, geoarchae-ologist Waters discussed his findingsat the Topper and Big Pine sites.

Goodyear followed with evidence for pre-Clovis occupation atthe Topper site.

Nuclear scientist Richard Firestone, of the University ofCalifornia–Berkeley, argued the case for an extraterrestrialimpact at the end of the Clovis occupation. Evidence of thecatastrophic event can be found in materials dating back to13,000 yr B.P.

Balancing Stanford’s Solutrean theory was the last paper ofthe day by Anthropology pro-fessor Ted Goebel, of the Uni-versity of Nevada, Reno, whichexplored the question, “WereClovis ancestors in Siberia andAlaska?” In reply to Stanford’sassertion that Clovis ancestorshaven’t been found in north-east Asia or Alaska, Goebel ad-mits that he has found no an-cestor in Siberia or Alaska.Nonetheless, he insists, the po-tential is there. His talk fo-cused on evidence for pre-LGM occupations and the

commonality of tools found in warmer climates of NorthAmerica and those in the Bering Strait area.

An open forum held that evening was a needed opportunityto review the lectures and discuss questions from participants.The event was preceded by summations of conference presen-tations from three authorities, Julie Morrow (currently the

Smithsonian archaeologist Dennis Stanfordknows how to hold an audience’s attention.

Two speakers from University of Texas,Mike Collins (left) and Andy Hemmings.

continued on page 11

Two speakers from University of Texas,Mike Collins (left) and Andy Hemmings.

4 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

RAZIL IS A HUGE and diverse country, incorporat-ing most of the great Amazonian rain forest in itsnorthern and western regions, and featuring a vastdissected upland area with dry forest cover to the

ing the broad floodplain of the great river near the presenttown of Monte Alegre in the state of Pará.

At Pedra Pintada, the Paleoamerican occupation is re-

Many waterways such as this one likelyled early Paleoamericans into the great

Amazonian rain forest, where they wereestablished by 11,000 radiocarbon years ago.

BORY

S M

ALK

IN

by Ruth Gruhn

B

PACIFICOCEAN

ATL ANTICOCEAN

km0 1000

N

S

W E

Localities discussedin this article

PaleoamericanForagers

Forests of Brazilin the

PaleoamericanForagers

Forests of Brazilin the

east and south. By the end ofthe Pleistocene, Paleo-american peoples had be-come established in allmajor environmental re-gions of Brazil.

AmazonianPaleoamericansAround 11,000 RCYBP (radio-carbon years before present,approximately 13,000 calendaryears), at the same time as theClovis people and othergroups flourished in NorthAmerica, different Paleo-american peoples wereexploiting the varied re-sources of the tropical rainforest along the lowerAmazon River in Brazil.They are known from exca-vations conducted in the early1990s by Anna Roosevelt and her as-sociates at a rockshelter namedCaverna da Pedra Pintada, which issituated in a sandstone massif overlook-

corded in a 30-cm-thick deposit of black sandoverlying a sterile yellow sand deposit andbedrock, and well separated from an over-

lying early-Holocene ceramic-age horizon by ca.30 cm of sterile tan sand. The Paleoamerican

zone was rich in carbonized plant remains,and charred palm nuts from the earliest

occupation floor in the zone produced twodates of ca. 11,200 RCYBP. Later dates from the Paleo-

american zone range in stratigraphic order up to ca.10,000 RCYBP.

The organic remains recovered from the early occupationlevels at Pedra Pintada indicate that these tropical Paleo-americans knew the rain forest and the river well. Theycollected a great variety of tree fruits and palm nuts, captured

March ■ 2006 5

forest tortoises and aquatic turtles, gathered river mussels,caught a variety of large and small fish, and hunted smallforest animals and birds. Roosevelt notes that many of theplant species are adapted to zones of forest disturbance, so itis probable that the early Amazonian Paleoamericans, liketheir contemporaries in tropical Colombia, were alreadymodifying the environment. Most of their tools and utensils,and even their weapons, may have been made of vegetalmaterials gathered in the forest.

Although good toolstone was procuredwithin the region and there was a great quan-tity of flaking detritus in the Paleoamericanoccupation levels, only about two dozen for-mal stone tools were recovered in excava-tion, including a few fragments of stemmedtriangular points; other biface fragments;and a variety of uniface artifacts includinglimaces (thick elongate steeply retoucheduniface tools), which are also featured incontemporary Paleoamerican assemblagesat archaeological sites farther south in thedry forests of the uplands of eastern andcentral Brazil.

The Paleoamericans at Pedra Pintada alsopainted figures on the rock walls of theirshelter. Abundant lumps of red laterite andsplatters of red pigment, found within thePaleoamerican occupation levels, were cor-related by physical and chemical analyses tothe paint on the cave wall above the exca-vated area. The designs include geometricforms, simple figures of humans and ani-mals, and handprints. The production ofrock art, apparently a practice unknown inNorth America at the time, was a commonfeature of early cave and rockshelter sitesthroughout much of South America.

Paleoamericans in the eastern andcentral Brazilian uplandsIndeed, the abundance of rock art in cavesand rockshelters in the dissected uplandsof eastern and central Brazil has enticedarchaeologists to excavate at a number ofsites that have proved to contain late-Pleis-tocene occupation levels. Half a dozen ar-chaeological sites, widely distributed ineastern and central Brazil, have yieldedradiocarbon dates of 11,000 RCYBP or olderfor Paleoamerican occupations. Two ofthese sites—the Toca do Boqueirão daPedra Furada in the state of Piauí, and theAbrigo de Santa Elina in the state of Mato

Grosso—have produced radiocarbon dates over 15,000 RCYBP;but I shall defer description of these two sites and others untilthe final article in this series reviews the evidence for a veryearly occupation of South America.

The area of eastern and central Brazil south of the Amazonlowland is an ancient dissected highland region featuring largemesas and plateaus, and broad upland valleys. The climate issemi-arid, with a long dry season. Vegetation cover over thisvast interior area is distinctive. Very widespread in the drier

northeast is caatinga, thick thorn-scrub forest with tall cacti. In themore humid area farther to thesouthwest, the cerrado vegetationzone characteristic of the centraluplands also features low forestand scrub, but with open areas ofsavanna-parkland as well. Boththese major vegetation zones ofeastern and central Brazil offer anabundance of edible or useful plantproducts, as well as a great varietyof game. As Valdemar, our guidein central Bahia state once told us,a person who knows the bush willnever suffer hunger here.

Abrigo GO-JA-01Excavations at a series of rock-shelters in the area of Serranóp-olis in the southwest part of the

Our guide Valdemar stands in thecaatinga in central Bahía state. Thisthorn forest contains a great variety ofedible plants as well as game, exploitedby early Paleoamericans.

ALA

N B

RYA

N

Limaces, elongate plano-convexuniface artifacts, characterize theParanaíba phase in southwesternGoiás state, a dissected uplandarea within the cerrado vegeta-tion zone in central Brazil.PE

DRO

SC

HM

ITZ

6 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

Where the South Winds Blow: AncientEvidence of Paleo South Americans

Laura Miotti, Mónica Salemme,and Nora Flegenheimer, editors,

WHERE THE SOUTH WINDS BLOW isa collection of new papersabout the earliest archae-

ological discoveries in South America.The editors are leaders of a new genera-tion of competent young scholars whoare conducting careful research in seek-ing to understand the peopling of south-ern South America. The early prehistoryof South America is poorly known by theEnglish-speaking world. This edited vol-ume, translated from Spanish, contains21 short and “pithy” papers document-ing some of the most important recentlyinvestigated early archaeological sites inSouth America. These papers, which re-port poorly known Paleoamerican com-plexes and excavation of sites older than11,000 radiocarbon years before present,cover issues in geoarchaeology, geo-

chronology, Pleistocene extinction, andpaleoecology. Collectively, these stud-ies report new empirical evidence im-portant for understanding the peoplingof South America, including new datessuggesting that South America was oc-cupied by Clovis times. Future attemptsto explain the peopling of the Ameri-cas will have to take this new evidenceinto account.

–Copy from the rear coverISBN 1-58544-363-8 $25.00

FromCSFAFromCSFA

state of Goiás by Pedro Schmitz and hisassociates in the 1970s led to the defini-tion of a distinctive early complex calledthe Paranaíba phase, dated back to ca.11,000 RCYBP. This area of Goiás is veryrugged, dissected upland country, withmany mesas and deep valleys. The veg-etation cover is cerrado and the climateis semi-arid, but it may have beencooler at the end of the Pleistocene.

tion, which served to define the Para-naíba phase, was radiocarbon-dated be-tween 10,740 ± 90 RCYBP and 9060 ± 65RCYBP. The early occupation level, in amatrix of disintegrated sandstone, wasmarked by thick lenses of charcoal andash, abundant food refuse, and well-used stone artifacts. The site wasclearly a residential base camp. Thefood refuse at the Abrigo GO-JA-01 indi-

convex face. Use-wear studies suggestthat these distinctive early artifactsserved as large endscrapers. The Para-naíba assemblage also includes a greatvariety of unifacially trimmed flaketools used as scrapers, knives, or perfo-rators.

It is notable that despite the apparentemphasis on hunting, bifacial stone pro-jectile points are very rare in or absentfrom Paranaíba phase assemblages.Among all the stone artifacts collectedfrom the many Goiás sites, there wereonly several fragments of triangularstemmed points. Uniface industries arecharacteristic of eastern and centralBrazilian archaeological sites, and bifa-cial stone projectile points were veryrare in the area until late prehistorictimes. Most likely, projectiles werearmed with points made of wood, bam-boo, or bone splinters—the types ofweapon point still preferred by Indiansin the Brazilian forests even now.

Lapa do BoqueteNear the town of Januária in northernMinas Gerais, in the valley of the greatSão Francisco River, is a large lime-stone massif containing many caves androckshelters, notable for prolific rockart. The most spectacular panels werepainted by late prehistoric peoples, butthere is evidence that Paleoamericansalso painted on rock faces. Alan Bryanand I located several potentially impor-tant sites in this area in 1976, and subse-quently André Prous of the Museu deHistoria Natural in the city of BeloHorizonte carried out excavations inseveral of the rockshelters. The oldestarchaeological remains that have beenrecognized to date in the Januária areawere in the Lapa do Boquete, a largelimestone rockshelter overlooking theforested floodplain of the PeruaçuRiver, a tributary of the São Francisco(MT 12-4, “Brazilian Rockshelter Re-veals Details Dating to Pleistocene”).

Level VIII, the basal occupation levelin the Lapa do Boquete, has now pro-duced five radiocarbon dates on char-coal ranging between 12,070 ± 170RCYBP and 11,000 ± 300 RCYBP. A calcar-eous silt deposit 10–20 cm thick, it wasrich in charcoal and ash, with manyhearths; and food refuse was abundant,indicating intensive use of this excellent

cates an emphasis on hunting a greatvariety of medium-sized or small ani-mals—deer, armadillo, rodents, smallmarsupials. Remains of tortoises, liz-ards, fish, and birds including rheas(large ostrich-like flightless birds) andrhea eggs were also found on the occu-pation floors. Palm nuts and other forestfoods were collected in season.

The stone industry of the Paranaíbaphase features limaces, large elongateuniface tools made on thick blades.They are plano-convex in cross section,with careful steep retouch covering the

Here the Paleoamerican people couldfind a variety of food resources distrib-uted from valley bottom to mesa top;and good quartzite toolstone very closeto their rockshelter campsites, whichcluster near active springs in the can-yons.

The major site excavated by Schmitzand his associates was the Abrigo GO-JA-01, a very large high rock overhangat the base of a sandstone cliff. Thereare many pictographs and petroglyphson the shelter walls, but their age can-not be determined. The earliest occupa-

March ■ 2006 7

shelter. The Paleoamericans exploited a wide variety of localfood resources: plants, animals, mollusks, fish. A distinctiveartifact type commonly found at archaeological sites in thecerrado zone of eastern Brazil is the quebra-coco, a flat stoneslab with a shallow circular hollow on the surface, into which asmall palm nut was placed, to be cracked open with ahammerstone. Both types of stone artifact were found in LevelVIII at the Lapa do Boquete together with abundant charredpalm nuts and other large seeds. Aswell, deer and various small ani-mals were hunted by the Paleo-americans. It is apparent thatmaximum use was made of animalresources, as the bones are highlyfragmented. Aquatic resourceswere also procured from the riveror a nearby lake: Level VIII con-tained numerous shells of freshwa-ter mussels, and some fish bones.Also collected by the Paleo-americans was the giant terrestrialgastropod Strophocheilus, whichemerges from dry-season hiberna-tion underground early in the rainyseason. This snail, which can be upto 15 cm long when fully extendedfrom its large shell, provides agood source of protein. Archaeo-logical sites in eastern and centralBrazil are often littered with its shells.

It appears that, like their contemporaries in the Caverna daPedra Pintada, the Paleoamericans at the Lapa do Boquetecreated rock art. There are designs in red paint on the walls ofthe rockshelter, and a limestone slab with red pigment on itrecovered from Level VIII may have been a paint palette.

Flaked-stone artifacts recovered from Level VIII in the Lapado Boquete were made of chalcedony, quartzite, or quartz

Rock art, common in caves androckshelters in Brazil, leadsarchaeologists to early sites.This panel is in the Toca dosBuzios in central Bahía.

ALA

N B

RYA

N

available within the region. Therewas very little evidence of bifacialflaking: the assemblage featured uti-lized flakes and scraping tools withmarginal unifacial retouch. The dis-tinctive limace form is notable in thePaleoamerican assemblage at theLapa do Boquete, as at numerousother early archaeological sites ineastern and central Brazil. It is vir-tually a horizon marker for late-Pleistocene/early-Holocene archae-ological sites in interior Brazil.

Taking stock and looking aheadThe Paleoamerican foragers who lived in the Caverna da PedraPintada, the Lapa do Boquete, and the Abrigo GO-JA-01 ca.11,000 radiocarbon years ago were not strangers in the land.They knew their local territory very well, and exploited itsvaried resources to the fullest. The land must long have beentheirs, and they marked possession of place with rock art.Evidence of their ancestors, the first explorers and pioneer

settlers in the Brazilian for-ests, is yet to be recognized.

South of Brazil, as onemoves into the temperatezone of the Southern Cone,the forest environment givesway to a cool grassland orsteppe which extends east ofthe Andes southward toTierra del Fuego at the tip ofSouth America. In the next ar-ticle in this series, I shall de-scribe Paleoamerican hunt-ers in Patagonia.

The earliest occupation levelin the Lapa do Boquete, inMinas Gerais state, hasproduced five dates between12,000 and 11,000 radio-carbon years ago.A

LAN

BRY

AN

How to contact the author of this article:Ruth GruhnDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton AB T6G 2H4, Canadae-mail: rgruhn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

8 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

HE FIRST AMERICANS, whoever they may have been,didn’t leave us many clues about their culture. Whatwe do know is written mostly in stone and bone, and

tial answers to some of these questions. Not only have theyrefined our understanding of the bison-hunting techniques ofthe Paleoindians, they’ve given us a glimpse into a bygonepeople’s spiritual and artistic life as well.

Bone, bone on the rangeUntil accepting his current position with the OAS in 1992, LelandBement was probably best known for his work in central and

west Texas. For his M.A. re-search he analyzed fossil mate-rial from Bonfire Shelter, thefamous Paleoindian/Archaic bi-son jump in southwest Texas(MT 18-2, “Pollen and the FirstAmericans”); his Ph.D. disserta-tion covered 5,000 years of cul-tural use at Bering Sinkhole in

Kerr County, Texas. “My interests have alwaysbeen lithics and bones—interests developedgrowing up in a family always in the outdoors,”says Bement.

Since the early 1990s, his name has been all butsynonymous with two bison kill sites that he andhis colleagues have spent years studying, Cooperand Jake Bluff. The sites lie on the same stretch offloodplain of the Beaver River, a reach of the

North Canadian that passes through Harper County, Oklahoma.The Cooper Site (34HP45) came first, manifesting initially as a

Primary butchering damageon the Cooper bison remains.

Probing the Past

Leland Bementand the

Paleoindiansof Oklahoma

Enid

OklahomaCity

✪

Ttells the story of small, mobile groups of big-game hunters whopreyed on animal populations unaccustomed to a human pres-ence. But we know little about them beyond their basic subsis-tence patterns, and even that knowledge is incomplete. Only afew dedicated (and lucky) researchers have been able to fill indetails beyond the fact that they knapped pretty projectilepoints and liked to eat Pleistocene megafauna. Leland C.Bement, of the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS), isone of those few.

While there are older claimants for the title ofFirst American, the earliest societies for whichwe have systematic evidence are the variousPaleoindian cultures, all dating to about 9000–12,000 RCYBP (about 10,000–14,000 CALYBP). The GreatPlains region, including thegreat state of Oklahoma, isstudded with their material remains. Unfortu-nately, since cultural mores can’t be preservedin stone and dirt, until recently the finer detailsof their lives escaped us. Besides meat, whatelse did they eat? Did they have art? A complexbelief system? How did they hunt? Were they carefulconservators of their resources, or profligate wasters?

Leland Bement and his colleagues have found at least par-

March ■ 2006 9

scatter of bison bone eroding out of a cutbank in a newlyacquired Wildlife Management Area. When Bement and gamewarden Dick James visited the exposure in 1992, they foundbison vertebrae and leg elements sticking out of a talus slump.

After monitoring the site for about six months, Bement andcolleague Kent Buehler discovered that someone had pulledsome bones from the cutbank—leaving behind the tip of aFolsom point. “This point was the first artifact found from theexposure,” explains Bement, “and was our first evidence thatthe bones had a cultural component.”

The right person for the jobBement immediately recognized the site’s value and laid plansfor systematic investigations of the find. The work began in1993, with the clearing of a6-m (about 20-ft) profile im-mediately adjacent to theriver. These efforts ex-posed three separate con-centrations of bison bonewithin the sediments of aburied Pleistocene arroyo,which were dated to 10,600,10,550, and 10,530 RCYBP—all well within the Folsomtime range.

The uppermost concen-tration yielded complete, ar-ticulated bison skeletonsthat bore evidence of whatBement calls “gourmet”butchering, in which onlyselect masses of meat weretaken. Indeed, this method of butchering proved to be predomi-nant at Cooper; according to Bement, “cut mark and blowdamage is found primarily on the ribs and vertebra of the Cooperanimals, indicating the shoulder, rib, and hump meat was re-

moved from these animals. This pattern is repeated in all threekills.”

Excavation of the upper bone bed yielded not just intactskeletons but also numerous Folsom points, flake tools, and

plenty of sharpening flakes. In addition to theprofessional archaeologists who excavated thesite, Mother Nature insisted on lending a hand.Unfortunately, she used a storm as a diggingtool. “We had been cleaning off an area wheretwo skeletons converged with the skulls lyingnext to each other,” Bement recalls. “That night,a tornado came directly over the site and totallydestroyed those two skulls and many of thebones articulated with them. It was a destructiveevent not usually covered in the generaltaphonomic literature.” Even the most robustbones were hammered to bits by hail.

Excavation continued the next year with OU

Stratigraphy of the Jake Bluff site,showing Clovis and Folsom occupations.

students, Oklahoma Anthropological Society vol-unteers, and visiting Texas archaeologists. The

Cooper site ultimately yielded a dataset rarely rivaled in thePaleoindian literature. In all, 32 whole or partial Folsom pointswere recovered from the site, accompanied by numerous otherflakes and flake tools. The lithics consisted primarily ofAlibates dolomite from the Texas Panhandle and Edwardschert from central Texas, with a single point of Niobrara jasperfrom Kansas or Nebraska. Alibates dominated the lithicsample; combined with the tooth eruption patterns of thebison, which suggested they died about 4–6 months aftercalving season, this indicates that Cooper was repeatedly occu-

pied by one or more Folsomgroups that traveled east off theLlano Estacado of Texas, arriv-ing at the Beaver River in latesummer or early fall.

A painted skullIt was during the 1994 seasonthat the most exciting find wasmade: between the middle andlower bone beds, the excava-tors uncovered a painted bisonskull. The skull had been

Leland Bement (left) andgeoarchaeologist C. VanceHaynes at the Jake Bluff sitein 2004.

trampled by the bison of the second kill, ca. 10,550 RCYBP, buthad clearly been defleshed and weathered by natural pro-cesses well before the kill event—and just as clearly paintedwith two red hematite zigzags. Hematite has a long history of

10 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

A B

C D E

0 3cmritual use in the New World, and

has been found in a number ofPaleoindian contexts.

“The significance of thepainted bison skull at Cooper isoften lost in the research of theother aspects of this site, andPaleoindian studies in general,”Bement points out. “The paintedskull is perhaps the single mostsignificant find to come fromCooper. It provides us with aglimpse of a part of Folsomlifeways that is not the mundanepart of subsistence acquisition.”The skull appears to representpart of a “pre-kill, hunting magicritual possibly aligned with bisoncalling rituals in later cultures.” It harks back to the UpperPaleolithic hunting rituals of Eurasia, and brings to mindpainted Siberian mammoth skulls and cave paintings inLascaux and elsewhere. Although hunting rituals are knownfor cultures all over the world in every era, there was littleevidence of it associated with Paleoindians until the Cooperskull was found.

Back in time to ClovisThe 1994 season also saw the discovery of the second of theBeaver River kill sites. Because the excavators at Cooperhadn’t uncovered the bison processing area that should haveexisted there, they thought it might be a good idea to checkelsewhere along the floodplain margin. Based on what theyhad discovered at Cooper, Bement and hiscolleagues had developed the “Cooper Model”of bison hunting, which he and coauthorsBrian Carter and Scott Brosowske describedin Current Research in the Pleistocene, vol. 16(1999), as “integrating large numbers of ani-mals, gourmet butchering techniques, littlecarcass dismemberment, seasonal redun-dancy, ritual, and the possible aggregation ofmore than a single group of hunters.” Duringtheir pursuit of the model, they investigatedthe nearby bluff line and found a site theycalled Jake Bluff (41HP60).

“Jake Bluff is one of those sites that justkeep nagging at you,” reflects Bement. Whenthe surveyors discovered it, it consisted of ascatter of weathered bovid bone protrudingfrom what seemed to be sand dune deposits. Aradiocarbon assay of a bone fragment yielded

Jake Bluff artifacts. A, Folsompoint; B, drill; C–E, Clovis points.

a modern date, though the size of thebones suggested to Bement that theanimals were in the size range of thebison found at Cooper. But, “With theanalysis of the Cooper material in fullswing, Jake Bluff was put on the backburner,” he says.

Later work revealed many more bi-son bones, some articulated, all em-bedded in a reddish sediment very likethe matrix at Cooper. This time a bisontooth found on the gully floor wasdated to 10,750 RCYBP. AnotherFolsom bison kill, they figured,though the material came from a highspot on the bedrock; the gully hadn’tbeen completely investigated yet. Theshocker came in 2002, when a projec-tile point was finally found—a Clovispoint. Suddenly Jake Bluff was olderthan Cooper, and possibly not related

to it at all. “With the discovery of Clovis in the gully, the sitetook on new meaning,” says Bement. “Here, instead of aFolsom kill, was a Clovis bison kill utilizing a gully in anapparent arroyo trap-style bison hunt.”

The Clovis occupants, whose presence was confirmedwith a second point later that season, also utilized the trappedbison differently. Unlike their Folsom descendants, they ap-pear to have butchered the trapped animals completely, leav-ing piles of disarticulated bones on the old gully floor.Furthermore, analysis of the gully stratigraphy seemed topreclude a link between the bones on the gully rim and theClovis occupation. The nature of the upper bone bed, with itsarticulated limb bones separated from otherwise articulatedskeletons, seemed more typical of a Folsom occupation. This

Stratigraphy at the Cooper site,showing all three bone beds.

March ■ 2006 11

hypothesis was confirmed with the discovery ofan associated Folsom point in 2004, making JakeBluff a rarity in archaeological annals: a Paleo-indian site with stratified Folsom and Clovis com-ponents.

Questions answered . . . and more askedWhether Jake Bluff and Cooper are directly re-lated, despite their close proximity, is a questionthat “drives straight to the heart of our research,”Bement says. Jake Bluff was discovered during atest of the Cooper Model, and like the Lipscomb(and maybe Lake Theo) sites in Texas, it seems tofit the model well. The Clovis finds add time depthto the model and suggest it was Clovis people whopioneered this method of hunting. But whether theFolsom component at Jake Bluff is related to theFolsom occupation at Cooperremains a mystery.

The Cooper Model researchprogram now includes not justan examination of bison killsbut also paleoenvironmental re-construction; the team hasgrown to include a geographer,a palynologist, a geologist, ataphonomist, and a lithics spe-cialist. Bement is quick to offercredit to those colleagues: “Myco-PI [principal investigator] isBrian Carter, soils scientist atOklahoma State University.Others involved in this work in-clude Eileen Johnson, ThomasStafford, Linda Scott Cummins,and Marvin Kay.”

Since 2002, the Cooper Site has been listed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places because of its contributions to ourunderstanding of America’s prehistory. The only excavationsthat have been conducted there since Bement’s crew back-filled their last trenches have been performed by plunderingrelic collectors, who pulled apart an unexcavated block afterthe 1994 excavations, strewing bones everywhere. However,Bement hopes to return to Jake Bluff in 2006, and gully probingin the vicinity of the two sites will continue.

What does the future hold for Bement and his team? Cur-rently they’re excavating the late-Archaic Certain site in west-

▲

The middle bone bed at Cooper.

The remains of the painted bison skull, in situ.Note the painted zigzag (arrow).

Below, drawing of the skull, from “A Painted Skullfrom the Cooper Site: A Folsom Bison Kill in NWOklahoma” by Bement et al. in CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene, vol. 14 (1997).

▲

➙

Station Archeologist at Arkansas State University), Stanford,and Goodyear. They noted conference highlights and addedpersonal perspectives on topics needing further discussionand notable speaker presentations. They were unanimous in

Clovis in the Southeast Conference 2005

continued from page 3

their praise for the contributions made by avocational archae-ologists. Stanford’s comment, “We can make great progress ifwe trust each other,” emphasizes the necessity of scientistsand avocationalists working together. Goodyear spoke aboutthe need for new hypotheses, such as Stanford’s Solutreantheory, to infuse energy into First Americans research, for newtheories challenge us to open new possibilities, and throughcollaboration we can explore these possibilities.

How to contact the principal of this article:Leland C. BementOklahoma Archaeological SurveyUniversity of Oklahoma111 E. ChesapeakeNorman, OK 73019e-mail: lbement@ou.edu

➙

ern Oklahoma, where five arroyos anda cliff were used to trap and kill 800-plusbison. “Other projects include a suiteof Clovis to late-Paleoindian sites inthe Oklahoma Panhandle that we havejust begun to look at for paleo-environmental reconstructions,” hestates. “Sooner or later these sites willrequire excavation to explore their cul-tural deposits.” With luck, the new siteswill provide new clues into the lifewaysof the people who left them behind—adding a few more brush strokes to thepicture of what it was like to be one ofthe first humans to experience life onthis continent.

–Floyd Largent

12 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

Morrow spoke passionately about the importance of usingsoil data in research. She spoke highly of John Foss of SoilInternational Inc., who collaborated with Goodyear and LarryWest in preparing the paper,“The Role of Soil Morphologyin the Delineation and Interpre-tation of Stratigraphic Units atClovis Sites in the Southeast.”Their presentation stressed theimportance of soil morphologyas a key to understanding thecomplex stratigraphy of Clovissites in the Southeast. Soil mor-phologic studies evaluate theweathering stages of soils,which in turn can greatly en-hance our understanding of thesoil weathering cycles of an ex-cavation based on time and par-ent material.

Jim Welch, formerly ofSouth Carolina EducationalTelevision, served as modera-tor of the open forum. All par-ticipants were free to askquestions and discuss points ofconflict in a more formal set-ting. A particular benefit of theforum proved to be insightsfrom scientists who hadn’t ap-peared as speakers. After muchdebate, the general consensus reached was that we need tostart looking at the peopling of the Americas as a process andnot an event.

Day 3—A visit to the Topper SiteAbout 400 participants made the bus tour to the Topper site,where open excavation units were exposed. Goodyear, princi-pal investigator at Topper, described the stratigraphy of theexcavation unit spanning the Holocene/Pleistocene periodsthat has produced pre-Clovis artifacts. Both Goodyear andgeoarchaeologists familiar with Topper fielded questionsfrom participants. Happily, the weather was as amiable as thecompany, and touring the excavated areas was an opportunityfor unhurried discussion. The trip, a superb finale to a suc-cessful conference, gave professionals, scientists, andavocationals the opportunity to view and discuss Clovis unitsalongside pre-Clovis. After the visit to the site, everyone waswhisked away to the Allendale Paleo-Indian Expedition camp-grounds, where the Clariant Corporation, owner of the landwhere the Topper site is located, provided whole-hog barbe-cue with traditional Southern sides—definitely a conferencehigh point!

ConclusionSo where do we go from here? As a result of the conference,archaeologists now have a better definition of SouthernClovis and an improved typological classification of Clovis

points versus other fluted points. There are, however, stillmany questions left unanswered. What happened to Clovispeoples? Why did they disappear? Or did they evolve into

another culture? For Good-year, Topper’s post-Clovis de-cline in fluted points raises thequestion, Is this a regional traitspecific to the Carolinas or is itmore widespread? If so, doesthis imply a major demo-graphic change after Clovis?For continued study, more ra-diocarbon dates are needed onClovis in the South.

To aid in the research, DavidAnderson’s database at the Uni-versity of Tennessee (e-mail:pidba.utk.edu) is refining ourinformation on typology fromdigging at Cactus Hill, Gault,and Carson-Conn-Short so thatwe can more accurately definewhat is a Clovis point in theSouth. In addition, Goodyear isworking to collect and publishthe speaker presentations. Thebook will insure that the Clovisin the Southeast conference isremembered as a landmarkevent in archaeology, particu-larly in enlarging our under-

standing of the Clovis culture.–Erin Curtis

How to contact the author of this article:Erin K. Curtis e-mail: ekcurtis@gmail.com

For information on the conference, log on towww.clovisinthesoutheast.net/

About the author Erin Curtis is an undergraduatestudent at the University of South Carolina. In December2006 she will graduate with a degree in Media Arts and a

minor in Film Studies.Documentary filmmak-ing is her emphasis inmedia, with particularinterest in environmen-tal and social issues.Since May 2005, Erinhas been working along-side Albert Goodyearand USC to documentthe evolution of theAllendale PaleoamericanExpedition as part of anundergraduate researchinitiative.

During the tour of the Topper site,University of Illinois geochronologist

Steve Forman explains the stratigraphyof Clovis and pre-Clovis levels.

Erin withDennis Stanford

Erin withDennis Stanford

March ■ 2006 13

Paleoamerican

Origins:Beyond Clovis

Edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper,

Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters,

Center for the Study

of the First Americans

Department of Anthropology Texas A&M University

his collection of 23 papers by today’s foremost authorities explores indepth our current knowledge of the First Americans, the people of theT

Tomorrow’s scientists will find persuasive counsel in Paleoamerican Origins:Beyond Clovis on where best to focus research and fieldwork to enlarge ourunderstanding of how the Americas were peopled. Equally important aresober predictions of the ways in which social and political forces may shapethe thrust of future inquiry into Paleoamerican prehistory.

Clovis culture—and those who may have preceded them to these shores.In this lavishly illustrated 384-page book, scholars present evidence of earlyhuman occupants in North and South America, drawing on research in suchdisparate fields as archaeology, genetics, and skeletal studies.

The engine driving this landmark publication is the 1999 Clovis andBeyond Conference, convened in Santa Fe, New Mexico, by CSFA founderRob Bonnichsen, where theories were aired that shook long-standingparadigms and invited scientific inquiry in exciting new directions.Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis is the direct product of that conference.Here top scientists of the Americas argue their case for who the FirstAmericans were, and they back their arguments with compelling evidence.

More than 100 maps, illustrations,and photos Skull of Minnesota Woman,

7900 RCYBP (Douglas W. Owsleyand Richard L. Jantz)

▲Female mandible chin forms;the middle one is late PlainsArchaic (George W. Gill)

▲

Dated pre-Clovis sites in North America(Dennis Stanford et al.). This is one of sixmaps—five are full page–size!—bySmithsonian artist Marcia Bakry, showinglocations of dated North American

Paleoamerican sites through the Goshen/Plainview period and of known South American

sites. All are executed in full color, which showsthe extent of glaciation, shelf ice, and exposed

continental shelf then existing. These mapsalone make Paleoamerican Origins:Beyond Clovis an invaluable reference tool.

▲

Plotting the course of future inquiry

The most complete surveyEVER of First Americans

research. In one volume!

The most complete surveyEVER of First Americans

research. In one volume!

Hardback, 384 8½-by-11-inch pagesISBN 1-58544-540-1

Regular price $60 CSFA members $54See inside rear cover for ordering information

14 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

ALEOENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS call them opalphytoliths, the microscopic (10–100 microns long) silicaparticles formed as a normal process in many living plants.

abundant silica bodies.) Within groundwater is silicic acid, thesoluble form of silica. Second only to oxygen, silica is one of themost abundant elements on earth. It is constantly changingstates, dissolving into a liquid state and precipitating out ofwater into a solid state. When a plant takes in water through itsroots, it also takes up the silica. The plant cannot use or absorbthe silica, so it is deposited between or within its cell walls,forming a silicon copy of a plant cell, a phytolith. Not all plantsform phytoliths, and those that do vary in the quantity pro-duced as well as the location of deposition within the plant.They can occur in any plant structure—stems, leaves, roots,fruit, seeds, inflorescences, etc.

We aren’t certain why plants produce phytoliths. Somestudies have shown a direct correlation between the amount ofsilica within a plant and its ability to resist fungal disease.Greater amounts of silica also increase the rigidity of plantleaves, which increases the surface area open to sunlightthereby increasing photosynthesis.

The uneven history of phytolith researchPhytoliths were first observed in living plants by a Germanbotanist in 1835, a time when researchers were exploring

PHYT

OLI

TH P

HO

TOS:

VA

UG

HN

BRY

AN

T

PhytolithAnalysis

A Valuable Tool inFirst Americans Research

PTheir delicate appearance is deceptive, for even though mostplant material decays quickly when the plant dies, these tena-cious bits of silica, if not destroyed by breakage, erosion, ordissolved by highly alkaline soils, can survive for millions ofyears.

They are invaluable for reconstructing the environmentalconditions of humankind’s past because a phytolith is a tem-plate of the distinctive size and shape of a plant’s cells, like afingerprint, that identifies a particular family. By analyzingphytoliths, scientists can determine the type of plant they camefrom, in many cases genus and species as well. In some casesit’s even possible to distinguish between the wild and domesti-cated forms of a plant species, thereby giving us insight intohow agriculture developed.

Silica, the key elementThe word phytolith originates from the Greek, meaning “plantstone.” (There are also calcium oxalate phytoliths, such asthose produced by cacti, but this article focuses on the more

C

Phytoliths of various grassesand of the Cucurbita gourd (C).

March ■ 2006 15

smaller and smaller particles using new and improved micro-scopes. Around 1900, their usefulness in archaeological inves-tigations was becoming recognized as studies of phytolithproduction, morphology, and taxonomy appeared in scientificpublications. Research stalled in 1936, however, when the Naziregime came into power in Germany. Since the vast majority ofphytolith literature was written in German, the body of re-search remained obscure to English-speaking scientists. Fi-nally, in the mid-1950s, phytoliths were observed in Britain andNorth America, encouraging greater research and propellingthe use of phytolith analysis in studying environmental history.After 1971, when archaeologist Irwin Rovner published “Poten-tial of Opal Phytoliths for Use in Paleoecological Reconstruc-tion” in Quaternary Research, their use became more systematic.

Finding clues to the human pastAn archaeological site may yield three basic categories of plantremains: macrofloral, microfloral, and chemical. Macrofloralremains are those that are visible to the naked eye, such asseeds, nuts, charcoal, and large objects like tree trunks andlogs. Microfloral remains require magnification to view, suchas pollen, phytoliths, and diatoms. Chemical remains includesuch evidence as phosphates in soils and residues such asprotein and starch left behind on prehistoric tools and vesselsused to process plants. From this simple background phytolithanalysis developed. Thus far tucked away on a thin branch ofpaleobotany, its appreciation as a valuable resource for recon-structing ancient environments is growing fast.

in place at the time of decay. Some plants, such as grasses(including cereals like wheat, oats, and barley), beans, squash,sunflower, and elm, produce large quantities of silica particles.Others form none or varying degrees in between. The samediversity of production also applies to pollen. A species of plantmay be under-represented in pollen studies, but richly repre-sented in phytolith analysis, and vice versa. So when the resultsof these individual studies are compared, they provide a muchmore complete representation of paleoenvironment than canbe obtained from a single method.

Many of the plants consumed and used by prehistoricpeoples are represented in the data obtained from pollen,phytolith, starch, and other methods of analysis. Not only canthey provide information about Paleoamerican diet, phytolithsfound adhering to ceramic vessels and lithic tools can alsoindicate how certain plants were processed and provide cluesto a specific tool’s function, provided the artifacts have notbeen cleaned or handled excessively after recovery. Phyto-liths, along with pollen and plant macroremains, can even berecovered from coprolites—preserved human feces (MT 20-3, “Ancient DNA: A Tough Nut to Crack”)—providing insightsinto meal patterns and paleo-nutrition, seasonal availability,and storage of off-season foods.

Phytoliths at Cactus HillNot only can phytolith analysis help to reconstruct paleo-environments and diet, it is also proving to be a useful tool invalidating the stratigraphic integrity of First American sites andcorroborating dating analysis as well. The Cactus Hill siteproject in southeastern Virginia, led by Joseph McAvoy of theNottoway River Survey, has been a subject of controversy re-garding its pre-Clovis dates. Charcoal remains found 10–15 cmbelow a Clovis occupation have been dated to 15,070 ± 70 RCYBP,suggesting pre-Clovis occupation. Sandy, windblown depositslike those at Cactus Hill are likely to exhibit a greater degree ofpost-depositional disturbance, calling into question the validityof the radiocarbon results.

Looking to corroborate the dates with other analyses,

McWeeney (ballcap) collecting soil samples from pre-Clovislevels at the Topper site in South Carolina for phytolithanalysis in 2001. Her expertise complemented the skills ofother specialists in the team—experts in microwear analysis,geoarchaeology, and radiocarbon dating—assembled byprincipal investigator Al Goodyear, director of the AllendalePaleoindian Expedition.

paleobotanist Lucinda McWeeney, owner of Botanical Hilland Archaeobotanical I.D.’s in New York, and curatorial affili-ate at the Yale Peabody Museum, analyzed the phytolithremains at Cactus Hill. Also, James C. Baker of VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg ana-lyzed the soil’s phosphate content. Dr. McWeeney based herinvestigations on a study of sand dunes in Britain that foundthat the number of phytoliths in a stratum is directly relatedto human occupation (Powers et al. 1989). When humansinhabit a site, they bring into their living space a diversity ofplants to use for various purposes; as a result microscopic

MIK

E W

ATE

RS

Because the information gathered from each area of analy-sis (i.e., macrofloral, microfloral, chemical, and their subcat-egories) is not entirely redundant, the data obtained are usedin a complementary fashion—to fill in the blanks in one areawith the results of another. This is especially true with pollenand phytolith analysis. Because most pollen is windblown,their particles are scattered over a wide area, far afield from theexact location of the originating plant. Adding to this is the lackof knowledge regarding wind direction at the time the pollenbecame airborne and how far away the releasing plant waslocated. Phytoliths, on the other hand, are generally deposited

16 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

phytoliths are deposited in abundancethroughout that locale. McWeeney hy-pothesized that if the dune sedimentshad been disturbed, we would expectthat the number of phytoliths presentwould be homogeneous throughouteach level. Her findings, however, indi-cated that this wasn’t the case. A 60-cmcolumn of sediment was excavated in2.5-cm increments. “The quantity ofphytoliths did change,” McWeeney re-ports. “They fluctuated very closely tothe changes in phosphates and thechanges in artifacts.” A second columnwas also analyzed. She reports that “thephytoliths weren’t as right-on, eventhough they did fluctuate. But the phos-phates were much more in-sync withthe artifacts.” The combined efforts of

phytolith, phosphate, and artifact analy-ses for the Cactus Hill site indicate undis-turbed strata and evidence of humanoccupation at the pre-Clovis level.McWeeney is hopeful that additionalfunding will be found to perform statisti-cal analysis of phytoliths at Cactus Hill “tosee if there’s a variation in plants—andthat would be a very interesting study.”

A source of datable carbonPhytoliths are also a source of carbonsamples for accelerator mass spectrom-etry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, for asphytoliths are formed, tiny particles ofthe original plant material are encapsu-lated within the silica body. Despite therigors involved—the amount of carbontrapped is minute, the extraction process

HE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE FIRST AMERICANS announces therenovation of the Center’s Web site at centerfirstamericans.com On this

Check out ournew Web site!

TWeb site, you will find information about the history of the Center, educationalopportunities, graduate student profiles, and overviews of ongoing Centerresearch and results.

Image Gallery Over 200 color photographs are available. These photographsinclude the Gault Clovis site, Texas; Hueyatlaco site, Mexico; Paleolithic sites inRussia; Topper site, South Carolina; Danger Cave, Utah; and more.

Useful Resources on the Web The site offers a page where you will find linksto useful Web sites dealing with First Americans archaeology, late-Pleistoceneenvironments and animals, and geoarchaeology.

Mammoth Trumpet and Current Research in the Pleistocene We have also putvolume 1 (1984) through volume 18 (2003) of the Mammoth Trumpet on line. Ifyou have never seen the earlier issues or want to reread an article, they are allavailable. However, the current and past two years of the Mammoth Trumpet areonly available through subscription. Archives of the table of contents of allvolumes (volume 1, 1984, to volume 21, 2004) of Current Research in thePleistocene are available on the Center Web site. We have also made it easier foryou to order the forthcoming issue or back issues of Current Research in thePleistocene by adding convenient and easy-to-download order forms. Further, allavailable Center books are listed on the Web site with a direct link to the TexasA&M University Press, where these books can be ordered.

We hope you like the new look of the Center Web site. We will be updating itfrom time to time with more photos, Web links, current research, and otheritems. Jonathan Doll is the chief Web designer on this ambitious remake of theCenter’s Web site.

–Mike Waters, CSFA Director

is rigorous, and the cleaning process toremove surface carbon to eliminate con-tamination is intense—the data poten-tially available make these effortsworthwhile. Naturally, correspondingdates from as many dating methods aspossible serve to support the validity ofeach individual date obtained. Given thelingering debate over pre-Clovis cul-tures, authenticating dates at Paleo-american sites is crucial.

A science coming into its ownPhytolith analysis as a scientific toolcontinues to blossom as techniques arerefined and new procedures are devel-oped. Before this field can reach its fullpotential, it must become better known.Research endeavors that gain mediaattention will promote a greater under-standing by the general public. Such at-tention would generate additionalresearch funding, as well as career oppor-tunities in industry and academia, fuelingthe growth of phytolith analysis.

–J. L. Boldurian

How to contact the principal of this article:Lucinda McWeeney e-mail:arcbot@botanicalhill.com

Suggested ReadingsBoldurian, A. T., and J. L. Cotter 1999

Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives onPaleoindian Adaptations from BlackwaterDraw, New Mexico. The University ofPennsylvania Museum of Archaeologyand Anthropology, Monograph 103.Philadelphia.

Howard, E. B. 1935 Evidence of EarlyMan in North America. The Museum Jour-nal, University Museum, University ofPennsylvania 24(2–3), Philadelphia.

McWeeney, L. J. 2001 The Role of Sedi-ment Analyses in Establishing HumanPresence at Early Archaeological Sites.Current Research in the Pleistocene 18:44–46.

Pearsall, D. M. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: AHandbook of Procedures. Second Edition.Academic Press, Inc., NY.

Piperno, D. R. 1988 Phytolith Analysis: AnArchaeological and Geological Perspective.Academic Press, Inc., NY.

Powers, A. H., J. Padmore, and D. D.Gilbertson 1989 Studies of Late Pre-historic and Modern Opal Phytoliths fromCoastal Sand Dunes and Machair inNorthwest Britain. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 16:27–45.

March ■ 2006 17

N A SMALL HILLSIDE near theMexican city of Puebla, a seriesof oddly familiar depressions pep-

Paul Renne, Director of the BerkeleyGeochronology in Berkeley, California,points out that the Xalnene ash is actuallya sequence of thin ashes that are techni-cally called lapilli tuffs. “They’re com-posed of fragments of lava deposited by aseries of eruptions, probably over a veryshort time period,” says Dr. Renne. Thecomponents are slightly welded together,which suggests they were very hot whendeposited.

Near the top of Cerro Toluquilla (Tolu-quilla Hill) the ash is morethan 2 m thick, and at its baseis as hard as concrete—per-fect for construction material.With a little coaxing (and someheavy steel implements), the ashbreaks into handy brick-like

chunks that make a superb buildingstone. According to CSFA directorMichael Waters, who’s conductinggeoarchaeological investigations atHueyatlaco, the Xalnene ash “breaks out

in sheets about 10 centimeters thick, andthe locals chop and cut the rock intoblocks. These rectangular blocks arethen used for courtyard walls, buildingwalls, and the like.” According to Dr. Wa-ters, the locals are still actively quarryingdownslope from the site.

Footprints in time?Gonzalez, Waters, and Renne are allprominent figures in an ongoing contro-versy over the finds at Toluquilla, whichhave the potential to be a paradigm-shift-ing discovery—if they’re really footprints.The outcome could reshape our under-standing of the timing of human occupa-tion of the Americas, and possibly evenoffer new insight into the evolution andbehavior of human beings.

The area around the Valsequillo Res-ervoir is no stranger to archaeologicalcontroversy. During investigations in the1960s, Cynthia Irwin-Williams found whatshe believed was pre-Clovis evidence dat-ing to about 20,000 yr B.P., a little old, butnot unreasonable. Among the itemsfound were the remains of extinct animals(mastodon, camel, and horse) and a num-ber of well-made stone tools, described ascomparable to the best work of EuropeanCro-Magnons. In the 1970s, Dr. Irwin-Williams’s finds were reinterpreted byVirginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell,and Hal Malde as being over 250,000years old, based on mineral weatheringstudies and three different dating meth-ods: uranium series, tephra-hydration,

and fission-track.Unsurprisingly, the archaeo-logical community rejected the

dates as far too old for theregion. However, some of theresearchers involved contin-

ued to insistthat modern

humans werepresent in Mexico

20 times earlier thanpreviously thought (and about twice asearly as Homo sapiens is thought to haveexisted). The radical fringe has taken thisas evidence of a vast archaeological cover-up intended to hide the true antiquity ofmodern humanity.

Geoarchaeological and archaeologicalstudies are being conducted at Hueyat-laco by Waters, and his American andMexican colleagues. This research is re-

TTTTToluquilla,oluquilla,oluquilla,oluquilla,oluquilla,Mexico:Mexico:Mexico:Mexico:Mexico:

Oper an ancient volcanic surface. Somepeople claim they’re footprints, both hu-man and otherwise; others insist they’rejust random pockmarks that have weath-ered oddly over the years. Both sides ofthe debate are stalwart in their beliefs.One camp holds fast to a date of 40,000years for the hardened ash; the otherclaims the ash is 1.3 million years old.Literally written in stone, the find hasstirred a brisk new debate about the timingof the first occupation of the Americas.

The stuff of controversyThe marks that some researchers inter-pret as fossil footprints are located on thesurface of an abandoned quarry calledToluquilla, near the Valsequillo Reservoirand the famous Hueyatlaco archaeologi-cal site. The material once quarried thereis Xalnene ash, a coarse volcanic tuffthat’s mostly basaltic in nature; the matrixitself is composed of small fragmentscalled lapilli. These lapilli derived fromtwo sources: the nearby monogenetic(one-eruption) volcano called Cerro Tolu-quilla, and the local bedrock that wasmixed into the tephra by the eruption.The result is a mix of limestone, basalt,and other materials that Dr. SilviaGonzalez, the codiscoverer of the foot-prints, whimsically calls “tutti-frutti rock.”

BarrancaCaulapanPuebla

CerroToluquilla

Hueyatlaco

Val

o

sequ

s

ilRe

lo

ervir

0 4km

C

AFT

ER L

IVER

POO

L JO

HN

MO

ORE

SU

NIV

ERSI

TY,

LIV

ERPO

OL,

U.K

.

✪Puebla

MEXICO

AmericanLaetoli?AmericanLaetoli?

18 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

solving the issues at this site; however, theevidence is preliminary at this time, sothat’s a story that has to wait for anothertime to be told.

A new chapter in prehistory . . . maybeThe Toluquilla “footprints” were discovered byaccident in 2003, when Silvia Gonzalez and her team werescouting the region as part of an unrelated project. Dr. Gonzalezis a highly regarded geologist and geoarchaeologist on thefaculty of Liverpool John Moores University in England. Whileshe undertakes many projects in the northwest of England, shemaintains an abiding interest in Mexico, since she originally hailsfrom Mexico City.

“I was already working quite a lot with the Quaternary se-quences in the basin of Mexico, and was very keen on mega-faunal extinctions and volcanic events,” she explains. “InMexico there were very large collections of human and animalremains that were more or less neglected in terms of dating andanalysis, so I decided to start a program of dating human andmegafaunal remains; and that’s how it started.”

Gonzalez and her team also perform excavation and map-ping work in support of the dating program. It was during onesuch round of fieldwork that she and several colleagues,including professors David Huddart of Liverpool JohnMoores and Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University,found the purported footprints. Says Gonzalez, “The reason I

old, but they collected samples fromthe local Xalnene ash, lava, and asso-ciated sediments, and immediatelysubmitted them for dating. One ofthe dating methods applied was theargon-40/argon-39 (40Ar/39Ar, orAr-Ar) method, based on the radio-active decay of potassium-40 and theresulting ratio of two different iso-topes of argon, the third most com-

mon gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, the Toluquilla Ar-Ar samples were inconclusive, either because the amount ofargon in the samples was too small or the samples too young. Alsodated, using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) methods,were conspicuous orange brick-like particles that were inter-preted as burned lake sediments. These fragments yielded an ageof around 40,000 CALYBP. Electron spin resonance, radiocarbondating, and uranium-series dating were also used to assay thevarious sediments and associated materials in the sequenceabove the ash, and the results were up to 40,000 years old.

Ultimately, the team identified and mapped, using laser imag-ery, more than 250 depressions they believe to be human andanimal footprints. In July 2005, they announced their findings in apress release associated with the presentation of laser 3-D recon-

structions of the footprints atthe Royal Society SummerExhibition in London. The ar-chaeological world was, need-less to say, more than a littlesurprised to hear that humansmay have been in the NewWorld some 26,000 years ear-lier than Monte Verde.

A storm brewsGood science involves a cer-tain amount of conflict. Claimsare made based on interpretedevidence, they stir debate, andthe evidence is reexamined

and eventually accepted or rejected based on its own merits.It wasn’t long after the Gonzalez press release that thedebate about the Toluquilla footprints began. As research-ers like David Hurst Thomas muttered about “science bypress release,” other scientists working in the area weretaking a look at the evidence firsthand.

Not everyone interpreted the marks at the Toluquillaquarry the same way the Gonzalez team had done. Accord-

ing to Mike Waters, who examined the quarry surface severaltimes, the alleged footprints actually appear to be eroded toolmarks from quarrying activity. “The locals use picks and prybars with chisel ends to quarry the stone,” he says. “They’llchop out large blocks 2 or 3 meters on a side. As they’rechopping down, they hit underlying layers of tuff, creatingdivots or depressions.” According to Waters, the exposed de-pressions later fill with sediments and weather into oddshapes, a few of which resemble human footprints. “It’s justweathering,” he asserts. “One or two look like prints, but most

The “tutti-frutti” rock composedof Xalnene ash.

ALL

PH

OTO

S: L

IVER

POO

L JO

HN

MO

ORE

SU

NIV

ERSI

TY,

LIV

ERPO

OL,

U.K

.

The quarry surface, Cerro Toluquilla in the background.

Prepared slabs of quarried Xalnene ash.

▲

▲

spotted them was, in the past I’vestudied footprints preserved inEngland that are about 5,000years old, so I already had expe-rience in how to describe andidentify them.”

Intrigued, Gonzalez and herteam started clearing off largeareas of the quarry surface. Theysoon began to see patterns. Notall the depressions were inter-preted as human footprints; clo-ven-hoofed ungulates and bigcats were also represented, andtheir prints often showed up in trails. Even some of the humanprints were found in trails. “They may be just three or four stepsin case of humans,” states Gonzalez, “but you can follow them.”

Fossil human footprints are not unknown in the archaeologi-cal record. Possibly the best-known example occurs at Laetoli inEast Africa, where Mary Leakey found a line of human footprintsin a type of hardened, muddy ash. The material dates to over 3.5million years ago, meaning that the Laetoli prints must havebeen made by early Australopithecines.

The Liverpool team never expected their footprints to be that

March ■ 2006 19

do not. When you look at the whole assemblage, it’s obviousthey’re not footprints.”

Dr. Patricia Ochoa-Castillo, Director of the Hueyatlaco Ar-cheological Project, agrees. “After crossing the area and observ-ing the marks at great length,” she recalls, “we arrived at theconclusion that it is not possible to distinguish a pattern of tracks.”She goes on to state that the Toluquilla surface displays marksmade by heavy machinery, which have been eroded into variousshapes.

To Gonzalez and her large multidisciplinary team, many of themarks are clearly footprints. Gonzalez points out that much of thequarry surface is covered with debris and slopewash. “Part of theproblem with people not seeing the footprints,” she cautions, “isthat they didn’t clean them off. To see them you must remove thesurface sediments, as in a proper archaeological excavation. If youdon’t do that, you don’t see anything.”

Clearly, some people can see the purported footprints;some cannot. Dr. Gonzalez stands behind her team’s dating,especially in light of more recent findings (more on thatlater) over the two and a half years they’ve spent examiningand mapping the footprints. In an effort to clarify the issue,the doubters, led by Waters and Renne, collected newsamples for dating. What they discovered seemed to strikethe final nail in the coffin of the footprint theory—assumingthat their results are correct.

Older than expectedIn 2004, Waters and Ochoa-Castillo invited Renne to datethe Hueyatlaco site, as part of a team attempting to clarifythe site’s stratigraphy and age. At the time, Renne had heardabout the alleged footprints but hadn’t thought much aboutthem. When told that theHueyatlaco site was quite closeto the Xalnene quarry, he askedto inspect the “footprints.” Ac-companied by Waters, Ochoa-Castillo, and several others,Renne visited Toluquilla inJune 2004.

“We spent about an hour pe-rusing the site,” Renne recol-lects, “and I collected a sampleof the Xalnene ash right in thecenter of the exposed surface.Photographs of where I sampled later proved to match thoseshown by Gonzalez et al. on their Web site. I didn’t do anythingwith the sample until July of 2005, when the Gonzalez teamissued a press release that stirred a huge media frenzy. It wasthen that I decided to analyze the sample I had collected to testthe claimed age.”

Renne specializes in dating objects using both the 40Ar/39Armethod and paleomagnetism, which tracks changes in theEarth’s magnetic field over time. He utilized both methods todate the Xalnene ash. Given the ratio of the argon isotopes in thesample, he concluded that the ash is 1.3 million years old—much, much older than the Gonzalez team believes it to be. Thepaleomagnetism data seem to back up the Ar-Ar date. “As isoften the case, we found two components,” Renne reveals, “one

formed when the rock cooled initially, which has reverse polar-ity, and one of normal polarity, which formed later, duringweathering.” The reverse polarity of the first component indi-cates that the magnetic minerals in the rock last cooled andhardened when the Earth’s magnetic polarity was the exactopposite of what it is now—more than 790,000 years ago.

Another flurry of controversy greeted the publication of theseresults by Renne, Waters, Ochoa-Castillo, and several col-leagues in the December 2005 issue of Nature. Many took thegreat age reported for the Xalnene ash as a death knell for thealleged footprints. Renne says that there’s a finite possibility thatthese could be human footprints made 1.3 million years ago,when the ash was still hot, but that “it would be staggering if theyreally were footprints of that antiquity. . . . It would be amazingthat, after centuries of archaeological exploration in the Ameri-cas, this was the first evidence found.”

Gonzalez, for her part, isn’tconvinced. She believes thatthe dates published in theNature article need to be rep-licated, ideally by an indepen-dent third party. Particularlytroubling are the Ar-Ar datesobtained by Renne’s team,since the samples her teamcollected provided no reliableresults. “Renne’s date doesn’tmake sense in terms of theoverall geologic sequencethat we have there,” she says.“That’s why we were shockedby the 1.3 million years date;you would have 1 million

Purported human footprint trailat Toluquilla.

An apparent left human footprintcompared with an actual foot.

▲

▲

years from the Quaternary period missing.We’ve spent two and a half years doing thismapping, looking very hard, and have foundnothing to support the idea that a big part of theQuaternary is missing. The sequence seems to

have no gaps.”Gonzalez suggests that Renne might have dated reworked

sediments that were much older than the typical Toluquillalapilli, a possibility Renne rejects. “There are a few chunks ofobviously non-magmatic material, which are typically entrainedin an eruption of this type, but I scrupulously avoided them,” hemaintains. “Secondly, the paleomagnetic data indicate that theyhave not been disturbed since cooling.” He admits that it isn’troutine to use the Ar-Ar method to date small ash samples, asboth his team and Gonzalez’s have done, but points out thathis lab is optimized for dating small, young samples by the40Ar/39Ar method. “This kind of work is our bread and butter.”

Waters echoes Renne’s confidence in the new dates. “That’swhy you run multiple samples and use different techniques,

20 Volume 21 ■ Number 2

which Renne did. The paleomagnetism is another nail in thecoffin—it clearly demonstrates that all the lapilli are associatedwith the eruption. Plus, we have Ar-Ar dates from the Xalneneat another site, and the results are the same.”

Meanwhile, Gonzalez and her team are waiting in the wingswith new data, which include soon-to-be-published dates in therange of 100,000 CALYBP for lake sediments below the ash. “Ithink that this is a compellingargument that something iswrong with the 1.3-million-year-old date,” she says confi-dently.

Footprints—or not?To the casual observer, thegeochronological situation atToluquilla may seem hope-lessly tangled. Not only are

Matthew Bennett ofBournemouth University,

with a Toluquilla “footprint”model made by laser imaging

and rapid prototyping.

find footprints on freshly exhumed material. The existing sur-face is just too obviously impacted by modern human activitiesto support the claim.”

Gonzalez and her team are working on doing just that. “Theonly way to calm the critics would be to excavate an area wherethere has been no quarry activity and uncover more footprints,”she says. “We will do this as soon as we can.” Efforts are underwayto acquire the permits necessary to conduct the excavations.

Gonzalez is confident about what they’ll find, but admits thatthey’ve got a tough row to hoe. The local stratigraphy is verycomplex, and there are numerous potential complications stem-ming from the composition of the sediments and the likelihoodof reworking. She invites her critics to join them in the effort.“Only when we join forces in trying to understand the problemsand challenges here,” she declares, “are these problems goingto be solved.”

–Floyd Largent

The research to evaluate the age of the Toluquilla quarryfootprints was supported by the North Star ArchaeologicalResearch Program at the Center for the Study of the First

Americans. To learn more about the Toluquilla footprints,visit the Center’s Web site, www.centerfirstamericans.com

How to contact the principals of this article:Silvia GonzalezLiverpool John Moores UniversityByrom StLiverpool, UK L1 2TZe-mail: S.Gonzalez@livjm.ac.uk

Michael R. Waters, DirectorCenter for the Study of the First AmericansTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843-4352e-mail: mwaters@tamu.edu

Paul Renne, DirectorBerkeley Geochronology CenterUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720e-mail: prenne@bgc.org

Patricia Ochoa-Castillo, DirectorHueyatlaco Archeological ProjectSubdirección de ArqueologíaMuseo Nacional de AntropologíaReforma y Gandhi s/nCP 11560, Mexicoe-mail: patricia_ochoa_cast@yahoo.com

David Huddart, Professor of Quaternary GeologyLiverpool John Moores UniversityByrom StLiverpool, UK L3 3AFe-mail: d.huddart@livjm.ac.uk

Matthew BennettProfessor of Geography and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Bournemouth, Talbot CampusFern Barrow, Poole,Dorset, UK BH12 5BBe-mail: mbennett@bournemouth.ac.uk

there a spate of wildly divergent dates from two groups ofrespected scientists, there are still the claims of ancient humanoccupation during the mid-Pleistocene, 250,000 to 330,000 yearsago, to deal with. The result is a situation that’s unlikely to beresolved anytime soon. This troubles Ochoa-Castillo. “This isthe way scientific myths are created, and they are difficult todeny,” she says. “I believe we need to avoid creating falseexpectations, so we should first exhaust all academic avenuesbefore presenting data like this to the public.”

But the cat, as they say, is out of the bag. Setting aside thetiming issue, what the controversy boils down to is, Are thedepressions at Toluquilla really footprints? Silvia Gonzalez,David Huddart, Matthew Bennett, and their collaborators saythey are, and they’ve spent more than two years investigatingthe Toluquilla finds. “We recognize that there are some quarrymarks and weathering marks,” Gonzalez says. “They are verysharp, very obvious patterns. However, we use very stringentcriteria to identify both animal and human prints.”

Their care and confidence don’t quiet their skeptics. “Thereported footprints just appear to be weathered quarryingmarks,” declares Mike Waters. He adds that the geochrono-logical evidence shows that the depressions, if footprints,would have been made while the ash was still hot. It seemsunlikely that either humans or animals would want to walk onsuch a hot surface.

Of course, Waters is prepared to reevaluate his opinion ifthe Gonzalez team presents compelling evidence that theToluquilla finds truly are preserved human footprints. “Theyneed to peel back more layers of the Xalnene to see if the markscan be found entombed in unquarried stone,” he opines. “Theyalso need a physical anthropologist on their team whose speci-ality is bipedal locomotion to evaluate them.”

Renne’s sentiments are similar. “If they want to make a cred-ible case,” he declares, “they will have to excavate the ash and