When dead men speak…

Parking lot: Wretched royal roost?

Last month, archeologists announced the discovery of a skeleton under a parking lot in Leicester, in the English Midlands. Not just any skeleton, but likely the remains of King Richard III, painted by legend, history and William Shakespeare as a murderous double-crosser.

(Updated 4 February 2013)

British archeologists today revealed that skeleton recently found in Leicester was indeed that of Richard III, the last British king to die in battle. Further, they detailed that his gruesome death probably came from a blow to the brain from heavy battle axe called a halberd. After death, his body was mutilated before he was crammed into a too-small grave. (End update)

Think a Middle Aged scheming dictator prototype.

Echoing the theme of “bury the bigwigs in a forgotten grave,” on Sept 28, Michigan police drilled under a shed where a tipster said the body of infamous Teamsters union boss Jimmy Hoffa, missing since 1975, had been buried.

Within a week, the samples proved to be devoid of any human remains.

Both Richard and Jimmy likely had bloody hands. Hoffa was notorious for ties to the Mafia. It’s debated, but in his brief reign, Richard supposedly killed his nephews to gain the throne, then caught his comeuppance in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

Richard’s last above-ground days featured a two-day, horseback parade of his naked, broken corpse through Leicester. Then he was buried in Greyfriars Church, since demolished.

The victorious Tudors crowned Henry VII, ending the War of the Roses and establishing the Tudor monarchy, which ruled until 1603.

English historians are snagged in a debate: Was Richard really so wretched, or was he smackhanded by the wrong end of a history written by his Tudor enemies? Having seen Shakespeare’s “Richard III” this summer, we were stunned that some think the ol’ tyrant was actually a reformer:

Richard was particularly keen to uphold the law of the land and to ensure that it was made available to all ranks of society. His first act as king was to summon his judges and command that justice be administered impartially and without prejudice or corruption. In December 1483 he initiated the Court of Requests, a system of legal aid which enabled those who could not afford representation to have their grievances heard.

King of the car-park, or all of England?

For certain, Richard III was the last English King killed in battle, and the only one whose gravesite served as a car-park. A parking lot, as we Yankees call it, is where a team led by archeologist Richard Buckley of the University of Leicester unearthed the suspect skeleton earlier this year.

Finding Richard’s remains could be the archeological coup of the century in Britain — if it’s true. The ongoing investigation is unusual, though not unique, due to the wealth of history about Richard and his era, and the desire to identify the bones rather than just understand them.

Now that the archeologists have removed the remains and covered the site for protection against winter, we wonder: How do archeologists start to explore a body found in the dirt?

These questions become essential starting points:

What’s in the grave soil? “They could use flotation to try to extract microscopic things, like seeds, that might relate to flowers that might have been put into the grave,” says Sissel Schroeder, a professor of archeology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “They also could sift the soil for pieces of clothing. Although fabric and leather probably would not survive, there might be buttons, pins, or metal ornaments.”

What’s in the grave? Objects placed with the body reveal how survivors regarded the dead person.

How old are the bones? Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of an unstable carbon isotope that stops entering the body at death. This standard technique can show if the carbon-14 level has been falling since 1485, when Richard died.

Was he a healthy kid? “We can look at nutritive stress that shows up as Harris lines on the bones, which show periods of arrested growth,” says Schroeder. “This is a well-known public figure, so there may be information about illness he suffered as a child, or a famine that could have affected the royals.”

What does the DNA say? Experts are comparing samples from the skeleton to a distant descendant of Richard. “Looking at DNA is a great idea,” says Schroeder. Scientists have extracted DNA from the Neandertals and mammoths, but “that can be tricky. Sometimes small fragments do survive adequately, but a lot depends on depositional conditions,” particularly soil chemistry. “It might be possible to make the link with Richard, but … I’d think there would be a lot of ambiguity.”

ENLARGE

Skeleton on left side with knees bent, surrounded by clay pots, copper knives, flints, pots, wristguards

The Amesbury archer, dating to about 2300 BCE, had the most artifacts of any Bronze-age burial in Britain. “Grave goods” provide a nuanced picture of a person’s life and death.

Boning up on bones

Richard died in battle, and we’ve already heard that the back of the skull shows a major bash-in. Fracture near the time of death should be distinctive, says Tiffiny Tung, in the department of anthropology at Vanderbilt University.

In a dry, aged bone, the break is fairly clean, and at roughly 90°, Tung says. In a living bone, “the break tends to be hinged [rather like a broken, living tree branch]. The break stays adhered to the original bone, there is a homogenous color around the fracture … and no sign of healing.”

Location matters, Tung says. “Some injuries are more offensive, and some are more defensive. A wound on the posterior [back] of the skull means the person was bowing his head or fleeing, it’s a more defensive wound. Wounds on the frontal left side of the skull signify face-to-face combat with a right-handed opponent. We can say many nuanced things about the battle according to where the wounds are.”

Isotopes tell tales

Isotopes — chemically identical atoms with different masses — are some of the subtlest tracers in the physical realm. Oxygen and strontium isotopes are both likely to enter the Richard case, says T. Douglas Price, a professor emeritus of anthropology and isotope expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

ENLARGE

man with stick in mouth, woman smiles nearby

Michael Ibsen, a descendant of Richard III, is not brushing his teeth in public. He’s swabbing his cheek to supply DNA for geneticist Turi King. With luck, DNA testing will help identify the mystery man found beneath the parking lot.

Oxygen in rain can enter drinking water and lodge in the bones and teeth; the ratio of lighter and heavier oxygen isotopes is affected by climate, elevation, latitude and distance from the ocean, says Price.

As bedrock breaks down, its strontium content enters the soil and then plants, and finally the bones of animals that eat those plants.

Strontium is more useful since it can carry finer geographic distinctions, but neither isotope is likely to identify the Leicester body, Price says, because Richard was born nearby.

“The geology across the area is pretty homogenous, which means the isotopes are going to be pretty similar. If it is Richard, his isotope ratios for strontium and oxygen are probably going to indicate that he is a local person … but you can’t say it’s Richard versus someone else from the area.”

However, if strontium and oxygen show that the dead person grew up a long distance away, they could disprove the Richard hypothesis.

Lead isotopes are getting increasing attention from archeologists and Price says they could be more helpful. Lead mines are rare, and their ores tend to have a distinctive isotope signature. “If people are living in the vicinity of these sources, or where lead from those sources is moving by water, you might have some isotopic signature.”

ENLARGE

Half of lower jaw with teeth intact and a piece of gold jewelry on jaw bone

A jaw found near the Amesbury Archer contained gold earrings. Teeth are an excellent source of isotopes for analysis.

Clues from the immune system

To gauge the health of past populations, archeologists routinely comb DNA, looking for evidence of infectious disease. Now we hear about a technique that shows how a once-living person responded to these infections.

In a study of a 500-year-old Incan mummy called “the maiden,” Angelique Corthals, of Stony Brook University School of Medicine, swabbed mummy lips and used mass spectrometry to catalog amino acids in the sample.

Much as calumny and vituperation can be the “bricks” of political campaigns, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. “We are getting, literally, the fingerprints of the amino acids,” says Corthals, an assistant professor of pathology.

By identifying immune-system proteins based on the amino-acid profile, Corthals concluded that the Maiden died fighting a lung infection.

ENLARGE

Drooped head of mummy with somewhat distorted face and lots of dark, braided hair

Credit: Angelique Corthals, Proteomics Center, Stony Brook University
Proteins analyzed 500 years after death show that this young girl died with lung disease caused by a Mycobacterium (a member of the group of bacteria that also causes tuberculosis). Analysis of immune proteins could answer persistent doubts about the cause of black death, which decimated medieval Europe.

The maiden was a “virgin of the sun, a girl chosen to stay within a specific compound and be a servant to the Inca emperor in Cuzco,” says Corthals. “Living permanently in close quarters … with open earth floors could be very irritating to the lungs,” likely setting the stage for opportunistic infection.

The new technique allows a tiny sample to be tested directly, with no need to grow a larger sample. That reduces the chance of contamination by modern proteins.

The maiden study shows how analyzing proteins can flesh out the picture provided by DNA, Corthals says, especially since the immune response has a major impact on the course of an epidemic.

The geography of bones

Bones fascinate detectives and archeologists alike. Now, a police officer who is also a Ph.D. archeology student has applied geographic information systems (GIS) to bone structure. David Rose says he’d been “involved in forensics across the state, shooting reconstructions, general crime scenes, and that was how I ended up in grad school” at Ohio State.

While simultaneously taking anatomy and GIS classes, he decided to apply the latter to the former: “With luck, I happened to have the right set of skeletons, tools and knowledge to see the immediate connection. GIS is capable of looking at things as large as the globe, but I can load your portrait and mark the landmarks on your face.”

ENLARGE

Blown-up gray image of bone with red computer-added dots

Courtesy David Rose
Dots in this cross-section of a foot bone mark osteons — structures that fix small cracks and maintain blood minerals. Repetitive use makes bones stronger and denser — which translates into more osteons.

Using an optical microscope, Rose has developed GIS tracking for osteons, circular growth centers in the bones that are about 250 microns across. Rose hopes the mapping software can reveal fine distinctions in occupation or history — distinguishing, for example, a mason’s hand from a farmer’s, due to their use of different tools.

Such a technique could not, however, analyze the head wound that apparently killed the skeleton found in the Leicester car park, Rose warns. “We are not necessarily catching a snapshot in time. We are catching long-term, habitual patterns.”

English archeologists have reported signs of scoliosis in the bones, and Rose proposes that GIS might look for “abnormal loading, or a long-term limp.”

Long-term participation in sports (like jousting or fox-hunting?) could also cause a distinctive pattern in bone, Rose adds. “This helps us understand human variation, and it may help us target new forensic technology that could look at the structure left behind, to make an estimate of aging, of spatial patterns over a lifetime.”

The new approach has yet to be used in detective work or to study osteoporosis, says Rose, who is still working as a captain in the Ohio State police department — and still working toward for his Ph.D. in archeology.

The politics of death

ENLARGE

Gold mask decorated with red paint, rectangular gold pendants, and gold disks for eyes.

Credit: Xuan Che
10 or 11th century, a funerary mask from Lambayeque, Peru is made of gold with copper overlays, painted with cinnabar, a red ore of mercury. The mask is 11.5″ (29.2 cm) high. Masks like this show the burial of a rich and/or powerful person.

In archeology, the entire context of the remains usually contains clues. Is there a bloody residue on the body or garments? Did anybody wash the body after death, which signifies respect but deletes clues? Do ceremonial objects like crowns or jewels indicate high status?

Here, in the realm of choices made after the dear departed has bitten the dust, we enter what Vanderbilt’s Tung calls mortuary politics. “It’s the living who put the grave goods in; the living get to tell the story about the dead,” she says. “Especially with someone like Richard, everybody has a narrative they want to tell, and that is visible in how the burial is made, what is written, the artifacts that go in. These are all part of the story of how the living see the dead. If his conquerors were trying to muddy his reputation, they could have treated his body in a particular way.”

If the body is identified as Richard, mortuary politics will shift into high gear, Tung says. “Does he deserve state and royal honors, including burial at Westminster Abbey? It will be interesting to see how it plays out.”

ENLARGE

Two medieval re-enactors stand at the spot that Richard III’s remains were found

Knight re-enactors “guard” the burial site of a corpse that may be Richard III, the last king of England to die in battle.

Who’s there?

Unless the subject is a forensic investigation following tyranny or genocide, or a “high value target” like Richard III, archeologists seldom seek to identify a person by name. Kings are often identified by writing or objects in the grave, which have not been reported for Richard.

Our experts think archeological probes, at best, are more likely to rule out Richard as not the source of the bones. “Identifying an individual is a difficult problem, you have to pull together the historical evidence about context,” says Schroeder. “You can narrow down some things, using DNA from the descendants, although that’s rife with problems. You can use isotopes to try to understand if this person really was raised in England. Ultimately, you might be able to eliminate that it’s Richard III, but it will probably be difficult to confirm with a high degree of certainty that this was Richard.”

When identity is known, archeological techniques can elaborate on what history tells us, says Price, the isotope expert. “We looked at some specific Mayan kings and could determine that a couple were clearly not from the place they ruled, died and were buried. It was assumed that the kings were from the tombs they were found in, but now these are called ‘stranger kings.’”

But many questions about Richard concern his behavior as an adult, and that’s a gnarly problem, says Tung. “Richard was a fascinating character; there are a lot of historical questions that people would like to address. Sadly, bioarcheology techniques are not going to address a lot of pressing question: Was he an evil villain? You can’t speak to that from the remains.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

1
2
3
4

Terry Devitt, editor; S.V. Medaris, designer/illustrator; David J. Tenenbaum, feature writer; Amy Toburen, content development executive; Emily Eggleston, project assistant

Bibliography

  1. Links galore about The Greyfriars Project archeological dig
  2. Archeological clues written in bone
  3. All these mummies yielded DNA for researchers
  4. Inspired by the story? Here’s Shakespeare’s entire Richard III play script

Peopling the Americas — New evidence

Closing the deal: More doubt that Clovis came first

For decades, one name has dominated discussion of the ancient New World: Clovis. Tools representing the characteristic Clovis technology, first found in Clovis, New Mexico, in 1929, have long been considered the product of the first inhabitants of the Americas. With a tool style that’s been found across much of North America, Clovis was the best-selling brand in “the first Americans” competition.

Clovis technology is apparently a home-grown phenomenon, as it’s never been found in Northeast Asia, the source of migrants into the New World.

The oldest solid date for Clovis people is 13,100 years ago, says Michael Waters, an archeologist at Texas A&M University. Now, in an article in Science on March 25, Waters and colleagues argue that tools have been found near Austin, Texas, that date to 15,500 years ago.

The researchers found 15,528 artifacts at a site called Buttermilk Creek. Most of their finds were flakes busted off while making stone tools, but the site also yielded 56 stone choppers, points and scrapers.

Artifacts from Buttermilk Creek

Browse slideshow to see artifacts from Buttermilk Creek, Texas, date to about 15,500 years ago.

All images courtesy Michael Waters, Texas A&M University

Using a technique that calculated when an object was last in direct sunlight, “We took the most conservative route to estimate the age,” says Waters, who directs the Center for the Study of the First Americans at A&M. The stone tools and flakes were probably made by a band of hunter-gatherers who paused at the creekside site.

Seven stone arrows in a row, each with groove that starts at blunt end and goes to arrow's center

The Clovis tool style was marked by the lengthwise groove, a sophisticated bit of stone-work that probably helped secure arrowheads and spear points to shafts. Notice how this feature is absent from the pre-Clovis slide show, above?

Four men and one woman sitting in deep dirt pit, digging and recording with pen and paper

Courtesy Michael Waters, TAMU
Patience, please! Waters’s team of archaeologists comb the dirt to uncover more prehistoric treasures.

Looking for a date

Because no organic remains were available for carbon-dating, the scientists relied for dating on optically stimulated luminescence, or OSL. “OSL has been around for a long time, has been employed in geology for 30-plus years” for dating windblown sand and silt, says Waters. “It’s been compared to radiocarbon dates, toe-to-toe, and in all cases, OSL ages have been determined to be comparable.”

The OSL dating, which essentially figures how long something has been buried, took place at the University of Illinois, in Chicago, under the direction of Steven Forman.

The find at Buttermilk Creek is the latest — and one of the better documented — archeological sites to break the Clovis barrier. Others pre-Clovis finds have been made in Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Chile.

The news got WhyFilers wondering:

If many other claims for pre-Clovis dates have failed to stick, is the new find really convincing?

What does the new confirmation of earlier occupation say about how people arrived from Northwest Asia?

Why have many archeologists resisted the possibility that the Clovis toolmakers were not the first inhabitants of the Americas?

How convincing?

To get the skinny on the Texas discovery, we phoned Steve Shackley, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. “Proof does not exist in science,” he told us, “but Mike [Waters] has made good, defensible arguments.”

Much of the discussion about the Buttermilk Creek site concerns the vertical position — the stratigraphy — of stone artifacts, and the Waters team went to great lengths to show that older material was under younger stuff, as expected in an undisturbed site. Undetected dislocations can confuse archeologists, who tend to think deeper is older and shallower is younger.

Buttermilk Creek actually offers a three-fer: Clovis artifacts are sandwiched above those now identified as pre-Clovis, but below artifacts are in a more modern style. “This site has all these time periods, superimposed, in the correct order,” says Shackley. Because Waters is “one of the foremost” experts in analyzing the geology of archeological sites, “I think it’s going to be difficult to defeat his stratigraphic work. He’s been very careful about it.”

Douglas Bamforth, an archeologist at the University of Colorado, says the Waters team has avoided three errors that often destabilize ancient archeological claims:

Were the artifacts made by people? “The big question which has occupied the whole debate for stuff older than 11,500 years is whether the objects are really artifacts,” says Bamforth. “There is no question that these stone artifacts were made by people; it’s a total non-discussion.”

Were the artifacts moved after burial? “People don’t sink in the ground, so we think the ground is stable,” says Bamforth, “but objects can move around through freeze-thaw cycles, geologic activity or burrowing animals.”

Are the dates reliable? Even dates from ol’ reliable carbon-dating have been disproved in the past, Bamforth says, but the optical dating used at Buttermilk Creek (which contained no organic material for carbon dating) seems careful and sound.

“They have absolutely dated the site, they absolutely have artifacts, and the article talks in great detail about how intact the sediment was, they have really addressed whether the artifacts are in place,” says Bamforth. “They have refitted the [stone] flakes to the tools; I am totally convinced they have an intact site” and solid dates.

But that does not prove, to Bamforth, that the artifacts are pre-Clovis — they may be early Clovis. “The deep levels at the site are certainly older than the oldest carbon-14 date on Clovis-style projectile points, which Waters very emphatically argues is the beginning of the Clovis period. But the first problem with seeing the deep levels as different from Clovis is that there seems to be exactly nothing in those levels that differs from Clovis [as the site does not contain arrow- or spear-points that would prove or disprove the case]. … So I do not see why the site is not just early Clovis.”

Not so fast!

Aware that the latest find may be seen as final vindication for the “Clovis was not first” viewpoint, we phoned Thomas Dillehay, professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University and the University of Southern Chile, who fought for decades to have Chile’s Monte Verde site recognized as pre-Clovis. Now that Monte Verde is finally accepted as one of the best-confirmed pre-Clovis sites, we figured the experience would make Dillehay receptive to the new find.

We were wrong. “I have a mixed opinion,” Dillehay told us, proceeding to list some shortcomings in the study. “It would be most convincing if there was standard radiocarbon dating, and even better if those dates were taken from features like hearths and food stains. OSL dating has become more reliable, but it’s still not as reliable as carbon-14, although the sequences do line up very nicely with sediment dating.”

Dillehay has questions about the three-layer sandwich of pre-Clovis, Clovis and post-Clovis material. “I’m not saying the materials are mixed. Geologists, to identify the strata, applied these excellent, meticulous sediment and particle analyses, but there was no clear visible stratigraphy to distinguish Clovis from pre-Clovis, and again this does not meet standard archeological criteria.”

ENLARGE

Man crouching and man standing and leaning over, both looking at grassy stream bank. Stream runs behind them.

The age of artifacts found at site in Monte Verde, Chile was long at the center of a heated debate, but the scientific consensus says they are up to 14,500 years old — long predating the first Clovis toolmakers.

Dillehay also points to the lack of “diagnostic, complete projectile points in either the Clovis and pre-Clovis material. In a discipline that has placed incredibly heavy emphasis on formal projectile points as the primary criteria for acceptance of a site, along with C-14 [radioactive carbon] dating, and geologic stratigraphy, I find this sort of acceptance, which seems to be uncritical, to be a major shift in the discipline.”

Still, Dillehay says “the interdisciplinary work is first rate, and I admire the multidisciplinary approach. But had there been C-14 dating and diagnostic projectile points, all this extraneous analysis would probably not be needed.”

It certainly would be nice to find arrow- or spear-points, says Waters, but “You can’t dictate what you will find. You have to roll with the punches.” Further excavation may or may not reveal a “smoking gun projectile point,” Waters adds. “We don’t know what kind of weaponry they used. In Siberia and Alaska, people were using a lot of bone, ivory and antler weaponry, and it might be that early folks in North America were using this as well.”

But due to heat and humidity, such organic material would not be preserved in the Texas site, he says.

Migration routes

The timing of human occupation of North America bears heavily on their migration route from Northeast Asia, which is accepted, for geographic and genetic reasons, as the source of the first Americans. The melting of the last ice age during the Clovis period, starting roughly 11,000 years ago, producing an ice-free corridor through Northwest Canada that would have allowed transit into the North American interior.

But the region was clogged with glaciers a few thousand years earlier, meaning that any early immigrants would have moved along the coast, either on foot, or via short hops in boats.

Possible Migration Routes

Migrants from northeast Eurasia moved into the Americas through the ice-free corridor in Canada, or along the Alaska coast

A confirmed pre-Clovis date means the first Americans must have migrated by boat along the West Coast, as the ice-free corridor was ice-full around 15,000 years ago.

The possibility of coastal movement got a boost in a study1 published March 4, which reported the discovery of stone tools dating from 11,400 to 12,200 years ago on the Channel Islands west of Los Angeles.

According to study leader Jon Erlandson, an archeologist at the University of Oregon, the ancient residents of these offshore islands made delicate stone tools to hunt in the ocean. “The points we are finding are extraordinary, the workmanship amazing. They are ultra thin, serrated and have incredible barbs on them. It’s a very sophisticated chipped-stone technology.”

ENLARGE

Two stone tools rest in open hand, one half-moon-shaped blade and one sharp arrow point

The recent discovery of delicate stone weapons on California’s Channel Islands boosted the theory that the first Americans could travel by boat while entering the Americas.

The stone artifacts are quite different from the fluted points left throughout North America by Clovis and the later Folsom peoples, who hunted big game on land, said Erlandson. “This is among the earliest evidence of seafaring and maritime adaptations in the Americas, and another extension of the diversity of Paleoindian economies.”

The find is yet another reason to doubt that Clovis was first, says Shackley. “When you get dates to 11,000 or 12,000 years ago, out on islands, that makes it tough for the Clovis-firsters, who reject maritime entry. On the Channel Islands, they had get out there by boat,” and if they were already using boats, that means they could also have boated down the West Coast, he adds. “A lot of people accept that now.”

But even if people did move south along the coast rather than inland, Dillehay says they probably needed a long time to reach Chile. “There are hundreds if not thousands of rivers that descend the western slope of the mountain chain from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and every river, whether major or secondary, is a temptation to head upriver,” slowing the overall southward movement.

Opening of cave, three people sitting and writing, one person standing and writing, two people digging

Photo: University of Oregon Northern Great Basin Field School
In Paisley caves in south-central Oregon, researchers uncovered pre-Clovis artifacts and the oldest human DNA discovered in the Americas. Radiocarbon dates show that people lived in the caves between 12,000 and 14,340 years ago.

And if Monte Verde was occupied by 14,500 years ago, this logic suggests that people reached North America much earlier than even the 15,500 pre-Clovis date in Texas.

Should we trademark the “pre-pre-Clovis” brand?

At any rate, the increasing number of solid pre-Clovis finds answers a riddle: How did Clovis artifacts appear in so many places at roughly the same time? According to the Waters report, “These data are evidence that by 15.5 ka [thousand years ago], human populations occupied the continental United States… . The sites of Cactus Hill, Virginia, and Miles Point, Maryland, hint that these [pre-Clovis] technologies may have been present a few millennia earlier. This early occupation of North America provides ample time for people to settle into the environments of North America, colonize South America by at least about 14.1 to 14.6 ka (Monte Verde, Chile), develop the Clovis tool kit, and create a base population through which Clovis technology could spread.” 2

When science gets ossified

Although we’ve covered the Texas discovery as a bit of gee-whiz archeology, it’s more accurate to say that the discipline proceeds by stacking study atop study, says Sissel Schroeder, a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and expert on ancient peoples of the Americas. Although most of the signs left by people who lived in North America will never be found, if they even still exist, “We work with the best information we have. The very small samples of data can make some of our interpretations less robust. Archeology is a cumulative science, so future finds can potentially add confirmatory evidence, or can disconfirm earlier conclusions; you just have to be open to recognizing that your interpretations could change.”

TEACHER FEATURE

Where did immigrants to the Americas come from more than 10,000 years ago? Why is this region considered the most likely source?

Were all claims for pre-Clovis inhabitation rejected based on poor scientific evidence, or were some rejected for other reasons?

How does the increasing acceptance of pre-Clovis inhabitation change our understanding of the ancient world?

But scientists, like other people, can get stuck, she adds. “It seems easy for certain interpretive frameworks to become quite entrenched, and repeated over and over again. Into the 1920s, it was hugely debated that there were even people in the Americas” at the end of the last ice age. “There were a number of very provocative finds that led scholars to suggest that people had been here at the end of the Pleistocene [about 12,000 years ago], but wasn’t until the find at Folsom, New Mexico [in 1926] that scholarly acceptance began to develop.”

The Folsom find, soon followed by the discovery of those distinctive fluted points near Clovis, New Mexico, sparked “a transformative intellectual step for archeologists,” says Schroeder. “This was a radical shift in thinking.”

“You build a reputation based on a particular perspective,” says Bamforth, “and it’s hard to see evidence that is in opposition; we all believe we are really good at what we do.” Those who gain fame for overturning the conventional wisdom can wind up in the opposite corner, defending their own views long after contradictory evidence arises.

Some early claims for pre-Clovis sites were based on faulty excavation or inaccurate dating, which left a tradition of doubt, Bamforth says. For example, erroneous radiocarbon dates arose after dig sites were contaminated with groundwater. And European-style artifacts unearthed in the Hudson River valley, once interpreted as evidence for ancient European immigration, actually came from ship’s ballast that was dumped into the river, Bamforth told us.

Once archeologists got used to refuting claims, that skeptical attitude itself became entrenched, says Bamforth. “Because people were making such poor claims, very powerful people in the field clamped down on any claims for antiquity, and often the rejected claims turned out to be correct. People at the Smithsonian famously had nothing to do with Folsom until finally the evidence carried the day. There’s a famous photo showing a Folsom spearpoint between the ribs of an extinct bison. That’s proof you can’t argue with.”

Clovis-first is dead, at long last!

After 40 years of assault, Clovis-first seems dead at last. The Texas find “anchors the fact that people were here in the 14,000 or 15,000 year range, there is no longer an argument with that,” says Bamforth.

As the technology of archeology improves, Waters expects some of the most interesting finds to emerge from South America. “We have this North American bias. I’ve heard a lot about early sites in South America of the same age [as the Texas site] or older that nobody hears about. If you think about the immensity of South America, there is no way Clovis was first. There are going to be some amazing finds in the next 10 years, given the South American evidence, the work with genetics and DNA. The story of the first Americans is going to stay exciting.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

Terry Devitt, editor; S.V. Medaris, designer/illustrator; David J. Tenenbaum, feature writer; Amy Toburen, content development executive; Emily Eggleston, project assistant

Bibliography

  1. Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California’s Channel Islands, Jon M. Erlandson et al, Science, 4 March 2011.
  2. The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas, Michael R. Waters, et al, Science, 25 March 2011.
  3. Spear points found in TX.
  4. Center for First Americans.
  5. Clovis not first people.
  6. Oldest radiocarbon remains in Oregon.
  7. Prehistoric Beringia.
  8. Gene flow of early Americans.
  9. Emergence of people in North America.
  10. Settlement of the Americas.
  11. Radiocarbon dating.
  12. Meadowcroft rock shelter.
  13. Interactive map of pre-Clovis sites.

Barbecue season approaches: What’s so great about open fire?

The ancients used fire to cook, smelt metal and make pots. It provided warmth, protection against animals, and became a social focus. Fire changed who we are. Could this explain the enduring allure of fire? (more…)