Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
QUATERNARY RESEARCH 22, 2 16-230 (1984)
On the Possible Utilization of Camelops by Early Man in North America’
GARY HAYNES AND DENNIS STANFORD
Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Received March 23, 1983
Camelops was a major fauna1 element in late Wisconsin biotic communities over much of North America. Interpretations of possible human association with Camelops are often based on poorly evaluated evidence. Ideal standards for acceptable evidence are compared here to the actual evidence that has been advanced. Of 25 fossil assemblages examined, 2 might be examples only of geological contemporaneity of humans and Camelops; 2 might indicate behavioral association of humans and Camelops bones; and 2 might indicate actual human utilization of Camelops (killing and/or butchering). Camelops bones interpreted as artifacts are similar to modern specimens af- fected by noncultural processes.
INTRODUCTION
Studies of late Pleistocene megafauna utilized by humans in North America have ordinarily focused on bison (Bison bison antiquus) and proboscideans (Mammuthus or Mammut). However, several researchers have reported the presence of Camelops bones in archaeological assemblages, and concluded that human groups hunted this large camel-like animal. In this paper we conclude otherwise: most evidence for human utilization of Camelops is too weak to withstand critical evaluation. Even the evidence advanced to support the geolog- ical contemporaneity of humans and Cam- elops is frequently unacceptable.
Human utilization of Camelops has never been a major topic in North American ar- chaeology. But our purpose in directing at- tention to problems with the subject is not merely to be disputatious about a sec- ondary theme. We have two serious goals: (1) to question some particular archaeolog- ical interpretations that we consider un- warranted, and (2) perhaps more impor-
t Presented at the symposium “Taphonomic Anal- ysis and Interpretation in North American Pleistocene Archaeology” held in Fairbanks, Alaska, April 1982.
tantly, to examine actual and ideal stan- dards of archaeological interpretations.
BACKGROUND
Camelops remains are abundant in late Pleistocene bone deposits from a wide area of North America (Fig. 1). Many large de- posits from late Wisconsin locales in the western interior contain more bones or in- dividuals of Camelops than of any other megafaunal taxon. Camelops was clearly an important fauna1 element in late Wisconsin biotic communities. Because it was so widespread and apparently common, it might have been an attractive quarry for the major predators of the time, one of which was Homo sapiens.
Frison et al. (1978, Table 1) listed 18 sites as potential or acceptable examples of the association of humans and Camelops on the High Plains (Table 1). Table 2 presents 7 additional sites that were not discussed by Frison et al. (1978), but which also contain Camelops remains.
While we have not personally examined every collection in the tables, we think that we have given a fair hearing to all available evidence. Most examples advanced as ev- idence for human use of Camelops consist
216 0033-5894/84 $3.00 Copyright 0 1984 by the University of Washington. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
USE OF Camelops BY EARLY MAN 217
125’ so0
FIG. 1. Important fossil sites or collecting localities that contain Camelops bones.
of small numbers of bones or fragments that have usually been fully described or illus- trated .
STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTING EVIDENCE
There are three levels of evidence in- volved in attempts to assert human utili- zation of Pleistocene mammals. The first level is evidence that acceptably indicates simple geochronological contemporaneity of humans and Camelops. The second level of evidence demonstrates that human ac- tivity in some way directly involved Cam- elops bones, evidence that we term asso- ciation. The final level, and the most diffi- cult sort of evidence to marshall, indicates
that humans killed and butchered Camel- ops. These activities are termed utilization. Many times when the first level of evidence is accepted in archaeological reasoning, the second and third levels are mistakenly be- lieved to be present.
Contemporaneity
Contemporaneity refers to an unavoid- ably vague state of temporal coexistence. Given currently available techniques con- temporaneity can be established only within relatively wide time intervals deter- mined by methods of geology, geomor- phology, or geochronology. Camelops specimens must belong to the same time interval as artifactual evidence; studies of
TABL
E 1.
CO
LLEC
TION
S TH
AT
CONT
AIN
Cam
elops
”
Nam
e of
sit
e or
col
lect
ion
Cul
tura
l co
mple
x to
wh
ich
Cam
elop
s is
ass
igne
d “C
da
te”
(yr
B.P.
)
CW?lt
?lOpS
m
ater
ial
pres
ent
Pro
Argu
men
ts
Con
Acce
ptab
le
inte
rpre
tatio
nc
Blac
kwat
er
Draw
, Cl
ovis
11.0
40
t 50
0 (A
-490
) Sc
atte
red
bone
s Ne
w M
exico
(o
ther
da
tes
were
no
t an
d fra
gmen
ts cit
ed
in F
rison
et
al.,
19
78)
Burn
et
Cave
, Ne
w M
exico
Cl
ovis
7432
e
30 (
C-82
3)
One
isola
ted
verte
bra
Col
by,
Wyo
ming
Lubb
ock,
Texa
s
Clov
is 11
,200
2
200
(RL-
392)
On
e ra
dius
fra
gmen
t
Clov
is 12
,650
2
250
(I-24
6)
Frac
ture
d,
polis
hed
fragm
ents:
po
ssib
ly cu
t ph
alanx
(J
ohns
on.
1977
)
Carte
r/Ker
r-McG
ee,
Clov
is W
yom
ing
No
Date
Sand
ia
Cave
, Ne
w M
exico
Fo
lsom
Q
uesti
oned
da
te
>20,
000
(M-2
7)
Isle
ta
Cave
, Ne
w M
exico
Fo
lsom
No
Da
te
One
brok
en
met
atar
sal,
thre
e sm
all
limb
elem
ents
Bone
s an
d fra
gmen
ts
‘7 B
ones
an
d fra
gmen
ts
In
sam
e str
atum
as
Cl
ovis
poin
ts,
near
sp
ring
vent
s an
d str
eam
ch
anne
ls
Cave
al
so
cont
aine
d Cl
ovis
poin
t
Inch
es
from
pi
le
of
mam
mot
h bo
nes
over
a
Clov
is po
int
In
a le
vel
thou
ght
to
be
Clov
is
Frac
turin
g th
roug
ht
artif
actu
al;
poss
ible
ch
arrin
g,
scra
ping
m
arks
Folso
m
poin
ts
in s
ame
C?) l
evel
s
“Fols
om”
poin
t fo
und
in c
ave
fill
14C
date
cit
ed
is f
rom
str
atum
ov
er
Cam
elop
s:
som
e bo
nes
in C
lovis
le
vel
are
intru
sive
from
old
er
depo
sits
(C.
Hayn
es,
1974
, 19
75;
Wam
ica,
1966
)
Fill
not
diffe
rent
iate
d;
pack
rat
dist
urba
nce
grea
t; no
di
rect
as
socia
tion
of
Cam
elop
s bo
ne
and
artif
acts
No
othe
r Ca
mel
ops
mat
eria
ls;
bone
m
ay
be a
ny
age,
al
thou
gh
prob
ably
artif
actu
al
No
Clov
is ar
tifac
ts
in
asso
ciatio
n;
mos
t br
eaka
ge
not
diag
nost
ic of
ar
tifac
ts;
cut
mar
ks
not
conv
incin
g in
ph
oto
(Joh
nson
, 19
77)
No
dire
ctly
asso
ciate
d st
one
artif
acts
; sp
ecim
en
appe
ars
gnaw
ed
in p
hoto
(P
rison
er
al.,
19
78)
Stra
tigra
phy
open
to
qu
estio
n (C
. Ha
ynes
an
d Ag
ogin
o.
in
pres
s)
Stra
ta
dist
urbe
d;
poin
t no
t ty
polo
gica
lly
Folso
m
None
; co
ntem
pora
neity
an
d as
socia
tion
poss
ible
, bu
t cit
ed
evide
nce
not
acce
ptab
le
Asso
ciatio
n
Utiliz
atio
n po
ssib
le
but
evide
nce
rath
er
weak
Unse
ttled
None
Bee
Coun
ty,
Texa
s
Linde
nmeie
r, Co
lorad
o
Folso
m
Folso
m
No
Date
Th
ree
man
dibl
es,
part
of
a m
etap
odia
l
10.8
50
f 55
0 (I-
441)
Fi
ve
foot
bo
nes.
tw
o te
eth
Casp
er,
Wyo
ming
He
ll Ga
p 10
,080
r
170
(RL-
208)
Lo
wer
limb
elem
ents
of
on
e an
imal
Man
zano
Ca
ve,
New
Mex
ico
“Gyp
sum
Ca
ve
No
date
Po
ints
”
Whit
ewat
er
Draw
, Co
chise
No
da
te
New
Mex
ico
Etna
Ca
ve,
Neva
da
???l
e Sp
rings
, Ne
vada
Pine
Sp
ring,
W
yom
ing
Wils
on
Butte
Ca
ve.
Idah
o
? Bo
nes
and/
or
fragm
ents
Bone
s in
pre
-Holo
cene
le
vel,
som
e in
“n
orm
al ar
ticul
ar
rela
tions
hip”
(H
attry,
19
60)
? No
da
te
No
Cam
elop
s re
porte
d
? 12
,450
_c
230
(UC
LA-
Brok
en
and
abra
ded
50%
bo
nes,
ab
unda
nt
? 11
,830
2
410
((3X0
-355
) ?
Bone
s;
may
in
9,
695
f 19
5 (G
XO-3
54)
fact
be
ano
ther
ge
nus
? 15
,000
-c
800
(M
-141
0)
One
dist
al
14,5
00
t 50
0 (M
-140
9)
met
apod
ial
in e
arlie
r le
vel;
? bo
nes
in l
ater
Folso
m
poin
t fo
und
in
sedi
men
ts
Near
br
oken
. ch
arre
d bi
son
bone
s
Near
bi
son
bone
s (fr
om
mas
s kil
l) an
d st
one
artif
acts
Gyps
um
Cave
po
ints
in
sa
me
fill
Near
ea
rly
Coch
ise
cultu
re
sites
, ar
tifac
ts
Appa
rent
ly ev
idenc
e m
isint
erpr
eted
Usef
ul
“tool“
sh
apes
an
d da
mag
ed
surfa
ces
and
edge
s
Agat
e Ba
sin
poin
ts
in
sam
e str
atum
Poss
ibly
cut
hors
e bo
nes
in e
arlie
r le
vel;
hum
an
toot
h an
d st
one
artif
acts
lat
er
Mixe
d se
dim
ents
: Pa
leo
and
notc
hed
poin
ts
in
sam
e de
posit
s
Prov
enien
ce
uncle
ar:
Wilm
sen
cons
ider
s Ca
melo
ps
intru
sive
(Wilm
sen
and
Robe
rts,
1978
)
(1)
Othe
r ta
xa
pres
ent,
and
all
need
no
t be
pa
rt of
biso
n kil
l; (2
) da
mag
e sim
ilar
to
gnaw
m
arks
; (3
) we
athe
red
diffe
rent
ly fro
m
biso
n bo
nes:
(4
) Cl
ovis
poin
t fo
und
at
site,
to
o,
so s
ever
al ag
es m
ay
be p
rese
nt
Stra
tigra
phy
destr
oyed
; Ho
loce
ne
artif
acts
pr
edom
inate
No
clear
ly as
socia
ted
artif
acts
no
Cam
elops
No
unqu
estio
ned
artif
acts
; br
eaka
ge
not
diag
nost
ic;
jum
bled
sp
ring
depo
sits
Agat
e Ba
sin
type
mixe
d wi
th
stem
med
typ
e in
ov
erlyi
ng
leve
l; la
ndsli
de
mixi
ng
sugg
este
d
No
unqu
estio
ned
artif
acts
; no
m
odific
atio
ns
to
bone
; lat
er
leve
l co
ntai
ns
So00
yr
of
mat
eria
ls in
un
diffe
rent
iated
se
dim
ent
None
Cont
empo
rane
ity
poss
ible
. bu
t ev
idenc
e we
ak
Utiliz
atio
n po
ssib
le,
but
acce
pted
wi
th
rese
rvat
ion
None
None
None
None
None
220 HAYNES AND STANFORD
typology, pollen, stratigraphy, and other site evidence must produce consonant data. Ideally there should be more than single Camefops bones or small fragments in the assemblages to minimize the possibility of indetectable mixing.
0,
B z
Association
Association is a term that need not be as vague as contemporaneity. We think that archaeologists naturally assume the term association signifies that contemporaneous live Camelops and humans were involved in some event at a site. Theoretically, be- cause of the nature of archaeological evi- dence-static, inanimate objects such as bones that can be picked up and used over and over again-we can not indisputably distinguish whether live animals and hu- mans were contemporaneous, or whether just bones and humans were. If humans somehow affected the bones, such as by breaking them, moving them, piling them, or using them as tools, then we term the activities association. Again, studies in- cluding stratigraphy, pollen, and artifact ty- pology, must show that there has been no disturbance or mixing of materials.
Utilization
This is the most difficult link to establish between prehistoric people and Camelops. Utilization refers to the butchering and pro- cessing of animals that were either killed or scavenged. Even with the best evidence, value judgements will be involved in de- ciding whether or not assemblages contain proof of utilization. To provide such proof assemblages must contain unmistakable ar- tifacts clearly associated, in the same stratum, with Camelops bones, some of which have been unambiguously cut marked in reasonable places and frequen- cies. There should be clear stratigraphic distinctions and supportable radiometric dates separating these materials from others; there should be consonance of data from other physical studies of the site. There should be no anomalies, such as the
TABL
E 2.
AD
DITI
ONA
L CO
LLEC
TION
S TH
AT
CONT
AIN
Crrm
elops
: AS
SIGN
MEN
T TO
CU
LTUR
AL
COM
PLEX
FR
OM
CITE
D RE
FERE
NCES
Nam
e of
sit
e or
co
llect
ion
Cul
tura
l co
mple
x to
wh
ich
Cam
elops
is
ass
igne
d “C
da
te”
(yr
B.P.
)
Cant
elop
s m
ater
ial
pres
ent
Pro
Argu
men
ts
COfl
Acce
ptab
le
inte
rpre
tatio
n’
Lehn
er.
Arizo
na
(C.
Hayn
es
and
Haur
y, 19
75)
Clov
is Se
vera
l da
tes.
Br
oken
lim
b bo
nes
11.6
00
rt 40
0 (A
- 47
8b)-
IO.9
00
f 45
0 (A
-406
)
ill.84
0 r
130
(l-10
899)
On
e ph
alanx
>1
0,14
0 t
550
(RL-
12
41)
Seve
ral
date
s.
One
tibia
10
,780
c_
120
(SI
-373
3)
fragm
ent
10,6
65
2 85
(Sl
-373
2)
In
sam
e pa
leos
ol
as
Clov
is ar
tifac
ts
and
tirep
it
No
dire
ct
asso
ciatio
n wi
th
artif
acts
or
fe
atur
e
No
deta
iled
publ
ished
de
scrip
tions
ye
t; co
ntem
pora
neity
po
ssib
le
In
pre-
Folso
m
leve
l So
me
mat
eria
ls in
lev
el
None
wi
th
artif
acts
re
depo
sited
Ag
ate
Basin
(A
). W
yom
ing
(Fris
on
and
Stan
ford
, 19
82)
Agat
e Ba
sin
(B),
Wyo
ming
Clov
is
Folso
m
One
edge
m
ay
be
serra
ted.
as
on
a sc
rape
r
No
othe
r bo
nes
or
Asso
ciatio
n fra
gmen
ts fo
und;
ar
tifac
tual
m
odific
atio
n no
t pl
ain
in p
hoto
grap
h
Brea
kage
no
t di
agno
stic;
no
un
ques
tione
d ar
tifac
ts
None
Brea
kage
no
t di
agno
stic;
no
un
ques
tione
d ar
tifac
ts
None
Brea
kage
no
t di
agno
stic;
no
un
ques
tione
d ar
tifac
ts
None
Pack
rat
burro
wing
No
ne
mixe
d m
ater
ials
of
man
y ag
es (
Heize
r an
d Be
rger
. 19
70);
no
dire
ct
asso
ciatio
n wi
th
artif
acts
Mille
nnia
of
ero
sion
None
an
d we
athe
ring
may
ha
ve
mixe
d m
ater
ials
of m
any
ages
Lam
b Sp
ring,
Co
lorad
o (R
ancie
r et
al..
19
82)
Pre-
Clov
is 13
.140
T
1000
(M
-146
4)
Brok
en
and
11,7
35
-c 9
5 (S
I-485
0)
unbr
oken
bo
nes
Brea
kage
th
ough
t ar
tifac
tual
Selby
(lo
wer
level)
, Co
lorad
o (S
tanf
ord,
19
79)
Dutto
n (lo
wer
level)
. Co
lorad
o (S
tanf
ord,
19
79)
Pre-
Clov
is 16
,630
f
320
(SI-5
185)
Br
oken
bo
nes,
we
ll pr
eser
ved
Brea
kage
th
ough
t ar
tifac
tual
Pre-
Clov
is 13
,600
-c
485
tsI-
sI86)
Br
oken
bo
nes,
we
ll pr
eser
ved
Brea
kage
th
ough
t ar
tifac
tual
Gyps
um
Cave
, Un
spec
ified
Neva
da
Plei
stoc
ene
(Har
ringt
on,
1933
) cu
lture
Num
erou
s da
tes
on
Brok
en
and
sloth
du
ng;
char
red
t?)
bone
s 11
,690
+
250
(LJ-
452)
(M
artin
, 19
75)
Ston
e ar
tifac
ts
plen
tiful
ab
ove
and
below
Pl
eist
ocen
e du
ng
China
La
ke,
Califo
rnia
(D
avis.
19
78)
he-P
aleo-
an
d Pa
leo-
Indi
an
Mid
-Wisc
onsin
an
to
Holo
cene
Fr
agm
enta
ry,
mine
raliz
ed
t?)
bone
s
Bone
an
d st
one
artif
acts
fo
und
in d
iscre
te
loci
on
lan
d su
rface
s
a Da
tes
may
be
que
stio
nabl
e or
no
t di
rect
ly as
socia
ted
with
Ca
mel
ops
b Co
ntem
pora
neity
, as
socia
tion.
or
ut
ilizat
ion.
M C
222 HAYNES AND STANFORD
presence of carnivore gnaw damage on Camelops specimens, unless the traces can be argued to be carnivore scavenging of an incontestable archaeological site.
We concede that these definitions are conservative, and that we run the risk of ignoring true archaeological specimens that do not meet these requirements.
NATURE OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
In many cases (Tables 1 & 2) Camelops bones found near artifacts, or near deposits that contain artifacts elsewhere, have been accepted as part of the cultural inventory of archaeological assemblages. Very few specimens are clearly modified in any way by human actions, but most were not claimed to be.
In other cases certain recurrent modifi- cations to Camelops bones, especially those of pre-Clovis age, have been inter- preted as end effects of human butchering or processing. For example, some long bones were spirally fractured prior to ad- vanced weathering and fossilization. Some- times fracture edges were abraded and smoothed, and shaft tissue scratched and incised. In these cases, attributes of the bone specimens provide the only source of evidence about any human behavior that in- volved the bones, if collections contain no stone artifacts or cultural features.
Many sites listed in Tables 1 and 2 do not share diagnostic attributes with unques- tioned sites where humans modified and disposed of mammoth or bison bones. Ty- pologically distinct stone implements are found at these latter sites, sometimes lying directly within the limited scatter of bones. Some mammoth and bison remains are in anatomical order, attesting to minimal post- mortem disturbance of at least part of the carcasses. The absence of signs of distur- bance, and the presence of geologically contemporaneous artifacts bedded directly together with bones, seems to provide ev- idence against postdepositional mixing of materials. In contrast, Camelops bones in
many sites listed in Tables 1 and 2 were found eroded out of context, broken, jum- bled together with bones of other taxa, and occasionally damaged by carnivore gnawing.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE
In most cases listed in Tables 1 and 2, the primary data do not support the assertion that humans killed, butchered, and pro- cessed Camelops. Specific doubts about each site or collection are summarized in the Arguments Con columns of the tables.
In some cases chemical tests or taxo- nomic distinctions have indicated age dis- crepancies between artifacts and Camelops bones, such as at Blackwater Draw. In other cases, such as Bee County and Pine Spring, the possibility of redeposition or mixing of materials of different ages has been indicated, based on geomorphological and typological data.
No reported sites contain articulated Cam- elops remains clearly associated with fea- tures and stone tools. In all cases where the contemporaneity of Camelops bones and human activity is supportable (such as Lin- denmeier, Lehner, the Folsom level at Agate Basin, and Casper), very few bones were present. There were no remains of clearly processed carcasses, only rare scat- tered elements. At Lindenmeier, Casper, and Lehner, where more than one bone or fragment was found presumably near arti- facts or features, the remains consisted of lower leg elements, which are the bones that scavengers often discard at carcass sites (G. Haynes, 1981, in press a). The Camelops bones could have been derived from noncultural processes that occurred at the same water holes where humans also left some refuse behind.
In our opinion, the only sites of docu- mented post-Clovis age in tables 1 and 2 in which there is potentially acceptable evi- dence linking camel remains with artifacts are Lindenmeier, Casper, and Agate Basin (Folsom level). Yet, we agree with the doubts expressed about the Lindenmeier
USE OF Camelops BY EARLY MAN 223
Camelops bones by Wilmsen (Wilmsen and Roberts, 1978), who thought them intrusive into the Folsom bison assemblage. We point out that the Camelops bones at Casper were weathered differently from the bison bones, perhaps indicating a different time of death, before or after the archaeo- logical remains were deposited. We have no strong reason to reject the association of Folsom people and the single broken Cam- elops specimen at Agate Basin, but the ev- idence need not indicate that humans killed or butchered a Camelops.
The only Clovis sites in Tables 1 and 2 with potentially acceptable linkage of Camelops bones and human activity are Carter/Kerr-McGee, Colby, and Lehner (with reservations). No stone artifacts were excavated with the fragmented Camelops bones at Carter/Kerr-McGee. At Colby, a single broken Camelops bone was exca- vated near a pile of mammoth bones lying over a Clovis point. This Camelops spec- imen seems to be a part of an actual ar- chaeological assemblage, but there is no ev- idence that prehistoric people hunted and killed this Camelops. The Lehner data have not been fully published, and we thus cannot evaluate this material.
The pre-Clovis collections contain the most problematic data. In these cases, all evidence for human contemporaneity, as- sociation, and utilization consists not of proximity of Camelops bones to unambig- uous artifacts, but only of physical attri- butes of the bones themselves.
We will examine presumed lines of rea- soning that have led some researchers to interpret modified bones as artifacts. These lines of reasoning are faulty, because they are based on a scarcity of in-depth knowl- edge about noncultural processes that modify bones.
FAULTY LINES OF REASONING
The manner of reasoning that led to cul- tural interpretations of Camelops bones has not been explicitly described for most sites in Tables 1 and 2. In this section we assess
what we think were the four premises that apparently led to the interpretations of modified bones as artifactual, in the ab- sence of incontestable associated artifacts.
(1) Bones in many of the collections had been fragmented into recurring shapes, and these specimens look like potentially useful tool items. Typical examples are distal me- tapodials, with pointed segments of the shaft still attached (Fig. 2). Replicative studies with bone tools used as butchering choppers have demonstrated that such specimens can function as usable, although inefficient, implements (Frison, 1978; G. Haynes, 1981).
(2) Many fractured bones that look us- able also have recurring damage to the pos- tulated “working” edges. This damage may consist of abraded or smoothed fracture edges, and small step-fractures of edges. Again, replicative studies have demon- strated that similar damage results when
)c
FIG. 2. Distal end of fractured Camelops metapodlal from the Selby site, Colorado. This shape often recurs in fossil collections. This specimen had been scratched and polished prior to its discovery.
224 HAYNES AND STANFORD
fragmented bones are employed as butch- ering tools. Occasional chopping or scraping contact with hard surfaces, such as bone, chips the working edges. Abrasive smoothing of the edges may result from chopping of meat and hide.
(3) Bone fragments in the collections sometimes have attributes that are similar to modifications produced by deliberate ex- perimental fracturing to extract marrow, or to break apart shafts in order to make chop- ping tools. These damage types are impact notches where a rock or hard hammer struck the bone surface to initiate fracture, at the same time breaking the shaft directly under the blow. At the point of impact the shaft often collapses into the bone interior (G. Haynes, 1981, Fig. 55). Sections of shaft around the point of impact show rec- ognizable fracture-edge flaking (Fig. 3).
(4) Some Camelops bone fragments have been scarred by contact with possible cut- ting or chopping implements that could have been made of chipped stone or bone (e.g., Johnson, 1977, Fig. 3).
Each one of these premises is insufficient to warrant interpreting fossil bones as arti- facts. We will examine problems with each in turn.
Patterned Shapes of Broken Specimens
(1) There are no ethnographic examples or unambiguous references to such use of tools. This is hardly a persuasive argument, but it is a legitimate point to make in the study of human behavior. Perhaps primitive people did use such tools, but ethnogra- phers made no records; or perhaps recent primitive people simply utilized more effi- cient methods of butchering large prey an- imals.
(2) Modern carnivores break long bones of large mammals (G. Haynes, 1983a, b), in certain geographic areas up to 10% or more. Herbivore trampling around water holes can account for spiral fracturing of up to 30% of certain elements from the largest taxa, including bison, buffalo, elephant, and giraffe. The “patterning” in bone
FIG. 3. Pieced-together fractured Camelops meta- podial from the Dutton site, Colorado. Note flaking of the fracture edge on the left side which is similar to impact marks created by deliberate fracturing with a hard impactor.
breakage is apparent even when noncul- tural agencies produce the breakage. Bones often fragment into patterned shapes due only to normal anatomical and topographic features of each element. The patterning is inherent in the morphology of the whole bone. Distinctively shaped fresh bones that are stepped on by elephants, battered by a wallowing bison, pounded by a marrow- seeking human, or levered apart by a large carnivore will often end up broken into closely similar shapes in any case.
Recurring Damage to Working Edges
(1) Sharp fracture edges are sensitive to abrasion due to trampling, even low-energy trampling by rodents (G. Haynes, 1981,
USE OF Camelops BY EARLY MAN 225
Figs. 70, 71, and 73) and soon show the effects (rounding) whereas adjoining bone surfaces may appear unmodified after un- dergoing the same processes.
(2) Gnawing animals may lick and grind fracture edges smooth, or abrade fracture edges against paws or ground surfaces while gnawing opposite ends. After long bones have been broken apart by carni- vores, parts of bones unmarked by teeth will have step-fractures on edges that might also be rounded (Fig. 4).
(3) During postmortem exposure of bones, sharp fracture edges lose tissue to weathering processes at a rate much greater than compact surfaces. An early effect is
FIG. 4. Mosaic photographic print of fractured Bos long bone which has been broken by a feeding wolf (Canis lupus). Step-fracturing and some abrasive pol- ishing of the fracture edge were produced by the wolf; rodent trampling also contributed to the rounding of the edges.
rounding of edges without grossly detect- able alteration of compact surfaces.
(4) Animals that traumatically fracture limbs before death create extreme rounding of fracture edges when they attempt to move the injured limb. Death within days, not unusual in the wild, does not allow bone remodeling to progress far enough to alter the bone surfaces. One of us (G.H.) has col- lected such modified specimens from bison, elephant, giraffe, and other modern taxa during recent field work. All these speci- mens came from carcasses that were ex- amined before scavengers could expose the bones. The frequency of such modifications due to trauma seems low for most species, but is not negligible for elephants and gi- raffes in southern African (G. Haynes, un- published data).
(5) Bones that are abraded and polished by natural processes such as trampling or sediment churning after fossilization (re- moval of grease, drying of vital tissue, decay of organic matter), display much greater glossiness of abraded edges or sur- faces than abraded greasy and fresh bones (G. Haynes, 1981). Many fossil specimens might have become modified long after they were originally deposited.
Impact Notches and Flake Scars
(1) When modern carnivores break apart long bones from herbivores the size of Camelops, some fragments of the dia- physes may have one or more notches along an edge. The notches may be much larger than the cross-sectional diameter of the carnivore’s teeth (G. Haynes, 1982, Fig. 5). The diaphyseal surface adjacent to the notches, or nearby, may have at least one deformational or incised scar that is a tooth mark. In the collections with which we are familiar, fossil specimens with notches sometimes have toothmarks on diaphysial sometimes have toothmarks on diaphyseal marks that we consider tooth scars are shallow and perhaps easily overlooked, especially when surfaces have been slightly weathered. As a general rule, the larger the
226 HAYNES AND STANFORD
carnivore the fewer tooth marks are left on compact surfaces during primary feeding (as distinguished from more leisurely gnawing). During recent field work in Af- rica, one of us (G.H.) has collected buffalo (Syncerus) long bone specimens that first had epiphyses bitten through and removed by lions (Pathera led), then had the di- aphyses simply broken into fragments by le- verage in the jaw. Shaft fragments from these examples rarely have tooth marks on them. Pleistocene lions (P. leo atrox), canids (Canis lupus), and bears (Arctodus) were larger than modern relatives, and would have broken bones with less diffi- culty (and fewer tooth marks).
(2) Trampling and wallowing by large un- gulates in some geographic areas fractures more long bones than carnivore gnawing (G. Haynes, in press b). During recent field work, a significant proportion of specimens was found that had partially collapsed frac- ture edges, caused by large herbivores trampling or wallowing on already-frag- mented long bones. This feature is often identical to the notching and bone-wall flaking caused by deliberate impact. On some land surfaces these features may be seen on up to 50% of the fragments of cer- tain elements (G. Haynes, unpublished data).
Cut Marks, and Chop Damage
(1) Carnivores may sometimes bite strongly into the limbs of prey carcasses. The resulting tooth marks on diaphyses re- semble the damage that chopping tools might make (Fig. 5). In recent field studies, one of us (G.H.) has found that the fre- quency of this kind of damage due to lions, hyenas, wolves, and bears is low, but cannot be disregarded (G. Haynes, unpub- lished data). We emphasize that this damage might be found mainly in larger concentrations of bones, and is not common in the more widespread, low-den- sity land surface scatters affected by car- nivores. Tooth damage to cancellous tissue of epiphyses is also similar to the damage that has been attributed to tool use.
Tooth marks are usually wider than marks left by edges of stone tools, although especially sharp teeth (such as upper and lower carnassials that are honed against each other during occlusion) or broken teeth also make very fine scratches and in- cisions (Fig. 6). Rodent gnaw marks may be isolated and deep incisions, but more often are paired and distinctively formed (see G. Haynes, 1981, for photographs).
Cut marks should be found on parts of bones where a sharp edge would have been necessary to separate meat from bone, bone from bone, or hide from carcass. Cut marks should be clean incisions with V- shaped cross sections. True cut marks should be discontinuous or uncomfortable on bone surfaces where the topography is uneven, because inflexible tool edges skip over minor depressions when applied to bone surfaces. It must be kept in mind that cut marks are the result of plausible, prac- tical human motor actions such as sawing, scraping, or slicing. Most butchering cut marks are sets of a few short, parallel, linear incisions (see figures in Binford, 1981).
(2) Fresh or fossil bones may be scratched by pressure against sand or grit substrates. Single sand grains can create sharp but relatively shallow incisions. Nu- merous specimens of fragmented elephant bones collected around African water sources have sets of parallel scratches that are similar to the damage inflicted by stone scraping and cutting implements (Fig. 6). This kind of damage is common to infre- quent on bones lying buried or atop the ground. For example, more than 10% of fresh rib fragments at one water hole in the African study areas have at least three sub- strate scratches, while at another water hole less than 1% are scratched (G. Haynes, unpublished data).
GENERAL PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY INTERPRETATIONS
Overly Simplistic Models of Carnivore Modifications
The hunting and feeding behavior of
USE OF Camelops BY EARLY MAN 227
I
o 1 5 4
3
2 I
0
FIG. 5. Two views of the proximal end of a fractured Bison tibia from Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. A scavenging wolf (C. lupus) left a series of tooth marks on the compact bone tissue of the shaft. This specimen is incorrectly identified in Haynes (1981) as a butchered bone.
modern large predators changes consider- ably in response to changes in the vulner- ability of preferred prey (G. Haynes, 1980, 1981, 1982, in press a, b). The degree of carcass utilization by modern predators (and scavengers) is therefore quite varied, and undoubtedly would have varied during the late Pleistocene. Bones of particular prey taxa may be differently affected even by the same carnivore taxa, under different local conditions. Bone analysts commit a major error if they assume that all carni- vores, including the unstudied larger Pleis- tocene taxa, create an unvarying set of diagnostic attributes, commonly known as “carnivore gnawing.” Carnivores can also create other bone modifications. We are not arguing against the generalization that some modifications are unmistakably the effects
of carnivore gnawing; we are emphasizing that diffeerent kinds of damage need not al- ways have been created by agencies other than carnivores,
There are numerous effects other than tooth marking created by carnivores, and these seem to be unknown to many paleo- ecologists. The shapes of modified bones may indicate carnivore activity, even in the absence of identifiable tooth marking. Car- nivores break bones, flake them, remove them from carcass sites, and sometimes concentrate them. They do more than just chew on them. The sizes of bone scatters, the spatial overlap of scatters from different individuals, the mixing of bones in different weathering stages and from carcasses uti- lized to different degrees, and the abandon- ment of some bones articulated and some
HAYNES AND STANFORD
Fl ll4pL4 trarr ‘1
;. 6. Left: Shaft fragment of a Bison femur broken and scratched by a carnivore (probably C. ) with at least one broken cheek tooth. Right: Elephant (Loxodonta africana) rib fragment ,led by elephants and scratched against the sand substrate in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe.
disarticulated-these are variables that should become better known to analysts, ideally through first-hand field studies.
Overly Simplistic Models of Bone Weathering
In occasionally or permanently wet mi- croenvironments upper and lower portions of large bones may pass through greatly dif- ferent stages of weathering deterioration. The wet lower parts might fracture spirally when trampled, while the weathered upper portion might crack linearly and splinter. This process has been observed for limb bones of bison, elephant, and giraffe. It is easier to break long bones when they are structurally weakened by advanced weath-
ering of one end, and even relatively weak agencies may initiate fracture. The spirally fractured parts may possess attributes sim- ilar to those described by Morlan (1980) as diagnostic of green-bone breakage, or frag- mentation of elements when they are “fresh.”
Overly Simplistic Models of Spiral Fracturing
It is important to realize that the age of spiral breaks (which appear to be green- bone fractures) need not be the same as the geological age of the bones. Bones that lie in pond bottoms, shore muds, or unconsol- idated organic remains, such as seasonally shed foliage, do not pass as quickly as
USE OF Camelops BY EARLY MAN 229
normal through the stages of postmortem deterioration (Behrensmeyer, 1978; Gra- ham and Laws, 1971; G. Haynes, 1981), and may still spirally fracture years after the original date of deposition. The condi- tions under which bone fractures spirally may be surprising.
For example, the Inglewood mammoth site in Maryland contained flaked and spi- rally fragmented elements fractured by heavy equipment at the time of discovery in 1982. Rib collegen dated 20,070 ? 265 yr B.P. (S-5357). What was left of the skel- eton lay in anatomical order in a water- logged zone between an aquifer and over- lying sands and loam. Attributes of the broken specimens are identical to attributes of modern fresh elephant bones broken by trampling herbivores in Africa, or by delib- erate experimental fracturing.
Large herbivores traditionally favor well- watered sites, and bones are abundant at them. The bones are subjected to numerous episodes of trampling and wallowing. During recent field work in Africa, one of us (G.H.) found specimens that were buried for years (possibly decades), the,n brought to the surface by animal activity and spi- rally fractured. Attributes of these speci- mens often qualify as “green-bone” breaks (Morlan, 1980).
DISCUSSION
A final point to make is that modifica- tions identical to the so-called cultural mod- ifications are also seen in pre-Pleistocene collections from North America. Green- bone-type spiral fractures, scratches and incisions that could be cut marks, impact notches, and patterned breaks may be rare or common in these earlier collections, de- pending probably on conditions of preser- vation, and collector bias against unmea- surable specimens. Arguments that assign a cultural origin to similar modifications in late Wisconsin assemblages must also apply to the earlier materials, in some cases sig- nifying that humans were in the New World
prior to 2 my ago. At our present state of knowledge, this is unacceptable.
Any large assemblage of bones might ex- pectably include specimens possessing a wide range of modifications. Some modifi- cations at one end of the range might look cultural, while others at the opposite end might be clearly noncultural. It is poor rea- soning to isolate attributes from narrow parts of the range and to consider only those modifications to have been culturally produced.
We acknowledge that (1) the absence of unquestioned artifacts associated with Camelops bones or (2) the plausibility of arguments assigning noncultural causes to bone modifications does not prove the ab- sence of humans and cultural activity in the past. Our arguments are not intended as final explanations for bone modifications. Neither the cultural or the noncultural case is securely established. Many altered bones are plainly similar to artifactually modified specimens from unquestioned archaeolog- ical sites, and we do not unequivocally re- ject the possibility that pre-Clovis Came- lops bones are evidence of human behavior. We urge prehistorians to examine bone as- semblages with care and attention, because the modifications under question are the measurable effects of natural or cultural processes that might be more fully and pro- ductively defined.
REFERENCES Albanese, J. (1974). Geology of the Casper archeolog-
ical site. In “The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains” (G. Frison, Ed.). pp. 173- 190. Academic Press, New York.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1975). The taphonomy and pa- leoecology of Plio-Pleistocene vertebrate assem- blages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Harvard Mu- seum of Comparative Zoology Bulletin 37,473-578.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1978). Taphonomic and eco- logic information from bone weathering. Paleo- biology 4, 150- 162.
Binford. L. (1981). “Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.” Academic Press, New York.
Davis, E. L. (1978). Association of people and a Ran- cholabrean fauna at China Lake. California. In “Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Per-
230 HAYNES AND STANFORD
spective” (A. L. Bryan, Ed.), Dept. of Anthro- pology, University of Alberta, Occasional Paper No. 1, pp. 183-217. Archaeological Researches Inter- national, Edmonton.
Dort, W., Jr. (1977). “Archeo-geology of Jaguar Cave, Upper Birch Creek Valley and the Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho.” Geological Society of America, First Annual Field Trip.
Frison, G. C. (1978). “Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains.” Academic Press, New York.
Frison, G. C., and Stanford, D. (1982). “The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleo-Indian Occupa- tion of the Northwestern High Plains.” Academic Press. New York.
Frison, G. C. Walker, D. N.. .Webb, S. D., and Zie- mens, G. M. (1978). Paleo-Indian procurement of Camelops on the northwestern Plains. Quaternayv Research 10, 385-400.
Graham, A. D., and Laws, R. M. (1971). The collec- tion of found ivory in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. East Africa Wildlife Journal 9, 57-65.
Harrington, M. R. (1933). Gypsum Cave. Nevada: Re- port of the Second Season’s Expedition. Southwest Museum Papers 8.
Haury, E. (1960). Association of fossil fauna and ar- tifacts of the Sulphur Spring stage, Cochise culture. American Antiquity 25, 609-610.
Haynes, C. V. (1974). Archeological geology of some selected Paleo-Indian sites. In “History and Prehis- tory of the Lubbock Lake Site” (C. Black, Ed.), pp. 133-139. The Museum Journal 15.
Haynes, C. V. (1975). Pleistocene and Recent stratig- raphy. In “Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains” (F. Wendorf and J. Hester, Eds.), pp. 57-96. Southern Methodist University, Fort Burgwin Research Facility Publ. No. 9.
Haynes, C. V., and Agogino, G. A. (in press). Geo- chronology of Sandia Cave. Smithsonian Contribu- tions to Anthropology.
Haynes. C. V., and Haury, E. (1975). “Archeological Investigations at the Lehner Site, Arizona, 1974- 1975.” Paper presented at 40th Annual Meeting, So- ciety for American Archeology.
Haynes, G. (1980). Prey bones and predators: Poten- tial ecologic information from analysis of bone sites. Ossa 7, 75-97.
Haynes, G. (1981). “Bone Modifications and Skeletal Disturbances by Natural Agencies: Studies in North America.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cath- olic University of America.
Haynes, G. (1982). Utilization and skeletal distur- bances of North American prey carcasses. Arctic 35, 266-281.
Haynes, G. (1983a). A guide for differentiating mam- malian carnivore taxa responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones. Paleobiology 9, 164-172.
Haynes, G. (1983b). Frequencies of spiral and green- bone fractures on ungulate limb bones in modem surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48, 102- 114.
Haynes, G. (in press a). On watering holes, mineral licks, death, and predation. In “Environments and Extinction in Late Glacial North America” (D. Meltzer and J. Mead, Eds.). Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono.
Haynes, G. (in press b). Taphonomic perspectives for early man research. In “National Geographic So- ciety Research Grants for 1982” (J. Lea, Ed.). Na- tional Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Heizer, R. F., and Berger, R. (1970). Radiocarbon age of the gypsum culture. University of California Ar- cheological Research Facility Contributions 7, 13-18.
Johnson, E. (1977). Animal food resources of Paleoin- dians. In “Paleo-Indian Lifeways” (E. Johnson, Ed.), pp. 65-77. The Museum Journal 17.
Martin, P. S. (1975). Sloth droppings. Natural History 84, 74-81.
Morlan, R. (1980). “Taphonomy and Archeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Ter- ritory: A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World.” Mercury Series: Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 94. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Rancier, J., Haynes, G., and Stanford, D. (1982). 1981 investigations of Lamb Spring. Southwestern Lore 48(Z), 1-17.
Sharrock, F. (1966). Prehistoric occupation patterns in southwest Wyoming and cultural relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture areas. University of Utah Department of Anthropology, Anthropolog- ical Papers 77.
Stanford, D. (1979). The Selby and Dutton sites: Ev- idence for a possible pre-Clovis occupation of the High Plains. In “Pre-Llano Cultures of the Amer- icas: Paradoxes and Possibilities” (R. Humphrey and D. Stanford, Eds.), pp. 101-123. Anthropolog- ical Sot. of Washington, D.C.
Wamica, J. M. (1966). New discoveries at the Clovis site. American Antiquity 31, 345-357.
Wheeler, S. M. (1942). The Archeology of Etna Cave, Lincoln County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 7.
Wilmsen, E., and Roberts, F. H. (1978). Lindenmeier. 1937- 1974: Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 24.
