Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

4.5.2 Cut Shells

Of special interest were the numerous shells collected by Freudenberg from the Scaldisian sands at Vracene and Mosselbank, where fortifications were being constructed. About his discoveries, Freudenberg (1919, p. 39) wrote: “The shell heaps of Koefering and Mosselbank near Vracene have yielded countless examples of Cyprina islandica and Cyprina tumida broken while living and also a shell opener of shiny, patinated flint, like those found at Hol.”

Freudenberg (1919, p. 39) further stated: “The examination of the shell materials from Vracene and Hol that I undertook in the beginning of 1919 at Göttingen proved the correctness of my initial judgement that the shell beds were a kitchen midden. In cleaning off the yellow quartz sand and clay, I found many intentional incisions, mostly on the rear part of the shells, quite near the hinge [Figure 4.42]. This was particularly clear on the two Cyprina species. On the extinct Cyprina tumida specimens, the forward closing muscle was cut through quite regularly by an incision. . . .The incision could only have been made with the help of a sharp flint knife or a shark tooth (we find here teeth of Oxyrhina hastalis Ag.). The intentional nature of this action is quite apparent. I have 7 left half-shells of Cyprina tumida and 9 right half-shells with the same kind of incision near the depression in the shell that marks the point of attachment of the forward closing muscle.”

Describing the incisions themselves, Freudenberg (1919, pp. 39–40) wrote: “The inner surfaces of the cuts on the shells of Cyprina tumida are smooth and bear the same yellow-white weathered surface as the other old surfaces and breaks on any part of the shell. The length of the cut marks is a few millimeters, seldom more than half a centimeter. The incisions on the shells of Cyprina tumida with well-preserved cut marks are sharply V-shaped, such as could only have been made with a sharp instrument. Other shells that are almost always found broken, as would be expected if they were being used for food, include those of the extinct Voluta Lamberti Sow. and Cardium decorativum, which along with Cardium edule and C. echinatum, could have served as edible shellfish.” The sharp cut marks found near the hinges of the shells collected by Freudenberg would appear to be more consistent with human work than the action of shellfish-consuming creatures such as otters.

Figure 4.42. A shell from a Scaldisian formation ( Early Pliocene–Late Miocene) near Antwerp, Belgium, with a cut mark to the right of the hinge (Freudenberg 1919, p. 33).

Freudenberg also found many oysters with broken and cut shells. Of Ostrea edulis L. var. ungulata Nyst, Freudenberg (1919, p. 45) wrote: “I dug up 20 flat right half-shells and about half as many arched left half-shells. Many shells show puncture marks made by sharp, pointed objects, perhaps shark teeth used as tools. From the position of these marks on the edges of the shells, it is obvious they were intended to force them open. The marks sometimes repeat themselves in the same place, giving the impression of premeditated work. The marks are always found on the flat half-shells rather than the curved half-shells, which would be harder to pierce. Splintering is found only on the inner surface of the puncture marks, from which one can conclude that the sharp body that made them entered from outside. All this rules out a posthumous injury, because a dead shellfish opens its shell, and in that case any kind of shell-opening operation would have been pointless.” Summarizing his report on shellfish, Freudenberg (1919, p. 50) said: “The number of extinct species is half the total, 27 of 54. Thus the late Tertiary date of the site is not in doubt. The existence of a shellfish-eating population on the

Flemish coast in the late Tertiary is also not in doubt.”

4.5.3 Incised Bones

In addition to cut shells, Freudenberg also found cut bones of marine mammals. Among them was part of the upper jaw of a member of the porpoise family, probably related to Lagenocetus latifrons Gray. The surface of the jaw is flat and bears upon it a series of incisions. Freudenberg believed the incisions had been purposefully made. In a taphonomic analysis of the jaw, he stated: “Were these grooves not seen as intentional work, but rather as the selective corrosion of the bone through chemical or mechanical means (such as the dissolving action of mineral salts or the friction of sand), then one would expect that the grooves would reach as far down as the nourishment channels (Haversian canals) that run through the bone and there find their end. In reality the grooves cut straight through the nourishment channels; they are also independent of the fine bone structure” (Freudenberg 1919, p. 22). Freudenberg said that this jaw may have been used as some kind of a press.

As discussed in Section 2.11, incisions such as those reported by Freudenberg on the porpoise bone might have been the result of shark bites. In his report, Freudenberg did not mention this possibility, which thus needs further investigation. Still, if the shells from the Scaldisian at Vracene and Mosselbank are taken as bearing intentional cut marks, then this strengthens the possibility that the incisions on the porpoise bones may also have been made by tools.

Marked and polished whale bones were also discovered, along with bones of other marine mammals. Freudenberg (1919, p. 28) wrote: “Artificially broken long bones of walruses and seals are found directly on top of the Septarian clay (Middle Oligocene). These bone fragments were found embedded in clayey greensand, some of which has hardened into limonite on the bones. The bones bear the deep impact marks of blows that could have been made by stone hammers. The depth of the marks varied with the strength of the blows.”

4.5.4 Possible Human Footprints

Further confirmation of a human presence came in the form of partial footprints, apparently made when humanlike feet compressed pieces of clay. From a clay pit at Hol, located just south of the road leading westward from St. Gillis to Meuleken, Freudenberg (1919, p. 3) recovered one impression of the ball of a foot and four impressions of toes (Figure 4.43).

The stone bed in which the footprints were found was judged to be Scaldisian on the basis of the shell fauna. The Scaldisian sediments, as previously mentioned, were deposited in the time period from the Early Pliocene through the Late Miocene. The footprints would thus be at least 4–7 million years old. Freudenberg (1919, p. 9), however, believed they were probably made during the period immediately preceding the Scaldisian marine transgression, and were later incorporated into the Scaldisian formation in which they were found. This would make the footprints somewhat more than 7 million years old. Freudenberg conducted a dermatoglyphic analysis of the prints, as carefully as modern physical anthropologists.

Figure 4.43. Five partial foot impressions from a Scaldisian formation (Early Pliocene to Late Miocene) at Hol, near Antwerp, Belgium (Freudenberg 1919, p. 9).

About the impression of the ball of a right foot, Freudenberg (1919, p. 11) stated: “There are on the left side signs of displaced grains of sand as well as imprints of the dermal ridges and lines of the skin of the foot, and these show a movement from left to right, or from inside to outside, as would result from the normal movement of the foot in walking.”

Continuing his dermatoglyphic analysis of the print, Freudenberg (1919, p. 11) stated: “One notices that the right, or outer, side of the impression of the ball of the foot is also covered with impressions of fine lines like those of the foot of a humanlike being.” According to Freudenberg (1919, p. 11), the pattern of the lines matched that of modern humans and was distinct from that of apes.

Freudenberg (1919, p. 12) added: “The number of lines found in the space of a millimeter is the same on the fossil impression as on the ball of the foot of a modern human adult. The fossil has about 2 lines in 1 mm (10 in 5 mm), in some places fewer. In adult humans, I have measured 4 lines in 2 mm, 5 in 2 mm, and 6 in 2 mm, giving an average of 2–3 lines per mm.” Freudenberg (1919, p. 12) then mentioned another significant feature of the impression: “The outlets of the sweat glands are perhaps to be recognized on the fossil impression as tiny bumps, arranged in rows.”

Freudenberg, having described the impression of the ball of the foot, then turned to the impressions of toes. Concerning an imprint of the fourth and fifth toes of a left foot, Freudenberg (1919, pp. 13–14) noted: “The length of an impression of the little toe, measured on the inner side, is, for a 4-yearold child, about 18 mm. The same measurement on the fossil impression is 15 mm. . . . There are also to be observed the impressions of dermal ridges on the imprints of the toes. They are arranged in the same pattern as on the foot of a human child, in that they radiate in all directions from the juncture of the fifth and fourth toes. As in the case of the human child, there are 6–7 dermal ridges per 2 mm at this place. Furthermore, there are properly oriented wrinkles of the skin.”

Freudenberg (1919, p. 14) then stated: “The most important discovery on the fossil toe impression is the shortness of the fifth toe, which is reminiscent of the little toe of the human being. The anthropoid apes, including the gorilla, have long little toes. The foot structure of the genus Homo was in the Middle Pliocene already the same as today. The big toe was also short and broad, relative to that of apes, as shown on a somewhat fragmentary impression from Hol, which appears to be that of a left big toe.”

4.5.5 The Identity of Freudenberg’s Palaeanthropus

In his conclusion, Freudenberg (1919, p. 52) stated: “It stands without doubt that the sites at Hol and Koefering are part of the Scaldisian formation of the Middle Pliocene [Early Pliocene to Late Miocene according to modern authorities]. The geological age of Palaeanthropus, the Flemish Tertiary man, dates back this far, if not into older times. This conclusion is especially supported by the fact that bones of Pliocene marine mammals provided Tertiary man with raw materials for his implements and Pliocene shellfish served as his food. Furthermore, the fossil footprints of a humanlike being are found among the Middle Pliocene beach pebbles of Hol.”

Freudenberg (1919, pp. 52–53) directed the attention of his readers to supporting evidence from England—the carved shell discovered by Henry Stopes in the Pliocene Red Crag (Section 2.15), as well as the flint implements found in the same formation by J. Reid Moir (Section 3.3) and the cut bones reported by Fisher (Section 2.16). As we have demonstrated, there is abundant evidence, of all kinds, in favor of a human presence dating to the Pliocene and earlier. In this context, the discoveries of Freudenberg are not at all surprising.

We should point out, however, that Freudenberg (1919, p. 12) was an evolutionist and believed that his Tertiary man must have been a very small hominid, about 1 meter (3.28 feet) tall, displaying, in addition to its humanlike feet, a combination of apelike and human features. Altogether, Freudenberg’s description of his Flemish Tertiary man seems reminiscent of Johanson’s portrayal of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy). Even if Freudenberg’s hypothetical picture of a primitive hominid with humanlike feet is accepted, one would not, according to current paleoanthropological doctrine, expect to find any australopithecines in Belgium during the Late Miocene, at the onset of the Scaldisian, over 7 million years ago. The oldest australopithecines date back only about 4 million years in Africa.

But a late Scaldisian (Early Pliocene) date of 4 million years for a Flemish australopithecine would be within the range of possibility. It should be kept in mind that African mammals such as the hippopotamus ranged as far north as England during the Pliocene and the interglacials of the Pleistocene. Modern paleoanthropologists might, therefore, have good reason to give some serious consideration to Freudenberg’s reports, but unfortunately, the knowledge filtration process has, over the course of this century, resulted in the reports disappearing from view.

Thus far we have been going along with Freudenberg’s assumption that the humanlike partial footprints from the Scaldisian of Belgium were made by a small primitive hominid. But there is another possibility. There are today, in Africa and the Phillipines, pygmy tribes, with adult males standing less than five feet tall and females even shorter. The proposal that a pygmy human being rather than an australopithecine made the footprints found by Freudenberg has the advantage of being consistent with the whole spectrum of evidence—stone tools, incised bones, isolated signs of fire, and artificially opened shells. Australopithecines are not known to have manufactured stone tools or used fire. And, as we shall see in Section 11.10, the toes of australopithecines are noticeably longer than those of modern Homo sapiens, while the little toe of the Belgian hominid is similar in length to that of modern humans.

Freudenberg’s principal reason for concluding that the being that left the footprints was quite small had to do with certain measurements he made. He ascertained that the radius of curvature of the imprint of the ball of a foot excavated at Hol was similar to that of a human child 4 years of age (Freudenberg 1919, pp. 10 –11). The radius of curvature is the radius of a circle that would fit a section of the curve of the print.

Another feature of the same imprint led Freudenberg to conclude that the creature, despite its short stature, was an adult. In the fossil imprint of the ball of a foot, he found 2 dermal ridges per millimeter. Human adults have 2–3 ridges per millimeter in this part of the foot whereas human children have about 4 ridges per millimeter. Freudenberg therefore believed that the creature must have been an adult, although the radius of curvature of the ball of the foot indicated it was only about 1 meter tall—the height of a human 4-year-old.

But other measurements reported by Freudenberg suggest the adult forms were taller. One of the toe impressions from the Scaldisian was about the same size as that of a human 4-year-old, indicating the creature stood about 1 meter high. On this impression Freudenberg (1919, p. 14) counted 3.0–3.5 ridges per millimeter. The toe impressions of human children have the same number of ridges in that location (Freudenberg 1919, p. 14). This suggests that the creature that made this print was not an adult but a child. Thus when it grew to adult size, it would have been somewhat taller than 1 meter.

To a modern reader, Freudenberg’s reports are bound to seem somewhat idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, Freudenberg does provide yet another example of a professional scientist reporting in a scientific journal finds that today would not be given a moment’s serious consideration.

4.6 Central Italy (Late Pliocene)

In 1871, Professor G. Ponzi (1873, p. 53) presented to the meeting in Bologna of the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology the following report about evidence for Tertiary humans in central Italy: “The very ancient rocks of subappenine Italy that contain human vestiges are breccias which, reposing on the Pliocene yellow sands, can be referred to the end of the Pliocene or beginning of the Quaternary. These vestiges consist of one flint evidently worked into a triangular pointed shape, extracted from the breccia of the ‘Acquatraversa sur la Voie Cassienne,’ by the geologists de Verneuil and Mantovani, and several other flints, of almost the same type, collected by Rossi and Nicolucci in the breccia of Janicule.” A breccia is a deposit composed of rock fragments in a fine-grained matrix of hardened sand or clay.

The Acquatraversan erosional phase, during which the breccia was laid down on the yellow sand, can still be regarded as Pliocene. Nilsson (1983, p. 95) stated that the Acquatraversan erosion “is taken to predate a volcanite with a radiometric date of 2.3 million years.” This indicates that the stone tools embedded in the Acquatraversan breccias could be at least that old. The yellow sands, upon which the breccias are found, are most likely those of the Astian (Piacenzian) stage of the Late Pliocene (Nilsson 1983, p. 83). This case, although maybe not as strong as others just discussed, is nevertheless worthy of attention and study.

4.7 Stone Tools From Burma (Miocene)

At the end of 1894 and beginning of 1895, scientific journals announced the discovery of worked flints in Tertiary formations in Burma, then part of the British Indian empire. The implements were reported by Fritz Noetling, a paleontologist and Fellow of the Geological Society who served as director of the Geological Survey of India in the region of Yenangyaung. Noetling (1894, p. 101) stated in the Record of the Geological Survey of India: “While engaged in mapping out a part of the Yenangyoung [Yenangyaung] oil-field my attention was particularly directed to the collecting of vertebrate remains, which are rather common in certain strata around Yenangyoung. One of the most conspicuous beds . . . is a ferruginous conglomerate, upwards of ten feet in thickness. This bed may be distinguished a long distance off as a dull-red band, running, in a continuous line, across ravines and hills. Besides numerous other vertebrate remains, such as Rhinoceros perimense, etc., one of the commonest species is Hippotherium [Hipparion] antelopinum Caut. and Falc. of which numerous isolated teeth can be found.” Modern authorities still date the Yenangyaung fauna to the Late or Middle Miocene (Savage and Russell 1983, pp. 247, 326).

While picking up a lower molar of Hipparion antelopinum, Noetling noticed a rectangular flint object (Figure 4.44). He later described the object: “The two long edges run nearly parallel and are sharp and cutting. This flake affords particular interest in as much as the two faces must have been produced by an action, which is difficult to explain by natural causes” (Noetling 1894, p. 101).

Each face, one concave and the other convex, has two planes meeting in the middle to form an edge, giving the piece four plane surfaces. Noetling wrote: “Let us consider the convex face [on the left in Figure 4.44] first; it will be seen that one side is smooth, apparently produced by the chipping off of a single flake, while the other side shows that at least four smaller flakes have been chipped off at a right angle to the first one.” Many authorities see chipping at right angles as a good sign of human work, as natural random battering tends to produce chipping at a variety of angles. In addition, such random battering also removes sharp edges. Noetling (1894, pp. 101–102) further stated: “The concave face which is however much damaged at one side must have been produced by the chipping off of two longitudinal flakes. The shape of this specimen reminds me very much of the chipped flint described in Volume I of the Records, Geological Survey of India, and discovered in the Pleistocene of the Nerbudda river, the artificial origin of which nobody seems to have ever doubted.”

Figure 4.44. Two sides of a flint implement from the Miocene Yenangyaung formation in Burma (Noetling 1894, plate 1).

Noetling (1894, p. 101) searched further and found about a dozen more chipped pieces of flint. Some of these he categorized as “irregularly shaped.” According to Noetling (1894, p. 101), the edges were “sharp and cutting.” The remainder were “triangular flakes,” about which he stated: “The lateral edges are straight, sharp, and cutting.” Noetling (1894, p. 101) thought one of the triangular flakes shown in his illustrations (Figure 4.45) was “particularly remarkable” because “it shows that the upper face must have been produced by the repeated chipping off of thin flakes.”

Figure 4.45. A flint tool from the Miocene Yenangyaung formation of Burma (Noetling1894, plate 1).

Analyzing the stratigraphic position of his discoveries, Noetling stated that the ferruginous conglomerate containing the chipped flints was surmounted by a 4,620-foot-thick formation (Group C) composed of yellow sandstone alternating with beds of light brown clay. Noetling wrote (1894, p. 102): “A superficial examination of the vertebrate remains shows that the fauna is nearly identical with that of the Siwaliks, or in other words, that Group C . . . must be of upper miocene if not pliocene age. We must therefore claim either pliocene or at the latest upper miocene age for the ferruginous conglomerate in which the chipped flints have been found. But whatsoever their particular age be, it is certain that a considerable amount of time must have elapsed since the deposit of a series of strata of more than 4,620 foot thickness, containing numerous genera of animals which are now-a-days either entirely extinct, or at least no longer living in India, which rests upon it [the ferruginous conglomerate].”

W. T. Blanford believed that Rhinoceros perimensis and Hipparion antelopinum, fossils of which accompanied the flints, characterized in India the Pliocene rather than the Miocene (G. de Mortillet and A. de Mortillet 1900, pp. 90–91). A Pliocene date (2–5 million years) would, however, still be quite anomalous, considering the now-dominant view that toolmaking beings (Homo erectus) first migrated from Africa around 1 million years ago. Blanford, however appears to have been wrong. According to modern authorities Rhinoceros (Aceratherium) perimensis and Hipparion antelopinum occur in Late Miocene assemblages of Asia, including India (Savage and Russell 1983, pp. 283 –284). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the Yenangyaung fauna in general is today regarded as Miocene (Savage and Russell 1983, pp. 247, 326). This would place toolmaking creatures in Burma over 5 million years ago.

According to de Mortillet, R. D. Oldham observed flints similar to Noetling’s on a plateau rising above the location of Noetling’s discovery. Oldham wanted to use this fact to dispute the age of Noetling’s flints, but it is not clear why the presence of flints on the plateau should invalidate Noetling’s statements about the stratigraphic position of his discoveries.

How certain was the stratigraphic position of Noetling’s flints? According to de Mortillet, the strata in which the flints were found appeared to Oldham to be loosely compacted conglomerates, which suggested that the flints might have been introduced in recent times. But Noetling (1894, pp. 102–103) offered this account: “Having now described the geological position of the strata in which the chipped flints were found, there still remains the question to be discussed whether they were really found in situ, or not. To this I can only answer that to the best of my knowledge they were really found in situ. . . . The exact spot where the flints were found is marked on my geological map of the Yenangyoung oil-field with No. 49 and is situated on the steep eastern slope of a ravine, high above its bottom, but below the edge in such a position that it is inconceivable how the flints should have been brought there by any foreign agency. There is no room for any dwelling place in this narrow gorge, nor was there ever any; it is further impossible from the way in which the flints were found that they could have been brought to that place by a flood. If I weigh all the evidence, quite apart from the fact that I actually dug them out of the bed, it is my strong belief that they were in situ when found.” It should be remembered that these statements were made by a professional paleontologist who was a member of the Geological Society of London and the Geological Survey of India.

In conclusion, Noetling (1894, p. 103) said: “As to their nature whether artificial or not, I do not want to express an opinion; all I can say is, that if flints of this shape can be produced by natural causes, a good many chipped flints hitherto considered as undoubtedly artificial products are open to grave doubts as to their origin.” We agree with this statement. In our review of controversial evidence, we are not so much insisting on the Tertiary date or human manufacture of particular stone objects as insisting on consistent application of standards for evaluating such evidence. We have found that such consistent application is lacking, that prejudice and preconception very often come into play. This raises serious questions about the empiric method as the primary cognitive tool for understanding human origins and antiquity.

4.8 Tools From Black’s Fork River, Wyoming (Middle Pleistocene)

In 1932, Edison Lohr and Harold Dunning, two amateur archeologists, found many stone tools on the high terraces of the Black’s Fork River in Wyoming, U.S.A. We may recall from our discussion of the eoliths of the Kent Plateau, England, that high river terraces are older than lower terraces. The stone implements found by Lohr and Dunning appeared to be of Middle Pleistocene age, which would be anomalous for North America.

Lohr and Dunning showed the tools they collected to E. B. Renaud, a professor of anthropology at the University of Denver. Renaud, who was also director of the Archaeological Survey of the High Western Plains, then organized an expedition to the region where the tools were found. During the summer of 1933, Renaud’s party collected specimens from the ancient river terraces between the towns of Granger and Lyman.

Renaud, who had been trained in Europe under Henri Breuil, characterized the implements as similar to those of the early European Paleolithic (Minshall 1989, p. 86). Among the specimens were crude handaxes and other flaked implements representative of those frequently attributed to Homo erectus. In 1933, Renaud said the tools would “suggest a cultural complex in America similar to that of Europe, and also a possible great antiquity for these artifacts” (Minshall 1989, p. 86).

The reaction from anthropologists in America was negative. Renaud wrote in 1938 that his report had been “harshly criticized by one of the irreconcilable opponents of the antiquity of man in America, who had seen neither the sites nor the specimens” (Minshall 1989, p. 87).

In response, Renaud mounted three more expeditions, collecting more tools, which he studied carefully, comparing them with artifacts of similar age from France and England. Although many experts from outside America agreed with him that the tools represented a genuine industry, American scientists have continued their opposition to the present day.

The most common reaction is to explain that the crude Paleolithic specimens are in fact blanks (unworked flakes) dropped fairly recently by Indian toolmakers. Opposing this hypothesis, Herbert L. Minshall (1989, p. 87) stated that the tools “show heavy stream abrasion” even though they are “fixed in desert pavements on ancient flood plain surfaces that could not have had streams for over 150,000 years.” In 1938, E. H. Stephens, a geologist at the Colorado School of Mines, visited the sites where the tools had been found. According to Stephens, the high flood plain terraces dated to the Illinoian glacial period (Minshall 1989, p. 88). This would mean they were formed from 125,000 to 190,000 years ago, and perhaps even further back in time (Minshall 1989, p. 88).

If found at a site of similar age in Africa or Europe or China, stone tools like those found by Renaud would not be a source of controversy. But their presence in Wyoming is certainly very much unexpected at 125,000 to 190,000 years ago. The view now dominant is that humans entered North America not earlier than about 30,000 years ago at most. And before that there was no migration of any other hominid.

Renaud’s discoveries were therefore either ignored or explained away. Stephens and others suggested that the abrasion on the implements was the result of windblown sand rather than water. In 1957, Marie Wormington stated: “It is true that many of Renaud’s artifacts were found on high terraces and showed definite signs of abrasion. If it could be proven that this was the result of water action it might provide some evidence of age, for a considerable length of time has elapsed since water last reached these terraces. However, if the smoothing was due to wind erosion it provides no evidence of real antiquity” ( Minshall 1989, pp. 89–90).

In reply Minshall (1989, p. 90) observed: “The specimens were abraded on all sides, top and bottom, ventral and dorsal surfaces equally. That is extremely unlikely for windblown dust to achieve on heavy stone tools lying in heavy gravel but expectable on objects subjected to surf or heavy stream action. Having examined thousands of stone tools on desert surfaces, I can testify that all-over wind abrasion is rare under any circumstances, is only present on specimens lying in loose sand, and never appears on heavy gravel inclusions.”

Minshall (1989, p. 91) also noted that the tools were covered with a thick mineral coating of “desert varnish.” This varnish, which takes a long time to accumulate, was thicker than that on tools found on lower, and hence more recent, terraces in the same region.

The cumulative evidence appears to rule out the suggestion that the implements discovered by Renaud were blanks dropped fairly recently on the high desert floodplain terraces. But Minshall (1989, p. 87) noted: “The reaction of American scientists to Renaud’s interpretation of the Black’s Fork collections as evidences of great antiquity was, and has continued to be for over half a century, one of general skepticism and disbelief, even though probably not one in a thousand archaeologists has visited the site nor seen the artifacts.”

According to Minshall, the tools found by Renaud were the work of Homo erectus, who may have entered North America during a time of lowered sea levels in the Middle Pleistocene. Minshall believed this was also true of stone tools found at other locations of similar age, such as Calico, and his own excavation at Buchanan Canyon, both in southern California.

Minshall was, however, skeptical of another Middle Pleistocene site. In January 1990, Minshall told one of us (Thompson) that he was not inclined to accept as genuine the technologically advanced stone tools found at Hueyatlaco in Mexico (Section 5.4.4). Hueyatlaco was determined to be about 250,000 years old—roughly contemporary with Black’s Fork, Calico, and other sites with primitive stone tools that Minshall was prepared to accept. But the advanced stone tools found at Hueyatlaco were characteristic of Homo sapiens sapiens, and were thus not easy to attribute to Homo erectus. Minshall’s response to Hueyatlaco was to suggest, without supporting evidence, that the stratigraphy had been misinterpreted and that the animal bones used to date the site, as well as the sophisticated stone artifacts, had been “washed onto the site from different sources” (Minshall 1989, p. 93). This shows that researchers who accept some anomalies may rule out others using the double standard method.

Advanced Paleoliths and Neoliths

Having reviewed the crudest of the anomalously old stone tools (the eoliths) and then the crude paleoliths, we shall now proceed to examine advanced paleoliths and neoliths. Here once more we face difficulties in classification, as many of the discoveries we shall be considering involve implements of various levels of sophistication. The deciding factor for including a group of implements in the category of advanced paleoliths is that a number of specimens represent a clear technical advance over the crude paleoliths discussed in the last chapter. For example, the stone tool industries discovered by Florentino and Carlos Ameghino in Argentina include many implements that might be classed among the eoliths or crude paleoliths; nevertheless, they also include implements of a higher order, such as presumed projectile points and bolas. In this chapter, we shall first discuss the discoveries of Florentino Ameghino, as well as the attacks upon them by A. Hrdlicka and W. H. Holmes. Next we shall consider the finds of Carlos Ameghino, which provide some of the most solid and convincing evidence for a fully human presence in the Pliocene. We shall then proceed to anomalous finds made at sites in North America, including Hueyatlaco, Mexico; Sandia Cave, New Mexico; Sheguiandah, Ontario; Lewisville, Texas; and Timlin, New York. We shall conclude with the Neolithic finds from the Tertiary gold-bearing gravels of the California gold rush country.

5.1 Discoveries Of Florentino Ameghino In Argentina

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Florentino Ameghino thoroughly investigated and described the stratigraphy and fossil fauna of the coastal provinces of Argentina. He thereby became an internationally known and respected paleontologist. Ameghino’s controversial discoveries of stone implements, carved bones, and other signs of a human presence in Argentina during the Pliocene, Miocene, and earlier periods served to increase his worldwide fame.

5.1.1 Monte Hermoso (Middle and Early Pliocene)

Among the most significant examples of human work reported by Florentino Ameghino are those he discovered in 1887 at Monte Hermoso, on the coast of Argentina about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northeast of Bahia Blanca. Here is how F. Ameghino (1908, p. 105) recounted the circumstances of his first discoveries at Monte Hermoso, which were made in a formation he regarded as Miocene: “During an exploratory visit, which lasted from the end of February to the beginning of March of 1887, we had the good fortune to find remains that demonstrated the existence of an intelligent being contemporary with . . . extinct fauna at this site. These vestiges consisted of fragments of tierra cocida (burned earth), fogones (hearths), escoria (glassy, melted earth), bones that had been split and burned, and worked stone. These discoveries caused me such surprise and appeared so important that I immediately wrote up my impressions and sent them to the journal La Nación, which published them on March 10,

1887.”

In another description of the initial discoveries made at Monte Hermoso, written in 1889, F. Ameghino (1911, p. 74) commented: “I was occupied in extracting part of a skeleton of Macrauchenia antiqua [a camellike Pliocene mammal] when I was surprised to see a piece of yellow-red stone among the bones. I picked it up and immediately recognized it as an irregular fragment of quartzite, displaying positive and negative bulbs of percussion, a striking platform, and eraillure. These features indicated in an irrefutable manner that I had found a stone object worked by an intelligent being during the Miocene period. I continued my work and soon found similar objects. Doubt was not possible, and on the same day, March 4, 1887, I communicated to La Nación the discovery of objects evidently worked by an intelligent being in the Miocene formations of Argentina.” F. Ameghino (1911, p. 74) added: “Later, at my instigation, the Museum of La Plata sent to the same place, for the purpose of collecting fossils, the preparator Santiago Pozzi, who found objects similar to mine.”

Summarizing the Monte Hermoso evidence, F. Ameghino (1911, pp. 52–53) said: “The presence of man, or rather his precursor, at this ancient site, is demonstrated by the presence of crudely worked flints, like those of the Miocene of Portugal, carved bones, burned bones, and burned earth proceeding from ancient fireplaces, in which earth containing a substantial quantity of sand came in contact with fire so intense that it was partially vitrified.”

Regarding the fireplaces, F. Ameghino (1911, p. 52) stated: “In this part of the formation there are no traces of volcanic activity, nor deposits of lignite, nor any vestiges of vegetation that might have sustained accidental fires with the rare property of occurring at intervals consecutive with the successive depositing of the strata at the site. Furthermore, these fireplaces, by the rarest of coincidences, are accompanied by burned bones. The temperature of the fires was so high, that in the pieces of burned earth there have formed spherical cavities, resulting from the expansion of air or the special gases produced by combustion of the substances contained in the earth.”

F. Ameghino, who was, like most scientists of his time, committed to the concept of evolution, wrote: “The vestiges belong to such a distant epoch that I do not dare to consider them as proof of the existence of man, but rather as remains of ‘a being more or less resembling man, directly ancestral to man of the modern type’” (1908, p. 105). After two years of research, Ameghino decided the intelligent being that made the artifacts at Monte Hermoso was of a different genus than modern humans and their immediate ancestors. Among the fossils recovered from Monte Hermoso was a hominid atlas (the first bone of the spinal column, at the base of the skull). Ameghino thought it displayed primitive features, but A. Hrdlicka judged it to be fully human (Section 6.2.4). This strongly suggests that beings of modern human type were responsible for the artifacts and signs of fire discovered in the Montehermosan formation.

Although Ameghino thought the Montehermosan formation to be Miocene, modern authorities place it in the Early Pliocene. According to E. Anderson (1984, p. 41) the stratigraphic sequence of the Argentine coastal region can be dated in the following way: the Ensenadan at .4 –1.5 million years, the Uquian at 1.5–2.5 million years, and the Chapadmalalan at 2.5–3.0 million years. The Montehermosan precedes the Chapadmalalan in the general Argentine sequence, and thus it would be over 3 million years old.

Other authorities (Marshall et al. 1982, p. 1352) give a slightly different chronology, placing the Ensenadan formation at .4 –1.0 million years, the Uquian at 1–2 million years, the Chapadmalalan at 2–3 million years, and the Montehermosan at 3–5 million years. A potassium-argon date of 3.59 million years has been obtained for materials from the Montehermosan formation (Savage and Russell 1983, p. 347).

The antiquity of the Montehermosan formation is further supported by the character of its fossil mammalian bones. Paleontologists believe that during the early part of the Tertiary, North America and South America were separated by water and developed distinct mammalian populations. For example, huge ground sloths not found in North America populated South America. When a land bridge eventually formed, North American mammals migrated south, and South American mammals moved north. Modern authorities (Marshall et al. 1982, p. 1351) say that the Panamanian land bridge, which allowed the exchange of mammals between North America and South America, appeared 3 million years ago, just after the period represented by the Montehermosan formation. According to Ameghino (1912, p. 64), the fauna of Monte Hermoso reveals “the complete absence of North American types.” Ameghino’s discoveries in the Montehermosan formation—including stone tools, modified animal bones, signs of fire, and human skeletal remains—thus suggest a human presence in Argentina more than 3 million years ago.

5.1.2 Hrdlicka Attempts to Discredit Ameghino

Ameghino’s discoveries at Monte Hermoso and elsewhere in the Tertiary formations of Argentina attracted the interest of several European scientists, especially those who were attempting to demonstrate the existence of Tertiary humans on the basis of the European discoveries discussed in preceding chapters.

Ales Hrdlicka, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution, also took great, though unsympathetic, interest in Ameghino’s discoveries. Hrdlicka found the degree of support they enjoyed among professional scientists, particularly in Europe, dismaying. In addition to being opposed to the existence of Tertiary humans, Hrdlicka was also extremely hostile to any reports of a human presence in the Americas earlier than a few thousand years before the present. After building an immense reputation by discrediting, with questionable arguments, all such reports from North America, Hrdlicka then turned his attention to the much-discussed South American discoveries of Florentino Ameghino. Hrdlicka was most concerned about the human skeletal remains reported by Ameghino (Sections 6.1.5, 6.2.4), but he also scrutinized Ameghino’s discoveries of stone tools and other cultural remains.

In 1910, Hrdlicka visited Argentina, and Florentino Ameghino himself accompanied him to Monte Hermoso. Hrdlicka took an interesting approach to the discoveries that were made at that site. In his book Early Man in South America (1912), Hrdlicka barely mentioned the stone implements and other evidence of human occupation previously uncovered by Ameghino in the Montehermosan formation.

“In 1887,” wrote Hrdlicka (1912, p. 346), “F. Ameghino announced the discovery, in the barranca of Monte Hermoso, a low cliff facing the sea in the central part of the coast of the Province of Buenos Aires, of vestiges of ‘a being, more or less closely related to actual man, who was a direct forerunner of the existing humanity.’ These vestiges consisted of fragments of ‘tierra cocida, fogónes (fire places)—some of the latter vitrified and having the appearance of scoria—split and burnt bones (of animals) and worked stones.’”

Hrdlicka said nothing more about these particular discoveries of Ameghino—not even to dispute them. Instead, he devoted dozens of pages to casting doubt on subsequent, and less convincing, discoveries Ameghino made in the Puelchean, a more recent formation overlying the Pliocene Montehermosan at Monte Hermoso.

The Puelchean formation would, according to modern nomenclature, be included within the Uquian. Savage and Russell (1983) stated that the Uquian comprises several formations including the “Pulchense.” The Puelchean would thus fall within the Uquian time range, estimated at 1.5–2.5 million years (Anderson 1984) or 1–2 million years (Marshall et al. 1982).

Apparently, Hrdlicka believed his lengthy refutation of the finds from the Puelchean formation was sufficient to discredit the finds in the far older Montehermosan formation at the same site. This tactic is often used to cast doubt on anomalous discoveries—criticize the weakest evidence in detail and ignore the strongest evidence as much as possible. Nevertheless, there is much evidence to suggest that the Puelchean finds, as well as the Montehermosan finds, were genuine.

In and of themselves, the Puelchean discoveries at Monto Hermoso are not of paramount interest to us. If accepted, they merely add to our already abundant stock of evidence for a human presence in the Early Pleistocene. But as a well-documented example of how scientists treat anomalous evidence, the case is significant. We shall therefore take the trouble to examine in detail the shortcomings of Hrdlicka’s attempts to discredit the Puelchean implements.

As mentioned above, Hrdlicka and F. Ameghino together visited the Monte Hermoso site. Hrdlicka reproduced an English translation of Ameghino’s report of their excursion. Ameghino stated: “On the 11th of June, in the afternoon, we visited Monte Hermoso, where with difficulty we were able to stay a couple of hours. . . . The deposits of sands and sandy ground which rest above the Hermosean and constitute the Puelchean stratum, formerly visible over a small space of only about 40 meters [about 131 feet], now appear exposed along the barranca for several hundred meters and also to a greater extent vertically” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 105). Ameghino collected a number of implements from “the superior part of this formation” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 105).

The stone implements recovered by Ameghino from the upper section of the Puelchean formation at Monte Hermoso were very crude. Judging from his descriptions, they appear to resemble the pebble tools of the Oldowan industry of East Africa. Ameghino characterized the Puelchean specimens as fragments of “water-worn pebbles of quartzite” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 105). To Ameghino, it was clear that the implements had been deliberately struck from quartzite pebbles: “The larger number of these fragments preserve still on one or two of their faces the natural surface of the rolled pebble, and on this surface are always observed scratches, bruises, abrasions, dints, etc., produced by strong and repeated blows given with other stones” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 105). Furthermore, the sharp cutting edges of the implements, according to Ameghino, showed “irregularities, denticulation, and other effects produced by use” (Hrdlicka Ameghino noted: “these broken quartzites, however rustic they may appear, are surely the work of man or his precursor, for there can not be opposed to them the objections which are being made to the eoliths. In this case there can be no question of pressure by the rocks, of shocks produced by stones driven by water or due to falling stones, because, I repeat, they are loose in the sand, and are all separated from one another” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 106).

Hrdlicka interpreted the finds in another way. Significantly, he did not dispute the human manufacture of even the crudest specimens. Instead, Hrdlicka, an anthropologist with little experience of South American paleontology, offered a different analysis of the stratigraphy than did Ameghino, a professional paleontologist who had devoted decades to the study of the formations in question.

Hrdlicka (1912, p. 118) said in his book: “The writer found that the Monte Hermoso formation exposed in the now famous barranca was covered by more recent material. On the old formation rests a layer of volcanic ash, then some stratified sand, while the highest part is formed of a stratum of gravelly sand continuous with the base of the sand dune situated above and a little farther inland from the edge of the barranca.” Ameghino had said the volcanic ash, stratified sand, and gravelly sand comprised the Puelchean formation, overlying the Pliocene Montehermosan. Hrdlicka disputed the inclusion of the uppermost layer of gravelly sand within the superior part of the Puelchean formation. He observed: “The last-named surface material [the gravelly sand] is unstratified and somewhat packed, but in no way consolidated, and bears every evidence of being very recent. It crumbles over the clearly marked, ancient Monte Hermosean deposit, and in falling down becomes here and there lodged on the shelves or in the depressions of the old formation” (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 118 –119).

Hrdlicka (1912, p. 119) then recalled: “In common with Professor Ameghino the writer found in such crumbled down material some large irregular and entirely fresh-looking fragments or chips of quartzite which indicate plainly the work of man. One of the heavier fragments had been employed as a hammer, portions of the periphery being distinctly worn by use. In addition, he found on one of the upper ledges a well-finished scraper of jasper [a variety of quartz]. Subsequently he extracted a number of quartzite chips or fragments from the more gravelly part of the uppermost deposit itself, within 18 inches of the surface.”

It is significant that Hrdlicka reported he extracted stone artifacts not just from crumbled material on ledges, but from within the upper deposit of gravelly sand itself. The fact that they were recovered a full 18 inches from the surface, upon which the recent sand dunes rested, shows they were an integral part of a distinct stratum. Ameghino said the stratum from which he (and Hrdlicka, it seems) took implements was part of the Puelchean formation, which according to modern opinion could be from 1.0 to 2.5 million years old.

5.1.3 Willis Stacks the Geological Deck

Hrdlicka, perhaps worried that his visit to Monte Hermoso had led him into a deadly ambush, wanted to suggest that the implements found there, by himself as well as Ameghino, were recent. As we have seen, he attempted to do this by casting doubt on the age of the stratum from which the tools had been taken. Hrdlicka received support in this regard from his companion, the geologist Bailey Willis.

Willis wrote: “Monte Hermoso is a dune on the southern coast of Buenos Aires. It surmounts a short section of the Pampean terrane, which is exposed by wave erosion in a low bluff along the shore. First described by Darwin, it has since been visited by many geologists who have studied the Pampean. . . . The Pampean terrane, which forms the base of the section, contains a notable fauna and the geologic age of the formation has been much discussed. General opinion places it among the lowest or as the lowest of the divisions of the Pampean and Ameghino regards it as Miocene” (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 361–362). This lower Pampean formation is the Montehermosan, now regarded as Middle to Early Pliocene, and above it lies the Puelchean, which could be Early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene. According to Florentino Ameghino, the layer from which both he and Hrdlicka extracted stone implements during their excursion to Monte Hermoso represented the “superior part” of the Puelchean formation (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 105).

Describing the Puelchean, Willis stated: “The Puelchean consists of the stratified, slightly indurated, gray sands or sandstone, both above and below the volcanic ash, marked by very striking cross stratification and uniformity of gray color and grain. The writer regards it as an eolian formation. Later in the season, when studying the section exposed along the Rio Colorado from the delta to Pichi-Mahuida, he observed a very similar sandstone, which might be correlated with the Puelchean on grounds of lithologic identity. It is a thick widespread formation which is regarded as a Tertiary sandstone. The Puelchean, if the same, represents only a thin edge of it” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 363).

We may note that the Puelchean sands, which Willis, with some hesitation, accepted as Tertiary, are characterized by their gray color, quite different from the underlying Montehermosan loess, which is yellow-brown. Willis then described the so-called recent topmost layer, apparently included by Ameghino in the Puelchean formation, as “a layer of 15 to 40 cm. [6 to 16 inches] thick composed of gray sand, angular pieces of gray sandstone and pebbles, some fractured by man” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 362).

Willis elsewhere remarked that the top layer of gray implement-bearing sand is separated from the lower layers of the Puelchean by an “unconformity by erosion” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 363). An unconformity is a lack of continuity in deposition between strata in contact with each other, corresponding to a period of nondeposition, weathering, or, as in this case, erosion. The unconformity may represent a long break in time, or a very short one. So by itself, the presence of an unconformity by erosion should not allow Willis to so greatly separate the top layer of gray gravelly sand from the underlying formation. He appears to have used the mere presence of stone tools to perform the desired operation, which was necessary to save Hrdlicka the deadly embarrassment of having discovered stone implements in an unexpectedly old formation in South America. For judging how much time might be represented between the formations lying above and below the line of unconformity, the surest indicator is faunal remains. Willis, however, did not mention them. It is thus unclear how much time might be represented by the unconformity.

Willis then stated about the upper layer of gray gravelly sand and the underlying Puelchean: “The two are identical in constitution; they are both eolian and may exhibit similar structures; the Recent formation may be consolidated almost or quite to the firmness of the older one. The unconformity between them suffices to establish the difference in age and is unmistakable when clearly shown in section” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 363).

Let us carefully consider just what Willis is asking us to accept. First of all he admitted that the two strata are identical in composition, which would seem to be very much in favor of Ameghino, who considered the top layer to be part of the Puelchean. And, given the evidence, why not?

But for argument’s sake, let us accept Willis’s version. The unconformity by erosion that he proposed would mark a gap of 1–2 million years, as the upper gray layer is supposedly recent, while the gray sand layer below it, identical in composition, is referred to the Early Pleistocene–Late Pliocene Uquian formation.

Another, and perhaps more likely scenario, would be that the two gray sand layers, identical in composition, are separated by an unconformity representing a relatively short episode of erosion in the Early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene.

As mentioned previously, Willis could have accurately determined how long a period was represented by the unconformity only by examining animal fossils above and below the line of unconformity. If the fossils in the layer above the unconformity were all recent, only then would he have been justified in concluding that this layer was recent. But Willis did not make the slightest attempt to establish this. In the absence of such an age determination (which today might be made by radiometric methods), the implement-bearing layer could very well be about the same age as the Puelchean formation below the unconformity, which it greatly resembles in content and texture.

Here is how Willis attempted to eliminate this alternative: “hand-chipped stones associated with the sands would mark them as recent, such objects being common in the belt of sand dunes which the Indians were in the habit of using as a line of march and cover in attacking Argentine settlements” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 363). Willis simply assumed that the stone tools were recent and that the layer in which they were found also had to be recent. It would appear, however, that the implement-bearing gray gravelly sand may actually belong to the Puelchean formation, as Ameghino believed, and that the stone implements found there could be as much as 2.0 or even 2.5 million years old.

In short, the question of the age of the implement-bearing stratum below the dune sand at Monte Hermoso remains open. Ameghino’s assertion that it belonged to the Puelchean was not conclusive, but neither was the attempt by Willis and Hrdlicka to assign it to the most recent historical times. Since the stratigraphic units in question contain layers of volcanic ash, their ages could be investigated by applying the potassium-argon test, which is specifically used for dating volcanic material. It may also be possible to make a determination by conducting a more thorough search for faunal evidence. In short, the question is still open and should still be a matter of active research. But the report by Willis and Hrdlicka succeeded in closing the books on this intriguing case.

5.1.4 A Demolition Job by W. H. Holmes

Samples of stone tools from Monte Hermoso and other sites on the Argentine coast were sent by Hrdlicka to Washington, where W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution examined them. Concerning the attribution of any great antiquity to the implements, Holmes was as hostile as Hrdlicka or Willis. In opening his report, included by Hrdlicka (1912, p. 125) in Early Man in South America, Holmes stated: “No attempt is made in these notes to consider or weigh the published data relating to the stone implements of Argentina. The collections at hand are classified and briefly described, and such conclusions are drawn as seem warranted by their character and manner of occurrence.” In other words, Holmes plainly intended to completely ignore the reports of Ameghino and other professional scientists, who had given detailed evidence for the Early Pleistocene or Pliocene age of the stone artifacts.

We may recall that Hrdlicka, in the company of Ameghino, personally extracted stone tools at a depth of 1.5 feet in the upper layer of the Early Pleistocene–Late Pliocene Puelchean formation at Monte Hermoso (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 104). This fact was subsequently reported by Ameghino in a scientific publication. Hrdlicka and his associates were anxious to discredit this report. If accepted, Ameghino’s report on the discoveries he and Hrdlicka made together at Monte Hermoso would have contradicted the entire substance of the book Hrdlicka was then writing. Hrdlicka’s book was specifically designed to prove that the only early inhabitants of South America had been the Indians, who had arrived within the past few thousand years.

We detect a slight sense of panic in the following passages, hastily added by Holmes to the end of his report on the stone tools from Argentina. Holmes wrote: “Subsequent to the completion of the foregoing pages Doctor Hrdlicka drew attention to certain specimens collected by him along the barranca at Monte Hermoso, which had escaped particular notice on the writer’s part. Attention was directed also to a brief pamphlet just received from Dr. Ameghino, describing a series of similar specimens collected by him while examining this same barranca in company with Doctor Hrdlicka. Considering the nature of the specimens and the manner of their occurrence, the observations and interpretations of Doctor Ameghino are so remarkable that the writer is constrained to refer to them in some detail” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 149). Otherwise, Hrdlicka’s whole project would be shot to pieces. A report showing that Hrdlicka had, in the company of Ameghino, himself extracted undisputed stone tools from an Early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene formation would in itself have destroyed everything Hrdlicka had tried to accomplish by publishing Early Man in South America, which was nothing less than a polite but thorough demolition of Ameghino’s work.

Holmes wrote: “The objects in question are about 20 freshly-fractured chips and fragments of coarse, partially fire-reddened quartzite, a larger fragment of the same material used as a hammer, and a knife or scraper of jasper. All were found in a surface layer of gravelly sand capping the Monte Hermoso barranca, or on the broken face of the barranca itself. The latter were picked up on the ledges of the bluff face, where they had cascaded from above. The jasper knife or scraper is of a type familiar in the coast region as well as in Patagonia” (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 149–150). It should, however, be kept in mind that it is principally the objects found in situ that concern us. The implements found lying on ledges might very well have been recent.

Holmes suggested in every possible way that all of the objects, even those found in situ, were of recent origin, pointing to their discovery in a “surface formation.” He also characterized most of the pieces of stone not as implements but rather as the “shop refuse” of recent tribes (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 150). This latter conclusion was apparently an attempt to contradict Ameghino’s view that the crude nature of the objects was supportive of their being of extremely great antiquity.

Holmes stated: “The inclusion of such objects in superficial deposits which are subject to rearrangement by the winds and by gravity is a perfectly normal and commonplace occurrence” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 150). As we have seen, it is not certain that the top layer of Ameghino’s Puelchean formation, in which implements were found by Hrdlicka at a depth of 1.5 feet, should be classified as such a superficial deposit, especially one that could be rearranged by the wind. Even the large dune surmounting the stratum in which the implements were found was covered with grass and fixed (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 363).

Getting to the real heart of the matter, Holmes stated: “Such differences as may arise between the writer’s interpretation and those of Doctor Ameghino are probably due in large measure to the fact that the points of view assumed in approaching the problem of culture and antiquity are widely at variance. Doctor Ameghino takes for granted the presence in Argentina of peoples of great antiquity and extremely primitive forms of culture and so does not hesitate to assign finds of objects displaying primitive characteristics to unidentified peoples and to great antiquity, or to assume their manufacture by methods supposed to characterize the dawn of the manual arts. To him all this is a simple and reasonable procedure” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 150). This is not a fair characterization of Ameghino’s work, for it is quite clear that in addition to the form of tools he also took into consideration their geological position, which for him served as the chief indicator of their age. If one finds stone implements in geological strata of a certain age, one is certainly justified in attributing them to a people that lived at that time. It would appear that accusations of bias and preconception are more properly directed at those who, like Holmes, Hrdlicka, and Willis, assume from the start that the human occupation of North America and South America goes back no further than a few thousand years, and who therefore dismiss, in various unfair ways, the extensive evidence that indicates a much more ancient human presence.

Holmes directly revealed his prejudice: “The writer finds it more logical to begin with the known populations of the region whose culture is familiar to us and which furnishes lithic artifacts ranging in form from the simplest fractured stone to the well-made and polished implement, and prefers to interpret the finds made, unless sufficient evidence is offered to the contrary, in the illuminating light of known conditions and of well-ascertained facts rather than to refer them to hypothetic races haled up from the distant past” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 150). Scientists are certainly entitled to their predispositions, which play a covert but substantial role in their supposedly objective evaluation of evidence. In this case, however, Holmes’s overt preferences appear to have played too exclusive and dominant a role. To be sure, Holmes offered the condition that Ameghino’s stone implements must be attributed to modern Indians unless “sufficient evidence is offered to the contrary.” But what is sufficient contrary evidence? For someone with a strong negative bias, no contrary evidence will prove sufficient.

Holmes stated in his report: “Nothing short of perfectly authenticated finds of objects of art in undisturbed formations of fully established geologic age will justify science in accepting the theory of Quaternary or Tertiary occupants for Argentina” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 149). Ameghino, of course, fully believed he had satisfied these criteria. Paleontological truth, it would appear, is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, as we have documented previously, objects of human industry have elsewhere been discovered by professional scientists in undisturbed formations of great antiquity, and yet reasons were still found to reject them. For example, we have Ribeiro’s testimony that he extracted flint implements from within the interior of Miocene limestone formations in Portugal (Section 4.1), and yet opponents nevertheless found ample reason to disagree with his interpretation of their age. It seems clear that Holmes was selectively requiring an impossibly stringent standard of proof for evidence that challenged his preferred views.

5.1.5 Other Finds by F. Ameghino

What do modern authorities have to say about Florentino Ameghino? Not much, because most modern authorities will not even have heard of Ameghino or his discoveries—both buried many decades ago. But if we go back to the 1950s, we can find some references to Ameghino by one of the scientists who did the burying—Marcellin Boule, author of the classic text Fossil Men. After pointing out that Ameghino, like his contemporaries in Europe, had discovered stone implements and other evidence for a human presence in the Pliocene and Miocene, Boule added: “Ameghino also recorded facts of the same kind from much more ancient deposits dating, according to him, from the Oligocene and even from the Eocene. He claimed that they were rudimentary implements manufactured and used by the small apes of these remote periods, the supposed ancestors of the human kind. These statements are not even worthy of discussion” (Boule and Vallois 1957, p. 491). Boule may be commended for his candor, which demonstrates the parochialism sometimes manifest in the scientific mentality. In all fairness, why should not evidence presented by a professional scientist at least be considered and discussed, even if it does completely contradict accepted views?

Of course, this does not mean that one should uncritically accept everything Ameghino said. For example, Ameghino wanted to attribute some of his older stone tools to primitive apelike precursors of modern humans. But as we have several times noted, even the simplest types of tools are made and used today by culturally primitive yet fully human peoples. Furthermore, there is from parts of the world other than Argentina abundant evidence that points to a fully human presence throughout the Tertiary. One would therefore be fully justified in leaving open the possibility that humans of the fully modern type were responsible for the manufacture of any of the tools found by Ameghino in Argentina, including the oldest.

Indeed, one of the main tactics employed by Hrdlicka against Ameghino was to show that the fossil bones of presumed Tertiary human precursors found by Ameghino were in fact identical to those of morphologically modern humans (Sections 6.1.5, 6.2.4). For Hrdlicka, who firmly believed in the recent origin of the human species, this meant that Ameghino’s fossils were also recent. But it could also mean something else, namely, that the skeletal remains were from the Tertiary, as Ameghino so ably maintained, and were, as Hrdlicka so ably demonstrated, anatomically modern.

The complete original reports of the finds Ameghino regarded as Eocene and Oligocene have proved very difficult to track down. As of this writing, we have bibliographical references giving the titles of these publications, which were small pamphlets of 8 pages each, apparently presented as papers at a scientific conference (F. Ameghino 1910a; 1910b). Ameghino did, however, refer to the discoveries described in these two papers in an article that appeared in 1912. “Recently,” he wrote, “I have published a report on new materials, very well substantiated, found in the Entrerrean formation” (F. Ameghino 1912, p. 74). According to Ameghino, the Entrerrean formation could be assigned to the Late Oligocene, or perhaps the Early Miocene. He then mentioned a second report about discoveries in a formation he regarded as Late Eocene, the Santacrucian.

Today the Santacrucian formation, which Ameghino considered Late Eocene, is referred to the Early and Middle Miocene (Marshall et al. 1977, p. 1326). It would thus be about 15–25 million years old. We have not encountered any mention of the Entrerrean in the current literature we have examined, but since this formation comes before the Monte Hermosan, it would be at least Late Miocene, over 5 million years old.

In the two reports published in 1910, Ameghino had apparently discussed only stone tools. Afterwards, Ameghino found other signs of a human presence. F. Ameghino (1912, p. 72) therefore wrote: “I can announce that I possess from these two formations even newer materials still more demonstrative than those I have published. Regarding this new material, I am not bringing into consideration more eoliths, which we find in our formations at the close of the Eocene and which differ from those of Boncelles in Belgium in that they are of much smaller size. Instead I base my assertions on bones that have been incised, cut, scraped, and split and on the vestiges of fire, found in the same beds as the bones.” The modified bones and signs of intentional use of fire found along with stone tools at these two sites support the idea that anatomically modern humans may have been present in Argentina prior to the time of the Montehermosan, which is considered to be 3–5 million years old.

5.1.6 Evidence for the Intentional Use of Fire

Let us now consider in detail an important category of evidence accompanying Ameghino’s discoveries of stone tools—signs of intentional use of fire. At various locations, along with stone tools, Florentino Ameghino discovered, remnants of hearths, in the form of burned earth (tierra cocida), slag (escoria), charcoal, and burned animal bones. This combination of evidence tends to strongly confirm the view that the tools were manufactured by human beings in the distant past. In some cases, Ameghino interpreted the presence of scoria (slag) and burned earth as signs of grass fires intentionally set by primitive hunters.

Ameghino gave great importance to his discoveries of burned earth and slag. While in Argentina, Hrdlicka and Willis therefore collected many such specimens. At Miramar, for example, Willis found broken chunks of red tierra cocida and pieces of heavy black scoria 8–10 centimeters [3–4 inches] in diameter, all of which “occurred in the undisturbed Pampean” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 47).

Some scientists thought the Miramar tierra cocida and slag were the product of volcanoes. But Whitman Cross of the U.S. Geological Survey had conducted studies of the slag and burned earth. Willis stated: “According to Mr. Cross . . . they are probably not volcanic” ( Hrdlicka 1912, p. 47). Some authors suggested grass fires as the cause. Cross tested this idea by burning the most common Pampas grass (cortadera) on samples of earth, but this produced only a very thin layer of hardened earth, with no bricklike tierra cocida or melted scoria. But Willis, while visiting the Rio Colorado region of Argentina, observed another kind of grass, called esparto, that grows more deeply into the earth, and saw a place where it had burned. At this location, he observed one could pick up pieces of brick-colored earth up to 10 centimeters [4 inches] in diameter. Some of the pieces were penetrated with grass roots and carbonized grass, as in the case of some of the specimens described by F. Ameghino (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 46– 48).

In his reports about Monte Hermoso and other Argentine sites, Ameghino had noted the presence of similar specimens. He said that Dr. Gustave Steinmann came to Argentina during an expedition to South America, and in 1906 visited the barrancas of the Atlantic coast near Cabo Corrientes, accompanied by Santiago Roth and Robert Lehmann-Nitsche. F. Ameghino (1908, p. 106) stated: “These gentlemen discovered in the barrancas pieces of burned and partially vitrified earth, reporting specimens resembling or identical to those from the beds at Monte Hermoso, which I had attributed to the action of man and presented as proof of his existence in that distant epoch.”

But Steinmann believed that humans had appeared in South America only in recent times. F. Ameghino (1908, p. 106) noted: “In a report presented during the course of the past year by Dr. Steinmann at the Geological Society of Berlin, he stated that these reputed vestiges of Homo americanus were in fact natural productions that appeared to be caused artificially only in the imaginations of recent immigrants of the species Homo europaeus. According to Dr. Steinmann, the specimens were pieces of volcanic lava which had arrived there through the air or more probably by means of water currents.” The nearest volcanoes, however, were a thousand kilometers (621 miles) from the Atlantic coast, in the Cordillera, the mountain range running the length of western Argentina. Still, Steinmann believed that small pieces of scoria were transported by rivers.

F. Ameghino (1911, pp. 68– 69) responded: “Although all the strange affirmations of M. Steinmann will be refuted in detail in a monograph I am preparing, the facts have been so misrepresented by him that I cannot restrain myself from remarking that all that he has said in connection with the relative antiquity of man in South America and Europe is a natural result of his preconceived ideas. For Steinmann, the presence in true geological formations of scoria is an illusion, and the supposed formations do not actually exist. The pieces of scoria he encountered may be no bigger than nuts or somewhat bigger. But I have found masses of burned earth weighing many kilograms, the transport of which from the Cordillera to the places in which they are found, by means of movement through the air or by rivers, is impossible. Contrary to his statements, the scoria are accompanied by, that is to say, they are embedded in the same strata with, other vestiges of the activity of man (burned and broken bones, etc.).”

F. Ameghino (1908, p. 106) further stated about Steinmann’s hypothesis: “Fantastic though it may be, this opinion is not completely new; I mentioned it 18 years ago, but did not consider it worth much discussion. Dr. Steinmann, in characterizing these vestiges as volcanic lava, has proceeded with excessive haste. What he has characterized as volcanic lava is a product resulting from the burning of fires intentionally set in dry grass.” Ameghino noted that modern Indians sometimes burn dry Pampas grass to drive out small game for hunting, producing fused earth, which, because of the holes left by the roots, resembles lava. He held that the ancient Tertiary inhabitants of Argentina had done the same (F. Ameghino 1908, p. 107). Of course, one could also propose that the grass fires could have been started by lightning strikes.

But these light and porous specimens of burned earth were not the only kind found by Ameghino. Other specimens, from a variety of sites along the coast, were harder and more solid. Noting this distinction in his own research, Hrdlicka (1912, p. 50) stated: “Small particles and occasionally larger masses of tierra cocida, were found by Mr. Willis or the writer in a number of localities along the coast from northeast of Miramar to Monte Hermoso, and were relatively abundant in the deposits exposed in the barrancas at the former locality. They occur at different depths from the surface, to below the sea level at ordinary low tide. The pieces collected are all compact, with the exception of two or three that show on one side a transition to scoria. While there is a general resemblance, they all differ in aspect and weight from the very porous, light products of the burning of the esparto grass, collected by Mr. Willis on the Colorado.”

As we have seen, Ameghino thought some of the compact pieces of scoria and burned earth were the remnants of fogones, or fireplaces, rather than grass fires, which may, it seems, have been set naturally rather than by humans. But Willis rejected human action in all cases. About some specimens from Monte Hermoso, Willis stated: “Through the courtesy of Doctor Ameghino the writer saw at Buenos Aires 10 pieces of burnt clay which would appear to have formed a layer about 10 by 15 cm. [4 by 6 inches] in area and about 5 to 10 mm. [.2 to .4 inch] thick, collected by Ameghino from the Monte Hermosean formation below high-tide level. As stated in describing certain observations on burnt earth of the Pampaean, the writer finds that clays of that formation may be burnt without the agency of man, and he does not attach any significance to the occurrence of burnt earth as an evidence of man’s existence in the Miocene (?) ‘Monte Hermosean’” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 364).

Willis also stated: “In order to prove that man maintained a fire which burned a particular mass of tierra cocida it would be necessary to bring independent evidence of his handiwork” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 364). In many cases Ameghino did, however, supply such independent evidence. Hrdlicka himself noted that “burnt bones, carbon, and other substances that might possibly be due to man have been found at or near fogónes” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 50).

Willis was quick, perhaps too quick, to dismiss this evidence. He wrote: “Two classes of facts have been cited to demonstrate his [man’s] agency: The presence of supposed artifacts and the arrangement of a mass of burnt clay; chief among the former are split, broken, or scratched fragments of bone, and it appears to the writer that these may be referred, with greater probability, to weathering, biting, gnawing, and accidents incident to the wanderings of bones, as strata were eroded and redeposited” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 48). Willis’s remarks about the bones are extremely suspicious, especially when considered in the light of our discussion of the treatment of such evidence in Chapter 2. Also, it should be kept in mind that Willis was a geologist, with no particular training in the study of incised bones. Any fair-minded investigator would want to have a careful look at those bones before accepting Willis’s characterization of them.

Willis then stated: “Certainly the proofs of man’s agency should be uncontrovertible and the possibility of explanation by other than human action should be positively excluded, before the conclusion that he intentionally or incidentally burned the earth can be accepted” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 48). Here Willis is demanding a level of certainty that empirical evidence relevant to paleoanthropology is incapable of providing. Scientists representing an establishment view often dismiss anomalous evidence by requiring it to meet a higher standard of proof than the conventionally accepted evidence.

It is, however, possible that the compact burned earth and slag were not the product of campfires, as proposed by Ameghino. Hrdlicka observed some contemporary fire sites, noting that reddening and blackening of the earth was produced, but no cohesion. This suggested the improbability that the compact tierra cocida resulted from campfires (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 49–50). Furthermore, specimens of tierra cocida were sent to Washington, D.C., where they were examined by Frederick Eugene Wright and Clarence N. Fenner of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution. These researchers reported that the tierra cocida was composed of Pampean loess heated at 850–1050 degrees Centigrade, a temperature they said was too high to be attributed to either grass fires or small wood bonfires (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 88).

Evidence for a more intensive fire was suggested by the presence of the scoriae, or pieces of slag. According to the report of the Geophysical Laboratory, the scoriae examined there were not of volcanic origin. Wright and Fenner noted that the scoriae “do not agree with any known eruptive rock or lava in their microscopic features” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 94).

Wright and Fenner went on to note some puzzling features of the scoriae. First they were a melted loess, but the melted loess was not composed of the same materials as the layers of loess from which the scoriae had been extracted. To Wright and Fenner, this indicated the scoriae had not been produced by fire in that locality. Second, although the glassy scoriae contained iron compounds, they were not reddish in color, as would be the case if the iron compounds had been exposed to oxygen. This indicated that the scoriae were not formed by the action of fire in the open air. The scientists of the Geophysical Laboratory, straining for an explanation, suggested that the scoriae were produced underground by an extrusion of molten lava from deep within the earth, which melted a loess different from that found in the surface layers (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 93–97).

But there are many difficulties with such an explanation. First of all, as noted by Wright and Fenner, there was no sign of any extrusion of lava in the strata throughout which the scoriae were found scattered. The researchers of the Geophysical Laboratory nevertheless stuck to their opinion that contact of loess with molten lava was the most likely cause of the scoriae. But they had to go to great lengths to explain away the absence of any normal lava at the sites from which the scoriae had come: “it may be that the volcanic extrusion was of the explosive type, whereby the lava . . . was shattered and reduced to dust, which fell to the surface as volcanic ash and now constitutes an integral part of the loess formation. Under these conditions the cooler, viscous, melted loess fragments would remain intact and be ejected as scoriae and resist attrition and breaking down more effectively than the shattered volcanic lava” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 96).

5.1.7 Primitive Kilns and Foundries?

The lava hypothesis of Wright and Fenner involves a quite extraordinary chain of speculative reasoning. There is, however, a possible explanation for the burned earth and slag that places considerably less strain on the limits of credibility—namely that they might be the result of intentional fire of a type other than campfires. Even today, one can observe inhabitants of many areas of the world making use of primitive foundries and kilns. Let us therefore consider the hypothesis that the burned earth and slag present on the Argentine coast are the byproducts of crude iron smelting furnaces. This idea was suggested to us by Arlington H. Mallery’s book Lost America, which describes primitive iron furnaces discovered in Ohio and other locations in North America. Mallery thought the makers of the furnaces came from Europe. Since the type of process used in these foundries went out of use in Europe before the time of Columbus, Mallery therefore concluded that the furnaces he found in America must have been used by pre-Columbian European immigrants. And this, according to standard views of history, is unexpected. Admittedly, the kiln or foundry hypothesis is speculative, but no more so than the disappearing lava hypothesis offered by Wright and Fenner.

Mallery (1951, p. 100) stated: “The earliest iron-smelting furnaces in both the Old World and the New were merely shallow pits with rounded bottoms located on the hilltops. In order to catch the usual up-draft of air from the valley below for combustion, they were built close to the edge of the hillside facing the prevailing winds.” In Argentina, the prevailing winds are the southeast trades that blow in from the ocean, so it seems the coastal slopes would be suitable for natural draft furnaces. Mallery (1951, p. 199) further stated: “The bottoms of these pit-furnaces were frequently covered with a layer of clay spread evenly to form a rounded basin from six to twelve inches deep.”

Describing the smelting process, Mallery (1951, pp. 197–198) stated: “iron smelting was performed in three distinct stages utilizing, as a rule, bog ore from swamps. The ore was first piled up in heaps on layers of wood fagots and heated or calcined until it was red. It was then mixed with fuel and burned in a smelting furnace operated at a temperature below the melting point (about 2100 degrees) of cast iron. At or below this temperature, the fusible material in the ore became a fluid slag which seeped down and formed a pool in the pit of the furnace. The iron and mineral oxides in the ore were carried down with the slag and collected in a porous lump or bloom at the bottom of the pool. When the melt was completed the fire was quenched with water and the iron-workers lifted the bloom, still red hot, out of the furnace. It was then beaten with stones or heavy hammers to squeeze out some of the contained slag. In the finishing stage the bloom was usually taken to a smithy, reheated in a smaller furnace or forge, and hammered to squeeze out more of the slag, the process being repeated until forgeable wrought iron was obtained.”

What exactly is bog ore? Mallery (1951, p. 199) explained: “Bog ore is a yellowish-brown, clay-like material composed mainly of clay, loam, and hydrated oxides of iron. Some pottery maker who attempted to use bog ore instead of clay for his pots may have discovered the iron-extracting process. . . . Even now, the small closed furnaces used by the Agaria in India and, until recently, by the Liberian natives, resemble pottery kilns.”

As it turns out, there is an iron-rich earth at Miramar and other localities on the coast. For example, Wright and Fenner analyzed specimens from Miramar, describing them as “brown ferruginous earth” with “pronounced accumulation of limonitic material” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 70). Limonite is an iron ore. Wright and Fenner also observed: “Brown ferruginous earths have also been considered tierra cocida by some investigators. A careful microscopic examination of these specimens has shown that they are simply loess in which ferruginous material abounds” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 89). It is possible that these ferruginous earths could have served as the raw material for iron smelting.

A key indicator is the iron content of the slag left over from smelting. Mallery (1951, p. 200) pointed out: “The iron content of the slag . . . in the mounds of England, Belgium, Scandinavia, Virginia, and the Ohio Valley is very high—from

10 per cent to 60 per cent. Slag produced in modern blast furnaces, which have been in general use since the fourteenth century, seldom contains more than one per cent iron.” He then gave a specific example: “On top of Ohio’s Spruce Hill is an extensive deposit of slag. In this deposit are several low mounds composed mainly of typical hearth-pit slag, which tests show has an iron content of about ten per cent. Cutting a short trench into this heap, I uncovered the edge of a twelveinch slab of clay. In the heap were large pieces of slag, lumps of red-burned bog ore, charcoal and glazed stone” (Mallery 1951, p. 204).

How does this compare with the slag found on the Argentine coast? Chemical analysis of a scoria sample from north of Necochea revealed 9.79 percent iron compounds (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 81). Another piece of scoria from San Blas, north of Rio Negro gave 9.71 percent iron compounds (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 86). Several other samples yielded at least 5 percent iron compounds.

The following description of a crude furnace uncovered in Sweden is interesting when compared with the evidence discovered in Argentina. John Nihlen stated: “The owner of the farm found some pieces of slag on a hill about two hundred meters south of the farm. In a smaller pit here was found under the grass, one-half meter [20 inches] deep, a large amount of slag pieces, such as iron slag in chunks of glazed pieces mixed with or attached to pieces of hard-burned red clay. At the bottom of the pit was dark sand and a few cinders of charcoal but no real burned material. Around the pieces of slag were some round stones but no real construction of stone” (Mallery 1951, p. 204).

Of particular interest in the above statement are the pieces of scoria “mixed with or attached to pieces of hard-burned red clay.” At Miramar, reported Wright and Fenner, Hrdlicka and Willis collected some specimens of “tierra cocida and scoriae combined” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 73). Wright and Fenner described a particularly interesting example: “The hard specimen shows a regular and uniform transition from a dark-gray scoria filled with small vesicles to a brick-red material, which bears a close resemblance to some of the specimens of baked earth. It is different from the latter, however, in this respect that, while the baked earths have a close, compact texture, the portion of this specimen which resembles them most . . . is filled with minute holes and is distinctly glassy in character. . . . A careful determination of the mineral fragments in the black and the red portions of the specimen proved them to be of the same general size and kind. . . . Superficially the red portion of this specimen resembles the baked earths, but closer examination has shown it to be distinctly different. Its glassy, vesicular texture throughout is indicative of melting; the red coloration may be the result of alteration or oxidation, whereby magnetite has been changed to the red oxide of iron” (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 73–74).

At another location in Sweden, John Nihlen discovered another furnace, and described it as follows: “While the gravel was being dug, pieces of slag were found here and there, none of them collected in heaps nor visible on the surface.

. . . It [the furnace] was about one meter [about 3 feet] wide in the upper part and narrowed slightly downward, being cup-formed at the bottom. The sides were made of round or flat gray stone which were laid in clay which also covered large parts of the inside. Probably the lining was not over the stones. The bottom of the furnace . . . consisted of a ten-centimeter [4 inch] layer of hard and partially burned clay. It could almost have been taken out. In the cup-formed lower part there still remained a ten-centimeter layer of slag, bog ore, and charcoal. The depth of the furnace was about one meter. . . . it had been a simple earth furnace without a blast intake, built of stone and clay and with a thick bottom of burned clay” (Mallery 1951, p. 201).

Here we take note of the furnace bottom, which consisted of a “ten-centimeter layer of hard and partially burned clay.” Willis described a similar section of hardened red earth found in the Chapadmalalan beds of a seaside barranca, or cliff, at Miramar. The Chapadmalalan, said by Ameghino to be of Late Miocene age, is dated by modern authorities to the Late Pliocene (about 2–3 million years before the present). According to Willis, the section of burned earth was approximately 1 meter, or just over a yard, long and 30 centimeters, or about a foot, deep. The upper part was of red clay, passing into a dark brown and black mass that faded into the brown loess. Willis stated: “The principle mass of red clay is 60 cm. [about 2 feet] long and 10 cm. [about 4 inches] thick” (Hrdlicka

1912, p. 46). Willis attributed this particular specimen to a process of chemical dehydration, but admitted that its “coloring might have been occasioned by a fire burning on the surface that is now red” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 46).

It would, however, have taken an extraordinarily hot fire to produce the observed effects. Wright and Fenner stated: “The assumption that the large specimens of tierra cocida were formed simply by the action of open fires is hardly possible in view of the quantity of heat involved, which must have acted through a period of time on large masses of material to have produced the effects observed” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 85). They further stated: “Many of the specimens of tierra cocida are so large and compact that one is forced, in explaining their mode of formation, to assume long-continued and confined heating at a fairly high temperature, such as would be encountered near the contact of an intrusive igneous or volcanic mass, but not beneath an open fire made of grass or small timber” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 89). But there was no evidence of intrusive volcanic masses at the sites under consideration, and “long-continued and confined heating at a fairly high temperature” is characteristic of a kiln or furnace.

The furnace hypothesis would explain the dark gray rather than red color of some of the scoria. Wright and Fenner, in conducting thermal experiments, noted that when small samples of loess were burned they turned red because all the loess particles were exposed to oxygen. But when larger masses were burned, oxygen did not reach the interior, which remained gray, like some of the Argentine scoria (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 88). As we have seen, the smelting process outlined by Mallery involved burning large masses of ore, the interior of which may have remained gray. Furthermore, the primitive furnaces operated on the principle of reduction rather than oxidation, which would also account for grayish rather than reddish slag.

In summary, we propose the following. While some types of tierra cocida might have been produced by grass fires, campfires, or perhaps even chemical dehydration, the thick, hard, red pieces of tierra cocida at the Argentine sites might well have been the burned earth that lined the bottom of primitive smelting furnaces. Samples of this burned earth were, according to Wright and Fenner, generally of low iron content (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 88–89). Also found at the Argentine sites were pieces of brown ferruginous earths, which might represent unburned ore. Wright and Fenner did not give a chemical analysis of these earths, but they would appear to be of high iron content. The gray scoria and the gray-and-red scoria, as indicated by their iron content of about 10 percent, could represent the slag from primitive iron smelting furnaces operated on the Argentine coast several million years ago. Other specimens of scoria might have been produced in connection with pottery kilns.

5.1.8 Ameghino on the South American Origins of Hominids

Florentino Ameghino proposed that human beings evolved on the South American continent and then migrated first to North America, and thence by separate routes to Europe and Asia. At this point, many will doubtlessly conclude that Ameghino was simply an overly patriotic Argentine nationalist promoting the totally absurd view that humans originated in the country of his own birth.

But the same skeptics accept without similar reserve the claims of scientists such as Leakey, Broom, and Dart, who resided in former British possessions in Africa and proposed that the human race just happened to originate there.

In fact, paleoanthropologists the world over have a tendency to claim their homelands as the cradle (or one of the cradles) of humanity. Scientists from China, India, and the former Soviet Union (Section 3.6.4) maintain such conceptions. Underlying most such claims is the assumption of a monogenetic evolutionary origin of the human race—that human beings evolved only once from apelike ancestors within a certain region and then radiated from there to populate the rest of the world. Today, the dominant view in science is that the first apelike human ancestor (Australopithecus) arose in Africa in the Pliocene. In the Early Pleistocene, this creature attained protohuman status (as Homo habilis and then Homo erectus). Further evolutionary progress in Africa resulted in the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens about 100,000 years ago.

As we have seen, an important confirmation of human or protohuman status is the presence of stone tools, such as those found in Bed I of Olduvai Gorge. These tools, among the oldest given unqualified recognition, are attributed to Homo habilis in the Early Pleistocene. According to the monogenetic evolutionary assumptions underlying modern paleoanthropology, one should expect to find tools dating from the very early Pleistocene only in eastern or southern Africa.

Florentino Ameghino, however, discovered stone implements in strata dating back to the Early Pliocene (3–5 million years b.p.) and even as far back as the Miocene—and in Argentina instead of Africa. Along with stone implements, Ameghino found abundant signs of human occupation, such as evidence of fire, burned bones, incised bones, and human skeletal remains.

So one might wonder, do we intend to give support to Ameghino’s claims that humankind originated in Argentina? Hardly. But we do feel that the evidence uncovered by Ameghino lends strong support to the conclusion that the whole concept of a monogenetic evolutionary origin for humanity, be it in Kenya, Argentina, Siberia, China, or Kashmir, is incorrect. If at various points around the world one can find stone implements and other evidence for the presence of human beings dating back as far as 20 million years, there is good reason to suspect that the current picture of human origins and antiquity is completely wrong.

It just might be that the version of human ancestry promoted by the dominant Anglo-American school of anthropology, namely that humans originated in former British possessions in Africa, deserves no greater credibility than an Argentine scientist’s claim that humans originated in South America. Indeed, humans may not have evolved at all. Human beings may have been present on this planet, in their current form and at essentially the same level of cultural advancement, for as far back in time as we can carry our investigations. That is what the totality of the evidence—not the carefully edited selection of evidence found in current textbooks—actually suggests. Or to put it another way: the hypothesis that human beings of the fully modern type have existed on this planet for several millions of years accounts for all the available evidence, in the form of stone implements, incised bones, and human skeletal remains, more fully than the modern evolutionary theory, which survives only by discarding, under various excuses, a vast number of discoveries made by scientists over the past 150 or so years. The discoveries of Florentino Ameghino are a case in point.

5.2 Tools Found by Carlos Ameghino at Miramar (Pliocene)

AfterAles Hrdlicka’s attack on the discoveries of FlorentinoAmeghino,Ameghino’s brother Carlos launched a new series of investigations on the Argentine coast south of Buenos Aires. From 1912 to 1914, Carlos Ameghino and his associates, working on behalf of the natural history museums of Buenos Aires and La Plata, discovered stone tools in the Pliocene strata of a barranca, or cliff, extending along the seaside at Miramar.

A 5.2.1 Age of Site Commission of Geologists Confirms

In order to confirm the age of the implements, Carlos Ameghino invited a commission of four geologists to give their opinion. The geologists were Santiago Roth, chief of the paleontology section of the Museum of La Plata and director of the Bureau of Geology and Mines for the province of Buenos Aires; Lutz Witte, a geologist of the Bureau of Geology and Mines for the province of Buenos Aires; Walther Schiller, chief of the mineralogy section of the Museum of La Plata and consultant to the National Bureau of Geology and Mines; and Moises Kantor, chief of the geology section of the Museum of La Plata.

In their report, the commission of geologists (Roth et al. 1915, p. 419) first told what they were asked to investigate: “The two questions are: (1) Were the objects in question found in primary deposits, that is to say, were they covered over at the time the deposits were being laid down, or is there reason to doubt this and to suppose instead that the objects were buried by a different cause at that site, at a time later than the formation of the respective deposits? (2) Concerning the stratigraphic position of the beds that contain the objects, can it be determined if they correspond to levels of the Eopampean horizon (the Montehermosan of F. Ameghino); or were the respective sediments more recently deposited against an ancient barranca, or in an eroded valley or some other depression of the earth that corresponds to the later part of the Pampean series?”

The report (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420) then went on to describe the stratigraphy of the barranca in some detail, making use of a nomenclature different from that used by either Ameghino or modern authorities (Table 5.1): “The cliff displayed four Pampean horizons: Eopampean (the Montehermosan and Chapadmalalan of F. Ameghino); Mesopampean (Ensenadan); Neopampean (Bonarian and Lujanian); and Postpampean (Platean).”

Of special interest were the Mesopampean and Eopampean. The Mesopampean was a bank of water-redeposited loess, 3– 4 meters [10–13 feet] thick, extending 500 meters [1640 feet] between two transverse valleys interrupting the barranca. Of the Mesopampean layer, the commission said: “C. Ameghino, Schiller, and Roth agree that the bank in question corresponds to the Ensenadan level in the subdivisions of the Pampean made by F. Ameghino” (Roth et al. “In some parts there are layers of rounded stones,” reported the commission of geologists. “Also present is freshwater limestone, very common in the Mesopampean. The loess is traversed in all directions by veins or seams of calcareous tufa, which frequently form in such beds. These stratigraphic and lithological conditions make it impossible to suppose that cavities were formed and refilled after the Mesopampean formation was initially deposited” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420).

This is an important consideration. One might say that the presence of stone implements in the Eopampean strata below the Mesopampean could be accounted for in the following way. Imagine a fairly recent Indian settlement on the top of the barranca. The villagers leave stone tools on the surface. Later, an arroyo forms in the barranca, cutting through the Mesopampean layers into the Eopampean formation. Stone tools are washed into the bottom of the arroyo. Later, the arroyo is refilled, leaving stone tools in the Eopampean layer. As we shall see, this is exactly the sort of challenge that would be made (Section 5.2.3).

According to the commission, the geological evidence ruled out such cutting and refilling (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420). The Mesopampean formation contained distinct layers of stones, seams of calcareous tufa (a porous limestonelike material), and deposits of tosca (a hard limestone deposit). All these would have been noticeably disturbed if cut by a gully that was later refilled.

The commission report then turned to the layers that contained implements: “The base of the barranca is formed of Eopampean deposits. Carlos Ameghino, Schiller, and Roth declare that the geological characteristics of this deposit are exactly like those of the loess found at the base of the Lobería barranca south of Mar del Plata, where F. Ameghino originally established the Chapadmalalan formation. In both locales one encounters, according to Carlos Ameghino and Roth, remains of mammals typical of this level, among them an abundance of Pachyrucos [a small rabbitlike creature]” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 421).

The geologists went on to say: “The banks of calcareous tufa are almost completely absent, and in general the tosca is much scarcer than in the upper beds; but despite this, the loess forms a very consistent mass and to break it required a pick and crowbar. The general aspect is of an eolian loess, formed of very homogeneously pulverized mineral substances” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 421). The identification of the Eopampean as eolian (wind-deposited) loess is important, for later an opponent (Romero 1918) would charge the layers were of marine origin (Section 5.2.3).

The geologists noted that the loess contained pieces of burned earth and scoria (slag). “Moreover,” said the report, “at distinct locales in the barranca, the original investigators found objects, instruments, and weapons of stone, fabricated by different techniques” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 421).

“The first deposit of implement-bearing loess to be examined,” said the geologists, “was approximately 50 meters [164 feet] from the small drainage channel that exists in the slope of this barranca and more or less 1 meter [about 3 feet] lower than the limit of the horizon between the Mesopampean and the Eopampean” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 421).

316 5. Advanced Paleoliths and Neoliths

The geologists then recounted how the initial discoveries took place: “The first objects were discovered, according to Torres and Ameghino, when Lorenzo Parodi [a collector employed by the natural history museums of Buenos Aires and La Plata] attempted to extract a piece of slag. Parodi’s pick struck a hard object, which when uncovered, turned out to be a bola stone. It was extracted encased in a chunk of loess, and it is preserved in the same condition in the Museum of Natural History in Buenos Aires. Later, Torres, Ameghino, and Doello-Jurado, digging at the same site, discovered other stone objects and instruments, and finally Parodi very recently discovered a round stone and a flint knife in place, and left them there, following the instructions he had received, in order that they could be extracted in the presence of this commission of geologists” (Roth et al.

1915, p. 421). It is apparent from this description that the excavation was carried out with some degree of professionalism—the commission of geologists was able to study implements in situ.

The report then conclusively answered the first of the questions the geologists were asked: “This commission . . . after examining the place where the artifacts in question were found, gave their unanimous opinion that if the sediments had shifted after the time of deposition, the members would have been able to see some alterations in the texture of the bed, but they were not able to observe any such alterations. The lithological composition of the sediments and the texture of the deposit that contained the artifacts did not demonstrate any difference in character from the loess of this horizon. All of those present declared that the stone artifacts . . . were found in intact, undisturbed terrain, in primary position. Based on this fact, the first question posed may be answered: visual inspection of the site where the artifacts were found has not given us any reason to suppose that the artifacts have been buried by any means whatsoever at a time after the formation of the bed. They are found in primary position and, for that reason, should be considered objects of human industry, contemporary with the geological level in which they were deposited” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 422).

The report was equally conclusive about the second matter under consideration: “In respect to the second question, whether it is possible that there was in this place a juxtaposition of strata, or if it is possible that the layer containing the artifacts was deposited up against an old cliff and therefore corresponds to one of the most recent levels of the Pampean formation, we firmly declare: the stratigraphic conditions at this place are so clear as to present no difficulty in resolving any such problem. In the first place, the above-mentioned layer of freshwater limestone, which corresponds to the Mesopampean horizon and is found directly above the Eopampean deposits, has not suffered any alteration. Nor has it been possible to find in any part of the bed in question any refilling of gullies or caverns after the bed’s formation. Furthermore, the face of the cliff is quite vertical, which allows one to see clearly that the sediments found in the lower part were not deposited against an old cliff of the Mesopampean horizon. Rather the beds of the Mesopampean horizon pass in all places above the deposits in question. The undulations and irregularities presented by the horizon between the Mesopampean and Eopampean beds are filled with the calcareous tufa above mentioned, allowing one to distinguish a discordance between the two horizons. The committee of geologists is in accord that the second point in question can be defined in the following way: that the objects of human industry encountered in this place are situated in deposits of loess characteristic of the Eopampean horizon, which constitute the base of the barranca; and that the stratigraphic relationships allow us to establish with scientific certainty that there exists here no juxtaposition of newer layers and older ones” (Roth et al. 1915, pp. 422 – 423).

The Eopampean layers in which the implements were found correspond to the Chapadmalalan formation, sometimes called the Chapadmalean or Chapalmalean. Modern authorities assign the Chapadmalalan formation a Late Pliocene age of 2.5–3.0 million years (Anderson 1984, p. 41) or 2.0 –3.0 million years (Marshall et al. 1982, p. 1352). In their world survey of Pliocene mammalian fauna, Savage and Russell (1983) list Miramar as a Chapadmalalan site.

Concerning the objects they examined in situ at Miramar, the commission of geologists reported: “The round bola stone, which was discovered in the loess and which was extracted in the presence of the commission, did not display any sign of human work; but from its form and size it would appear to have served as a weapon, like the other bola previously discovered in the same stratum. The flint knife had fallen out onto the ground, but the place where it had been situated was noticeable; it presents every indication of having been fabricated by percussion and pressure” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 423).

As stated before, burned earth (tierra cocida) and slag (escoria) were both found at the Miramar site. Earlier Hrdlicka and other researchers (Sections 5.1.6,

5.1.7) had rejected the possibility that the burned earth and slag discovered at various Argentine sites, including the barranca at Miramar, could have resulted from fires of human origin. But the members of the commission of geologists reported: “Digging with a pick at the same spot where the bola and knife were found, someone discovered in the presence of the commission other flat stones, of the type that the Indians use to make fire” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 423).

Those committed to the standard view of human evolution will reflexively attempt to explain away all this evidence, but to those with more open minds, the facts clearly suggest that humans, capable of manufacturing tools and using fire, lived in Argentina about 2–3 million years ago in the Late Pliocene. The report further stated: “Carlos Ameghino, who continued the excavation, encountered another stone of small size, completely round and smooth, presenting the characteristics of a stone subjected to intentional work” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 423).

The commission made another find confirming its views: “About 50 meters [164 feet] from this site, in a layer still lower, there were found fossil remains of a species of the suborder Gravigrada [ground sloths]. During the excavation, there were discovered in this spot, in the presence of the commission, other round stones associated with the fossil remains. . . . Considering all the circumstances surrounding this discovery, as well as the condition of the objects and their stratigraphic relation to the bed, the commission is of the opinion that they are objects manufactured by humans who lived at the time of the geological period corresponding to the Chapadmalalan” ( Roth et al. 1915, p. 423).

5.2.2 A Stone Point Embedded in a Toxodon Femur (Pliocene)

After the commission left for Buenos Aires, Carlos Ameghino remained at Miramar conducting further excavations in the Chapadmalalan beds just northeast of the spot where the bola stone and flint knife had been found. Ameghino uncovered many fossils of animals characteristic of the Chapadmalalan, such as Pachyrucos, a rabbitlike creature, and Dicoelophoros, a ratlike rodent. These animals were absent from the overlying Mesopampean beds (C. Ameghino 1915, p. 438).

From the top of the Late Pliocene Chapadmalalan layers, Ameghino extracted the femur of a toxodon, an extinct South American hoofed mammal, resembling a furry, short-legged, hornless rhinoceros. Ameghino discovered embedded in the toxodon femur a stone arrowhead or lance point (Figure 5.1), giving evidence for culturally advanced humans 2–3 million years ago in Argentina. Those who are committed to the view that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved about 100,000 years ago in Africa will likely attribute Ameghino’s discovery to an intrusion from upper levels. But we would request such persons to, at least for a moment, set aside their preconceptions and withhold judgement while considering the facts of this remarkable case. Significantly, the toxodon femur was not discovered alone.

Figure 5.1. This toxodon thighbone (femur), with a stone projectile point embedded in it, was discovered in a Pliocene formation at Miramar, Argentina (C. Ameghino 1915, photograph 2).

C. Ameghino (1915, pp. 438–439) reported: “As we proceeded with the excavation, there also appeared in the barranca almost all of the bones of the rear leg of the toxodon, still articulated and conserved in their relative positions. This is very evident proof that the toxodon femur was buried in the terrain contemporaneously with the formation of the bed and that it has not since been subjected to movement. In addition to the femur, the proximal extremity of which scarcely cropped out of the barranca, the bones, which, as mentioned, appeared articulated, included, the tibia and fibula, the calcaneum [heel bone], the scaphoid and other pieces of the tarsus [ankle], and finally some metatarsals. All the facts make it absolutely certain that these remains were found in their primary position. Their condition is identical to that of all the fossils that appear in this part of the barranca and in those parts that extend many leagues to the north. There have been discovered in this same barranca, on many occasions, perfectly articulated skeletons of animals from the same period as the toxodon. One of the most notable is a skeleton of Pachyrucos, which was discovered and extracted by the naturalist M. Doello-Jurado.” From C. Ameghino’s description, it is clear that the femur with the stone point embedded in it was the femur that was part of the articulated leg.

In December of 1914, Carlos Ameghino, with Carlos Bruch, Luis Maria Torres, and Santiago Roth, visited Miramar to mark and photograph the exact location where the toxodon femur had been found. C. Ameghino (1915, p. 439) stated: “Like the previous visits, this last visit was full of surprises. . . . When we arrived at the spot of the latest discoveries and continued the excavations, we uncovered more and more intentionally worked stones, convincing us we had come upon a veritable workshop of that distant epoch.”

The many implements, including anvils and hammer stones, resembled, in form and lithic material, those of Florentino Ameghino’s piedra hendida (broken stone) industry, discovered in the same region. Carlos Ameghino and Roth continued their investigations to the south at Mar del Sur and found stone tools in the Ensenadan level. The identification of the formation as Ensenadan had been accomplished previously, by the excavation from the same bed of a portion of the skeleton of Typotherium cristatum, a rodentlike mammal attaining the size of a small bear.

Taken together, the discoveries from the formations at Miramar and Mar del Sur, and other locations on the Argentine coast, are significant in that they show continuous habitation of the region by humans, from the Pliocene to recent historical times, with scarcely any change in the inhabitants’ mode of living.

Returning to the toxodon bones found at Miramar, we find that Carlos Ameghino anticipated accusations that the bones had worked their way into the Chapadmalalan formation from above. In his report he stated: “The bones are of a dirty whitish color, characteristic of this stratum, and not blackish, from the magnesium oxides in the Ensenadan” (C. Ameghino 1915, p. 442). This tended to rule out any suggestion that the toxodon bones had been mixed into the Chapadmalalan from upper beds of lesser age. Ameghino further pointed out that some of the hollow parts of the bones were filled with the Chapadmalalan loess. If the bones were derived from another level, one might expect them to be filled with a different kind of material. Of course, even if the bones had worked there way in from the Ensenadan, they would still be anomalously old. Dates for the Ensenadan range from 0.4 –1.0 million years (Marshall et al. 1982, p. 1352) to 0.4 –1.5 million years (Anderson 1984, p. 41).

In describing the nature of the loess in which the bones had been discovered, C. Ameghino (1915, p. 442) said: “The terrain surrounding these remains is a loess exceedingly fine and pulverized, a true aeolian loess, fairly well decalcified and of reddish grey tint, a loess which, as we have said, corresponds to the Chapadmalalan” (C. Ameghino 1915, p. 442). Furthermore, as we have seen (Section 5.2.1), a commission of geologists had confirmed that the Chapadmalalan beds at Miramar were intact, showing no signs of disturbance.

Those who want to dispute the great age attributed to the toxodon femur will nevertheless point out that the toxodon survived until just a few thousand years ago in South America. They will say: “Of course, these early researchers were often surprised to find evidence of a human presence in connection with remains of the toxodon, an animal they thought typical of the Pliocene or Miocene, but since that time scientists have discovered the truth—that the toxodon roamed South America until quite recently.” The clear implication is that if early researchers had been aware of this fact, they would certainly have hesitated to make claims for the great antiquity of humans based, for example, on the association of stone tools with toxodon bones.

But the fact that the toxodon lived until the Holocene does not rule out the discovery of toxodon bones in older strata, such as the Pliocene, for the toxodon definitely lived during that period. But the survival of the toxodon does allow critics to cast suspicion on finds such as Ameghino’s, despite the fact that such finds were made in clear stratigraphic contexts.

Early researchers were often aware that mammals characteristic of ancient strata persisted until recent times. This is certainly true of Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 442), who reported that the toxodon he found at Miramar, an adult specimen, was smaller than those in the upper, more recent levels of the Pampean stratigraphic sequence. This indicated it was a distinct, older species. Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 442) believed his Miramar toxodon was of the Chapadmalalan species Toxodon chapalmalensis, first identified by F. Ameghino, and characterized by its small size.

Furthermore, Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 443) directly compared his Chapadmalalan toxodon femur with femurs of toxodon species from more recent Pampean formations and observed: “The femur of Miramar is on the whole smaller and more slender.” Ameghino then reported more details showing how the femur he found in the Late Pliocene Chapadmalalan of Miramar differed from that of Toxodon burmeisteri of more recent Pampean levels.

None of this is mentioned by later critics. Boule, for example, in dismissing the toxodon femur, simply stated that the toxodon persisted in South America until fairly recent times (Boule and Vallois 1957, p. 492). But that does not invalidate Carlos Ameghino’s conclusions. Toxodons did exist in the Pliocene, and according to Ameghino, the toxodon femur he recovered at Miramar was from a Pliocene species of toxodon. This information was available to Boule, yet he did not mention it. One could therefore say that Boule’s presentation was dishonest. In order to have made a fair challenge to Ameghino, Boule should have demonstrated that Ameghino was incorrect in asserting that the femur he discovered was characteristic of a Pliocene species of toxodon.

In researching this book, we have learned that statements found in textbooks and scientific papers cannot always be trusted to give fair and accurate information about key discoveries. One quickly discovers that apparently objective statements reflect personal bias and prejudice and are often deliberately misleading. Nevertheless, Boule was not guilty of one of the most effective techniques for dealing with disconcerting evidence—complete omission.

Concerning the toxodon discovery at Miramar, we again emphasize that the bones of an entire leg were found articulated (in their natural relative positions) in the Late Pliocene Chapadmalalan formation. This indicates that the animal died in the Late Pliocene and that its bones were incorporated into the formation at that time. If the bones of a toxodon from a much later period had somehow been washed into the Chapadmalalan, one would not expect them to have been articulated.

Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 445) then described the stone point found embedded in the femur: “This is a flake of quartzite obtained by percussion, a single blow, and retouched along its lateral edges, but only on one surface, and afterward pointed at its two extremities by the same process of retouch, giving it a form approximating a willow leaf, therefore resembling the double points of the Solutrean type, which have been designated feuille de saule. . . . by all these details we can recognize that we are confronted with a point of the Mousterian type of the European Paleolithic period.” That such a point should be found in a formation dating back as much as 3 million years provokes serious questions about the version of human evolution presented by the modern scientific establishment, which holds that 3 million years ago we should find only the most primitive australopithecines at the vanguard of the hominid line.

Near the end of his discussion about the discovery at Miramar of the projectile point embedded in the toxodon femur, Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 447) made some statements about Ales Hrdlicka, who, as we have seen, had attempted to demolish the work of Florentino Ameghino: “We cannot remain silent about the book recently published in this connection by Ales Hrdlicka and his collaborators (Early Man in South America, Washington, 1912). This work, apparently impartial and conscientious, serves, on the contrary, to reveal, especially in reference to the evidence for fossil man in this part of the Americas, the preconceived ideas of its authors. The authors did not spend in the terrain itself the time materially necessary to arrive at any judgement, as we had a chance to personally observe, since we accompanied them on many excursions. Without ignoring any part of the truth that this work may contain, we are convinced the conclusions of Hrdlicka are completely exaggerated. And the main proof of this is the report of the commission of geologists [Section 5.2.1].” The weight of evidence suggests Carlos Ameghino’s statements about Hrdlicka’s book are fully warranted.

Carlos Ameghino (1915, p. 449), in concluding his report on the projectile point found in the Miramar toxodon femur, stated that “at least since the Chapadmalalan, that is, the Late Miocene [Late Pliocene say modern authorities], there have existed in this territory humans of the type Homo sapiens, who, as surprising as it may seem, were possessed of a grade of culture and advancement comparable to the most recent prehistoric inhabitants of the region.”

5.2.3 Romero’s Critique of the Miramar Site

Carlos Ameghino’s views about the antiquity of humans in Argentina were challenged by Antonio Romero. In a paper published in the Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, Romero (1918) contradicted not only Carlos Ameghino, but his more famous late brother, Florentino Ameghino, who had for many years conducted research establishing a human presence in Argentina during the Tertiary. Quite apart from his work in paleoanthropology, Florentino Ameghino had gained an international reputation in the fields of paleontology and geology. A great deal of Argentine national pride was thus invested in Florentino Ameghino, who had almost singlehandedly focused the attention of the world’s scientific community on his country. Romero was therefore very careful to frame his criticism of the Ameghinos with attention to Argentine patriotic sensibilities.

Early in the twentieth century, a dominant group within the scientific community was trying to “bury” evidence suggesting a human presence in the Tertiary. Romero was a supporter of this policy. In his paper, Romero (1918, p. 22), called special attention to the book Fossil Man, recently published by Hugo Obermaier, a noted European scientist who dismissed F. Ameghino’s conclusions about a human presence in the Miocene and Pliocene of Argentina. Taking Obermaier’s view as correct, and representative of responsible scientific opinion, Romero suggested that Carlos Ameghino and his supporters, by insisting on a human presence in the Tertiary of Argentina, were bringing ridicule and discredit upon the Argentine nation. Concerning Florentino Ameghino, Romero pleaded that Argentine science should continue to hold him in high regard for his valuable and quite extensive work in the areas of geology and paleontology, but that it was now time to set aside his unfortunate conclusions in the area of paleoanthropology, and thus preserve his reputation as a great scientist. Romero (1918, p. 15) wrote: “We now have to consolidate the monument of his work, casting out the fantastic discoveries that have so much preoccupied simpleminded spirits and cost our country so much, greatly injuring the work of the great scientist and his contribution to our culture.”

As part of his investigation of Carlos Ameghino’s discoveries, Romero visited the Miramar area. There he took time to view the fairly recent stone implements displayed in the small museum of Jose Maria Dupuy, a local collector. The implements had been gathered from the paraderos (settlements) of the coastal Indians. Noting the similarity of Dupuy’s specimens to those Carlos Ameghino had forwarded to the Museum of National History in Buenos Aires from his exacavations in the Chapadmalalan formation at Miramar, Romero (1918, p. 12) stated that he was “convinced they were made by the same artificers who made those that are considered to belong to a fanciful epoch.” In other words, Romero believed that Carlos Ameghino’s discoveries were manufactured by Indians in relatively recent times.

Romero (1918, p. 15) went on to state that notwithstanding the similarity of C. Ameghino’s Miramar implements to objects recently manufactured by Indians “there are arguments of a more fundamental order that we intend to pose in support of our thesis.” Romero (1918, p. 15) said he would “demonstrate with incontestable facts, in the plain light of truth, that it was false to suppose that artifacts discovered at Las Brusquitas [Miramar], resembling classical types of the Neolithic age, can be attributed to human beings that existed in the Miocene [Late Pliocene according to modern estimates].”

After reading Romero’s combative introductory remarks, one might expect to find in his report some cogent geological reasoning backed up with convincing facts. Instead one finds assertions backed up with little more than some unique and fanciful views of the geological history of the Miramar coastal region.

About the fossil remains from the barranca, Romero (1918, p. 24) said: “All the evidence relevant to this investigation demonstrates quite well that the bones are not from animals that died in situ, but are instead from skeletons of animals transported great distances, fractured, and dispersed by water.” Then what about the almost complete rear leg and foot of a toxodon found by Carlos Ameghino? It hardly seems likely that flowing water brought together the several bones comprising the leg and foot and deposited them in their natural connection.

In this regard, Romero (1918, p. 24) said: “The discovery of bones more or less complete, and part of one skeleton, signifies that the bones were brought to their final resting place in that condition and not that the animal perished there.” In this case, one would have to suppose that a detached rear leg of a toxodon, still covered with flesh was transported by water and somehow deposited in the lower levels at the Miramar site. But all this shows is that the animal died shortly before its leg wound up in the bed where it was found.

Romero implied that both the bones and the bed were recent. But according to Carlos Ameghino, the toxodon bones were from a Pliocene species of toxodon. Furthermore, modern authorities (Savage and Russell 1983, p. 365) still list the Chapadmalalan at Miramar as a Pliocene formation containing a distinct Pliocene fauna.

Romero (1918, p. 24), however, insisted: “If you find the fossils of distinct epochs in different levels of the barranca, that does not signify a succession of epochs there, because water may have elsewhere eroded very ancient fossilbearing deposits of previous epochs, depositing the older fossils at the base of the barranca. I mention a case demonstrating this fact: the sea brings up fossil molluscs onto the beach, and my daughter found the foot bone of a great edentate, rolled up on the beach by the waves.” The Edentata are an order of New World mammals that includes the sloths and armadillos. Romero was trying to build a case that the formations identified as Chapadmalalan and Ensenadan at Miramar were not really ancient, even though they contained fossils characteristic of the Late Pliocene and Middle Pleistocene, respectively. In making his case, Romero attributed remarkable capabilities to the action of sea waves and rivers. If Romero is to be taken at his word, he seems to have been implying that the random movements of water could selectively deposit fossils of certain periods in a definite sequence so as to mimic actual geological formations of those periods.

But Romero’s speculative proposal appears incapable of accounting for the arrangement of fossils and sediments in such a way as to reproduce a series of actual geological formations, even in a relatively confined area. And here we are talking about a section of cliff extending for several hundred meters. Significantly, these same formations at Miramar had been extensively studied on several occasions by different professional geologists and paleontologists, none of whom viewed them in the manner suggested by Romero. Modern authorities also disagree with Romero.

In his attack on Carlos Ameghino, Romero sought to demonstrate that the implement-bearing beds of ancient Chapadmalalan loess at Miramar were fairly recent marine deposits. As evidence he cited the particular nature of the rounded stones that marked the boundary between the Chapadmalalan and the overlying Ensenadan. Romero (1918, p. 28) believed that their pattern of distribution, in an almost unbroken band along the entire formation, indicated they were pebbles formed by the action of waves and deposited on a beach. The large undulations now observed in the layer of stones were, according to Romero, caused by the action of later mountain-building forces in the region.

But Bailey Willis, no friend of Tertiary humans in Argentina, had earlier given a different interpretation of the undulating layer of stones in the barranca at Miramar. Willis, who had investigated several other barrancas on the same coast, wrote: “The sections were carefully studied in each locality, but since we require here only an illustration . . . it will suffice to describe a characteristic relation observed in the Barrancas del Norte, north of Mar del Plata. . . . The upper surface of the basal formation in the Barrancas del Norte [the Chapadmalalan] is eroded and the hollows are filled by later deposits, sometimes of one character, sometimes of another. It will be seen that the formation was carved by an agent that undercut the sides and rounded the bottoms of the hollows, leaving masses with sharp points or edges in relief. Wind produces these effects in this material, whereas water cuts channels having nearly vertical walls. Thus it would appear that wind erosion is favored. . . . The phenomenon recurs . . . in other exposures of the formation at Miramar” (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 22–23). Romero thought the same hollows to be the result of marine action and mountain building rather than wind.

Then regarding the stone layer itself, found in the hollows, Willis wrote: “The pebbles . . . could have been formed only by wind action, since the loess of which they consist would readily melt down in water and lose its form. The formation thus suggests arid conditions” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 24). Willis, a member of the U.S. Geological Survey, was an expert in the study of loess formations, having conducted extensive investigations in the course of geological expeditions in North America and China.

Romero’s qualifications are unknown to us, and his view that the pebbles are a sign of marine action seems in great disharmony with the geological evidence. The same is true of his assertion that the Chapadmalalan at Miramar is actually a fairly recent marine mud deposited against the base of the cliff. This opinion was based upon visual inspection of a piece of sediment from an excavation at Miramar. Romero (1918, p. 31), stated about this chunk: “It is constituted principally of a mixture of clayey elements and sand, very fine, and is deposited uniformly in layers about 1 mm thick, which indicates successive, slow, tranquil deposition in a bay. Throughout the piece are many holes .25–1.0 mm in diameter, forming small tunnels in the direction of the plane of stratification, and on close observation you can see traces of organic remains of annelids.” On the strength of this one piece of sediment, which he did not demonstrate to be typical of the entire deposit, Romero (1918, p. 31) then concluded: “It is obvious the bed was deposited on the sea bottom, and any animal bones or human artifacts found in the beds were brought there by the action of waves or were washed down from the cliff and covered up.” Romero neglect to mention that annelids include not only marine worms but ordinary earthworms.

Furthermore, Willis described the formation at the base of the cliffs as follows: “At Miramar . . . the formation . . . consists of loess-like alluvium, the surface of which has been eroded and filled in by wind” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 27). Describing the Chapadmalalan layer in the Barrancas del Norte, which he regarded as continuous with that at Miramar, Willis wrote: “The writer is inclined to regard this formation and similar deposits as due to river work on confluent flood plains” (Hrdlicka 1912, p. 23). A river flood plain is generally covered with water during only a small part of the year, and not every year. Such conditions are very favorable for fossilization of animal remains in primary position, especially when conditions are becoming more arid. At such times, animal remains may be buried during floods and remain undisturbed for long periods of time because of lower water levels. In short, Willis gave no hint that the deposit at the base of the cliff at the Miramar site was a recent marine formation.

The incorrectness of Romero’s interpretation of the stratigraphy at Miramar is confirmed by modern researchers, who identify the formation at the base of the cliff as Chapadmalalan and assign it to the Late Pliocene, making it 2–3 million years old (Savage and Russell 1983, p. 365).

Considering Romero’s farfetched and strained geological reasoning, one would certainly have a right to be cautious in accepting his conclusion about the stratigraphic position of the artifacts in the barranca at Miramar: “Visual inspection demonstrates that the artifacts discovered were interred at a time after the formation of the bed, and that they are in a secondary position in relation to the formation, because of an intrusion resulting from erosion at this place” (Romero 1918, p. 27). Here Romero mockingly reproduced the language of the report by the commission of geologists, who concluded the stone implements of Miramar were found in primary position (Section 5.2.1).

Romero, however, did not provide a great deal of evidence in favor of his point of view. In addition to his sea wave hypothesis, Romero suggested that there had been massive resorting and shifting of the beds in the barranca, making it possible that implements and animals bones from surface layers had become mixed into the lower levels of the cliff. But the only facts that he could bring forward to support this conclusion were two extremely minor dislocations of strata.

Some distance to the left of the spot where the commission of geologists extracted a bola stone from the Chapadmalalan level of the barranca, there is a place where a section of a layer of stones in the formation departs slightly from the horizontal (Romero 1918, p. 28). This dislocation occurs near the place where the barranca is interrupted by a transverse valley. As might be expected, part of the barranca slopes down to the left at this point, but at the place where the bola stone was extracted, the horizontal stratigraphy remained intact. At another place in the barranca, a small portion of a layer of stones departed only 16 degrees from the horizontal (Romero 1918, p. 29).

On the basis of these two relatively inconsequential observations, Romero suggested that all the strata exposed in the barranca had been subjected to extreme dislocations. This would have allowed the intrusion into the lower levels of stone tools from relatively recent Indian settlements that might have existed above the cliffs. Romero (1918, p. 30) asserted: “I have demonstrated . . . that the artifacts had been intrusively buried in the strata called Chapadmalalan, and with this demonstration, which is irrefutable, I have also buried the opinion of the experts.” But from photographs and descriptions of the stratigraphy by many other geologists, including Willis, it appears that the normal sequence of Pampean beds in the barranca at Miramar was intact in locations where discoveries were made.

Romero then continued with another barrage of unsatisfactory objections. He pointed out that some of the stone tools were found at the base of the Chapadmalalan bed and others in the middle, while the toxodon femur with the embedded projectile point was found at the top of the Chapadmalalan. Romero (1918, p. 33) thought the fact that the artifacts were distributed vertically within a limited horizontal space argued against their being in primary position. He would have preferred to see them all distributed in one horizontal plane. Why he thought this is not clear. If, as Carlos Ameghino believed, the place had been continuously inhabited from the Miocene until the recent past, by humans maintaining a constant level of cultural advancement, then one might expect to find just such a distribution of artifacts as was actually discovered.

Romero noted that stone tools resembling those extracted from the barranca are found on the surface, in a valley, slightly inland, that runs parallel to the barranca. He joked with his guide: “Are these Miocene implements?” But even today African tribal people use stone tools as crude as the Olduvai Gorge pebble choppers, which are attributed to human precursors living almost 2 million years ago. In other words, humans and humanlike beings in Africa have been making the same kinds of stone tools for at least 2 million years. It is, therefore, not valid to argue that the tools from the Chapadmalalan at Miramar must be recent because they resemble tools made by modern Indians in the same region.

5.2.4 Boule on the Toxodon Femur with Arrowhead

Now that we have considered Romero’s objections to Carlos Ameghino’s discoveries, let us turn our attention to a rare mid-twentieth-century review of the toxodon femur with the projectile point embedded in it. In the 1957 posthumous edition of Fossil Men, revised by H. V. Vallois, Marcellin Boule said that after the original discovery of the toxodon femur, Carlos Ameghino found in the Chapadmalalan at Miramar an intact section of a toxodon’s vertebral column, in which two stone projectile points were embedded. Boule stated: “These discoveries were disputed. Reliable geologists affirmed that the objects came from the upper beds, which formed the site of a paradero or ancient Indian settlement, and that they were found today in the Tertiary bed only as a consequence of disturbances and resortings which that bed had suffered” (Boule and Vallois

1957, p. 492). Here Boule footnoted as a reference only the 1918 report by Romero! Boule did not mention the commission of four highly qualified geologists who reached a conclusion exactly opposite that of Romero, perhaps because they were, in his opinion, not “reliable.” However, having closely studied Romero’s geological conclusions, particularly in light of those of Bailey Willis and modern researchers, we are mystified that Romero should be characterized as “reliable.”

Boule added: “The archaeological data support this conclusion, for the same Tertiary bed yielded dressed and polished stones, bolas and boladeras, identical with those used as missiles by the Indians” (Boule and Vallois 1957, p. 492). Boule said that Eric Boman, an “excellent enthnographer,” had documented these facts.

Could human beings have lived continuously in Argentina since the Tertiary and not changed their technology? Why not, especially if, as certified by a commission of geologists (Section 5.2.1), implements were found in situ in beds of Pliocene antiquity? The fact that these implements were identical to those used by more recent inhabitants of the same region poses no barrier to acceptance of their Tertiary age. Modern tribal people in various parts of the world fashion stone implements indistinguishable from those recognized as having been manufactured

2 million years ago. We should also point out that in 1921 a fully human fossil jaw was found in the Chapadmalalan at Miramar (Section 6.2.5).

In his statements about the Miramar finds, Boule provides a classic case of prejudice and preconception masquerading as scientific objectivity. In Boule’s book, all evidence for a human presence in the Tertiary formations of Argentina was dismissed on theoretical grounds and by ignoring crucial observations reported by competent scientists who happened to hold forbidden views. For example, Boule said nothing at all about the above-mentioned discovery of a human jaw in the Chapadmalalan at Miramar. We should thus be extremely careful in accepting the statements one finds in famous textbooks as the final word in paleoanthropology.

It is common to find scientists who disagree with certain controversial evidence taking the same approach as Boule. One mentions an exceptional discovery, one states that it was disputed for some time, and then one cites an authority (such as Romero) who supposedly conclusively settled the matter, once and for all. But we have found that when one takes the time to dig up the report that, like Romero’s, supposedly delivered the coup de grace, it often fails to make a convincing case.

5.2.5 Boman, the Excellent Ethnographer

What was true of Romero’s report is also true of Boman’s. Boule, we have seen, advertised Boman as an “excellent ethnographer.” But in examining Boman’s report, the reason for Boule’s favorable judgement becomes apparent. Throughout his paper, which attacked Florentino Ameghino’s theories and Carlos Ameghino’s discoveries at Miramar, Boman, taking the role of a dutiful disciple, regularly cited Boule as an authority. As might be expected, Boman also quoted extensively from Hrdlicka’s lengthy negative critique of Florentino Ameghino’s work. Nevertheless, Boman, despite his negative attitude, inadvertently managed to give some of the best possible evidence for a human presence in Argentina during the Pliocene.

Boman (1921, p. 336) wrote: “Before November 1913, at which time commenced the discoveries of vestiges of human industry in the Chapadmalalan of Miramar, the theories of F. Ameghino could be considered to have been definitely rejected. But now there was reason to question whether these additional discoveries did not constitute a new proof for the existence of Tertiary man in South America. Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino, announced these discoveries in various summary and preliminary reports. These notices were received with ironic skepticism in the few scientific journals that continued publication during the war in Europe.”

At that time, Boman (1921, p. 337) wrote a short article reviewing Carlos Ameghino’s finds, citing negative assessments by Antonio A. Romero and the Italian anthropologist and geologist Guido Bonarelli, who believed the objects were not found in situ. Boman later stated: “I must observe that at the time I wrote my article, I had not yet visited Miramar and was thus guided by the facts furnished to me by Carlos Ameghino and others who had personally visited the site. I also personally inspected the objects that had been gathered there.”

Boman (1921, p. 337) then carefully yet deliberately raised the possibility of fraud by Lorenzo Parodi, the collector who worked for Carlos Ameghino: “Regarding the intervention of Lorenzo Parodi in the discoveries . . . I had no right to express any suspicions about him, because Carlos Ameghino had spoken highly of him, assuring me that he was as honest and trustworthy a man as could be found.” Boman (1921, p. 341) added: “I do not have any personal reason to doubt the honesty of Parodi, but generally speaking, a person in his condition participates in discoveries of this kind without any scientific interest. Instead, such persons tend to be solely interested in obtaining money and keeping their employment. Therefore, it is not possible to do anything but raise suspicions about fraud. Concerning the question of where it is possible to obtain objects for fraudulent introduction into the Chapadmalalan strata, that is a problem easily resolved. A couple of miles from the discoveries exists a paradero, an abandoned Indian settlement, exposed on the surface and relatively modern—about four or five hundred years old—where there exist many objects identical to those found in the Chapadmalalan strata.”

Boman (1921, p. 342) went on to describe his own visit to the Miramar site on November 22, 1920: “Parodi had given a report of a stone ball, uncovered by the surf and still encrusted in the barranca. Carlos Ameghino invited various persons to witness its extraction, and I went there along with Dr. Estanislao S. Zeballos, ex-minister of foreign affairs; Dr. H. von Ihering, ex-director of the Museum of São Paulo in Brazil; and Dr. R. Lehmann-Nitsche, the well known anthropologist.” At the Miramar barranca, Boman (1921, p. 343) convinced himself that the geological information earlier reported by Carlos Ameghino was essentially correct. Boman’s admission confirms our assessment that the contrary views of Romero are not to be given much credibility (Section 5.2.3).

“Arriving at the final point of our journey,” wrote Boman (1921, p. 343), “Parodi showed us a stone object encrusted in a perpendicular section of the barranca, where there was a slight concavity, apparently produced by the action of waves. This object presented a visible surface only 2 centimeters [just under an inch] in diameter. Parodi proceeded to remove some of the surrounding earth so it could be photographed, and at that time it could be seen that the object was a stone ball with an equatorial groove of the kind found on bola stones. Photographs were taken of the ball in situ, the barranca, and the persons present, and then the bola stone was extracted. It was so firmly situated in the hard earth that it was necessary to use sufficient force with cutting tools in order to break it out little by little.”

Boman then confirmed the position of the bola stone (Figure 5.2a), which was found in the barranca about a meter (about 3 feet) above the beach sand. Boman (1921, pp. 343–344) stated: “The barranca consists of Ensenadan above and Chapadmalalan below. The boundary between the two levels is undoubtedly a little confused. . . . Be that as it may, it appears to me that there is no doubt that the bola stone was found in the Chapadmalalan layers, which were compact and homogeneous.” It bears repeating that this description invalidates the views of Romero (1918), who had sought to demonstrate that the Chapadmalalan formations at Miramar were recent marine deposits. Boman’s account therefore also discredits Boule, who relied solely upon Romero in his own attempt to dismiss the discovery at Miramar of the toxodon femur and vertebral column, both with stone arrowheads embedded in them (Section 5.2.4).

Boman (1921, p. 344) then told of another discovery: “Later, at my direction, Parodi continued to attack the barranca with a pick at the same point where the bola stone was discovered, when suddenly and unexpectedly, there appeared a second ball ten centimeters lower than the first. . . . It is more like a grinding stone than a bola.” This tool (Figure 5.2b) was found at a depth of 10 centimeters (4 inches) in the face of the cliff. Boman (1921, p. 345) said it was “artificially worn.” Still later Boman and Parodi discovered another stone ball (Figure 5.2c),

200 meters from the first ones, and about half a meter lower in the barranca (Boman 1921, p. 344). Of this last discovery at Miramar, Boman (1921, p. 346) said “there is no doubt that the ball has been rounded by the hand of man.”

Boman then discussed the materials from which the implements had been made. The first bola was of quartzite, which can be found at Mar del Plata, about 15 miles northeast of Miramar. It was more difficult to account for the presence at Miramar of the diabase, from which the other two bolas were made. The nearest place where diabase could be found was near Rio Negro, about 300 miles to the southwest, from where it could have been carried up along the coast. The other possibility was the mountains of the Cordillera, deemed by Boman to be too far away—over 600 miles.

Altogether, the circumstances of discovery greatly favored a Pliocene date for the Miramar bolas. Boman (1921, p. 347) reported: “Dr. Lehmann-Nitsche has said that according to his opinion the stone balls we extracted were found in situ, are contemporary with the Chapadmalalan terrain, and were not introduced at any later time. Dr. von Ihering is less categorical in this regard. Concerning myself, I can declare that I did not observe any sign that indicated a later introduction. The bolas were firmly in place in the very hard terrain that enclosed them, and there was no sign of there having been any disturbance of the earth that covered them.”

Boman (1921, p. 347) then artfully raised, as previously, the suspicion of cheating: “I have exchanged opinions with various colleagues about the possibility there could have been any

kind of fraud involved in the circumstances under consideration, and we came to the conclusion that this possibility cannot be completely excluded. One could drill in the barranca a hole of the required size, introduce the object, and then carefully cover it with some dampened earth, the same removed in making the hole.