Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:32:03.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mammoths, Measured Time, and Mistaken Identities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Gary Haynes
Gary Haynes*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department (096), University of Nevada, Reno; Reno, Nevada 89557 USA. Email: gahaynes@unr.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Mammoth and mastodont sites containing broken or cut bones are not rare in the New World, but their meanings are ambiguous. Studies of recent African elephant bone sites indicate that certain processes in nature create bone modifications that are identical to the end-effects of human actions such as butchering. In designing a rational and efficient approach to the radiometric dating of fossil proboscidean sites, caution and skepticism should enter into interpretations of modified materials.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , 2000 , pp. 257 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Anderson, AD, editor. 1975. The Cooperton mammoth: an Early Man bone quarry. Great Plains Journal 14(2): 130–72.Google Scholar
Cotterell, B, Kamminga, J. 1990. The mechanics of pre-industrial technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dillehay, T D. 1997. Monte Verde: a Late Pleistocene settlement in Chile. Volume 2: The Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Dunnell, RC, Hamilton, TM. 1995. Age of the Miami Mastodon. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 91–2.Google Scholar
Fagan, BM. 1995. Ancient North America: the archaeology of a continent. 2nd edition. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Fisher, DC. 1984. Mastodon butchery by North American Paleo-Indians. Nature 308:271–2.Google Scholar
Fisher, DC. 1987. Mastodont procurement by Paleoindians in the Great Lakes Region: hunting or scavenging? In: Nitecki, MH, Nitecki, DV, editors. Evolution of human hunting. New York: Plenum Press. p 309–421.Google Scholar
Fisher, DC. 1996. Extinction of proboscideans in North America. In: Shoshani, J, Tassy, P, editors. The proboscidea: evolution and palaeoecology of elephants and their relatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 296–315.Google Scholar
Frison, GC, Todd, LC. 1986. The Colby Mammoth site: taphonomy and archaeology of a Clovis kill in Northern Wyoming. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Hall, DA. 1997. Nebraska follow-up: flaked bone suggests Americans used mammoths as tool materials. Mammoth Trumpet 12(3):7–8.Google Scholar
Hamilton, TM. 1996. The Miami mastodon, 23SA212. The Missouri Archaeologist 54:79–88.Google Scholar
Hannus, LA. 1990. The Lange-Ferguson site: a case for mammoth bone-butchering tools. In: Agenbroad, L, Mead, J, Nelson, L, editors. Megafauna and man: discovery of America's heartland. Mammoth site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Scientific Papers, Volume 1. p 86–99.Google Scholar
Haynes, G. 1991. Mammoths, mastodonts, and elephants: biology, behavior, and the fossil record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irving, WN, Jopling, AV, Klitsch-Armstrong, I. 1989. Studies of bone technology and taphonomy, Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory. In: Bonnichsen, R, Sorg, M, editors. Bone modifications. Orono, Maine: Center for the Study of the First Americans. p 347–79.Google Scholar
Johnson, E, editor. 1987. Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary studies on the Southern High Plains. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Laub, RS. 1990. The Hiscock site (western New York): recent developments of Pleistocene and Early Holocene Interest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 7: 116–8.Google Scholar
Laub, RS. 1995. The Hiscock site (western New York): recent developments in the study of the Late-Pleistocene Component. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:26–9.Google Scholar
Laub, RS, Haynes, G. 1998. Fluted points, mastodons, and evidence of Late-Pleistocene drought at the Hiscock site, western New York State. Current Research in the Pleistocene 15:32–4.Google Scholar
Mandryk, CAS. 1998. A geoarchaeological interpretation of the Lamb Spring site, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 13(8):819–46.Google Scholar
Mandryk, CAS. 1999. Geoarchaeological analysis and interpretation of the Lamb Spring site, Colorado. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, Washington, 24–28 March 1999.Google Scholar
Mehl, M. 1967. The Grundel Mastodon. Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report of Investigations. Number 35.Google Scholar
Meltzer, DJ. 1993. Search for the first Americans. Washington DC: Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D, Grayson, D, Ardila, G, Barker, A, Dincauze, D, Haynes, CV, Mena, F, Nunez, L, Stanford, D. 1997. On the Pleistocene antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659–63.Google Scholar
Miller, SJ. 1989. Characteristics of mammoth bone reduction at Owl Cave, the Wasden site, Idaho. In: Bonnichsen, R, Sorg, M, editors. Bone modifications . Orono, Maine: Center for the Study of the First Americans. p 381–93.Google Scholar
Miller, SJ, Dort, W Jr. 1978. Early man at Owl Cave: current investigations at the Wasden site, Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. In: Bryan, AL, editor. Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective. University of Alberta Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper Nr 1. p 129–39.Google Scholar
Morlan, RE. 1980. Taphonomy and archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory. Archaeological Survey of Canada. Paper Nr 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morlan, RE. 1986. Pleistocene archaeology in Old Crow Basin: a critical appraisal. In: Bryan, AL, editor. New evidence for the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas . Orono, Maine: Center for the Study of Early Man. p 27–48.Google Scholar
Overstreet, DF, Stafford, TW Jr. 1997. Additions to a revised chronology for cultural and non-cultural mammoth and mastodon fossils in the southwestern Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:70–1.Google Scholar
Overstreet, DF, Joyce, DJ, Hallin, K, Wasion, D. 1993. Cultural contexts of mammoth and mastodon in the Southwest Lake Michigan Basin. Current Research in the Pleistocene 10:75–7.Google Scholar
Rancier, J, Haynes, G, Stanford, D. 1982. 1981 Investigations at Lamb Spring. Southwestern Lore 8(2):1–17.Google Scholar
Stanford, D. 1979. The Selby and Dutton sites: evidence for a possible pre-clovis occupation in the High Plains. In: Humphrey, R, Stanford, D, editors. Pre-Llano cultures of the Americas . Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. p 101–23.Google Scholar
Stanford, D, Bonnichsen, R, Morlan, RE. 1981a. The Ginsberg experiment: modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone flaking technology. Science 212:438–40.Google Scholar
Stanford, D, Wedel, WR, Scott, GR. 1981b. Archaeological investigations of the Lamb Spring site. Southwestern Lore 47(1): 14–27.Google Scholar
Steele, DG, Carlson, DL. 1989. Excavation and taphonomy of mammoth remains from the Duewall-Newberry site, Brazos County, Texas. In: Bonnichsen, R, Sorg, M, editors. Bone modifications . Orono, Maine: Center for the Study of the First Americans. p 413–30.Google Scholar
Tomenchuk, J, Laub, RS. 1995. New insights into Late-Pleistocene bone technology at the Hiscock site, Western New York State. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:71–4.Google Scholar