A business network for archaeologists
La Sena and Lovewell
“…This study discusses two of the
most recently excavated mammoth sites that offer the
opportunity to study taphonomic processes that alter
mammoth bone situated in fine-grained eolian and
alluvial sediments…”
“…the proximal halves of both femurs have been identified to date.
Both femurs are heavily broken with numerous spirally fractured fragments,
while the much lighter fibula was found in two segments. Fractured limb
bone fragments are found intermixed with complete and less heavily broken
vertebrae and ribs. In one instance, two complete ribs overlie a fragment of
spirally fractured limb bone…”
“…Dynamic loading points are found on both femurs.
These dynamic loading points were produced by an
object about 5 cm in diameter at the point of impact.
Fig. 6 shows a refit of four fragments of cortical limb
bone reconstructed to show an impact point 5 cm in
diameter measured across the gap between the two sides
of the impact point. This impact point was on the
proximal half of the femur. A prominent negative bulb
of percussion is present on the cone flake (Fig. 7) that
formed at the edge of the impact point. The negative
bulb of percussion forms an oblique angle to the
cortical surface and is 8 cm wide where it intersects
the medullary cavity. A reconstructed proximal
femur exhibits three alternating impact points each
separated by 25 cm (Fig. 8 ). Neither distal femur was
found…”
“…Bone flakes are formed from the partial thickness of
cortical limb bones. Flakes are produced longitudinally
on the limb bone. One flake exhibits a platform, a bulb
of percussion, an undulating ripple as the energy of the
blow dissipated, and a hinge termination (Fig. 9). These
features are all characteristics of percussion impact…”
“…The most unusual taphonomic situation at the site is a
broken vertebra. It was difficult to identify upon
discovery because the broken surface was standing
upright in contrast to the other excavated vertebrae,
which were lying horizontally on the old soil surface.
The transverse process was broken to a sharp point
that extended 6 cm below the original ground surface
(Fig. 10). The broken upper surface of the vertebra was
smooth and worn. A heavy concentration of small
spirally fractured limb bone fragments was excavated in
the square meter next to the vertebra (Fig. 11)…”
“…Fig. 3. Spirally fractured limb bone at the La Sena mammoth site. The
large fragment of femur on the right is the largest piece of limb bone
recovered…”
“…Fig. 4. Spirally fractured limb bone fragments at the La Sena
mammoth site. These fragments represent common size fragments…”
“…Fig. 5. Two complete ribs and a small spirally fractured limb bone
fragment underlying the distal end of the shorter rib. Arrow points to
the limb bone fragment…”
“…Fig. 6. Refit of four pieces of spirally fractured femur showing a
dynamic loading point and spiral fractures emanating from the impact
point. The arrow points to a cone flake…”
“…Fig. 7. Negative cone of percussion on the cone flake below the dynamic loading point…”
“…Fig. 8. Alternating dynamic loading points on one mammoth femur…”
“…Fig. 9. Ventral face of a bone flake formed on the partial thickness of
thick cortical bone. Note the platform, bulb of percussion, undulating
ripples, and hinge fracture at the distal end…”
“…Fig. 10. Broken vertebra standing vertically with transverse process extending 6 cm
below the original ground surface indicated by the dotted line…”
“…Fig. 11. Spirally fractured cortical limb bone fragments in the square meter next to
vertical-standing vertebra…”
“…The Lovewell mammoth site (Holen, 1996, 1997) in
north-central Kansas is situated in fine-grained alluvium,
consisting of silt and fine sand, along the north
shore of Lovewell Reservoir on White Rock Creek…”
“…Fig. 13. Bone flake from the Lovewell mammoth site showing negative
flake scars…”
“…Common fracture patterns on limb bones include
spirally fractured segments with multiple intersecting
fracture planes. Dynamic loading points produced by an
object about 3 cm in diameter are present and one cone
flake was found. Bone flakes and negative flake scars are
present (Figs. 13 and 14). One cortical segment is
bifacially flaked with two long flakes on one face and
two short flakes on the reverse face (Fig. 15). This
flaking produced a sinuous edge like those on bifacially
flaked lithic cores…”
“…Fig. 14. Bone flake from the Lovewell mammoth site with bulb of
percussion on Face B…”
“…Fig. 15. Bifacially flaked cortical segment of mammoth limb bone,
arrows point to flake scars on opposite faces…”
“…Several hypotheses that have been presented previously
to explain mammoth limb bone breakage can be
rejected because of the stratigraphic position of the
mammoth bone in eolian loess and fine-grained alluvium…”
“…The fine-grained eolian and alluvial context of these mammoth
bones allows the researcher to eliminate many of
the geological causes proposed for mammoth bone
breakage. For example, transport in river ice and
alluvial action in rivers (Thorson and Guthrie, 1984)
and taphonomic processes associated with cave environments
(Dixon, 1984) can be eliminated as factors in the
La Sena and Lovewell mammoth sites…”
“…hypothetical gnawing by bears seems to me a farfetched
explanation for the existence of fragmented
mammoth bones in any assemblage. The size and
thickness of mammoth limb bones probably presented
even the largest and hungriest Pleistocene
scavengers with gnawing problems too formidable to
allow fragmentation (Haynes, 1984: p. 109)…”
“…Thus, the smaller American lion and dire wolf
logically could not break these mammoth limb bones
at midshaft either…”
“…Three lines of evidence suggest the carnivore gnawing
hypothesis cannot be supported in explaining the
fractured limb bones from the La Sena and Lovewell
mammoths. First, both mammoths are mature adults
with fused epiphyses on the limb bones. Based on the
actualistic studies, carnivores cannot successfully attack
the articular ends of mature elephant limb bones and
then proceed to gnaw into the shaft…”
“…the limb bones are broken at multiple places at
midshaft by percussion as evidenced by negative bulbs
of percussion and the presence of cone flakes. The size of
the impact points at La Sena, about 5 cm in diameter
and at Lovewell, about 3 cm in diameter preclude
carnivore breakage of the limb bone. Morlan (1980: p.
48_49) and Johnson (1985: p. 197) point out that the
size of the depression cone can differentiate between
carnivore damage that causes smaller diameter cones
and impacts by hammerstones that form larger diameter
depression cones…”
‘‘…Percussion notches are usually broad and arcuate,
with an acute release angle and negative flake scars y.
They are usually quite distinctive from notches produced
by carnivore teeth, which tend to be narrower,
more semicircular in plan form and have a release angle
closer to perpendicular…’’
“…The 5 cm in diameter dynamic loading point on the La
Sena femurs are much larger than any late Pleistocene
carnivore tooth and, therefore, are not the product of
carnivores breaking mammoth limb bones at midshaft.
The dynamic loading points also preserve broad
negative flake scars with an oblique angle to the bone
thickness (Fig. 7) and therefore fit the description of
negative cones of percussion produced by hammerstones
as opposed to those produced by carnivores…”
“…Any discussion of carnivores causing the bone flakes
present at the La Sena mammoth site is not relevant
because the bone ‘‘flakes’’ described by Haynes (1991)
are the result of carnivores gnawing into the limb bone
shaft after removing the articular end by gnawing. The
proximal articular ends of both femora are generally
intact at the La Sena mammoth site and fracture planes
originate at midshaft. Carnivore activity is not a major
factor affecting the mammoth limb bones at the La Sena
mammoth site…”
“…The carnivore gnawing hypothesis
can be eliminated from consideration as the taphonomic
process that caused the highly fracture limb bones at the
two mammoth sites…”
“…Clovis groups in North America
manufactured the same types of tools; for example,
foreshafts, projectile points, and shaft wrenches from
proboscidean limb bone (Stanford, 1991). This manufacturing
process would have necessitated the reduction
of proboscidean limb bones. Reduction of mammoth
limb bones into cores and preforms in the most efficient
manner would require impacting them with hammerstones
and flaking them into preforms. In North
America, several authors have observed mammoth limb
bone reduction strategies and suggested that humans
caused the observed fractured and flaked bone (Bonnichsen,
1979; Stanford, 1979; Morlan, 1980, 1984,
1986, 2003; Johnson, 1985, 1989; Stanford and Graham,
1985; Hannus, 1989, 1990; Miller, 1989; Steele and
Carlson, 1989; Cinq-Mars 1990)…”
“…Modern humans can produce the types of dynamic
loading points and bone flakes present at La Sena and
Lovewell mammoth sites. The most notable study is the
Ginsberg experiment (Stanford et al., 1981) in which an
elephant was butchered and the limb bones broken with
large rocks that produced dynamic loading points.
Cortical flakes were produced by percussion from thick
limb bone shaft segments. These were then used as
effective expedient butchering tools…”
“…Archaeological evidence from North America indicates
that hunter-gatherers at the end of the Pleistocene
hunted mammoths and/or scavenged mammoths and
fractured and flaked the limb bone. Four Clovis-age
sites offer evidence for limb bone utilization and bone
flaking. These sites are Lange-Ferguson in South
Dakota (Hannus, 1989, 1990), the Wasden Site in Idaho
(Miller, 1989), and the Duewall-Newberry (Steele and
Carlson, 1989) and the Lubbock Lake Landmark
(Johnson, 1985, 1989; Johnson and Holliday, 1985) in
Texas. The Lange-Ferguson and Wasden sites have
good association of lithic artifacts with fractured
mammoth limb bones and flaked cortical bone, while
Duewall-Newberry and the locality at Lubbock Lake do
not have a lithic tool association. Fracture patterns at all
four sites include dynamic loading points on mammoth
limb bones broken at midshaft. Lange-Ferguson,
Wasden and Bluefish Cave (Cinq-Mars, 1990) have
evidence of bone flakes that refit onto cores…”
“…Archaeological evidence from four Clovis-age sites
indicate that limb bones were broken by percussion with
resulting dynamic loading points with negative bulbs of
percussion. Cone flakes were also produced in concentric
rings around the point of impact. These ‘‘flakes’’
are produced as a by-product of the dynamic loading of
limb bones (Johnson, 1985: p. 197) and do not represent
the intentional production of flakes for use…”
“…Human-induced fracturing and flaking of mammoth
limb bone at Clovis-age sites has been accepted by many
archaeologists who have directly excavated the sites
where this pattern of bone breakage and flaking exists
(Johnson, 1985, 1989; Johnson and Holliday, 1985;
Hannus, 1989, 1990; Miller, 1989; Steele and Carlson,
1989). Cogent arguments for human-induced fracturing
of Clovis-age limb bone have been offered by Hannus
(1989, 1990) and especially by Johnson (1985, 1989)…”
“…Taphonomic data from La Sena and Lovewell
mammoth sites was compared with taphonomic studies
of naturally induced fracture patterns on modern
African elephant bone. Both carnivore gnawing and
trampling can be eliminated as factors in mammoth limb
bone fracturing and flaking at La Sena and Lovewell
based on this evidence. Other possible geological bonemodifying
factors were eliminated because of thecontext of the mammoth bone situated in fine-grained
eolian and alluvial deposits. There are no other known
natural taphonomic processes that can break thick
cortical bone in these patterns. Humans, however, have
produced these fracture patterns using hammerstones
for thousands of years…”
“…These lines of evidence strongly suggest the La
Sena and Lovewell mammoth limb bone was processed
by human hunter-gatherers during the LGM on the
central Great Plains of North America. If one were to
mix the assemblages of fractured and flaked limb bones
from the Clovis-age Lange-Ferguson site in South
Dakota and the 18,000-year-old La Sena mammoth site
in Nebraska, it would not be possible to sort out the
fracture patterns in two assemblages based on taphonomic
and technological criteria. Reduction of mammoth
limb bone in both instances represents the same
technological tradition characterized by dynamic loading
to partition the limb bone and subsequent bone
flaking…”
“…The La Sena mammoth site represents a natural death
site of an old adult mammoth. There is no evidence that
the mammoth was hunted or butchered. Based on the
selective breakage of large limb bones it appears that the
skeleton was used as a quarry source (Johnson, 1985:
pp. 201_202) to produce cores and preforms for the
production of patterned bone tools that are important
parts of Upper Paleolithic and Clovis toolkits. The
broken vertebra standing vertically, associated with a
concentration of small spirally fractured limb elements,
is interpreted as the anvil designed for limb bone
reduction using hammerstones. Bone breaks much more
efficiently when using an anvil than when the bone is
lying directly on the ground…”
“…The fragment of a polished
bone object fits within the morphologic and metric
variability of Clovis bone rods variously called foreshafts
and projectile points. Before the site and nearby
stratigraphic sections were radiocarbon dated, it was
thought that the Lovewell mammoth site might be a
Clovis-mammoth association based on the presence of
dynamic loading points on limb bone, the presence of
bone flakes, and the polished bone object…”
“…Mammoth bone technology such as that discussed in
this study is also present in the Old Crow Basin,
northern Yukon (Bonnichsen, 1979; Morlan, 1980,
1984, 1986) dated to 25,000 to 40,000 rcybp (Morlan,
2003). Cutmarks from a stone tool on two bison bones
that have been dated to 36,500 and 42,000 rcybp are also
found in the Yukon (Morlan, 2003). Morlan (2003)
points out that neither type of evidence has been
adequately refuted, and the hypothesis that humans
were in eastern Beringia by 40,000 rcybp has not been
falsified. Instead it is generally ignored in the literature.
Evidence from La Sena and Lovewell support Morlan’s
(2003) hypothesis that mammoth limb bone taphonomy
changes when humans enter North America. Dynamic
loading points several centimeters in diameter and bone
flakes with bulbs of percussion and other features
caused by percussion are not documented…”
Holen, S.R., 2006, Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the central Great Plains of North America: A preliminary report on La Sena and Lovewell, Quaternary International 142–143, pp. 30–43
http://www.dmns.org/NR/rdonlyres/921434CE-1E9B-46A3-9D10-359635DBBC...
“…Research at Lovewell Reservoir in north-central Kansas,
USA, has documented the presence of seven mammoths,
all of which date to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and
terminal mid Wisconsin…”
“…A total of seven mammoths occur along a 2-km segment of the
northern shoreline (Fig. 1). This density of single adult
mammoth death sites is a unique record for the central
Great Plains and offers an opportunity to evaluate both
stratigraphy and mammoth taphonomy at several locales…”
“…Barr thought the mammoth at Lovewell had been
processed by humans based on the inverted skull, the
spirally fractured bone, and the stacked bone. This
interpretation changed when the consulting geologist told
the excavators, based on the reddish color of sediment at
the site, that the fill containing the mammoth was in the
Loveland loess of Illinoian age and that it was older than
100,000 years. Upon receiving this news the archeologists
left the site and did not collect the mammoth bone, because
they thought it was too old for human association in North
America..."
“…Archeological test excavations in 1989 and a radiocarbon
age from the Eckles Clovis site (14JW4) located
800m west of the Lovewell Mammoth indicated that much
of the terrace fill along the north shore of the reservoir was
not Illinoian in age. This discovery brought into question
the age of the fill that contained the 1969 mammoth
remains because the earlier excavation appeared to have
been conducted in a stratigraphically equivalent terrace fill
as the 1989 excavation…”
“…Three square meters excavated in this concentration in
1991 produced numerous pieces of spirally fractured and flaked adult mammoth
limb bone extending into in situ gray silt beach deposits.
Human association with the mammoth was indicated by
impacted and flaked limb bone and the presence of one
highly polished bone artifact. The presence of Clovis lithic
artifacts at the nearby Eckles Site also suggested that this
mammoth might represent a Clovis archeological site ca.
11,000 rcybp (Holen, 1993). A radiocarbon age of
18,250 +/-90 rcybp (CAMS-15636) was later obtained from
a limb bone fragment exhibiting an impact notch. This age
indicated that the mammoth was about 7000 years older
than the proposed Clovis designation…”
“…Excavation of an additional 10m2
at the location of the 1991 fieldwork yielded additional
evidence of impacted and flaked adult mammoth limb bone
(Holen, 2005a, 2006). The bone was contained in a shallow
erosional gully and had been redeposited slightly downslope
in a very fine-grained alluvium during the late
Pleistocene. During the 2002 fieldwork, heavy rain and a
rising reservoir prevented completion of the excavation…”
“…A geomorphic analysis of the site depositional
setting conducted by David May (Holen et al., 2005)
determined that two very fine-grained alluvial deposits are
present, one forming the primary terrace fill and the second
forming the gully fill. The primary deposit is a silt loam to
silty clay loam that forms the beveled terrace…”
“…Compression from soil loading is not
considered to be a factor in bone breakage at the Lovewell
Mammoth II site based on the shallow buried in prereservoir
sediments. Mammoth bone at the La Sena
Mammoth Site (Holen, 2006) was buried under 3.5m of
loess and the only breakage due to soil loading was present
on two complete ribs. These ribs exhibited dry bone
fractures oriented 90 degrees to the long axis of the bone. The
separate pieces of these ribs were still articulated as would
be expected of elements broken in situ. Sediment loading is
therefore not considered to be an important factor in the
breakage of mammoth limb bones in fine-grained silt
deposits in the central Great Plains at depths of up to
3.5 m…”
“…Three radiocarbon dates have been determined for bone
samples from the Lovewell Mammoth (Holen, 2005b). A
radiocarbon date on bone collagen from a spirally
fractured mammoth limb bone fragment recovered in situ
in 1991, returned an age of 18,250 +/- 90 rcybp (CAMS-
15636). A second date of 19,530 +/-80 rcybp (UCIAMS-
11211) was obtained from mammoth cortical bone
excavated in 2002. Both samples, processed by the
laboratory of Thomas Stafford in Colorado, USA,
contained high-quality collagen for radiocarbon dating.
The 19,530 +/- 80 rcybp age is the single best age for the site
because it was run on highly purified collagen obtained by
more rigorous laboratory methods developed by Stafford
over the ten year period between 1995 and 2005 when the
respective dates were run. The discrepancy between these
two ages is best interpreted as being the result of improved
collagen extraction techniques by the Stafford Laboratory.
These two radiocarbon ages are consistent with the
stratigraphic position of the Lovewell Mammoth in LGM
terrace fill and other radiocarbon ages from similar
stratigraphic positions along the north shore of the
reservoir…”
“…The bone artifact, illustrated in Holen (2006, Fig. 16), is
highly modified and polished and it is not possible to
identify the original element from which it was produced.
The bone artifact is identified as such based on the high
degree of modification of the original element, the high
polish, and the snap fracture with additional polish
produced after the snap. It is also identified as an artifact
based on the similarity to items variously termed bone
rods, foreshafts, projectile points and pry bars found in
Clovis sites at many locations in North America and in
Upper Paleolithic sites in central Europe and Siberia…”
“…Villa (2005) identified bone flakes from the 2002
excavation that have characteristics consistent with percussion
flaking akin to that observed on lithic artifacts. These
characteristics include a striking platform, bulb of percussion,
ripple marks, a curved ventral surface, and a hinge or
feather termination. While Villa (2005, p. 1Cool could not
positively state that the 2002 Lovewell Mammoth flaked
bone specimens were themselves used as tools, she did state
that the flake scars were ‘‘apparently due to percussion
flaking of their fractured edges, following the primary
fracture…’’
“…Holen (2006) also noted the presence of cone
flakes in the Lovewell Mammoth bone assemblage. Cone
flakes result from dynamic loading of force against the
cortical surface of a bone and are produced in concentric
rings around the point of impact. Holen (2006) recently
evaluated the modified bone specimens from the Lovewell
Mammoth site against three hypotheses to explain their
presence. He concluded, as did Villa (2005), that scavenging
and trampling cannot account for the observed
taphonomic characteristics, and that human modification
is the most likely explanation. Spirally fractured bone,
bone flakes, cone flakes, and flaked bone that further
support the interpretation of the human association with
the Lovewell Mammoth II were recovered during the 2004
excavation…”
“…In 2004, the locale was revisited when the reservoir level
was intentionally lowered for dam maintenance. The 2004
fieldwork completed the excavation of mammoth remains
in the shallow gully down to the water table of the
reservoir. Examples of spirally fractured and flaked adult
mammoth bone were recovered and there appears to be
additional mammoth bone in situ in the gully fill farther to
the north for an unknown distance extending below the
current water table…”
“…The presence of numerous spirally fractured limb elements
indicates that the mammoth bone was heavily fractured
while the bone was still very fresh. Cortical bone is
generally in good condition with some root etching.
Weathering of the bone before burial is very light to nonexistent
indicating a relatively rapid deposition…”
“…Transport within the gully
could not have caused the fracturing and flaking observed
on the bone because the narrow short paleo-gully lacked
the streamflow velocity to develop a high-energy regime
and also lacked the cobbles or boulders required to impact
the mammoth bone. Also, the fact that the mammoth bone
fragments are not size sorted and include a wide variety of
skeletal elements suggests that the bone was not transported
over a long distance before coming to rest in the
paleo-gully…”
“…Two bone fragments (Catalog #s D1-087a and D1-093)
recovered from unit D1 retain particularly good evidence
of being culturally modified. Catalog # D1-087a is a bone
flake with a platform, bulb of percussion, and feather
termination (Fig. 6). When oriented with the striking
platform up, the distal end and right lateral margin have
low-angled edges while the left lateral margin is blunt with
a 90 degree edge. If this piece were a stone artifact, it could be
classified as a naturally backed flake…”
“…Catalog # D1-093 is a bone flake with a bulb of
percussion, lines of force, and a feather termination that
was subsequently flaked from two directions. Two smaller
bone flakes that refit to D1-093 were found in place still
adhering to the larger bone’s surface. When the main bone
fragment is oriented with the original bulb of percussion
up, there are four flake scars on the left half of the cortical
(i.e., dorsal) surface that are oriented longitudinally and
one flake scar that enters from the right margin and is
oriented laterally (Fig. 6). The two refit flakes are shown in
the dorsal view of Fig. 6. If these three objects were stone,
they could be classified as a core with two refitted flakes
that failed to initially detach during reduction…”
“…Two thick lateral limb bone segments (Catalog #s: E0-
047, and E0-051) that retain good evidence of being
culturally modified were recovered from unit E0. These two
specimens exhibit impact scars indicating breakage of thick
cortical bone when it was still very fresh.
Catalog # E0-047 is a lateral cortical limb bone segment
exhibiting numerous spiral fracture planes. Morphologically
the piece is wedge shaped, with a beveled end opposite
a squared butt end (Fig. 7). The interior surface has
preserved the hinge termination of an impact scar that was
created when the bone was initially broken open. The
dorsal surface has a flake scar with a hinge termination that
is oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the bone
fragment. Catalog # E0-051 is a lateral cortical limb bone segment.
The piece has a conical scar caused by an impact fracture,
two adjacent flake scars at one end, and a single, small
flake scar at the opposite end—all located on the interior
surface (Fig. 7). The two adjacent flake scars are oriented
longitudinally, have hinge terminations, and are slightly
expanding. The right scar has a clear ripple mark across the
midsection. The small, single flake scar has a subtle ripple
mark near the proximal end, and a step termination. The
semi-circular notch where the point of impact occurred
that created the cone flake is 52mm across. Impact flake
scars such as this are produced during the initial impact
that spirally fractures a complete bone…”
“…Two other specimens (Cat. # E0-031 and E0-042) from
unit E0, exhibit evidence of bone flaking based on negative
flake scars. Catalog # E0-031 is a bone fragment with two flake scars
preserved on its cortical surface (Fig. Cool. Both flake scars
originate from the same edge and retain negative bulbs of
percussion. When the piece is oriented with the flake scars at
the top, the left flake scar has a feather termination and the
right scar has a termination that feathers into a slight hinge…”
“…Catalog # E0-042 is identified as a mammoth illium
fragment (Fig. Cool. This piece has two intersecting spiral
fractures and a large flake scar on a cortical surface that
has a maximum width of 132.5 mm. The flake scar is
very well defined with a negative bulb of percussion,
a wide expanding margin, and a feather-hinge termination.
There is also the subtle indication of an
erailleur flake that detached below and to the left of the
point of impact. The point of impact is very well defined by
a distinct notch that has an internal diameter of about
10mm and expands across the surface of the bone for a
maximum of 25 mm. There is a smaller, less distinct
notch to the right of the point of impact that measures
about 10mm across but is not associated with a flake
removal…”
“…These flaked bone fragments add important data to
understanding the Lovewell Mammoth II taphonomy. As
discussed by Holen (2006) and Villa (2005), carnivore
scavenging and trampling do not adequately explain the
spiral breakage and flaking patterns observed on the bone.
The additional evidence recovered in 2004 strengthens the
interpretation that humans were responsible for breaking
and flaking the Lovewell Mammoth bone during the LGM…”
“…These patterns of impact
fractures and bone flaking are exactly like the patterns
produced by Upper Paleolithic populations in central
Europe and Siberia (Mochanov, 1977; Valoch, 1980,
1982), and by Clovis peoples at the end of the Pleistocene
in North America (Holen, 2006; Morlan, 2003). Therefore,
these breakage patterns observed on the Lovewell Mammoth
II remains are interpreted as evidence of human
breakage and flaking of mammoth limb bone that occurred
about 19,500 rcybp. Humans may have fractured the
mammoth limb bone to acquire raw material for the
production of bone tools like foreshafts and shaft
wrenches, which are well known from Upper Paleolithic
and Clovis sites…”
Steven R. Holen, The age and taphonomy of mammoths at Lovewell Reservoir, Jewell County, Kansas, USA, Quaternary International (2006), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2006.08.006
http://www.dmns.org/NR/rdonlyres/921434CE-1E9B-46A3-9D10-359635DBBC...
_________________
Charlie Hatchett
PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
most recently excavated mammoth sites that offer the
opportunity to study taphonomic processes that alter
mammoth bone situated in fine-grained eolian and
alluvial sediments…”
“…the proximal halves of both femurs have been identified to date.
Both femurs are heavily broken with numerous spirally fractured fragments,
while the much lighter fibula was found in two segments. Fractured limb
bone fragments are found intermixed with complete and less heavily broken
vertebrae and ribs. In one instance, two complete ribs overlie a fragment of
spirally fractured limb bone…”
“…Dynamic loading points are found on both femurs.
These dynamic loading points were produced by an
object about 5 cm in diameter at the point of impact.
Fig. 6 shows a refit of four fragments of cortical limb
bone reconstructed to show an impact point 5 cm in
diameter measured across the gap between the two sides
of the impact point. This impact point was on the
proximal half of the femur. A prominent negative bulb
of percussion is present on the cone flake (Fig. 7) that
formed at the edge of the impact point. The negative
bulb of percussion forms an oblique angle to the
cortical surface and is 8 cm wide where it intersects
the medullary cavity. A reconstructed proximal
femur exhibits three alternating impact points each
separated by 25 cm (Fig. 8 ). Neither distal femur was
found…”
“…Bone flakes are formed from the partial thickness of
cortical limb bones. Flakes are produced longitudinally
on the limb bone. One flake exhibits a platform, a bulb
of percussion, an undulating ripple as the energy of the
blow dissipated, and a hinge termination (Fig. 9). These
features are all characteristics of percussion impact…”
“…The most unusual taphonomic situation at the site is a
broken vertebra. It was difficult to identify upon
discovery because the broken surface was standing
upright in contrast to the other excavated vertebrae,
which were lying horizontally on the old soil surface.
The transverse process was broken to a sharp point
that extended 6 cm below the original ground surface
(Fig. 10). The broken upper surface of the vertebra was
smooth and worn. A heavy concentration of small
spirally fractured limb bone fragments was excavated in
the square meter next to the vertebra (Fig. 11)…”
“…Fig. 3. Spirally fractured limb bone at the La Sena mammoth site. The
large fragment of femur on the right is the largest piece of limb bone
recovered…”
“…Fig. 4. Spirally fractured limb bone fragments at the La Sena
mammoth site. These fragments represent common size fragments…”
“…Fig. 5. Two complete ribs and a small spirally fractured limb bone
fragment underlying the distal end of the shorter rib. Arrow points to
the limb bone fragment…”
“…Fig. 6. Refit of four pieces of spirally fractured femur showing a
dynamic loading point and spiral fractures emanating from the impact
point. The arrow points to a cone flake…”
“…Fig. 7. Negative cone of percussion on the cone flake below the dynamic loading point…”
“…Fig. 8. Alternating dynamic loading points on one mammoth femur…”
“…Fig. 9. Ventral face of a bone flake formed on the partial thickness of
thick cortical bone. Note the platform, bulb of percussion, undulating
ripples, and hinge fracture at the distal end…”
“…Fig. 10. Broken vertebra standing vertically with transverse process extending 6 cm
below the original ground surface indicated by the dotted line…”
“…Fig. 11. Spirally fractured cortical limb bone fragments in the square meter next to
vertical-standing vertebra…”
“…The Lovewell mammoth site (Holen, 1996, 1997) in
north-central Kansas is situated in fine-grained alluvium,
consisting of silt and fine sand, along the north
shore of Lovewell Reservoir on White Rock Creek…”
“…Fig. 13. Bone flake from the Lovewell mammoth site showing negative
flake scars…”
“…Common fracture patterns on limb bones include
spirally fractured segments with multiple intersecting
fracture planes. Dynamic loading points produced by an
object about 3 cm in diameter are present and one cone
flake was found. Bone flakes and negative flake scars are
present (Figs. 13 and 14). One cortical segment is
bifacially flaked with two long flakes on one face and
two short flakes on the reverse face (Fig. 15). This
flaking produced a sinuous edge like those on bifacially
flaked lithic cores…”
“…Fig. 14. Bone flake from the Lovewell mammoth site with bulb of
percussion on Face B…”
“…Fig. 15. Bifacially flaked cortical segment of mammoth limb bone,
arrows point to flake scars on opposite faces…”
“…Several hypotheses that have been presented previously
to explain mammoth limb bone breakage can be
rejected because of the stratigraphic position of the
mammoth bone in eolian loess and fine-grained alluvium…”
“…The fine-grained eolian and alluvial context of these mammoth
bones allows the researcher to eliminate many of
the geological causes proposed for mammoth bone
breakage. For example, transport in river ice and
alluvial action in rivers (Thorson and Guthrie, 1984)
and taphonomic processes associated with cave environments
(Dixon, 1984) can be eliminated as factors in the
La Sena and Lovewell mammoth sites…”
“…hypothetical gnawing by bears seems to me a farfetched
explanation for the existence of fragmented
mammoth bones in any assemblage. The size and
thickness of mammoth limb bones probably presented
even the largest and hungriest Pleistocene
scavengers with gnawing problems too formidable to
allow fragmentation (Haynes, 1984: p. 109)…”
“…Thus, the smaller American lion and dire wolf
logically could not break these mammoth limb bones
at midshaft either…”
“…Three lines of evidence suggest the carnivore gnawing
hypothesis cannot be supported in explaining the
fractured limb bones from the La Sena and Lovewell
mammoths. First, both mammoths are mature adults
with fused epiphyses on the limb bones. Based on the
actualistic studies, carnivores cannot successfully attack
the articular ends of mature elephant limb bones and
then proceed to gnaw into the shaft…”
“…the limb bones are broken at multiple places at
midshaft by percussion as evidenced by negative bulbs
of percussion and the presence of cone flakes. The size of
the impact points at La Sena, about 5 cm in diameter
and at Lovewell, about 3 cm in diameter preclude
carnivore breakage of the limb bone. Morlan (1980: p.
48_49) and Johnson (1985: p. 197) point out that the
size of the depression cone can differentiate between
carnivore damage that causes smaller diameter cones
and impacts by hammerstones that form larger diameter
depression cones…”
‘‘…Percussion notches are usually broad and arcuate,
with an acute release angle and negative flake scars y.
They are usually quite distinctive from notches produced
by carnivore teeth, which tend to be narrower,
more semicircular in plan form and have a release angle
closer to perpendicular…’’
“…The 5 cm in diameter dynamic loading point on the La
Sena femurs are much larger than any late Pleistocene
carnivore tooth and, therefore, are not the product of
carnivores breaking mammoth limb bones at midshaft.
The dynamic loading points also preserve broad
negative flake scars with an oblique angle to the bone
thickness (Fig. 7) and therefore fit the description of
negative cones of percussion produced by hammerstones
as opposed to those produced by carnivores…”
“…Any discussion of carnivores causing the bone flakes
present at the La Sena mammoth site is not relevant
because the bone ‘‘flakes’’ described by Haynes (1991)
are the result of carnivores gnawing into the limb bone
shaft after removing the articular end by gnawing. The
proximal articular ends of both femora are generally
intact at the La Sena mammoth site and fracture planes
originate at midshaft. Carnivore activity is not a major
factor affecting the mammoth limb bones at the La Sena
mammoth site…”
“…The carnivore gnawing hypothesis
can be eliminated from consideration as the taphonomic
process that caused the highly fracture limb bones at the
two mammoth sites…”
“…Clovis groups in North America
manufactured the same types of tools; for example,
foreshafts, projectile points, and shaft wrenches from
proboscidean limb bone (Stanford, 1991). This manufacturing
process would have necessitated the reduction
of proboscidean limb bones. Reduction of mammoth
limb bones into cores and preforms in the most efficient
manner would require impacting them with hammerstones
and flaking them into preforms. In North
America, several authors have observed mammoth limb
bone reduction strategies and suggested that humans
caused the observed fractured and flaked bone (Bonnichsen,
1979; Stanford, 1979; Morlan, 1980, 1984,
1986, 2003; Johnson, 1985, 1989; Stanford and Graham,
1985; Hannus, 1989, 1990; Miller, 1989; Steele and
Carlson, 1989; Cinq-Mars 1990)…”
“…Modern humans can produce the types of dynamic
loading points and bone flakes present at La Sena and
Lovewell mammoth sites. The most notable study is the
Ginsberg experiment (Stanford et al., 1981) in which an
elephant was butchered and the limb bones broken with
large rocks that produced dynamic loading points.
Cortical flakes were produced by percussion from thick
limb bone shaft segments. These were then used as
effective expedient butchering tools…”
“…Archaeological evidence from North America indicates
that hunter-gatherers at the end of the Pleistocene
hunted mammoths and/or scavenged mammoths and
fractured and flaked the limb bone. Four Clovis-age
sites offer evidence for limb bone utilization and bone
flaking. These sites are Lange-Ferguson in South
Dakota (Hannus, 1989, 1990), the Wasden Site in Idaho
(Miller, 1989), and the Duewall-Newberry (Steele and
Carlson, 1989) and the Lubbock Lake Landmark
(Johnson, 1985, 1989; Johnson and Holliday, 1985) in
Texas. The Lange-Ferguson and Wasden sites have
good association of lithic artifacts with fractured
mammoth limb bones and flaked cortical bone, while
Duewall-Newberry and the locality at Lubbock Lake do
not have a lithic tool association. Fracture patterns at all
four sites include dynamic loading points on mammoth
limb bones broken at midshaft. Lange-Ferguson,
Wasden and Bluefish Cave (Cinq-Mars, 1990) have
evidence of bone flakes that refit onto cores…”
“…Archaeological evidence from four Clovis-age sites
indicate that limb bones were broken by percussion with
resulting dynamic loading points with negative bulbs of
percussion. Cone flakes were also produced in concentric
rings around the point of impact. These ‘‘flakes’’
are produced as a by-product of the dynamic loading of
limb bones (Johnson, 1985: p. 197) and do not represent
the intentional production of flakes for use…”
“…Human-induced fracturing and flaking of mammoth
limb bone at Clovis-age sites has been accepted by many
archaeologists who have directly excavated the sites
where this pattern of bone breakage and flaking exists
(Johnson, 1985, 1989; Johnson and Holliday, 1985;
Hannus, 1989, 1990; Miller, 1989; Steele and Carlson,
1989). Cogent arguments for human-induced fracturing
of Clovis-age limb bone have been offered by Hannus
(1989, 1990) and especially by Johnson (1985, 1989)…”
“…Taphonomic data from La Sena and Lovewell
mammoth sites was compared with taphonomic studies
of naturally induced fracture patterns on modern
African elephant bone. Both carnivore gnawing and
trampling can be eliminated as factors in mammoth limb
bone fracturing and flaking at La Sena and Lovewell
based on this evidence. Other possible geological bonemodifying
factors were eliminated because of thecontext of the mammoth bone situated in fine-grained
eolian and alluvial deposits. There are no other known
natural taphonomic processes that can break thick
cortical bone in these patterns. Humans, however, have
produced these fracture patterns using hammerstones
for thousands of years…”
“…These lines of evidence strongly suggest the La
Sena and Lovewell mammoth limb bone was processed
by human hunter-gatherers during the LGM on the
central Great Plains of North America. If one were to
mix the assemblages of fractured and flaked limb bones
from the Clovis-age Lange-Ferguson site in South
Dakota and the 18,000-year-old La Sena mammoth site
in Nebraska, it would not be possible to sort out the
fracture patterns in two assemblages based on taphonomic
and technological criteria. Reduction of mammoth
limb bone in both instances represents the same
technological tradition characterized by dynamic loading
to partition the limb bone and subsequent bone
flaking…”
“…The La Sena mammoth site represents a natural death
site of an old adult mammoth. There is no evidence that
the mammoth was hunted or butchered. Based on the
selective breakage of large limb bones it appears that the
skeleton was used as a quarry source (Johnson, 1985:
pp. 201_202) to produce cores and preforms for the
production of patterned bone tools that are important
parts of Upper Paleolithic and Clovis toolkits. The
broken vertebra standing vertically, associated with a
concentration of small spirally fractured limb elements,
is interpreted as the anvil designed for limb bone
reduction using hammerstones. Bone breaks much more
efficiently when using an anvil than when the bone is
lying directly on the ground…”
“…The fragment of a polished
bone object fits within the morphologic and metric
variability of Clovis bone rods variously called foreshafts
and projectile points. Before the site and nearby
stratigraphic sections were radiocarbon dated, it was
thought that the Lovewell mammoth site might be a
Clovis-mammoth association based on the presence of
dynamic loading points on limb bone, the presence of
bone flakes, and the polished bone object…”
“…Mammoth bone technology such as that discussed in
this study is also present in the Old Crow Basin,
northern Yukon (Bonnichsen, 1979; Morlan, 1980,
1984, 1986) dated to 25,000 to 40,000 rcybp (Morlan,
2003). Cutmarks from a stone tool on two bison bones
that have been dated to 36,500 and 42,000 rcybp are also
found in the Yukon (Morlan, 2003). Morlan (2003)
points out that neither type of evidence has been
adequately refuted, and the hypothesis that humans
were in eastern Beringia by 40,000 rcybp has not been
falsified. Instead it is generally ignored in the literature.
Evidence from La Sena and Lovewell support Morlan’s
(2003) hypothesis that mammoth limb bone taphonomy
changes when humans enter North America. Dynamic
loading points several centimeters in diameter and bone
flakes with bulbs of percussion and other features
caused by percussion are not documented…”
Holen, S.R., 2006, Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the central Great Plains of North America: A preliminary report on La Sena and Lovewell, Quaternary International 142–143, pp. 30–43
http://www.dmns.org/NR/rdonlyres/921434CE-1E9B-46A3-9D10-359635DBBC...
“…Research at Lovewell Reservoir in north-central Kansas,
USA, has documented the presence of seven mammoths,
all of which date to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and
terminal mid Wisconsin…”
“…A total of seven mammoths occur along a 2-km segment of the
northern shoreline (Fig. 1). This density of single adult
mammoth death sites is a unique record for the central
Great Plains and offers an opportunity to evaluate both
stratigraphy and mammoth taphonomy at several locales…”
“…Barr thought the mammoth at Lovewell had been
processed by humans based on the inverted skull, the
spirally fractured bone, and the stacked bone. This
interpretation changed when the consulting geologist told
the excavators, based on the reddish color of sediment at
the site, that the fill containing the mammoth was in the
Loveland loess of Illinoian age and that it was older than
100,000 years. Upon receiving this news the archeologists
left the site and did not collect the mammoth bone, because
they thought it was too old for human association in North
America..."
“…Archeological test excavations in 1989 and a radiocarbon
age from the Eckles Clovis site (14JW4) located
800m west of the Lovewell Mammoth indicated that much
of the terrace fill along the north shore of the reservoir was
not Illinoian in age. This discovery brought into question
the age of the fill that contained the 1969 mammoth
remains because the earlier excavation appeared to have
been conducted in a stratigraphically equivalent terrace fill
as the 1989 excavation…”
“…Three square meters excavated in this concentration in
1991 produced numerous pieces of spirally fractured and flaked adult mammoth
limb bone extending into in situ gray silt beach deposits.
Human association with the mammoth was indicated by
impacted and flaked limb bone and the presence of one
highly polished bone artifact. The presence of Clovis lithic
artifacts at the nearby Eckles Site also suggested that this
mammoth might represent a Clovis archeological site ca.
11,000 rcybp (Holen, 1993). A radiocarbon age of
18,250 +/-90 rcybp (CAMS-15636) was later obtained from
a limb bone fragment exhibiting an impact notch. This age
indicated that the mammoth was about 7000 years older
than the proposed Clovis designation…”
“…Excavation of an additional 10m2
at the location of the 1991 fieldwork yielded additional
evidence of impacted and flaked adult mammoth limb bone
(Holen, 2005a, 2006). The bone was contained in a shallow
erosional gully and had been redeposited slightly downslope
in a very fine-grained alluvium during the late
Pleistocene. During the 2002 fieldwork, heavy rain and a
rising reservoir prevented completion of the excavation…”
“…A geomorphic analysis of the site depositional
setting conducted by David May (Holen et al., 2005)
determined that two very fine-grained alluvial deposits are
present, one forming the primary terrace fill and the second
forming the gully fill. The primary deposit is a silt loam to
silty clay loam that forms the beveled terrace…”
“…Compression from soil loading is not
considered to be a factor in bone breakage at the Lovewell
Mammoth II site based on the shallow buried in prereservoir
sediments. Mammoth bone at the La Sena
Mammoth Site (Holen, 2006) was buried under 3.5m of
loess and the only breakage due to soil loading was present
on two complete ribs. These ribs exhibited dry bone
fractures oriented 90 degrees to the long axis of the bone. The
separate pieces of these ribs were still articulated as would
be expected of elements broken in situ. Sediment loading is
therefore not considered to be an important factor in the
breakage of mammoth limb bones in fine-grained silt
deposits in the central Great Plains at depths of up to
3.5 m…”
“…Three radiocarbon dates have been determined for bone
samples from the Lovewell Mammoth (Holen, 2005b). A
radiocarbon date on bone collagen from a spirally
fractured mammoth limb bone fragment recovered in situ
in 1991, returned an age of 18,250 +/- 90 rcybp (CAMS-
15636). A second date of 19,530 +/-80 rcybp (UCIAMS-
11211) was obtained from mammoth cortical bone
excavated in 2002. Both samples, processed by the
laboratory of Thomas Stafford in Colorado, USA,
contained high-quality collagen for radiocarbon dating.
The 19,530 +/- 80 rcybp age is the single best age for the site
because it was run on highly purified collagen obtained by
more rigorous laboratory methods developed by Stafford
over the ten year period between 1995 and 2005 when the
respective dates were run. The discrepancy between these
two ages is best interpreted as being the result of improved
collagen extraction techniques by the Stafford Laboratory.
These two radiocarbon ages are consistent with the
stratigraphic position of the Lovewell Mammoth in LGM
terrace fill and other radiocarbon ages from similar
stratigraphic positions along the north shore of the
reservoir…”
“…The bone artifact, illustrated in Holen (2006, Fig. 16), is
highly modified and polished and it is not possible to
identify the original element from which it was produced.
The bone artifact is identified as such based on the high
degree of modification of the original element, the high
polish, and the snap fracture with additional polish
produced after the snap. It is also identified as an artifact
based on the similarity to items variously termed bone
rods, foreshafts, projectile points and pry bars found in
Clovis sites at many locations in North America and in
Upper Paleolithic sites in central Europe and Siberia…”
“…Villa (2005) identified bone flakes from the 2002
excavation that have characteristics consistent with percussion
flaking akin to that observed on lithic artifacts. These
characteristics include a striking platform, bulb of percussion,
ripple marks, a curved ventral surface, and a hinge or
feather termination. While Villa (2005, p. 1Cool could not
positively state that the 2002 Lovewell Mammoth flaked
bone specimens were themselves used as tools, she did state
that the flake scars were ‘‘apparently due to percussion
flaking of their fractured edges, following the primary
fracture…’’
“…Holen (2006) also noted the presence of cone
flakes in the Lovewell Mammoth bone assemblage. Cone
flakes result from dynamic loading of force against the
cortical surface of a bone and are produced in concentric
rings around the point of impact. Holen (2006) recently
evaluated the modified bone specimens from the Lovewell
Mammoth site against three hypotheses to explain their
presence. He concluded, as did Villa (2005), that scavenging
and trampling cannot account for the observed
taphonomic characteristics, and that human modification
is the most likely explanation. Spirally fractured bone,
bone flakes, cone flakes, and flaked bone that further
support the interpretation of the human association with
the Lovewell Mammoth II were recovered during the 2004
excavation…”
“…In 2004, the locale was revisited when the reservoir level
was intentionally lowered for dam maintenance. The 2004
fieldwork completed the excavation of mammoth remains
in the shallow gully down to the water table of the
reservoir. Examples of spirally fractured and flaked adult
mammoth bone were recovered and there appears to be
additional mammoth bone in situ in the gully fill farther to
the north for an unknown distance extending below the
current water table…”
“…The presence of numerous spirally fractured limb elements
indicates that the mammoth bone was heavily fractured
while the bone was still very fresh. Cortical bone is
generally in good condition with some root etching.
Weathering of the bone before burial is very light to nonexistent
indicating a relatively rapid deposition…”
“…Transport within the gully
could not have caused the fracturing and flaking observed
on the bone because the narrow short paleo-gully lacked
the streamflow velocity to develop a high-energy regime
and also lacked the cobbles or boulders required to impact
the mammoth bone. Also, the fact that the mammoth bone
fragments are not size sorted and include a wide variety of
skeletal elements suggests that the bone was not transported
over a long distance before coming to rest in the
paleo-gully…”
“…Two bone fragments (Catalog #s D1-087a and D1-093)
recovered from unit D1 retain particularly good evidence
of being culturally modified. Catalog # D1-087a is a bone
flake with a platform, bulb of percussion, and feather
termination (Fig. 6). When oriented with the striking
platform up, the distal end and right lateral margin have
low-angled edges while the left lateral margin is blunt with
a 90 degree edge. If this piece were a stone artifact, it could be
classified as a naturally backed flake…”
“…Catalog # D1-093 is a bone flake with a bulb of
percussion, lines of force, and a feather termination that
was subsequently flaked from two directions. Two smaller
bone flakes that refit to D1-093 were found in place still
adhering to the larger bone’s surface. When the main bone
fragment is oriented with the original bulb of percussion
up, there are four flake scars on the left half of the cortical
(i.e., dorsal) surface that are oriented longitudinally and
one flake scar that enters from the right margin and is
oriented laterally (Fig. 6). The two refit flakes are shown in
the dorsal view of Fig. 6. If these three objects were stone,
they could be classified as a core with two refitted flakes
that failed to initially detach during reduction…”
“…Two thick lateral limb bone segments (Catalog #s: E0-
047, and E0-051) that retain good evidence of being
culturally modified were recovered from unit E0. These two
specimens exhibit impact scars indicating breakage of thick
cortical bone when it was still very fresh.
Catalog # E0-047 is a lateral cortical limb bone segment
exhibiting numerous spiral fracture planes. Morphologically
the piece is wedge shaped, with a beveled end opposite
a squared butt end (Fig. 7). The interior surface has
preserved the hinge termination of an impact scar that was
created when the bone was initially broken open. The
dorsal surface has a flake scar with a hinge termination that
is oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the bone
fragment. Catalog # E0-051 is a lateral cortical limb bone segment.
The piece has a conical scar caused by an impact fracture,
two adjacent flake scars at one end, and a single, small
flake scar at the opposite end—all located on the interior
surface (Fig. 7). The two adjacent flake scars are oriented
longitudinally, have hinge terminations, and are slightly
expanding. The right scar has a clear ripple mark across the
midsection. The small, single flake scar has a subtle ripple
mark near the proximal end, and a step termination. The
semi-circular notch where the point of impact occurred
that created the cone flake is 52mm across. Impact flake
scars such as this are produced during the initial impact
that spirally fractures a complete bone…”
“…Two other specimens (Cat. # E0-031 and E0-042) from
unit E0, exhibit evidence of bone flaking based on negative
flake scars. Catalog # E0-031 is a bone fragment with two flake scars
preserved on its cortical surface (Fig. Cool. Both flake scars
originate from the same edge and retain negative bulbs of
percussion. When the piece is oriented with the flake scars at
the top, the left flake scar has a feather termination and the
right scar has a termination that feathers into a slight hinge…”
“…Catalog # E0-042 is identified as a mammoth illium
fragment (Fig. Cool. This piece has two intersecting spiral
fractures and a large flake scar on a cortical surface that
has a maximum width of 132.5 mm. The flake scar is
very well defined with a negative bulb of percussion,
a wide expanding margin, and a feather-hinge termination.
There is also the subtle indication of an
erailleur flake that detached below and to the left of the
point of impact. The point of impact is very well defined by
a distinct notch that has an internal diameter of about
10mm and expands across the surface of the bone for a
maximum of 25 mm. There is a smaller, less distinct
notch to the right of the point of impact that measures
about 10mm across but is not associated with a flake
removal…”
“…These flaked bone fragments add important data to
understanding the Lovewell Mammoth II taphonomy. As
discussed by Holen (2006) and Villa (2005), carnivore
scavenging and trampling do not adequately explain the
spiral breakage and flaking patterns observed on the bone.
The additional evidence recovered in 2004 strengthens the
interpretation that humans were responsible for breaking
and flaking the Lovewell Mammoth bone during the LGM…”
“…These patterns of impact
fractures and bone flaking are exactly like the patterns
produced by Upper Paleolithic populations in central
Europe and Siberia (Mochanov, 1977; Valoch, 1980,
1982), and by Clovis peoples at the end of the Pleistocene
in North America (Holen, 2006; Morlan, 2003). Therefore,
these breakage patterns observed on the Lovewell Mammoth
II remains are interpreted as evidence of human
breakage and flaking of mammoth limb bone that occurred
about 19,500 rcybp. Humans may have fractured the
mammoth limb bone to acquire raw material for the
production of bone tools like foreshafts and shaft
wrenches, which are well known from Upper Paleolithic
and Clovis sites…”
Steven R. Holen, The age and taphonomy of mammoths at Lovewell Reservoir, Jewell County, Kansas, USA, Quaternary International (2006), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2006.08.006
http://www.dmns.org/NR/rdonlyres/921434CE-1E9B-46A3-9D10-359635DBBC...
_________________
Charlie Hatchett
PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anjanette on -
What would you say to the possibility of mammoth remains in association with a possible Folsom time period quarry site and knapping center? I will have more on this for you in the future, but think about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Hatchett on -
Will do!
I look forward to your comments.
-
Permalink Reply by mark a corbitt on -
Looks like definitive evidence of human occupation around 20000 years ago to me Charlie. Mark
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Hatchett on
-
Word is Holen has another mammoth site with signs of human modification dating to 33kya:
"...The uses of fractured bones may have varied, including that of the mammoth from Nebraska recently radiocarbon-dated at 33,000 before present (BP)..."
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/47924372.html
And then, as Holen said above:
“…Mammoth bone technology such as that discussed in
this study is also present in the Old Crow Basin,
northern Yukon (Bonnichsen, 1979; Morlan, 1980,
1984, 1986) dated to 25,000 to 40,000 rcybp (Morlan,
2003). Cutmarks from a stone tool on two bison bones
that have been dated to 36,500 and 42,000 rcybp are also
found in the Yukon (Morlan, 2003). Morlan (2003)
points out that neither type of evidence has been
adequately refuted, and the hypothesis that humans
were in eastern Beringia by 40,000 rcybp has not been
falsified..."
Holen, S.R., 2006, Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the central Great Plains of North America: A preliminary report on La Sena and Lovewell, Quaternary International 142–143, pp. 30–43
http://www.dmns.org/NR/rdonlyres/921434CE-1E9B-46A3-9D10-359635DBBC...
At these dates, the ice-free corridor was open, and people could have simply followed herds down to the Lower 48.
"...To colonize the Americas, modern humans had
to learn to subsist in the extreme environments
of the Siberian Arctic. They did this by 32 ka.
The evidence comes from the Yana Rhinoceros
Horn site (RHS), which is located along the
lower Yana River in northwest Beringia and
contains a frozen, well-preserved cultural layer
with stone artifacts and remains of extinct fauna
(36). Most interesting are bi-beveled rods on
rhinoceros horn and mammoth ivory, signs of a
sophisticated Upper Paleolithic technology. Sites
of similar age occur in subarctic central Siberia
(Nepa, Alekseevsk) and arctic European Russia
(Mamontovaya Kurya, Byzovaia) (21, 37), which
suggests that people had become well-equipped
to handle life in the far north shortly after arriving
in south Siberia (22). Their spread into the Arctic
occurred during a time of relatively warm climate
before the LGM..."
"...As yet, no unequivocal traces that the early
people of Yana RHS explored farther east onto
the Bering Land Bridge and crossed into Alaska
and northwest Canada have been found, but
hints of an early human presence may include
the 28-ka mammoth-bone core and flake recovered
from Bluefish Caves (Yukon Territory)
and even older bone materials from along the
nearby Old Crow River (38)..."
The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans
in the Americas
Ted Goebel, et al.
Science 319, 1497 (2008)
About
The Job Board
Here is a listing of current job opportunities for archaeologists and related occupations. For jobs in the U.K., go to British Archaeological Jobs & Resources.
See also Archaeological Institute of America for jobs.
See also Archaeological Institute of America for jobs.
© 2009 Created by Dan McLerran on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
