Reply to “Evidence for humans at White Sands National Park during the Last Glacial Maximum could actually be for Clovis people ~13,000 years ago” by C. Vance Haynes, Jr.

Jeffrey S. Pigati; Kathleen B. Springer; Vance T. Holliday; Matthew R. Bennett; David Bustos; Thomas M. Urban; Sally C. Reynolds; Daniel Odess

doi:10.1080/20555563.2022.2039863

USGS · 70229987

Reply to “Evidence for humans at White Sands National Park during the Last Glacial Maximum could actually be for Clovis people ~13,000 years ago” by C. Vance Haynes, Jr.

Jeffrey S. Pigati·Kathleen B. Springer·Vance T. Holliday·Matthew R. Bennett·David Bustos·Thomas M. Urban·Sally C. Reynolds·Daniel Odess

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Bennett et al. (2021, Science 373, 1528–1531) reported that ancient human footprints discovered in White Sands National Park, New Mexico date to between ∼23,000 and 21,000 years ago. Haynes (2022, PaleoAmerica , this issue) proposes two alternate hypotheses to explain the antiquity of the footprints. One is that they were made by humans crossing over older sediments sometime during the Holocene. This is incorrect as there are Pleistocene megafauna tracks interspersed with the human footprints, so they cannot be Holocene in age. The other hypothesis maintains seeds used to date the human footprints were exhumed from older sediments, transported across the Tularosa Basin, and deposited on moist ground that was traversed by Clovis people at ∼13,000 years ago. This scenario requires a series of events that are highly unlikely, if not impossible. We maintain the seeds were collected from their original depositional context and the ages of the footprints fall within the Last Glacial Maximum.

Explore related subjects

PaleoAmerica Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 32.676372772089834° to 32.88189375925038° latitude; -106.48223876953125° to -106.12792968749999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jeffrey S. Pigati, Kathleen B. Springer, Vance T. Holliday, Matthew R. Bennett, David Bustos, Thomas M. Urban, Sally C. Reynolds, Daniel Odess. 2022-03-21. Reply to “Evidence for humans at White Sands National Park during the Last Glacial Maximum could actually be for Clovis people ~13,000 years ago” by C. Vance Haynes, Jr.. https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2022.2039863

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2024

The geochronology of White Sands Locality 2 is resolved

Rhode et al. (2024) allege that there are many “unresolved issues” with the geochronology of White Sands National Park (WHSA) Locality 2. They suggest there are substantial age offsets due to hard-water effects in the aquatic plants that were dated and that radiocarbon ages of pollen may be anomalously old due to reworking. In their view, the luminescence ages are likely to be maximum ages because of the probable presence of partially bleached quartz grains, overestimation of water content, and stratigraphic position of the samples. They also assert the ages of the footprint trackways are not as internally consistent as suggested and can be interpreted in various ways. We review each of these issues and show they are without merit, often irrelevant, at odds with first principles, and stem from a lack of firsthand understanding of the studies we conducted at WHSA Locality 2.

New Mexico↗

USGS2017

Disparate perspectives on evidence from the Cerutti Mastodon site: A reply to Braje et al.

The Perspective editorial by Braje, T., T. D. Dillehay, J. M. Erlandson, S. M. Fitzpatrick, D. K. Grayson, V. T. Holliday, R. L. Kelly, R. G. Klein, D. J. Meltzer, and T. C. Rick (2017. “Were Hominins in California ∼130,000 Years Ago?” PaleoAmerica 3 (3): 200–202) takes issue with our argument [Holen, S. R., T. A. Deméré, D. C. Fisher, R. Fullagar, J. B. Paces, G. T. Jefferson, J. M. Beeton, et al. (2017. “A 130,000-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Southern California, USA.” Nature 544 (7651): 479–483) that the assemblage of bones and stones at the Cerutti Mastodon (CM) site implicates hominin activity in site formation 130,000 years ago. Braje et al. propose instead that features of the CM site can be better explained by geological or other causes unrelated to ancient human activity. However, we contend that their conclusion reflects an incomplete assessment of our evidence. They further propose a standard of evidence at odds with current practice in the philosophy of science, and misuse a commonly quoted aphorism that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

California↗

USGS2017

Broken bones and hammerstones at the Cerutti Mastodon site: A reply to Haynes

Haynes [2017 “The Cerutti Mastodon.” PaleoAmerica 3 (3): 196–199] criticizes numerous aspects of our analysis of the Cerutti Mastodon (CM) site, but central among his points is the claim that heavy equipment broke the bones and stones that we interpret as evidence of ancient human activity. This notion can be discounted primarily because most of the relevant CM fragments were found coated in thick crusts of pedogenic carbonate clearly showing that breakage occurred thousands of years ago. Haynes also raises questions about site stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and absence of other artifactual evidence. The stratigraphic context of CM bones and rocks is well-defined, and the Pleistocene site stratigraphy remained intact before excavation. Knapped stone tools are not a requirement in bone processing archaeological sites. In the absence of other plausible explanations for the multiple lines of evidence, we maintain that hominins broke the CM bones using stone hammers and anvils.

California↗