Pleistocene Artifacts from Central Texas

[Charlie Hatchett]

Greetings.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Charlie Hatchett. I’m a
dedicated enthusiast researching what appear to be artifacts unraveling
out of Pleistocene gravels in central Texas. I’d like to share with you
just a few of the thousands of artifacts recovered:

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE


Respectfully,

Charlie

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Greetings.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Charlie Hatchett. I’m a
dedicated enthusiast researching what appear to be artifacts unraveling
out of Pleistocene gravels in central Texas. I’d like to share with you
just a few of the thousands of artifacts recovered:

<snip>
Respectfully,

Charlie

Dear Charlie,

Apologies for this belated, “official” welcome to the Forum, and thanks for the presentation of your intriguing images.

This said, I would like to know first why you call them “Acheulian-like”. Also, it would be interesting if you were to tell us about the geoarchaeological context(s) of the finds. Why Pleistocene and why necessarily pre-Clovis?

Jacques

[Charlie Hatchett]

Thanks for the welcome, Jacques.

I have applied the term “Acheulian-like” because of the metrics and
overall morphology of the artifacts. Tony Baker has compiled metric
data on several thousand handaxes and has come up with the following
observations:

Length: average is 129 mm- 90% of all between 76--181 mm

Length to Width Ratio (L/W): average is 1.6- 90% of all between 1.3--2.1-
increases with length

Width to Thickness Ratio (W/T): average is 1.9- 90% of all between 1.4--2.9

http://www.ele.net/acheulean/handaxe.htm  Table 2


I’ve utilized the term “Acheulian-like” because no human bones have been
found in association with the artifacts, thus making it impossible to directly
associate a “species” with their manufacture.

The artifacts are being recovered from alluvial gravels that are securely
capped by a paleosol firmly dated by Texas State and The University of
Texas, to Clovis times:

“…Valley scouring marks the initial alluvial event
at the Wilson-Leonard site and correlates to
drought conditions identified at nearby Boriack
Bog (Bousman 1998) and Halls Cave (Toomey et
al. 1993) between 13,700 and 12,100 cal BC
(13,000–12,000 BP). At this time, erosion of alluvial
sediments in valley bottoms is wide spread
in central Texas (Blum et al. 1994). The basal Unit
Igl gravels, with Clovis artefacts, were deposited
after this event. Above the gravels, silty deposits
(Isi) contain the Early Palaeoindian occupation
known as the Bone Bed Component…”

“…Unit Icl, above the Bone Bed Component,
interfingers with the upper portion of
Unit Isi. Unit Icl consists of clayey cienega (marsh)
deposits, and produced the oldest radiocarbon
assays. These assays show that the Bone Bed
Component predates ~11,200 cal BC (11,200 BP)…”

http://www.txstate.edu/anthropology/cas/journal_articles/antiquity.pdf

Note that Bousman assigns Clovis artifacts to the gravel deposits, but Collins disagrees:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/Collins%20Wilson%20Leonard.pdf

Note that Collins dates the gravels to a minimum of 12,000 B.P. Collins assigns the
Clovis artifacts to the stratum (Icl) immediately capping the gravels. The gravels, and
any artifacts recovered from them, are preClovis in his opinion, and the artifacts could
be all sorts of dates prior to Clovis, because of the alluvial deposition of the gravels.
Local USGS charts date the gravel stratum, and the paleosol capping the gravel, to the
Pleistocene.

Initial U-Th dating supports this hypothesis. 2 specimens were submitted to USGS for analyses,
and dates of 13,500 B.P. and 147,500 B.P. were derived for the two specimens: The “all sorts
of preClovis dates” to which I referred above. The U-Th analyses included dating secondary
carbonate deposited in flake channels of the artifacts. 6 more specimens have been submitted
to Berkeley Geochronology Center for further analyses. We’ll see if these results further support
the hypothesis. If their results support the hypothesis then formal excavations will begin.

There are a lot more details, but I’ll stop at this point, for brevity’s sake. We can delve into more
details if your interested on our next round of posts.

Thanks for your interest, Jacques.

Very respectfully,

Charlie

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dear Charlie,

You're welcome, and thanks for this additional information. Having gone through some of your references, it may well be that you are indeed dealing with pre-Clovis material, but, frankly, I think that the use of the word "Acheulian" is a bit loaded (biased?), especially when it is followed by an equally loaded question about the “species” who might have fashioned your bifaces.

Best regards,

Jacques

[Charlie Hatchett]

Understood, Jacques.

On the tech description, I’m just trying to come up with the most descriptive term. Have you a suggestion or two for describing the bifaces? I agree concerning the mention of “species”. I could have left that out. I was just trying to make clear that even though I’ve been using the term Acheulean-like, I don’t necessarily think H. erectus was behind the bifaces’ manufacture.

Have you seen a tech similar to this in North America? One of the specimens from Walker, MN. looks somewhat similar to this central Texas specimen:

CLICK HERE

Here’s the Walker specimen to which I refer:

CLICK HERE

What intrigues me about the Minnesota finds is the discovery of Minnesota “Man”, back in the 1930’s. Associated with the burial was a Gulf Coast conch shell. The skeleton is described as similar to “Archaic” Homo sapiens, in Wormington’s 4th edition of Ancient Man in North America (pp 232-236). Obviously this reference is dated, and any updated references concerning this burial will be much appreciated.

Again, thanks for your interest, Jacques. Any light you might be able to shed on this/ these central Texas tech(s) will be much appreciated. It’s an interesting puzzle, in my opinion.

Respectfully,

Charlie

[AWSX]

Jacques & Charlie,
I am assuming that you are referring to 'Browns Valley Man'  discovered in 1933. The remains were dated only about 8900 years old but the features are very interesting. http://www.csasi.org/2000_july_journal/earliest%20americans.htm


"The Browns Valley man was discovered on October 9, 1933, in a gravel pit on the Plateau Addition of Browns Valley. An investigation of the site determined the age of the grave to be between 8,000 and 12,000 years. Testing revealed that the Browns Valley skeleton was one of the oldest ever found in the United States. Based on examination his features resemble those of a Greenland Eskimo. His jawbone was much wider than that of the mound builder and exceeds in width even that of Heidelberg Man (Homo Erectus). Found with the Browns Valley man were artifacts of a transition period between the Yuma and the Folsom types. The Browns Valley Man was found a few years later than the famous Minnesota Woman, listed later."

I am much more interested in bones than stones and the  large jaw seems to be a fairly common feature of some other remains from Mexico,Brazil, and Patagonia/Tierra del Fuego. 

If anyone on this board has a detailed description of Browns Valley Man or any of the other old remains found in the Americas I would sure like to get a copy. I do have a good report on the Horn Shelter double burial which is quite interesting.

[Charlie Hatchett]

"...The Browns Valley Man was found a few years later than the famous Minnesota Woman, listed later..."

Hi Allan.

I was referring to the Minnesota Woman, who was initially thought to be a man. I found it interesting that a Gulf Coast conch shell was associated with the burial. The Archaic-like features are intriguing, also. Do you know if Minnesota Woman was ever dated?

Thanks,

Charlie

[AWSX]

Charlie,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/1.pdf
I went searching and found this report by Albert Ernest Jenks dated January 15, 1933 about  a skeleton discovered  June 18, 1931 three miles north of Pelican Rapids, in Pelican township of Ottertail county, Minnesota. The remains were referred to as "Minnesota Man", though there were indications it was female. There is no mention of a conch shell. This is getting somewhat confusing because there is a "Pelican Rapids Woman"  but the link I posted above shows she was discovered in 1938.

What is your source that mentions a conch shell?

[Charlie Hatchett]

This may be the conch shell to which Wormington refers:

“…A shell pendant was found with the skeleton among the ribs and vertebrae in the abdominal area. This pendant may have been hung from the neck, but I am of the opinion that it was attached to the girdle, perhaps as a pubic apron…”

CLICK HERE

Here's Jenks' statement, describing the skeleton as similar to Archaic Homo sapiens:

"...We may say that aside from the geological evidences of the find, the
skull is morphologically of a nature to compel its assignment as an early
type of Homo sapiens..."

CLICK HERE

The skeleton is described as similar to Archaic Homo sapiens in Wormington’s 4th edition of Ancient Man in North America (pp 232-236). It’s in these same pages that reference to a Gulf Coast conch shell is made (2nd image):

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

Thanks for the Jenks' reference.

Charlie

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques & Charlie,
I am assuming that you are referring to 'Browns Valley Man'  discovered in 1933. The remains were dated only about 8900 years old but the features are very interesting. http://www.csasi.org/2000_july_journal/earliest%20americans.htm

<snip>

Allan,

For your information, and for the sake of history, here is a complementary document to the one you refer to in your post. You’ll notice that it is slightly different than yours: CLICK HERE. I unfortunately don’t have time to trace its exact reference. I think that both lists of "palaeoamerican skeletons" were put on the web in the wake of the Santa Fe “Clovis and Beyond Conference”, HERE.

Jacques

[AWSX]

Thanks Jacques,
Some time ago I found a website on 'Laguna Woman' which was discovered in 1933 in California. http://www.light-headed.com/asite/laguna/laguna_history/laguna_woman_1.php
This skull was 14C dated at 17,000 years old which makes this the oldest dated remains in the Americas but for some reason it never shows up in the lists.. The article does have some references on the last page but I have never tracked down those papers.

[Charlie Hatchett]

The Mammoth Trumpet article explains what happened to Minnesota "Man":

"...Owsley said that one of the most unusual ancient skulls, that of “Minnesota Woman,” had recently been repatriated and reburied. To emphasize the potential loss of information from the burial of that individual, he pointed out that two generations ago one of America’s foremost physical anthropologists examined measurements of Minnesota Woman and declared that she had been a modern Sioux, an assertion that appears ridiculous in the light of a careful reexamination employing the latest techniques and statistical methods. Left unstated was the possibility that with new techniques, some future physical anthropologist might have learned still more, had not the skull been lost to science..."

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?a=18

Thanks for the reference, Jacques.

Charlie