Tlapacoya at 22 ka?

[Daryl Habel]

All,

I'm passing along a request made by Kris Hurst, who is the host for archaeology.about.com.

 Hey Dar (anybody else hanging around who might know):

I'm trying to put together a definition for Tlapacoya, in the Basin of Mexico, but I can't find anything rattling around in my file drawers about the supposed pre-clovis occupation there. Do you know anything? Has this site been kicked off the 'possible list' in recent years?

If you don't know, could you pass on my query to the paleo-anth board?

thanks,
Kris

I was able to get her started with various references to the primary literature (Lorenzo & Mirambell) from 1986 and 1999, and pointed her in the direction of E. James Dixon's (1999) book "Bones, Boats & Bison" (University of New Mexico Press), which has a four-long-paragraphs summary of the site, its reported evidence and dating.  She should be able to gather enough from Dixon's book to write up her "definition", but she's still curious about opinions on the site.  Dixon lists several points offered by (referenced) detractors why the site hasn't gained full acceptance, but Dixon also adds: "However, it is difficult to attribute the uncanny aggregations of bones, lithics, and charcoal entirely to noncultural agents. Additional research employing contemporary analytical and dating techniques could provide new insight into the Tlapacoya I assemblage" (p. 96).

Dixon says Tlapacoya doesn't meet all criteria specified by Vance Haynes (1969) and subsequently by Dennis Stanford (1983) for acceptance of a pre-11,500 BP NA site, so he doesn't really accept the site.

But Kris' question lingers: Has this site been kicked off the 'possible list' in recent years?  I told her I thought it was still in the 'possible' category, but also told her I'd ask here to make sure.  Any ideas on the site's 'possibility' would be much appreciated.  

Regards,
Dar
 
 

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

I'm passing along a request made by Kris Hurst, who is the host for archaeology.about.com.


I was able to get her started with various references to the primary literature (Lorenzo & Mirambell) from 1986 and 1999, and pointed her in the direction of E. James Dixon's (1999) book "Bones, Boats & Bison" (University of New Mexico Press), which has a four-long-paragraphs summary of the site, its reported evidence and dating.  She should be able to gather enough from Dixon's book to write up her "definition", but she's still curious about opinions on the site.  Dixon lists several points offered by (referenced) detractors why the site hasn't gained full acceptance, but Dixon also adds: "However, it is difficult to attribute the uncanny aggregations of bones, lithics, and charcoal entirely to noncultural agents. Additional research employing contemporary analytical and dating techniques could provide new insight into the Tlapacoya I assemblage" (p. 96).

Dixon says Tlapacoya doesn't meet all criteria specified by Vance Haynes (1969) and subsequently by Dennis Stanford (1983) for acceptance of a pre-11,500 BP NA site, so he doesn't really accept the site.

But Kris' question lingers: Has this site been kicked off the 'possible list' in recent years?  I told her I thought it was still in the 'possible' category, but also told her I'd ask here to make sure.  Any ideas on the site's 'possibility' would be much appreciated. 

Regards,
Dar

Dar,

Assuming that one approaches Dixon’s words on Tlapacoya with caution and with some knowledge of the rather messy history of research surrounding this and other very palaeo finds located, directly or indirectly beyond the USAnian pale, Dixon’s is indeed as good an English summary as you’ll get.

As for Vance Haynes’ criteria -- with which I do not agree, especially as read by  others, I can tell you that if they were to be strictly applied across the geographical and geochronological boards, we would be running out of sites to talk about, throughout the world and, more importantly, quite a few careers would be at stake and interesting books would go unpublished. Ironically, Dixon’s own ongoing pet/”wet” hypothesis meets none of the criteria put forth by Haynes.

As for Tlapacoya, and quite a few other “beyond the pale” localities, in Mesoamerica, South America and, even, in Eastern Beringia (!), it is just a matter of time … and money.

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

Dear Jacques,

Thanks very much. I'll pass this (with a few words of caution) along to Kris.  I'm sure she'll find it helpful.

Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dear Jacques,

Thanks very much. I'll pass this (with a few words of caution) along to Kris.  I'm sure she'll find it helpful.

Dar

Dar,

You are certainly welcome. This said, I realize that I have managed, once again, to come up with an overly synthetic response to your (and Kris’) question. The fact is that what little I know about Tlapacoya is based on very few published papers. Most if not all the original ones are in Spanish and somewhat hard of access, and the rest, in French or English, consist primarily of second hand summaries. Mention should also be made of quite a bit of “grey zone” products (written or unwritten, i.e., talks at meetings, conversations, etc.) that were circulating a few years ago. For the most part, this revolved around not so much the cultural attribution or identity of the material found at the site, but around the proposed “dates” which flew in the face of the “Clovis First” paradigm. Ergo the development of the controversy surrounding the Mexican claims regarding the great antiquity of Tlapacoya as well as that of a number of localities found in the general vicinity of the Mexico basin. To summarize, many of these were unfairly shot down in flames, -- or so thought a number of American archaeologists -- and this against a highly nationalistic and politicised background. As I alluded to earlier, things got to be pretty messy. Not good for the profession, but “Clovis First” ended up with an extended lease on validity, at least in the eyes of many of the principal American actors and the majority of their academic “repeating stations”. That is, until the appearance on the scene of Monte Verde. But that’s another long story.

Anyway, time has passed (not to mention people passing away) and it appears that, with the “Clovis First” dogma being increasingly put into question, collaborative efforts are underway to reassess, in an interdisciplinary fashion, some of the earlier Mexican claims.

Coincidentally, two days ago, I just chanced upon the following, telling example of what may be ahead.

Arroyo-Cabrales, Joaquın, Oscar J. Polaco, and Eileen Johnson. 2005. A preliminary view of the coexistence of mammoth and early peoples in Mexico. Quaternary International (in press).

Abstract:
A progress report about human–mammoth interactions in Mexico is provided based primarily on a literature search. More than 270 mammoth localities are known in Me´ xico, but only 17 of them have shown some evidence of an association between early peoples and mammoth. However, that number is even less when each locality is assessed in detail, due to the lack of a supportable association or the loss of the actual specimens that precludes their analysis using current techniques. Only six localities have modified mammoth bone. Among them, the greatest potential for demonstrating such a relationship is at Santa Isabel Iztapa, Valsequillo, Villa de Guadalupe, and Tocuila. Establishing an analysis methodology for the materials from those, as well as new localities, is warranted to provide the basis for interpreting the human–mammoth relationship in Mexico. Future research calls for detailed stratigraphic and radiometric control and an analytical protocol for bone analysis focused on taphonomy and biotechnology.

Click HERE for access to the full article.

Jacques