2

II
132
First Clear Evidence of Ancient Man in North America 133

to make possible intelligent comparisons and safely arr!ve at definite con-

clusions. Therefore, to be of value, it is essential that ~t.be supple~e~ted
Despite a great deal of theorizing (which goes back to the lime of I by those branches of the sciences that are capable of fixing ~eologlC time
Columbus) over the question oj how old man in North America was (Wilm-
periods- the sole means of bridging the weaknesses that .oc~ur in t.h~ thread
sen 1965), it was not unti11926 that a discovery was made which established
once and for ali the fact that man had been present in the New World at
a time when animals of now extinct species were living. The announcement
r of evidence represented by skeletal remains .. Wit~ou.t this aid.' .0pInlOns are
not only venturesome, but distinctly misleading, I~ given pubhclt~. .
Readers of the discussions relative to the anuquny of man In Ameflc.a
of that discovery is presented below. Since this historic event oj nearly a
half century ago, an imposing collection oj information on ancient man in I must frequently wonder because of the antipathy for the acceptance of eVI-
dence of that character, and often they may have inq.uired "W~~ should
the New World has been made (Sellards /952; Wormington 1957; Willey
1966, chap. 2). AI this time there is no acceptable evidence (though (here r we not expect to find such evidence, since there are nelth~r CO,~dltlon.s nor
facts that interfere in the slightest w.ith such. an expectation? ?bVIOUSI~
are numerous claims) that man was present in North America before 10,000
then denials of the antiquity of man 10 America, without convmcmg yroo
to 11,000 E.C. (Haynes 1965; Graham and Heizer 1967).
that' we could not expect to find such evidence, are pure~y su~posltlons.
However the purpose of the present paper is not a discussion ?f the
relative merits' of arguments "
previous Iy a d va need '. but a presentation d0 r
new evidence of man's antiquity in A~e~ica. As th~ wnter ?as not ma ~
a special study of this subject, his oprruons regarding the Importance 0
the evidence would be valueless, and for that rea~on ~e expresse~ none
He merely views it in the light of substantiating earlier fmds. of a like ad~ d
THE FIRST CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ( similar nature and as pomnng "" t h e way I00 ther and more Important IS-
. .'. di f th facts as he knows them.
ANCIENT MAN IN NORTH AMERICA' r covenes HIs task IS the recor mg o e
In '1923 Me. Nelson J. Vaughan, a resi~ent of Colo~ado,
M' h Il
~~s ~n
J. D, Figgins County Texas in a letter to the writer, descnbed a deposit of bo h

. ~hen we analyze the technical opposition to the belief that man has
..
(
the bank" of Lone Wolf Creek, near his
forwarded examples to the Co Iora d 0 M useu
"U home.

T d
m
arts
pon requ est '. Mr . Vaug
of Natural
of an
History
.
exunct
bi
f

rson,
or
dan
and e-
inhabitej America over an enormous period of time we find it is not only termination. These proved to be f OSSIize p th locality for
restricted to an indi:idual minority, but it also appears to be traceable to I the following season, 1924, Me. H. D. Boyes was sent to e
the results of .a too circumscribed viewpoint, _ a failure to appreciate prop- the purpose of making excavations. . . ( d i d and elsewhere
erly all th~ ~vldence, and a seeming unwillingness to accept the conclusions r After the removal of the overlying formation stu 1\ alaeontology
of authontIes engaged in related branches of investigation. It is a fact, of \
described by Me. Harold J. Coo.k, honorary .cur.ator ~ ~rtions of th~
course: that .the nature of the material evidence upon which opinions a~e Colorado Museum of Natural History) and fmdlO g °t tP emove them
. . . d ed most expe dlen 0 r
.based .IS an lmportant factor, and when such evidence is not abundant, It skeletal remams associated, It was eem. til th fossils were
IS obvIOUS. that students cannot successfully restrict their studies if they I, in sections. This was accomplished by workm~ dow~ ~n I I ethus forming

!
would aVOid the dangers that arise through a lack of continuity in one or exposed, cutting channels through the deposit .at m ervads," burlap and
more threads of evidence. ' " h . t n bemg encase 10
'blocks" of considerable Size, t ese m ur., ced and when a block
. This appears to be very well illustrated by individuals learned in phy. plaster of Paris. A heavy crate was t?en mtrodu 'Then with the use
slc.al ant~ropology, comparative craniology and racial relationships. The was firmly fixed in the latter, undercuttmg t?ok ~Ia:~d turned on edge for
chief deOlals of man's a t' ". . ..'
n IqUlty m Ameflca appear to have their oflgm JD
those Sources of investigation. Such criticism would doubtless have weight
i of tackle, the blocks were released from their be I k"
h .
t e purpose of removlOg the excess ma n,
t'x and p an 109
I
over the bottoms
lete skeleton of an
a.nd value were .skeletal evidence abundant. But such evidence, representa.
tl.ve of t.he perlO~S ant~dating that which is regarded as "modern," or
[ of the crates. During these operations, the near YI~omp 'Is lefl side This
adult bison was uncovered, qUite " artlcu
"Itdandymgo
a e .nl .
". . d k P as descnbed above.
smce Pleistocene times, IS exceedingly meager. Indeed, it is far too scant
r was dIvided mto sections an ta en u

Ih f"
"
When the excess matnx was em
b " g remove
. I
I " " g the cervlca s, a
d f
rom
the under side of
few dorsals and their
,
·The Antiquity of Man in NOrlh America, by J. D.
Figgins. Natural History, Vol. 27,
! e Irst block (the one con amm h d (the term arrow-
No.3, 229-239,1927. Excerpt here from pp. 229-234. attached ribs, and the forelimbs), a complete arrow ea
r
 134 MAN'S DISCOVER Y OF HIS PAST Firs! Clear Evidence of Ancient Man in North America 135

i was uncovered. Replies to inquiries and later verbal details by Mr. Boyes
verified and enlarged upon this account in all particulars.
Deeming it of greatest importance that the age of this deposit be de-
termined, the writer requested Mr. Harold 1. Cook to make a detailed in-
vestigation, particularly in relation to the geology and association of other
fossil species ....
As critical studies of the artifacts found associated with the bison re-
mains near Colorado, Texas must be left to the archaeologist, but brief
detailed mention of them will be made here. There are two or three pri-
vate collections of arrowheads that were picked up' on the surface in the
vicinity of Lone Wolf Creek, all of which have been examined by Mr.
Cook and Mr. Boyes. None contained examples approaching in similarity,
either in form or workmanship, those found with the bison skeleton. The
latter are of grayish flint, quite thin, and are devoid of evidence of notch-
ing, which is distinctly opposed to the forms found on the surface in that
locality. Equally distinctive is their superiority of workmanship, which, I
am told, also applied to the example that was lost. While there seems to
be no doubt that these artifacts represent a cultural stage quite distinct,
as compared with that revealed in the arrowheads found on the surface,
it is not the writer's intention to discuss such questions ...
Fig. 18. The bison bed at Folsom N . . During the summer of 1925, Messrs. Fred J. Howarth and Carl
, ew Mexico, during excavations of 1926.
Schwachheim of Raton, New Mexico, informed the writer of a quantity
head is used in a broad sense . . of bones exposed in the bank of the Cimarron River, near the town of
head) was discovered ivi b ' Since th~ artifact may have been a spear-
Folsom, Union County, New Mexico. Later those gentlemen forwarded
in contact with the I ,yt"g Actween the fifth and sixth cervicals and nearly
a cr. s the matrix . d e~amples for examination, which proved them to be parts of an extinct
of cemented sands g 1 was very hard, being compose
' rave s, and clays and .. bison and a large deerlike member of the Cervidae. Accompanied by Mssrs.
o f h arnmer and chisel th ,necessItating the constant use
Howarth and Schwachheim, Mr. Cook and the writer visited the locality
main fragments and nu e arrowhead was detached and broken into two
in April, 1926, and after a study of the deposti, made arrangements with
of these parts were recuomerodussmall slivers before it was discovered. Most
vere and have s· b Mr. Schwachheim for the removal of the overlying formation, consisting
r~storation. In removing the sec' mee. ~en assembled without other of some six to eight feet of very tough, hard clays. In June, the writer
nbs, a second arrowhead non containing the dorsal vertebrae and
sent Mr. Frank M. Figgins to supervise the removal of the bones, in which
its presence was noted b ~a\~ncovered and likewise was detached before
work he was aided by Mr. Schwachheim.
figured here. Accounts' hUt IS example later disappeared and cannot be
Not the least of the writer's interest in this deposit was the possibility
pied was possibly in th' °hwever, suggest that the position which it occu-
e t ora x b '. that additional evidence of man's antiquity in America might be uncovered,
?f the last block resulted' th f: ~t It IS not so recorded. The removal and with that prospect in view, he gave explicit instruction that constant
rmme dilately beneath the I In ft f e mdmg .. of a poruon . of a third arrowhea d attention be paid to such discoveries- not with as much expectation of
th a t IS,
i In . removing the rna" e emur f' m ctrcum sta nr-ee !Identical with the first;
umstances .
nx rom the d id Success, as in the belief that opportunities of that nature should not be
Independent of th 1 un er sr e of the block. ne~lected. It was therefore something in the nature of an anticipated sur-
. e ost arrowhead hi h .. . .
t Oleh first, two artifacu ' w ic IS descnbed as very similar
'I' prise when sueh a find was made. In this case, it was of the greater por-
snrzed skeleton of an e tiwere bi take n f rom beneath an articulated and fos- tion of an arrowhead, similar in its general form to those found .at
recognized the full impoXtlnct rson .. That Mr. Boyes seems not to have
. h·. r ance and Sl T Colorado, Texas, but decidedly more tapering at the point, and ?f quite
In IS permilting the loss f h gru rcance of these finds is suggested superior workmanship. Unfortunately, this artifact had also been dlslodged
or otherwise-and the fa 0 h. e seeo.nd example-whether through theft from the matrix before it was discovered-something the writer was anx-
th e~: Thee first fl ct t at
intimation the wri he did no rna e an Immediate report 0f
t k "
ious to avoid. However it was directly associated with the remains of an
a visitor to the Museum h h Iter had of their discovery came through extinct bison, and greater caution was urged in the work of excavating.
,w 0 ad been present when the first arrowhead
136 'fA . DISCOVERY OF HIS PAST
Not until nearly the close of the season was additional evidence uncovered,
thfs proving to be a second arrowhead almost identical with the first in
form, and, like the first, having the proximal end missing. The material
i superiority in workmanship
from which it was fashioned is distinctive, being a very pale gray ground,
through which run narrow, diagonal streaks of red. This artifact, too, had
been dislodged before its presence was suspected. but at the Spot from
which it came, the tool struck a hard substance, which, upon being ex.
posed, proved to be a wedge-shaped fragment of Ilim, approximately one.
quarter of an inch in width by three quarters of an inch in length, lying
in a fixed position, adjacent to a bison rib. This was removed without
being disturbed, in the form of a small block and in addition to the flint
and rib in close contact, there are also in the' block rwo toe hones and an
atlas. ~pon its arrival at the laboratory, immediate attention was given
to cleaning the fragment of flint, which proved to be of the same material
as that of the larger portion of arrowhead, and suggested that it might be
part of the missing proximal end. When a test was made, a perfect con-
tact resulted. The perfection of this contact, together with the peculiar
137
First Clear Evidence of Ancient Man in North America
is traceable to individual preference and ski,lI
the writer does not venture an opinion, He does, however, make compan-
sons with flints found on the surface, in the region about Folsom and
Raton New Mexico, and in this connection it is of interest to note that
the latter are unlike such surface artifacts from the vicinity of .Co,lorad~,
Texas,-being usually very small and evidencing far greater skill In their
manufacture. The writer has examined a large part of the Carl Schwach-
heim collection of flints, from northern New Mexico, and ~r. Schw~ch-
heim verifies his conclusions that it contains nothing resembhng the flints
found in association with the bison remains near Folsom. ,
Until the studies now in progress are completed, the ge~loglcal age of
the Folsom bison will not be known. That it is of an exunct race there
is no question. ,
bison, in circumstances which l~ad geologists and palaeontologists
c1ude that they belong to the Pleistocene age. , ' .
t* **
We have, then, in the Folsom arrowheads, the third ',nstance, of a ~ery
similar type of artifact being found immediately associated ~,th extmct

Fig 19 H '
, , .m pomr from the Fohom sue, Nc:,.,'\lC:IliKo.
markings and col f h
hibi or 0 t e material from which the artifact was fashioned,
pro I Its any conclusIOn h d h
same artifact F" ) II ot er than that they are parts of one an t e
rg. n'I ustrates the F a ISam arn 'facts.
. thi
here] is a very o. I Irep reduced
.
a quality of kin tnt ,of a dark reddish-brown color, and represent1n,g
wor manshlp the writ h II d 2 IS
also very thin and hil " fl er as rarely seen equa e. o.
,
displayed in No I w hiI e It IS not qUIne equa I'm fimeness 0 f c hirp ping " as
the material fro~ wt/ ~s hmay be, and probably is, due to a difference III
Compared with I~het ey, are fashioned.
amples are distinctly artifacts from Colorado, Texas, the Folsom eXd"
more Pcmted , but whether this difference in form an
 64 Radiocarbon Doting 65
more. The postulated origin (see reference 5)--eosmic ray neutrons react-
. The ,.ecentfy developed Tad~ocorbon or Carbon-l e technique oj archaeol- ing with atmospheric nitrogen to give radiocarbon at high altitudes-
oglcal.dollng was largely conceived and perfected by Willard F Libbv 'h dearly predicted that all material in the life cycle and all material

z:wa~gll'en (~e Nobel A~I'ardin 1960 in recognition oj this achi;"eme:/ ~h:

d!~
;:;IIl.le~hhere IS the Jirs~substantive report oj accomplished a~cienl
IS. ere/ore of considerable historical interest In /947 L "bb'
exchangeable with atmospheric
solved in sea water. would be radioactive.
carbon dioxide, such as carbonate
The long half-life of radio-
carbon, 5,720 -+- 47 years (see reference 3), further seemed to ensure that
dis-

an tve aSSOC/Glespublished the following statement (The ·Ph . I R' ~ ~ the mixing processes would have ample time to distribute the radio-
Vol 72 p 936) ,h· h ysrca evrew,
pOI~n{ia', ~se oif·'"doIC ~IQY beb,oken as Ihe first precise realization of the carbon uniformly throughout the world.
a roacnve car on for dati g "S· Since completing the first tests using isotopic enrichment with Dr.
carbon originates in the t In purposes. mce the radio-
life cycle and all I" . op layers of the atmosphere, ,hereby entering the Grosse and his associates, an improvement in counting technique has
svmg matter and sine Jr " enabled us to investigate materials without enrichment to about 5-10%
is negligible we ar I d ' e I e neutron mtensuy at sea level
error. The samples are counted in the form of elementary carbon in a
living bodie; will c:as: I,~ the ~red~~ion thas Ihe intake oj radiocarbon by
since death will be mea; e~/
of the specimen with Ih;;aofelil'f
? /e, and IhOl .'he period of lime elapsed
IreCI com~aTlson of Ihe specific activity
screen wall counter (see reference 6). Six grams of carbon are spread
uniformly over an area of 300 ems. to give an "infinitely thick" layer;
about 5.9% of the disintegrations register in this arrangement. The
we can assume that the
statu over the lime tnt
.
wilt have 5 3 counts oer mt
zt: '. n~ ~/aller In general. In other words, if
ocuvny of living matter has remained con-
erva elng meas d .
ure . a speClmrn jOOQ years buried
background of the counter has been reduced from ISO cpm (when
shielded by 2 inches of lead) to 10 cpm by means of anticoincidence
. per mmule per g if bo shielding and the addition of a 4 inch iron liner inside the lead shield.
nal 10.5. By inl'oking . . . ram 0 car n ralher Ihan the origi·
ISOtOPiCenr/chme I' h j" L_ • The technique will be described in detail elsewhere. A world-wide assay
samples as old as 40 000 nilS ou U UC" possible 10 measure
has been completed. and the uniformity apparently established. The data
further enrichmenl, thoug%ea;s. Of cours~ Ihe limil could be eXlended by
In most cases. It is I dl e effort requlfed would probably be prohibilil'e are presented in Table 1.
p anne 10 measu - d The numbers quoted are intended to be absolute disintegration ~ates
on these conclusions. " re certain OIed samples as a check
per gram of carbon. It musl be said, however, that our absolute caltbra-
For further reading on the Ih . . ~ion of the counters used may have as much as 10% error. ''''e hope to
method see Libby (1955 1956 eory and apphcallon of Ihe radiocarbon
Improve this in tbe near future. Since all the samples were measured
Willis (1963). Lists oj ;ad. . b1961. 1963). Ai/ken (/96/. Chap. 6). and
wi~h the same technique, the relative comparison does not. involve this
the tille Radiocarbon S IlDcar on dales are now published annually under
1, 1959; Vol. 2 1960 uupp bY Ih e A mer/can pOInt. With the exception of the Antarctic seal sample, whIch has been
I ement
3 . Journal oj Science (Vol.
FtInt and W. S.'.Deevey,'0. 1961·et ) run only once to date, the uniformity is well within experimental error.
Jr.' ,. seq. under Ihe edilorship of R. F.
! Since one expects the arctic samples if anything to be high, because the
I net..llron intensity is lowest at the equator and rises towards the pole~ (see
reference 9), and since the deviation of the seal oil from the mean IS not
much larger than the error of the measurement, it is believed that further
measurements will show this sample to be normal also. The result on
RADIOCARBON DATING the sea shell sample is interesting. It has been shown (see refere~ces 7 an.d
I 8) that en occurs in higher abundance in carbonates than III organIc
w. F. Libby, E. C. Anderson, I material. The result we find for radiocarbon in sea shells versus wood
13
and J. R. Arnold and other organic material is in line with this earlier finding f?r C . It is
true, however, that the difference may be somewhat larger III our case
Some time a 0 h
dissol d g t e occurrence f d· than that predicted from the earlier results, though the e~or of our
ve Ocean carbonate 0 ra locarbon in living matter and
measurement is so large at present as to well overlap the predIcted value.
as a result of researches Wasleported (see references 1 2 4 5 on p. 60) (
oo~w. h •• , .
"Age Detenn' . e mel ane gas {rom the City of BaItI<
matlOn by R d· AGE DETERMINATION
carbon" b W . a locarbon Co
March '4 i949' F. Libby, E. C. Anderson n~t: World·Wide Auay of Natural Radio-
the edito~ofS}: PP' 227-228. Reprinted ban ].~. ~mold. Scinace, Vol. 109, No. 2827
lence. Y pennlUIOQ of Profeuor 'V. F. Libby and
Having established the world-wide uniformity ~f the rad~ocarbon
assay at the present time, it seems a logical assumpuon that thiS would
 Radiocarbon DOling 67
66 MA 'S 01 COVER Y OF HIS PAST
TABLE 2
TABLE I
Age Determination on the Ancient Egyptian Samples
World-Wide Assa) of Radiocarbon
Samples Specific gravity found
Sample A""f (cpm/g"1ll of carbon)
(cpm/gm or carbon)
Zoser 7.H8 ± O.H
Baltimore sewage methane (I. 2) 105:::!::: 1.0
Zoser 7.36 ± 0.53
Ironwood Irom Marshall I.5landi 11.5 :!: 0.6
Sneferu 6.95 ± 0.40
Ironwood from Marshall Island! 12.6 ± 1.0
Sncfcru 7.42 ± 0.38
Elmwood. Chicago Campos 12.7 ± 0.8 6.26 ± OAI
Elmwood, Chicago Campus Sneferu
11.9 ± 0.1 weigtued a\·erage (bolh samples) 7.04 ± 0.20
Pine, 1\11. Wilson, New Mexico
Expected value 7.15 + 0.15
(1O,000' altitude) 12.5 ± 0.6
Bolivian wood 1'5 ± 0.6
Bolivian wood II.!::!:: 0.8 The data on both samples were averaged since the error in ages almost
Ceylon wood 12.5:0.7 overlaps the difference. and the weighting was taken according to the
Tierra del Fuego wood 12.8 ± 0.5
Panamanian wood
error quoted in each run. The errors quoted here and in Table I abo
1'.0 ± 05 are standard deviations determined strictly from the statistical counting
Palestinian wood 12.4 ± 0.•
Swedish wood
12.6 ± 0.5
New South Wales wood
North African wood
15.3 ± 0."
11.9 ± 0.1 "[ SAMPLES OF KNOWN AGE
Weighted average 125 -+ 0.2
Sea shell, Florida west coast I,.!:± 0.5
Sea shell, Florida west coast 14.9 ± 0_1
Sea shell, Florida west coast 14.6::t: 05
Weighted average 14.1 ± 0..5
Seal oil, Antarctic
10_4 -+- 0.7 i + TREE RING ("" '.0)
~13
have been true in ancient t i A . ~
of radiocarbon. 5.720 -+- 4- rmes. ssumlllg this. and using the half-life ~
specific activity t b - I years (see reference 2), one can calculate the s
~
since the removat of :nexpeCted after any gi~'en time inl_e~\'a_1eJ.ap~d ';;i 12
o
the life cycle F I" Y carb~naceous material from equilibrium With a
-c
PTOtUrf (2oo:!: 150 ac)
TAYINAT(675 ± 50 ac.)
of death' for .carbor IVtng' materr asI t hiIS probably coincides with the nme . oc
I
• onates H would
(assuming no further :
. . n
( correspond to the time of CT)'Stalltz3uo l
ul
;; f REDWOOD(979 ±52 ac)
dilOX Ide
. to Occur). On er tnterchange
hi b . with 1 hi'e SO uuon or atmospheric. car to n :;:~
samples of well est bit ," d as1s we have undertaken examination of wood SESOSTRIS (1800 ac)
such samples wer a ISIe d age Ir am t h'e ancient Egyptian
(furnished by Froeli hR " one from the tomb of neferu at ;l.le)'dum
. tombs, T \\0.

CURVE CALCULATED
t ZOSER (2700!758.C..)

Philadelphia) who ,IC alney, of the Universirv of Pennsvlvania Museum, r fROII! PRESENT DAY POINT
IC1was4575+7 ' SN[fERU (2625± 75 a.c)
of Zoser at Sakkara (f " - 5 years old; the other from the tomb I AND HAlf UfE Of
M urOished b A b' . RADIOCARBON 5568 ± 30 YEARS
useum of New York) 'h' y III rose Lansmg, of the ;\[etropo!t(an
sample is cypress wood, (\\ lch w~s 4,650 ± 75 }'ears old, The f0011er
]nstitute of the U . ' .he lauer IS acacia, John 'Vilson of the Oriental
th e behest of a com' nl\'ersny a f CI llcago,
' '
has given the dates quoted, a( { 7L_--J=-~h-."k""..."i,,,--.;-Joo"61,oliioo),,;ffiooo,,-J
1000 2000 )000 4000 50 .
co ' . mtnee of the \ ' . '
nSlstlllg of Frede' k J .1.menCan Anthropological A3SOClallon. HISTORICAL AGE (YEARS)
ell' flc ohoso
o ler. The expected assa f n, c 1alrman, Froelich Rainey, and Dona II
I·
(
be 7.15 -+- 0.15 cpm/ m
the half-life, Table 2 .
g
01 ,or 4,600 year material is easil)' calculated to
carbon on the basis o[ the pre5ent assa} and
Fig. 7, Specific radiocarbon activities for samples of known age. (After Libby 1952, fig. I.)
For the same samples correlated with radiocarbon half-life of 5720 ± 47 years see Arnold and
Libby (1949. fig. I).
p1esents th e {ata
lb' 0 lamed on these materials.
68 MA 'S DISCOVERY OF HIS PAST

error, and since the data agree within these errors, we believe that no
other appreciable error is involved in the measurement. It is gratifying
that the mean ~£t.hedet:nninalions agrees with the expected "aloe within
I standard deviation um t. An error of 0.4 cpm/gm in the specific activity
corresponds to an error of 450 years in a 4,600 )'car old sample.
On this basis we feel encouraged. to proceed with further tests on
younger s~mples of known age. This work is now in prog'Tess. It is hoped
that certa~n ~nknowns can be measured in the near future. A large
ther~al diffusion column similar to the one used b Dr. Crosse and his
~SSOCiateshas been installed in the laboratory and a con iderable increase
10 accuracy should result, permitting
as 20,000 to 25,000 years.
the measurement of samples as old Unit II
Refttttlcrs
I. Anderson, E. C., Libby, W. F., Weinboust, S., R~d. A. F., IJnbenbaum. A. D., and
Ancient Implements
Grosse, A. V. Phys. Rr:v. 1947 72 9"1 '
2 Ad' • ,,~ .
. n erson, E. C., ~Ibby, W. r., wetnhcuse, S., Reid, A. F K.inbenbaum. A. D., and
Grosse, A. V. SCIence. 1947,105,576. .. Although the Greek and Roman writers were aware that some peoples
3. Engelkemeir A G H
1ished.) , . ., ami,
w
"II H
. ., Ingraham, M. C .. and Libby, W. F. (To be pub- made and used Slone implements, this knowledge became quite lost during
the Dark Ages after (he fall of Rome and had to be rediscovered. After
4. G.rosse, A. V., and Libby, W. r, Science, 1947 106 88
5. Libby, W. F. Phys. Rev. 1946 69 671 ". Mercatus' appreciation of the fact that stone implements were made by
6 L'bb ' " . man, a number of observers made similar, and probably independent, state-
",' I y, W. r., and Lee, D. D. Phys. Rev. 1939 55 2"5
~. ~.urphey, B. Y., and Nier, A. O. Phys.
• 1 rer, A. 0., and Gulbransen E >\ J A
Rev .,
171
19..1' 59
" .
ments (cf. Heizer 1962). Once the true nature of ancient stone tools was
established, it was only a matter of time and chance until some intelligent
9. Simpson, J. A., Jr. Phys. R~.,1948. 75. ~7.Cht:m.Soc., 1939. 6J, fHl.
mind would recognize, in a deposit of obvious geological antiquity, stone
*** implements which were inescapably of the same age as the deposit and the
materials contained in it. A London pharmacist, Conyers, who found a
chipped flint hand axe associated with elephant bones near Grays Inn Lane
I about 1690, made just this sort of discovery, but it was later explai?ed as
an ancient British weapon used to tip a spear which had served to kill one
of the elephants used by the Roman army under Claudius.' At almost the
same time, Steno was explaining the occurrence of fossilized elephant. bones
he found in Tuscany as originating with Hannibal's army (Toulmin and
Goodfield 1965:91). The lime was not yet ripe, apparently, for the eleph~nt
to be recognized as dating from Pleistocene times. Stilt earlier, the English
! antiquary William Dugdale wrote in 1656 of finding wha~ were. p~obably
I Neolithic celts which he recognized as "made by the native Brnams ...
for weapons, inasmuch as they had not then attained to the knowledge of
Working iron or brass to such uses" (Salzman 1951).
In 1790, just one hundred years after Conyers, John Frere found In
r IJohn Leland, in his Cottecranae (1770). wrote of this find: "How l~is Elephant came
Ihere? is the Question I know some will have it to have lain there ever Since the Ij niver sal
Deluge. For my ow~ part. I take it to have been Brought over w.ith ~any othe~s by the
Romans in the time of Claudius, and conjecture ... that It was killed In some fight with
a Britain."
69