Comments on Braje et al. 's objections to Holen et al.'s Cerutti Mastodon Site paper.


“...Their claim implies a human colonization of the New World more than 110,000 years earlier than the oldest widely accepted archaeological sites in the Americas...”

Hueyatlaco and Calico are older. Waters et al. were supposed to settle the Hueyatlaco issue once and for all...not a peep out of them in 13 years. The majority of archeologists accept Calico's age but reject the lithics as naturally made:

[bandstex.globat.com]

BTW, note the skreblos towards the bottom...Common in northeast Asia's Upper paleolithic.

“...It is also at odds with genetic and fossil evidence for the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa and around the world...”

And? Could have been Denisovans? Who knows?

“...Cerutti Mastodon locality might have been created by an as-yet
unidentified archaic hominin, for which no fossil, archaeological,
or genomic evidence currently exists in northeast Asia or the Americas...”

Yup.

“...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...”

Such an overused, BS statement. All claims should require a certain threshold of evidence or you're setting yourself up for Type I and Type II errors.


“...The remnants of the CML were excavated 25 years ago during a salvage paleontology project related to highway construction. Context is crucial for evaluating the purported processing of mastodons by humans at the CML, but the data required to fully understand the context of the bones and stones are not presented...”

We have mastodon bone modified while fresh dating to: “...230Th/U radiometric analysis of multiple bone specimens using diffusion–adsorption–decay dating models indicates a burial date of 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years ago...” Burial date. That means the bones are older.

How about the two femoral heads adjacent to the “anvil” in situ in the same strata? How about that vertical tusk that originated in the same strata?

The 22 year old Caltrans report from the 25 year old excavation doesn't differ much from the current report:

[bandstex.globat.com]

“...Currently, it is impossible for readers to evaluate whether the cobbles
critical to Holen et al.’s (2017) case could have been derived naturally
from surrounding landforms or depositional settings...”


From Holen et al.:


“...The occurrence of large and small bones together with five large cobbles
within an otherwise sandy silt horizon indicates that fluvial processes
did not transport these bones and stones...”

“...The taphonomic pattern of the CM bone bed also differs from that of
skeletons of horse and dire wolf discovered in adjacent strata within the
same Pleistocene fluvial stratigraphic sequence...These skeletons are
more complete, do not show evidence of spiral fractures or percussion
impacts and do not occur in association with cobbles...”

“...We conclude that the reliably dated Cerruti Mastodon site constitutes
an in situ archaeological association based on: a clearly
defined and undisturbed stratigraphic context; comparative taphonomy;
bone modifications like those produced by Palaeolithic
percussion technology and replicated by experimental archaeology;
presence of hammerstones and anvils that exhibit use-wear and
impact marks; and presence of rock fragments that can be refitted
to breakage scars. Bone breakage for marrow extraction and/or
bone and molar tool manufacture is the preferred archaeological
interpretation of the CM site, as there is no evidence of butchery...”

Back to Braje et al.:

“Affirming the Consequent”: because humans could
have fractured the CML mastodon remains does not
mean they did fracture them. Holen et al. (2017) fail to
demonstrate that only hominins could have fractured
and modified the CML bones and teeth, nor that the
“artifacts” are of cultural origin rather than geofacts...”

Holen et al.:


“...Alternative hypotheses (carnivoran modification, trampling, weathering and fluvial processes) do not adequately explain the observed evidence...”

“...No Pleistocene carnivoran was capable of breaking fresh proboscidean femora at mid-shaft or producing the wide impact notch. The presence of attached and detached cone flakes is indicative of hammerstone percussion, not carnivoran gnawing...”

“...There is no other type of carnivoran bone modification at the CM site, and nor
is there bone modification from trampling. The differential preservation
of fragile ribs and vertebrae rather than heavy limb bones argues
against trampling and is consistent with selective breakage by humans...”

Braje et al.:

“...They also offer no explanation for why or how hominins
would deeply impale one tusk more or less vertically into
the sediments underlying the bone bed layer...”

He was on crack... Who knows?

“...Holen et al. (2017) must demonstrate that the bones could not have been broken by natural forces...”

Did these guys even read the paper? I would hope they read the supplementary also.

Holen et al.:

“...The taphonomic pattern of the CM bone bed also differs from that of
skeletons of horse and dire wolf discovered in adjacent strata within the
same Pleistocene fluvial stratigraphic sequence...These skeletons are
more complete, do not show evidence of spiral fractures or percussion
impacts and do not occur in association with cobbles...”

“...Alternative hypotheses (carnivoran modification, trampling, weathering and fluvial processes) do not adequately explain the observed evidence...”

“...No Pleistocene carnivoran was capable of breaking fresh proboscidean femora at mid-shaft or producing the wide impact notch. The presence of attached and detached cone flakes is indicative of hammerstone percussion, not carnivoran gnawing...”

“...There is no other type of carnivoran bone modification at the CM site, and nor
is there bone modification from trampling. The differential preservation
of fragile ribs and vertebrae rather than heavy limb bones argues
against trampling and is consistent with selective breakage by humans...”

[www.academia.edu]

[www.academia.edu]