Patrick M. Ferrell, described as an independent scholar and self-identified as a land surveyor, read the Nature article with disbelief and then did what the authors of that piece—and, to be fair, most of their critics—failed to do. He obtained construction plans and a right-of-way map from San Diego Caltrans District 11 headquarters and correlated road construction with the reported location of the Cerutti Mastodon. Ferrell reviewed freeway construction plans and the techniques used to construct the freeway, which was being built when the bones were uncovered. He discovered that 20 years before, grading had occurred at the site in preparation for road work, which churned up and altered some of the cobble stones at the site. While the construction work did not directly break the mammoth bones by crushing them from above, Ferrell contends that known construction methods would produce the damage seen: This author contends that the raking of the steel teeth on the excavator bucket across the CM site dragged the cobbles identified as anvils and hammer stones onto the site from the north, and could also account for the fragmentation of some of those cobbles, and the molar which was broken into three parts found in grid units C1, D2, and E3. He adds that the same action likely caught the mastodon tusk in its wake, dragging it and causing it to fragment. The rest of the observed damage, he said, was due to the 5,000-pound weight of dirt dumped on top of the bones during construction work and the vibrations and pressures of large dump trucks traveling across and over the site. He notes that heavy vehicles routinely destroy asphalt roads with their weight and suggests that similar processes could damage fossils as well. He estimates that heavy trucks passed over the bones designated CM281 between 150 and 250 times during construction before the bones were discovered: Taken as a whole, this evidence seems to indicate that CM281 was recently forced into concentration 1 by the tires of the dump trucks crossing the CM site, which concentrated the weight of the trucks on the stone, thus breaking and scattering the bones there, and pulverizing their brittle pedogenic carbonate crusts. In support of this view, Ferrell offers that the bones are not crushed consistent with how modern or ancient people butchered bones for food and instead resemble accidental crushing by a heavy weight.
Ferrell’s conclusions are not definitive, and he himself states that they rely to an extent on circumstantial evidence. However, I agree with him that he has provided a more plausible explanation for the damaged mastodon bones that better fits the observed facts. I am eager to see how this new material will impact the argument in America Before. I received a review copy of the book yesterday, and I will be reading the book carefully to write a review for Skeptic magazine, timed to the book’s April 23 release in the U.S. (The book launches on April 2 in the U.K.) Because the book is massive—more than 500 dense pages—I will be running a reduced blogging schedule for the next couple of weeks with shorter posts and some days I will be taking off in order to have time to read and review the book thoroughly.
42 Comments
William Fitzgerald
3/27/2019 09:16:49 am
The Cerutti Mastodon site is about 200 south of the Calico Early Man Site. Of course neither seems likely as evidence of human activity as far back as purported. Still, it was always fun seeing the sign for the Early Man Site on the way to Vegas.
Reply
Hal
3/27/2019 09:19:55 am
Yes a land surveyor has far more experience in archaeology than any of the archaeologists who did the original research.
Reply
Kent
3/27/2019 03:06:36 pm
AFter the construction equipment dug up the bones, if I read the article correctly.
Reply
Doc Rock
3/27/2019 04:25:38 pm
The person who discovered the site is a paleontologist as is the person who initially advocated for human involvement with the bones. Given the time frame and subject matter, people from any number of fields can get in on this dance.
Reply
Brad Riney
7/26/2020 12:45:18 pm
Paleontology and Archaeology in principle are one and the same.
Historian
7/26/2020 02:11:13 pm
@Brad Riney. Archaeology utilizes many disciplines, including paleontology, but paleontology and archaeology are not one and the same. I know of no archaeologist studying Cambrian trilobites, or Cretaceous dinosaurs. Archaeology is restricted to the study of humans, historic archaeology, prehistoric archaeology, and early hominids not of our species. Few archaeologists ever deal with fossilized remains at all, the domain of paleontology, with the exception of faunal remains of the Pleistocene, or Hominid remains. But the majority of human remains archaeologists come across are not old enough to be fossilized.
An Anonymous Nerd
3/27/2019 09:04:35 pm
The piece was published in PaleoAmerica.
Reply
Doc Rock
3/31/2019 11:59:04 am
The journal is interdisciplinary in scope and covers topics ranging from archaeology to genetics to paleoenvironment. Articles submitted to the journal would, ideally, be assigned to reviewers who match the topic: could be archaeologists, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, paleoclimatologists, etc . Would be interesting to see what fields were represented in the review process for this paper.
Machala
3/27/2019 10:25:13 am
Graham Hancock has never been known to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Reply
prospero45
3/27/2019 10:46:16 am
Just because Hancock has been wrong about every claim he has ever made regarding ancient history doesn't mean he is wrong again. Yeah right.
Reply
Mike
3/27/2019 06:18:28 pm
Ignoring heavy equipment moving over the site is stupid. I have worked on hundreds of sites many of them at construction sites. When I first saw this when it happened I right away thought the bones had been crushed by the equipment. Instead of that some idiot know is stating that human occupation in the region is over a hundred thousand years earlier than any other rationally minded archaeologist would think. What does Andy think? Sites like that with only hammer stones would be a rarity. The person who deemed this site as being caused by humans has caused a great deal of misunderstanding and fuel to the fantasies of people like Graham Hancock. I hope Hancock is not basing his entire theory about the Americas on this.
Reply
Andy White
3/28/2019 10:57:44 am
I'm not sure if "Andy" is me, but I (and most other archaeologists) expressed extreme skepticism -- not because it couldn't be true but because there are logical problems with the story and alternative explanations (like construction damage) had not been adequately ruled out. Here were my thoughts in this blog post (2nd item):
Reply
Bradford Riney
4/3/2019 03:27:19 pm
Poor Mike. Heavy equipment never disturbed the the site with the exception of the extreme NE corner where the excavator bucket damaged the tusks. Read my reply on 4/1/19.
Reply
Bradford Riney
4/14/2019 02:56:24 pm
Greetings from the idiots who have been monitoring hundreds of construction sites, filling the SDNHM exhibit halls and research collections as well as discovering the CMS since 1981. It's obvious what equipment does to bones both modern and ancient. No one ignored the heavy equipment. Ferrell's paper is amazingly inaccurate but its what people want to hear. We have hundreds of photos and detailed field notes of what occurred during and after mass grading. See my response on this subject 4/1/19, Better yet, come to the SDNHM and check out the evidence yourself.
Reply
Paul H.
3/28/2019 10:19:05 pm
A reported case of similar "green bone" spiral
Reply
joe zias
3/31/2019 09:37:17 am
An honest mistake by the excavators or...? We see this issue quite often whereby post.mortem changes are confused with pre-mortem. It usually occurs when individuals with limited experience miss what usually is clear to experienced excavators. I once attended a lecture by an honest but somewhat naive individual in which he presented rock carvings on bedrock, which in effect were the result of modern day tractors criss crossing the land, leaving markings on the bedrock. In biblical archaeology, its actually somewhat the norm once the media gets involved.
Reply
Brad Riney
4/3/2019 03:43:44 pm
The Ogam rock of Pacific Beach CA! I visited the site many years ago at low tide and immediately concluded that heavy equipment removing seaweed from the beach caused the markings. I gave it a new name " Dozam".
Reply
Sticker
3/31/2019 10:04:25 am
Man, I love you guys -- Jason and Andy --- and this kind of piece makes my day. I've been preoccupied with life and haven't checked here in a while, but I am so glad to see you are all still at it.
Reply
4/1/2019 01:56:53 am
I realize that this content is worth to read. I expect to see more posts from you that makes me impressed just like this one. Good job!!
Reply
Bradford Riney
4/1/2019 01:11:52 pm
I was a member of the SDNHM excavation crew and saw firsthand that the site was pristine with the exception of the NE edge where the tusks were located. They were raked by the bucket teeth and as a result were damaged. The portions of both tusks that were struck by the bucket were completely destroyed, resulting in thousands of tiny white pieces which actually led to the site's discovery. As far as the tusks being moved from their original positions, the remaining unaffected portions of both tusks were not. The idea that the bucket flipped the vertically oriented tusk to the vertical is ludicrous. I personally excavated the vertically oriented tusk which was solidly preserved in its original position 70 centimeters or so into the fine grained sandstone below the E bed siltstone, encased in a cemented sandstone concretion. Most of the bones and stones were encased in pedogenic carbonate indicating breakage occurred thousands of years before present and were not at all damaged by construction equipment.The sediment above the site was also pristine. NO machines were actually near the site with the only exception being the excavator parked on top of the berm, 8 feet in elevation above the site and to the south, not directly over the site. The sound berm is comprised of undisturbed Pleistocene consolidated fluvial sediments and is simply an "erosional remnant" carved from the original hill by heavy equipment, it is NOT a pile of dirt placed by man over the site to create a sound berm. The Cerutti Mastodon Site itself was excavated by hand over the next 5 months by removing pristine Pleistocene sediments undisturbed by modern machinery. The excavator was used to remove overburden when needed above the site in a controlled manner to approximately 2 to 3 feet above the bone horizon where upon delicate hand digging would resume. So There!
Reply
joe
4/1/2019 02:50:14 pm
There should be no relationship between the number of pages, 500 as to whether one is correct in presenting the evidence. I see this from time to time whereby academics will publish an enormous amount of information which gives the impression that what could be done in but a few pages, is correct. I saw this a few years back with a book length article on human remains from a site near the Dead Sea. The authors presented measurements and data which was misleading, esp. presenting cranial measurements of young children which change month to month. Looks impressive to those without any anthropological training. When I gave a paper on this in the annual SBL meetings it looked like the Jerry Springer show. As I had the opportunity to view the material which was in someone's basement for ca 50 yrs it was a no-brainer. Critics accused me of not studying the material in a serious manner, unaware that we can age and sex most skeletons, if they are in good condition in one or two minutes. Eventually they realized that I was correct and the 2,000 year old skeletons of women and children were max 200 years old, Bedouin. One way around this is to ask those presenting papers to limit their time to ca 10 minutes with the next 10 minutes for questions from the audience. Five hundred pages, esp is simply too much. One gets lost in the trees unable to see the forest. On the other hand Barr took the 400 page Muller report and dumbed it dn to 4 pages, but this is the world of DT. We ain't that dumb.
Reply
Joe Scales
4/1/2019 09:29:26 pm
You're dumb enough.
Reply
Historian
4/3/2019 09:20:40 pm
When Haynes first proposed this "equipment caused the breakage" scenario in 2017, Holen, et al stated: "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."
Reply
Brad Riney
4/14/2019 12:55:56 pm
Nothing, Holen's response is correct.
Reply
Historian
4/3/2019 09:32:29 pm
A couple of things come to mind. There should certainly be a difference in appearance, in patina, assuming the bone is mineralized to some degree, between a bone broken 130,000 years ago, and bones broken 25 years ago. If broken when it was already fossilized, 25 years ago, there should be a very noticeable difference in patina between the broken surfaces and non broken surfaces. Also, would the fracturing itself appear different if the bone was broken when the bone was still green or fresh, and when it was fossilized? I should think it would, since it would be the difference between fracturing bone, and fracturing stone(mineralized bone). I would also like to know who are the authorities, in terms of experience and eye honed for subtleties, where the causes behind fracturing bone is concerned.
Reply
Bradford Riney
4/14/2019 01:37:08 pm
Very Good! The bones are very mineralized and the fresh breaks are light in color vs a dark color for the old breaks. The type of breakeage is far different for the old vs the new breaks, dark smooth curving spiral for the ancient, vs a nearly white dry jagged breakeage for the new. Jim Meade and Larry Agenbroad were the notable archaeologists who helped excavate the site in addition to the SDNHM paleontologists. There is a very good SDNHM Press Kit video of Dr. Larry Agenbroad on site explaining and pointing out the anomalous nature of the elements of Unit E-3, the most prolithic unit for bone and stone. Most important in the video is the undisturbed nature of the excavation as far as heavy equipment is concerned.
Reply
Devon
4/23/2019 02:50:16 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxmw9eizOAo
Reply
Bradford Riney
4/28/2019 11:06:02 pm
It seems everyone is stuck on the idea that the heavy equipment initially smashed the bones, dragging the lithic material around, flipping the tusk vertically without destroying it and then jamming the tusk vertically to over 70 CM into the underlying Pleistocene strata again without destroying it. The force to do this would have completely destroyed the tusk. When fossil ivory meets steel, ivory is the loser, ending up as thousands of tiny white pieces. Fossil bone usually fares better, but still badly damaged. The nearly 3 meters of undisturbed strata above the CM Site doesn't seem to matter either. Magical 5 ton dump trucks unseen by us during the 5 months of careful excavation were the reason for the spirally fractured bones and stones that we found solidly in situ, coated with unbroken pedogenic carbonate crusts. Yes!, Big 5 Ton Dump Trucks as per the construction plans were responsible! In his Next Paper, Ferrell could state that the carbonate concretions and crusts must have formed extremely fast AFTER the magical 5 Ton Dump Trucks smashed everything and BEFORE we excavated the CM Site thus making the CM Site look ancient to fool the palaeontologists, just as creationists try to do with the geological record. Erella Hovers of the Hebrew University indepently states that a modern mechanical cause is not valid as the breakeage is indeed very ancient. Ferrell's paper is an extremely feeble forensic analysis conducted some 25 years after the fact. Dr. Tom Demere at the San Diego Museum of Natural History would have graciously accommodated Ferrell to study the extensive written notes, videos, stills pictures as well as the additional material not on display. Whether the CM Site is archaeological or paleontological is irrelevant in this case as Ferrell's ideas on this are demonstrably wrong. Dr.Tom Demere contacted Ferrell about the inaccuracy of his article. Ferrell later apologized for his lack of research on the subject. This is an easy "crash goes the chariots" situation once you look at the facts that we have. The CM Site does not resemble Calico or any of the other Pleistocene psuedo archaeological sites. The CM Site also is far different taphonomically than the dozens of natural occurring large fossil mammal sites that we have mapped and collected on numerous small to huge grading sites since 1981. We here are well aware what heavy machinery does to bone and to the sediment surrounding these bones. In the nearly 40 years monitoring major grading sites, I have never seen a fossil bone spirally fracture. I invite Jason Colavito to the SDNHM to study the materials especially the notes pictures and videos of the CM Site.
Reply
Bradford Riney
5/26/2019 11:25:59 am
Welcome to the "My Professor said it, I Believe It And That Settles It School of American Archaeology". Very sad day for science. Study the actual material before commenting? Heaven forbid, it's too old and it's the only one ever found. A filthy paleontologist found it anyway. Looking back at the firestorm's first day, the extreme negativity was immediate, and from my paleontological armchair appeared to be very reactionary. How could it be otherwise it being only 24 hours after the Nature letter became public. Few people appeared to have read the Nature letter judging by their reactions and of course very few of said critics came to see the material preserved at the SDNHM. Ferrell's rediculous article proves that point 2 years later. The Ferrell Forensic CM Site Analysis from his Armchair 25 years after the Fact of which I hate to use the overused term "Fake News," is unfortunately is true here. The other sad fact is that so many professional archaeologists by not questioning the Ferrell article did the lemming thing by leaping off the proverbial cliff thinking his article finally puts the CM Site to bed. This article apparently was the anethesia needed to put the mind at ease. Old PM Ferrell is wrong on every "Fact" he presented. Whether the CM Site is paleontological or archaeological is absolutely irrelevant in this case. The Ferrell article is easily thrown off the cliff with the lemmings as well, completely discounted by the 1992,1993 videos, still pictures and field notes taken on site during the grading and excavation. He could have asked to see all of this before publishing his article. He didn't but you can.
Reply
Historian
5/26/2019 04:31:33 pm
On this particular blog, you can expect anything that goes against the grain of orthodoxy to not receive a warm welcome. Where the Cerutti study is concerned, I believe Colavito was less concerned with it, and more concerned with hammering Graham Hancock, a favored whipping boy here. Anyway, if you're familiar with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, you will know this is often the way things go. Think outside the box, or otherwise rock the boat of received wisdom, and almost anything goes where the reaction from the purveyors of the accepted paradigm is concerned. It's to be expected. And it's unfortunate. I attended the NEARA meeting in RI awhile back and enjoyed the presentation.
Reply
Bradford Riney
5/26/2019 07:39:43 pm
I'm just learning the hard way about "scientific" paradigmers. They're very much like the faith based fundamentalist religious folks with the exception they the scientific paradigmers should know better because their ideas are hopefully based on the natural world. How naive am I. On a positive note, I've talked with quite a few young up and coming archaeologists who are very excited with our discovery here in San Diego. It's mostly the geriatric ones that are not. Oh, I forgot to mention that we do have a complete set of the SR-54 construction plans marked up with the geology and fossil localities by date found, all of this contrary to Colavito's mistaken idea that we somehow failed to pay attention to that "tiny" detail. What bothers me the most is that Colavito gives the Ferrell article a very positive review, implying that we don't have a clue as to what we are doing. Is that an apple cart I just fell off? Frustrating to say the least. I appreciate the reply as I was worried that I was in an echo chamber talking to myself slowly going insane.
Historian
5/27/2019 08:17:48 am
Yes, the young are usually more open to new ideas. I think it's just human nature, and not confined to science and scientific research, and developing scientific models. Kuhn basically was saying that new ideas win out(assuming there is a valid, evidence-based reason to win out), when the last defenders of the dominant paradigm pass away. There is a oft spoken, succinct way, of describing this:
Bradford Riney
5/27/2019 02:06:07 pm
How true. I like that. Like death and taxes. Yet another eternal law of the universe. What I find disturbing and ironic is that the learned Jason Colavito, debunker of psuedo science, placed so much faith in Ferrell's psuedo scientific article based on a lot of "must be's and probably's" to discredit Graham Hancock's psuedo scientific book as well as us. Maybe all of these psuedo's will cancel each other out, leaving the world to rational thought.
Reply
Tierney
6/23/2019 08:49:18 pm
Skeptic magazine is so selectively skeptic it’s funny. From my understanding, Ferrell didn’t even examine the bones.
Reply
Adam
9/29/2019 10:24:35 am
i love watching these archeology debates unfold because the establishment inevitably ends up having to eat crow and acknowledge that they were wrong about all the crap they so smugly pawned off as absolute fact.
Reply
Adam
9/29/2019 10:29:42 am
Personally, I think it is no more ridiculous for people like graham hancock to assert thar there were advanced civilizations in the Americas prior to the younger dryas cataclysm than it was for researchers to claim Clovis first based on a lack of evidence to support earlier occupation of the Americas- at least hancocks ideas invite further research and investigation into the matter-which is a far more scientific position to take than one that slams the door closed on further efforts to broaden our understanding.
Reply
Bradford Riney
10/5/2019 03:15:21 pm
The Cerutti Mastodon Site or CMS, has been adopted by Graham Hancock for better or worse. The better. Media attention given by way of Joe Rogan's interview with Graham Handcock. 1.5 million views and counting. People unaware of the CMS and the controversy surrounding it are now aware. Graham gave a fairly accurate narrative of the recent history of the site, far better than many of the critics. The worse: Guilt by association using the CMS to support his in my opinion some out there ideas. The archaeologists are easy to deal with once they assemble a team of experts to falsify our claims. So far no takers. The welcome mat is at the front door. Only then will their objections hold water or not.
Reply
Bradford O Riney
2/12/2020 12:31:33 pm
I'm welcoming myself back into the Colavito echo chamber. Thank goodness someone is kicking psuedo science in the backside. I applaud him for that. I saw a tweet of his bashing the Cerutti Site calling it baaaad science. I say his ideas on the Cerutti Mastodon Site are based on bad non vetted journalism from people who have not ever seen the CM material nor care to see it.
Reply
Historian
12/5/2020 01:30:41 pm
Here’s a new study involving the Cerutti Mastadon site:
Reply
Historian
12/5/2020 01:33:44 pm
For those not wishing to read the entirety of the most recent Cerutti Mastadon study, here is a summary of the finding:
Reply
Chester Collins
1/22/2023 07:48:25 am
It's obvious that all those who are calling foul on this 130k idea are doing the same old thing that all skeptics do...ignoring details. The original archeologist who was on site wrote up a paper that none of you seem to have read and it CONTAINS GOOD SOLID SCIENCE..SUCH AS? Such as the fact that if you actually observed the bones yourselves and knew what you were looking at, instead of just piling onto the skeptic bandwagon because your preconceived notions are having a wobble, you woukd see that recent bone and Fossil bone do not splinter or split the same way. I hear a lot of people trying to do the typical song and dance of disputing new discoveries because they are uncomfortable with the dates involved, but you are no better than Hancock and pals, indeed maybe even worse, if you claim to be a purveyor of good rational thinking but are just rehashing and regurgitating each other's hackneyed opinions. It's easy to sit in your chairs, do a little internet searching, and then jump in the argument, but that amounts to nothing. Look at the bones..get an education and tine in the field analyzing thousands of bone fragment, both recent and very old, observe the differences in their structure and make up, especially after fossilization, and know sonething about HOW the crack, and what kinds of structural cracks these actually make. There is a difference that you woukd actually have the experience to judge, if you were actually more than an armchair skeptic. Mr. C..IM LOOKING AT YOU NOW..ypu sir, are a journalist who makes his bread by writing opinions, even you aren't a scientist. Let the archeologists do their work a d stop trying to crush every new discovery because you are top much of a fragile princess to accept the implications of it. The old dogma is dying, jump that boat while you still can.
Reply
Historian
1/24/2023 07:46:22 am
I pointed out the business of breaking fossilized bone vs. fresh bone when this column was written. Whether supporters of the Cerutti site agree or not, more sites in this age, containing indisputable artifactual evidence, is going to have to happen. Nothing gained expressing too much anger/frustration, as there will never be shortcuts. It is what it is. I certainly would not single out journalists, when it is clearly archaeologists who want more, before they simply say “well, looks like we have to start from scratch with the peopling of the Americas puzzle”. It was never going to be that easy. Look at how long before Monte Verde was accepted. The fresh bone/fossil bone might look like a smoking gun to some, but it won’t likely overcome the lack of cultural material at the site. It’s a hidebound science, and it wants more before a single site changes everything. Some will say “not fair”, but it’s demanding, the best response will be more sites in that age range, with much clearer evidence of humans.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
October 2024
|