Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Inexcusable Exclusion of the Sandia Culture

The lengths to which the "Clovis First" movement had gone is illustrated in their systematic supression of the supposedly older and ancestral Sandia tool culture and character assassination of the culture's finder and proponent, Frank Hibben (a well-known benefactor of his institution, no less) Here is an excerpt of the Wikipedia entry on Hibben:

The primary source of the controversies was Hibben's claim to have found a deposit with pre-Clovis artifacts (including projectile points, which he termed "Sandia points") in Sandia Cave (in the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque, New Mexico). Hibben believed the layers to be about 25,000 years old, much older than the Paleo-Indian cultures previously documented in the U.S. Southwest. The layers also included the bones of Pleistocene species such as camels, mastodons, and horses.[5] The 25,000 year age for the "Sandia Man" deposits was a best guess based on the strata in the cave, and was later called into question, in part through radiocarbon dating. Also, research notes by Wesley Bliss (who had excavated in the cave in 1936) and others indicate that animal burrowing led to a mixing of deposits. The notion of a "Sandia Man" occupation of the U.S. Southwest is no longer accepted by professional archaeologists, but that in itself is not the source of controversy. Instead, some researchers believe that artifacts were "salted" (fraudulently placed) in the cave deposits to support the notion of the "Sandia Man" occupation. Those who believe that fraud was committed often suspect Hibben of being involved in the fraud.[6] [7] [4] The evidence is inconclusive, however, and Hibben maintained his innocence in the matter until his death.[Emphasis Added-DD]
In 1943, Hibben described a visit to Chinitna Bay on the west side of Cook Inlet in Alaska, where he reported finding Yuma-like projectile points like those found at the Clovis Site in New Mexico and a projectile point similar to those produced by the Folsom culture, who lived on the High Plains and adjacent regions 10,000 years ago.[8] In addition to the projectile points, he reported finding mammoth bones. A later investigation of the geology and geoarchaeology of Chinitna Bay using personal notes, photographs, and directions personally supply by Hibben successfully relocated the locations and strata from which the mammoth bones, Yuma-like projectile points, and projectile point "possibly affiliated with, Folsom" were reported. They found that the strata from in which Hibben reported finding Folsom- and Yuma-like projectile points and mammoths bones all accumulated during the Late Holocene in "a muddy, intertidal environment".[9] As result, they concluded that the projectile points are not associated with any Paleo-Indian cultures and the identification of the bones as being those of a mammoth is questionable.
[In this case I have no qualms, it is well-accepted that the Plano-style points only reached as far north as Alaska- and even crossing over into Siberia-during the POSTGLACIAL stage-DD]
Selected publications
  • "Association of Man with Pleistocene Mammals in the Sandia Mountains, New Mexico," American Antiquity, 2(4):260-263. [the first article to describe Sandia Cave.
  • The Lost Americans (1946)
  • Treasure in the Dust (1951)
  • Prehistoric Man in Europe (1958)
  • Digging Up America (1960)
  1. ^ a b Frank Hibben Funds New UNM Anthropology Building
  2. ^ a b Frank C. Hibben
  3. ^ Dalton, Rex (2003). "University buildings named on shaky ground". Nature (Society for American Archaeology) 426 (374): 200–201. doi:10.1038/426374a. PMID 14647348.
  4. ^ a b "The Mystery of Sandia Cave". New Yorker Magazine (New York) 71 (16): 66–83.
  5. ^ Josephy, Jr., Alvin M. (1973). The Indian Heritage of America. New York: Bantam Books. pp. 42.
  6. ^ Bliss (1940a). "A Chronological Problem Presented by Sandia Cave, New Mexico". American Antiquity (Society for American Archaeology) 5 (3): 200–201. doi:10.2307/275278. JSTOR 275278.
  7. ^ "Sandia Cave". Correspondence in American Antiquity 6 (1): 77–78. 1940b.
  8. ^ Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidence of early man in Alaska. American Antiquity. v. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.
  9. ^ Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett, and F. C. Dixon, Jr., 1978, A Reported Early-Man Site Adjacent to Southern Alaska's Continental Shelf: A Geologic Solution to an Archeologic Enigma. Quaternary Research. v. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-273.

IMHO, the need to clear the pre-Clovis cultures off the playing field at first led to the assertion that the stratigraphy of Sandia cave could not be trusted because of the actions of burrowing rodents-a criticism which might be claimed with equal force at ANY archaeological dig at any time, the whole world over, and then claiming some obviously invalid dates (far out of the possibility of C14 testing) were somehow indicative that the points had to have been introduced below that level. More obviously, the bad dates must be discarded. The entire case is one of unsubstanytiated allegations and innuendo. One famous Archaeologist "got a funny feeling" about Hibben and his actions, and somehow this was taken to be evidence against his professionaintegrity. I need not point out that it does not work that way and you cannot call that evidence in a court of law. The existance of a pre-Clovis precoursor culture was done away with by a whispering campaign and it amounts to character assassination done to support an already-disproven theory that there were no pre-Clovis cultures.
Sandia Points
Here are some comparisons of Sandia and Solutrean points, and the two cultures are very similar. Actually, even discounting the Sandia cave finds and going on finds of isolated points elsewhere stated to be of Solutrean appearance (published since the 1960s at least), some culture otherwise resembling the Sandia assemblage had to have existed before the Clovis and in the area of the Southern USA near to the Gulf of Mexico. Muller-Beck proposed a type of Clovis forerunner culture that was virtually Sandia in everything but the name.

Below are two diagrams of the French Solutrean lithic styles. You do not need to be an expert to see that there were many different lithic typologies. It is an indicator of different people that lived in the area under the Solutrean banner and time period. This diagram is a collection of Solutrean projectile points from the French book “
Le Solutréen en France” which can be found on the internet, compliments of the visionary Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter.
Publications de l’Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux, No. 5.
Author: Philip E. L. Smith

Above the comparison of Cody Complex and Solutrean knives. The Solutreans even had the famous Square Knife in their tool kit.

I have been told that the dot diagrams in the Iberian/French caves are representations of water. Ancient humans looked out across the lakes and oceans seeing vast expanses of water. What impressed them the most was the sparkling glints of light patterns that waves and sun create. These “diamonds” on the surface became magical to them as they defied explanation and had no corporeal existence. To them water was also an impassable barrier that only certain animals had the capacity to enter. Magic, water, and these certain animals became symbols of spiritual power and awe. Shamans recognized both light and the fact that bodies of water were a different form of reality. With this view of water their symbolic representations became “polka dots of light”. El Castillo Cave dots
El Castillo Cave, Spain (of Solutrean origin)

In the above pictograph from the El Castillo Cave is a good example of this understanding. The dots are rivers of water and on these rivers are hide stretched boats, obviously a powerful impression to be recorded and talked about in a legend. You can see on the right side there is a boat on the water, as the water is covered by the rear part of the boat. The boat sits on the water covering the area that it occupies, from that perspective. The object above this boat it is a sail full of wind, but not fully recognized by the observer as to how it is attached to the boat. There is a start of a mast in the middle of the boat but time has erased it or it was never recognized and recorded. Both the boat and the sails are stitched together with more than one piece of hide. In fact the gunwale (gunnel) can also be seen with more stitching as it is an attachment area to the wood frame. You can also see on the left boat the middle section had two smaller hides sown together, showing there was more than one boat being observed.

There is no archaeological record of boats from that time but here is proof from 20,000 BP. That and the fact Aboriginal people had somehow made it across the ocean to Australia 40,000 [years] prior to this painting.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.