At http://phys.org/print397199004.html … the remains of a mammoth have been pulled out of a farm field in Michigan and is now residing in the university museum. It was hauled out of the field just a few weeks ago but now it has pride of place and the museum is expecting a bumper number of visitors as the news spreads. However, there is a strange thing that has happened – one to make you wonder. After a brief analysis it is claimed that the animal displays certain evidence of being killed and butchered by humans – even though the mammoth dates from prior to the Clovis period. Oh how times have changed. The Clovis First theory was strictly adhered to by mainstream US archaeologists for years – and years. This dictatorial paradigm just did not allow any kind of evidence to the contrary. It stamped down hard on archaeologists who found evidence of pre-Clovis human activity. They were marginalised and accused of shoddy field work – usually by desk bound jobsworths. Now it seems Clovis First is a thing of the past – and pre-Clovis activity is being used to bolster another paradigm (the idea that mammoths became extinct as a result of human activity).
What is worse – a strict adherence to Clovis First or a blind adherence to the idea of palaeolithic people having the ability to cause a mass kill off of thousands, if not millions, of large herbivores (and the equally mysterious disappearance or die-off of lesser sized animals from rats to squirrels and rabbits)? The press release above seems to show that the museum scientists are in no doubt that humans were the guilty parties – even though such a short time has passed and the field itself has not been investigated any further. This is not to say that an individual mammoth could not have been killed by humans – who then took large amounts of meat and dropped the rest of the animal in a pond in order to preserve the remaining meat for another day. I don't know if dropping a mammoth in a pond would really stop the animal from decomposing – but this appears to be the idea behind the claim. In their favour the museum team can point to the skull of the mammoth being broken open. This was to retrieve the brains according to them – but why eat brains when you can eat a steak? Okay, some people might consider brains to be a delicacy – it takes all sorts after all. Also, there is evidence the trunk and the tusks were torn away – and again this is presented as evidence of humans seeking out the benefits of the soft parts of the animal's head. The skull was also cracked open – along the top. Nearby they found 3 boulders – one the size of a medicine ball, another the size of a basketball, and the third the size and shape of an American football. Obviously these blunt instruments could have been used to crack open the skull. They add, they could not have been erratics as there is no nearby evidence of a stream or a river in order to transport them to that part of Michigan. Sharp instruments to cut open the flesh are not mentioned and we can assume they have not been found.
When it comes to the body of the animal we are told it had been dismembered as the bones are spread out. Although they are arranged as they would have occurred on the animal, front to rear, the bones are disarticulated in that space existed between them which indicates, to the museum team, they were separated by hunters (taking the best cuts of meat with them). As no flesh exists and all they have are bones this is an assumption – guess work. Why do they feel it is necessary to false feed a hypothesis they cannot prove. Why can they not say they have found a mammoth skeleton but we don't know how it died? The reason can only be they wish to avoid at all costs any notion that a natural disaster of any kind is involved. That smacks of dishonesty – and they are repeating the same kind of nonsense the Clovis First people did through most of the 20th century.
The really strange side of this is that the field is yet to be explored – and yet they already know certain things about the geology. The bones were found 10 feet below the current ground level. We are not told what the farmer was doing to get down this far but it seems the ground is composed of marls and clays. This is geology which has an origin in water – and water flow. Perhaps the field was prone to flood. The museum source is quoted as saying that 12 feet down they would be at 16,000 years ago, a remarkable thing to say before any laboratory evidence had come in – and can only be based on the sedimentary origin. As he also points out 16,000 years ago was at the end of the last Ice Age (when the ice sheet that covered NE North America was in the process of melting – or had perhaps already melted). What would mammoths be doing washed up in ice melt – unless the ice melt was catastrophically rapid. Here we have the real reason why this mammoth died and its bones were found strewn over a distance bigger than its living body would allow – it had been carried by ice melt (along with the three boulders) and the evidence lies in the clays and the marls in which it was stuck – after taking a battering from being tumbled and knocked around. Presumably the skull was damaged in the process of being carried in a rush of water and ice, possibly being rolled over and over. Why do these people refuse to see the evidence and remain determined to stick to their uniformitarian theory come what may?