Skeletal Remains May Be 11,000 Years Old (Lake Jackson, Texas)

LAKE JACKSON -- The gummy clay of coastal Texas holds plenty of secrets, but it may have given up one of its oldest when routine excavation near here uncovered prehistoric human bones.

Archaeologist Robert d'Aigle unearthed bones three years ago in the San Bernard River National Wildlife Refuge in south Brazoria County. He may have found only the third human skeleton in North America that dates back at least 10,000 years.

The bones -- a skull, two vertebrae and part of a jaw with some teeth -- may date back 11,000 years or more, according to preliminary analysis that included radiocarbon dating at the University of Arizona.

A final report on the site and the find were submitted this week to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Spring-based archaeologist Robert d'Aigle, who recovered the skeletal remains three years ago in the San Bernard River National Wildlife Refuge in south Brazoria County.

The bones were turned up during mechanical excavation work on a levee on federal land in the refuge, he said. They were buried about three feet deep in what d'Aigle thinks is a vertical position, leading him to suspect the area was a bog in which the victim became trapped and died.

D'Aigle said experts who examined the remains believe they are from an adolescent female who was about 4 feet tall.

If confirmed, this would be only the third discovery in North America of skeletal remains that are 10,000 or more years old, experts say. As such, "Brazoria Girl" may turn out to be a milestone in documenting the inhabitation of the continent.

The find comes as scientists are rethinking the long-held theory that North and South America were populated by prehistoric tribes that crossed from Asia via a Bering Strait land bridge. Even those who don't question the migration aren't sure about its timing.

D'Aigle, a registered professional archaeologist, said his discovery may force scientists to revise their timetable.

Anthropologist Michael Collins of the Texas Archaeological Research Lab in Austin called the find "rare and extremely important," but doubted it would be as important as d'Aigle thinks. Other discoveries, mainly of artifacts, have long since established human presence in Texas 100 centuries ago, Collins said.

"There is carbon dating and then there is carbon dating," he added, expressing reservations about the University of Arizona's testing capabilities. He urged more tests on both bones and soil, noting that bones often are contaminated by carbon from surrounding soil.

Most prehistoric discoveries are subjected to multiple tests by several labs, Collins said. Until that is done, "I certainly wouldn't call this a hoax, but its reliability is in question," he said.

But Collins' own nominee for the most highly credentialed carbon dating analyst in the country, geologist Tom Stafford of Boulder, Colo., said he has little doubt that d'Aigle's find is the real deal.

D'Aigle sent an ear bone and a sample of soil from within the skull to the Stafford Research Laboratories for analysis. Stafford said that, while his own radiocarbon testing was inconclusive, other signs, such as the soil in which the bones were found, point to the remains being at least 11,000 years old.

Stafford also said the importance of d'Aigle's find is not necessarily that it is the oldest human skeleton on the continent, but that it is one of so very few.

As such, he termed it "a pretty incredible discovery" on par with two other 10,000- to 11,000-year-old specimens, one from Montana and the other from California.

Besides, he said, the University of Arizona has a "spectacular" lab and is capable of reliable radiocarbon testing. However, he too said more testing by other labs is needed to determine the age of the remains.

As for the discovery's importance, he said, "I'd give a very enthusiastic but qualified 'yes.'

"I think we're in the right ballpark for age. I think it really may be what Bob (d'Aigle) thinks it is."

D'Aigle said his delay in announcing his April 1999 discovery was imposed by his contract obligations to the federal government. The radiocarbon dating and other analysis done on the recovered remains was done largely on a voluntary basis by several labs and at least 10 scientists, he said.

The findings were included in a report submitted this week to the Fish and Wildlife Service. D'Aigle said he was free to talk publicly only after completing the report.

David Siegel, historic preservation officer for the federal agency's southwest region, said the remains may go to the University of Texas for museum preservation and possible exhibition. He cautioned that federal regulations about the handling of Native American remains and artifacts will first have to be considered.

The discovery site has been covered with dirt to preserve it and prevent tampering, Siegel said.

"At this juncture, we have no plans other than to leave the site alone," he said. "It could be years before we do anything further."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1529357

Archaeologist wants to keep digging

Next step depends on tribes' go-ahead
By TERRY KLIEWER Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

The archaeologist who found what may be the oldest human skeletal remains yet discovered in North America hopes the federal agency in charge of the excavation site will approve further digging before the end of this year.

Robert d'Aigle, owner of CRC International Archaeology & Ecology in Spring, said Friday that he believes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which controls the land where the bones were found, should promptly allow more exploration.

D'Aigle this week disclosed that the bones he found in 1999 were radiocarbon-dated to at least 11,000 years ago. He said he had not been free to reveal his discovery until after he had submitted a final report to his federal sponsors this week.

Other scientists on the project speculate that the remains come from a young woman who became trapped in heavy mud, d'Aigle said.

He said he and a team of scientists probably could be ready to return by December for more work at the now re-covered site in the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge in southern Brazoria County.

But an official's response wasn't encouraging.

"It's way too early for us to do anything but preserve and protect the remains in place," said Dave Siegel, historic preservation officer for the Fish and Wildlife Service's southwest region.

He said additional excavation depends on response from Native American tribes who, by law, must be consulted first. The comment process has just begun, Siegel said, and no closing date has been set.

Siegel said the remains -- a skull, a partial jaw with teeth and two vertebrae -- will stay with d'Aigle while arrangements are made to move them to the University of Texas Center for Archaeological Research in Austin.

D'Aigle, whose company serves as an archaeological consultant for government and private-sector clients, said he understands the federal comment period that Siegel mentioned will conclude by December or earlier.

"We could be ready to go back within two weeks of that time, which would be prime time for excavation because of dry weather," he said.

D'Aigle said he would like to follow up first on a promising area near the discovery site where core-drilled soil samples suggest the presence of a cache of oyster shells several feet down.

He said the shells may have been piled there to provide footing for the prehistoric people who hunted and fished along an ancient waterway through the area.

Another scientist familiar with d'Aigle's discovery speculated this week that other skeletons may be buried there as well.

Boulder, Colo., geologist Bob Stafford said it seems likely that the area, once a bog, probably claimed other victims in its day. The discovery and dating of more remains would help to verify initial indications that the skeleton d'Aigle found is indeed about 11,000 years old, he said.

"So, it says they weren't the Indians ancestors. I read it, and maybe I overlooked it, but where does it theorize they were from? "
The artifacts that are being found (Topper Site) are like those (forgot what they're called) found on the Iberian (Spain) penensula. Also, the Cactus Hill site.
My take on things are that there were Caucasian types coming to North America thousands of years ago from two different directions, through Asia (Siberia/Japan) and then across the European ice bridge and also 'hopping' along both coasts by boat. The Native Americans (as we know them today) did not arrive until about 6,000 years ago.

Thanks! So, then, if I understand correctly, the issue is: Who got to North America first, right?

Ming, the first part of my screen name, is from mainland China. I have told her that the American Indians are the descendants from the people in Asia. So what I wanted to do was make sure I'm not giving her bad information (and I'd just like to know). My Grandmother (my Dad's mother) was 1/2 Cherokee. That would make me 1/8th Cherokee (if math applies to genetics like that, lol).

Now that my interest is piqued here, I'd appreciate it if you have any links to:

1. The migration of Asians to North America and the origin of North American Indians.

2. Your theory regarding Caucasian migration via the two routes.

In the meantime, I'll be doing some Google Searches, etc. to see what I can find.

Thanks, FRiend!

Have a cup while you FReep !

There were a bunch of old graves found in April in Victoria County, TX by the Army Corps of Engineers widening the Victoria Barge Canal near the local DuPont Plant. Everything is still in limbo as far as I know while everyone wrings their hands together over what to do.

They mention consulting with 3 tribes, but the local Native Americans were Karankawas, and as far as I know, there are no organized descendents of the tribe. I didn't really understand why Native American Indians would have jurisdiction over prehistoric artifacts.

Following is an article from the Victoria Advocate, if anyone is interested.

Ancient remains are waiting for decision
The Victoria Advocate
By: DAVID TEWES

No decision has been made on what to do with the human remains discovered in Victoria County at one of the oldest and largest archaeological sites in North America, but a federal official said she hopes to have an answer for the public in four or five months.

Archaeologist Janelle Stokes with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said that agency is continuing to work with representatives of Native American tribes, archaeologists and others to come up with a recommendation.

``We're hoping to put a first proposal in front of all of the interested parties sometime in May and work on that with all of the groups,'' she said. ``We're hoping to have a formal recommendation from the agency by the end of the summer.''

Stokes said the corps is working with the DuPont plant, which owns the property, and hopefully the two will come up with a mutually agreeable decision.

Spokeswoman Amy Hodges with DuPont said the company doesn't want to rush into a decision. ``The dialogue taking place is very important,'' she said. ``When you're looking at what's the right thing to do, you don't want to rush that process.''

The archaeological dig was done for the corps of engineers as part of the project to widen and deepen the Victoria Barge Canal. While the improvements only affected a small portion of the site, which contained no human remains, a corps official has said it's standard operating procedure to examine the entire site.

The excavation produced a large collection of artifacts from 1,000 to 12,000 years old. A prehistoric cemetery dating from 6,300 to 7,500 years ago was also found, and about 79 burials were discovered there.

Stokes said there are likely other burials, but the corps stopped the excavation because it felt enough information was already available.

Archaeologists and historians are concerned that the unearthed remains and artifacts will be reburied without further study. They said that would rob them of the chance to investigate what they consider an important chapter in the history of early man.

While the corps will make a recommendation based on public input about what should be done with the remains and artifacts, the final decision rests with DuPont because it owns the land.

Hodges said that as property owner, the company is involved because it is the steward of the land on which the remains and artifacts were found.

``We don't believe we own human remains,'' she said. ``No one owns human remains. We're supporting the corps process because it's bringing in opinions of diverse parties.''

Both Hodges and Stokes said the Society for American Archaeology, the Council of Texas Archaeologists and the Texas Archaeological Society are also being consulted as part of the decision-making process.

``They represent the opinions of professional and avocation archaeologists,'' Stokes said. ``We have had a meeting with them and they are advising us of their recommendations and on the significance of the site, and the archeological analyses they think should be performed.''

But she added that's just one side of the issue. Stokes said the corps is also talking with the Native Americans, the state historic preservation officer and other individuals.

She said the corps will conduct another meeting with the Native Americans in May.

Stokes said representatives from three tribes that attended a meeting with the corps in Victoria earlier this year agreed the remains should be reburied. But she said opinions varied on how much, if any, study should be done.

David Tewes is a reporter for The Victoria Advocate. Contact him by e-mail at dtewes@vicad.com. Originally published on: April 25, 2002 on page 1A.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.