Skeletal remains may be 11,000 years old

Houston Chronicle ^ | Aug. 9, 2002, 10:45AM | By TERRY KLIEWER

[vannrox]

Aug. 9, 2002, 10:45AM

BONING UP ON HISTORY

Skeletal remains may be 11,000 years old

By TERRY KLIEWER

Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

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.

	alt="remains" vspace="2"> John Everett / Chronicle 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.

D'Aigle announced his discovery this week.

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.

"This will shake up a lot of archaeologists," he predicted.

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.

"Our population of prehistoric skeletons is pretty small."

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."

---

[vannrox]

INTERESTING AND EXCITING. 9000BC.

[elbucko]

It's not one of the Rolling Stones, is it?

[Howie]

Fascinating stuff!

[Sam Cree]

"He cautioned that federal regulations about the handling of Native American remains and artifacts will first have to be considered. "

I am supposing that there is a good chance these, like the ones resembling Patrick Stewart, may not be "Native American" in the sense that phrase is generally used.

[uglybiker]

Although he looks dead, Keith Richards is rumored to be alive.

[El Gato]

I am supposing that there is a good chance these, like the ones resembling Patrick Stewart, may not be "Native American" in the sense that phrase is generally used.

I suspect so, if one defines Native American as the peoples inhabiting the Americas in 1492 or slightly before. It's already well known that there were "others" here before them. This little lady might be from that group, or a still earlier one.

[pabianice]

The Indians will be demanding it be immediately buried without examination in their futile attempt to prevent the acknowledgement of the emerging true story of American migration -- that today's Indians are the descendants of a much later migration that murdered to extinction these earlier people and stole their land. So much for their carefully constructed myth of "living in harmony with nature."

[Grut]

Does this mean we all descend from Texans instead of the Black chick they thought before?

Actually, current theory is that H.Academis, or Academic Man, is descended from South American ancestors; this has to do with the similarity between academic debate and two troops of Howler Monkeys defending their turf.

[elbucko]

Keith Richards is rumored to be alive.

Thanks, what a relief! I'm a "Strolling Bones" fan and worry 'bout Sir Nick and the self-embalmed Keith.

[Jalapeno]

This girl could of been roaming Texas when Woolly Mammoths were walking around. Too bad she didn't have a camera with her.....

[Erasmus]

She probably had many a Kodiak moment.

[Cobra Scott]

"The Indians will be demanding it be immediately buried without examination in their futile attempt to prevent the acknowledgement of the emerging true story of American migration -- that today's Indians are the descendants of a much later migration that murdered to extinction these earlier people and stole their land. So much for their carefully constructed myth of "living in harmony with nature." "

Not the ones I know. They are genuinely interested in pre-European history of the continent, and aren't exactly apologists for the various and sundry social structures that existed.