If I were to be asked, “what is more important, discovery of a few apelike creatures in Africa purportedly aligning with a popular scientific axiom (axiom: an idea not demanding evidence in order to be accepted as true) or the discovery of ‘cultural’ evidence of early man in the Americas,” I would unhesitatingly go with the cultural evidence.This is because cultural evidence, since it represents the products of human creativity, has the potential of being recognized for exactly what it is. ‘Apelike,’ or even ‘humanlike’ fossils on the other hand, without absolute direct association with cultural evidence (e.g., tools, engravings) can be interpreted as just about anything—as the history of palaeoanthogpology has repeatedly shown (see PCN #3, January-February, 2010, Ardi: How to Create a Science Myth).
Fig. 1. The late Dr. Louis Leakey, Project Director at Calico Early Man Site from 1963 until his death in 1972. Leakey’s expertise as the single most recognizable name in early human archaeology and paleontology is being undermined by destruction of the evidence from Calico.
Unlike in normal science where objectivity is paramount, in the modern study of biological fossil remains everything in the realm of interpretation depends upon the predispositions of scientists and what they are ‘looking for.’ This is as true of plant and animal fossils as it is of human fossils.
However, in the case of stone tools, their study additionally involves the step-by-step real-time processes by which they were made using undisputed physical evidence to “prove” these processes, so it involves a level of science beyond the speculations of paleontologists and biologists.
This conflict between submitting to a popular theory that one was trained to believe while at the same time being open to adjusting ones opinions based on new evidence is the legacy of Louis Leakey (Fig. 1).
In our modern science mentality Leakey’s work in Africa promoting the popular paradigm that man evolved there and then slowly spread through Europe and Asia is regarded as important while his work at Calico Early Man Site—a site in the Americas with signs of human culture dating to c. 50,000-200,000 years old (Figs. 2, 3, 4)—is derided by promoters of the standard paradigm as an embarrassment (see Chris Hardaker’s, The Abomination of Calico, part 1, PCN #6, July-August 2010).
Fig. 2. Beaked graver from Calico Master Pit 1. Like similar treatment of evidence from 250,000-year old Hueyatlaco, Mexico, and 400,000-yr old Bilzingsleben, Germany, there are obviously other motives besides the scientific quest for truth behind blocking Calico’s evidence. Photo: D. Griffin, calicodig.org.
Fig. 3. Two views of Calico Master Pit 1 started by Dr. Louis Leakey outside Barstow California in 1963 with funding from the National Geographic Society. The pits and their controversial evidence are now being blocked from archaeologists while published and catalogued artifacts are being systematically destroyed. Left photo: T. Oberlander; Right photo: D. Griffin; calicodig.org.
I suggest that the exact opposite is true, that Leakey’s work at Calico (partly inspired by his observation that there were far too many complex languages in the Western Hemisphere to have developed in the mere 12,000-15,000 years humans are taught to have been there) is the most innovative part of his work while his pre-programmed belief in African origins, and his finding there exactly what he was programmed to look for, will eventually be seen as a true embarrassment not only to anthropology but to all science. As public knowledge that opposing evidence is routinely blocked from them increases, the weaknesses of everything Darwin proposed (including cognitive evolution) will start becoming more visible. Calico showed that Leakey was an objective scientist. The fact is, like the similar story of Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Leakey’s involvement in Calico created problems for the evolution community; that is the real cause for the ridicule he faced.
In this article and its accompanying audio recording of Leakey’s 1970 talk about the
have from the very beginning taken into very close consideration this
question of whether or not these could have been the work of nature.
Any one single one just possibly could.
But when they are in concentration… and when we put down pits into the
fan elsewhere without getting that concentration… then it is much more
of Calico the reader will be able to hear about the matter straight
from the horse’s mouth. This is likely something most readers have
never thought to do being satisfied to simply trust what the debunkers
say. My recommendation, after 20 years experiencing misconduct in
anthropology, is that if the debunkers are known evolution fanatics
then immediately stand back, take note, and then listen to whatever
they have to say with a grain of salt.
First, here is a list of enlightening articles related to Calico published in Pleistocene Coalition News the past three years:
· Articles by co-founder Chris Hardaker as noted above;
· copy editor Tom Baldwin who worked at Calico since Louis Leakey was its Director (Lake Manix, PCN #3, Jan-Feb. 2010; Reassessing American archaeology, PCN #12, July-Aug. 2011; Breaking the Clovis barrier, PCN #16, March-April 2012);
· archaeologist Fred E. Budinger Jr., former Director of Calico Early Man Site in the years after directors Leakey and Ruth D. Simpson (Protecting Calico, parts 1 & 2, PCN #17, May-June 2012);
· co-founder and tephrochronologist Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre (The collapse of standard paradigm New World prehistory, PCN #14, Nov-Dec. 2011; To clean or not to clean, PCN #16, March-April 2012); Early man in northern Yukon, PCN #20, Nov-Dec. 2012;
· co-founder and geologist, the late Dr. Sam L. VanLandingham (VanLandingham responds to Calico destruction, PCN #18, July-Aug. 2012);
· co-founder Dr. James B. Harrod (Out-of-Africa revisited, PCN #3, Jan-Feb. 2010);
· PhD candidate, Paulette Steeves (Deep time ancestors in the Western Hemisphere, PCN #7, Sept-Oct. 2010; Decolonizing Pleistocene archaeological research in the Americas, PCN #16, March-April 2012),
· Dr. James L. Bischoff, geochemist USGS (Upholding the 200,000-year old dates for Calico, PCN #13, Sept-Oct. 2011),
· and copy editor David Campbell (Solutrean solutions, PCN #19, Nov-Dec. 2012).
Louis Leakey along with Ruth D. Simpson began the Calico excavation in 1963 with a grant from the National Geographic Society. On October 24, 1970, Dr. Leakey presented several talks at the International Conference on the Calico Mountains Excavation, at San Bernardino Valley College, including “Pleistocene Man in America” and “The Problems of Calico.” The conference was sponsored by the San Bernardino County Museum, University of Pennsylvania Museum, and the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation.
With Calico now being threatened in a manner inappropriate to archaeology combined with the passing of two of the Coalition’s primary members,Virginia’s husband, David McIntyre, and Sam VanLandingham, as well as many difficulties for the main pillar of the Coalition, Virginia, I thought it a good time to put in a little extra work and offer this ‘unedited’ transcript of Dr. Leakey’s 2nd talk, “The Problems of Calico.” It is, in fact, the only verbatim transcript of the talk. It shows Leakey’s confidence in Calico as influenced by his 47 years of experience making stone tools and doing experimental flaking, his research and discoveries in Africa and Europe, as well as his studies of other controversial sites. He explains the differences between human-made artifacts and what the mainstream tries to brush off as ‘geofacts.’ The latter is something that the public buys without looking into the evidence. Fig. 4 will give the reader an opportunity to make up their own minds as to whether or not artifacts from Calico—in cases identical to artifacts from Europe—are man-made or nature-made.
The original recording from 1970 from which the transcript was made was provided by Fred E. Budinger Jr., former Director of Calico Early Man Site. Painstaking work over headphones was necessary after noise reduction, rumble, hum, and hiss removal, and EQ to bring some clarity to the voice in order to transcribe the recording word for word along with research to confirm difficult to hear sections. Apart from deleting a few repeated words this transcript is verbatim and contains much information not in the original publication. From the re-mastered audio one can hear Leakey’s passion and enthusiasm for Calico.
The new transcript reproduced below begins at Leakey’s first complete sentence in the original as, unfortunately, the first few paragraphs were not recorded. Dr. Leakey is talking on the topic of distinguishing between human-made flakes of stone, i.e. artifacts, and similar-looking objects created by nature. The rest of the transcript will appear in Issue #22 of PCN. The re-mastered audio will be available on the Coalition homepage shortly after this issue goes to press. All emphasis in italics represent emphasis by Leakey. Words in [brackets] are uncertain.
Louis Leakey speaking:
“You get situations on beaches. I’ve seen it at Weymouth; and then I did study there of what waves do in a storm when on the pebble beaches of Weymouth. And then Desmond Clarke who says in a similar study (I think of Eastborne or somewhere else and under storm conditions on a pebble beach) stones are hurled at each other and a certain number hit each other in such a way a flake comes off. But the number is infinitesimal and scattered over a length of beach, not a concentration in a small area with nothing elsewhere. There’s a uniform scatter.I worked (first I visited with Hazeldine Warren and worked subsequently myself) at the famous Bullhead Beds, Grays, in England [Ed. Note: Eocene age] where you have movement of earth over the top of a partly dissolved chalk where lumps of flint are sticking out of the surface of the chalk and then movements of sand with stones
is never selective. ...And one of the most striking things, even with
the cortex flakes at Calico, is that they are flakes struck off a
selected piece of chert or a piece of jasper.”
|and things moving across and pushing off flakes that we described many times. That situation is not to be found at Calico.
I’ve seen what can be done in outwash glacial gravels. And I would just simply say that I want you to realize that in claiming that the artifacts which we have found and which we are going to show a proportion to you (not too many show you all but a relative good sample) this afternoon, I have from the very beginning taken into very close consideration this question of whether or not these could have been the work of nature. Any one single one just possibly could. But when they are in concentration—it’s a limited area—and when we put down pits into the fan elsewhere without getting that concentration—sometimes getting none at all or getting a singleton—then it is much more convincing still.
And I think you can say that there’s another thing about the site which will be elaborated I hope by Tom Clements, presently. The fan deposits which you have seen are not a great mass of stones moving down together but stones mixed up with sands and gravels.
And finally on this point—not the other points covered—on this point, finally, I would say that nature is never selective. [We have] beds of a French site—Belaise—or the [charred place] where you’ve got natural flaking and many other sub-sites, nature pushes off flakes of good material and bad material. A piece of chert that’s heavily riddled with holes is pushed off so the flake that comes off it is riddled with holes and irregularities.
And one of the most striking things, even with the cortex flakes at Calico, is that almost without exception—and I can only think of two exceptions in my mind—they are not flakes struck off of a bad piece of chert; they are flakes struck off a selected piece of chert or a piece of jasper.
There are [inaudible 3 syllables] and again, there are other materials besides cherts and jasper available in that fan; and we do not have those flakes until the few in limestone.
This selectivity is something nature never does. Nature is pushing off flakes at random. Man pushes off flakes, knocks off flakes, for a specific purpose.
[Fig. 4 is a blade from Calico dismissed as ‘nature-made’ by mainstream scientists compared with an identical piece called a ‘human artifact’ by the same scientists. It is provided so the reader can see the type of evidence Leakey is describing and what mainstream keeps from the public eye. Hopefully this comparison will be an easy one for anyone wondering whether or not the objects from Calico are evidence of early humans in the Americas.]Fig. 4. Comparing a flaked stone blade from Calico, c. 50,000-200,000 BP, with a virtually identical artifact from the Gravettian site of Brassempouy, France, c. 29,000-22,000 years BP. Left: Artifact #16605 from archaeologist Chris Hardaker’s Calico Lithics Photographic Project, Part 4a, Introduction to Blades (see “The Abomination of Calico, part one,” PCN #6, July-August 2010). Hardaker’s plate shows several views of the artifact including the blade’s central channel and bulb complex. The upper three photographs are of the artifact held upright in sand. Right: a flint blade from the famous site of Brassempouy in France; Wikimedia Commons. The similarity between these two blades is undeniable. Leakey was confident that the specimens from Calico were artifacts like any others despite attempts by mainstream scientists to denounce them as ‘geofacts’ while readily accepting identical objects as ‘artifacts’ if they were found in Europe. Leakey classified the artifacts at Calico by the same standard divisions used in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Tools classified as blades are at least twice as long as they are wide, with straight, parallel sides; they are very often delicate. Blades were some of the most characteristic tools of the late Paleolithic in Europe and Africa and are believed to have been used by Homo sapiens 35,000-10,000 years ago. Blades were also used as starting points to create tiny flakes known as microliths which were inserted as components into large and complex composite tools made of wood and bone for special purposes (microliths are also ‘inconveniently’ known from the Lower Paleolithic site of Bilzingsleben whose Homo erectus inhabitants are regarded ape-men by mainstream science). The mainstream problem obviously has nothing to do with science. It exists only because accepting Calico as a 200,000-year old site creates problems for the belief that humans didn’t make it to the New World until a mere 15,000 years ago.
So, again I ask you to take that into account very closely as you listen to Dee presently and then to listen to Tom again this afternoon when you see the material.”
...To be continued.