We don't know who they were, but we know they were here before 10,000 B.C. They hunted camels in the lush grass of southern Oregon. They probably saw 12,000-foot Mount Mazama looming over the western horizon.
They lived here as early as members of the Clovis culture, named after a style of fluted stone projectile point first found around the start of the Great Depression near Clovis, New Mexico. Roswell, New Mexico, has its UFOs, and Clovis has its stone-age mammoth hunters. So do a lot of other places. By now, Clovis points have been found all over the continent, including East Wenatchee. For decades, archaeologists repeated the mantra "Clovis first." In other words, they assumed that the people who made those fluted points were the first human beings in the Americas.
But evidence has been mounting for years that Clovis wasn't first, that other people were here just as soon if not sooner. Some of the most compelling evidence has come from south-central Oregon's Paisley Caves. Until recently, though, some scientists raised legitimate questions about the dating of objects found at Paisley. This month, those questions were presumably laid to rest.
The precise dating of Western stemmed stone weapon points and accompanying coprolites — i.e., mummified turds — found in the Paisley Caves has received a lot of press. "Stone Tools Hint at Previously Unknown Ancient Culture in North America," proclaimed one headline.
"Archaeological work in Oregon's Paisley Caves has found evidence that Western Stemmed projectile points — darts or thrusting spearheads — were present at least 13,200 years ago during or before the Clovis culture in western North America," said Science News. The magazine explained that the "radiocarbon dating of the Western Stemmed projectiles to potentially pre-Clovis times . . . provides new information in the decades-old debate that the two point-production technologies overlapped in time and may have developed separately. It suggests that Clovis may have arisen in the Southeastern United States and moved west, while the Western Stemmed tradition began, perhaps earlier, in the West and moved east."
All this attention was stirred up by a paper that Dennis L Jenkins, a senior research associate at the University of Oregon's Museum of Natural and Cultural History, and many colleagues published in the July 13 issue of Science. The authors explained that "Western Stemmed projectile points were recovered in deposits dated to 11,070 to 11,340 (carbon 14-dated) years ago, a time contemporaneous with or preceding the Clovis technology. There is no evidence of diagnostic Clovis technology at the site. These two distinct technologies were parallel developments, not the product of a unilinear technological evolution.
This is stuff that Jenkins, who has been working at the Paisley Caves for years, figured out long ago. Coprolites that he found in 2002 and 2003 produced what seemed to be the oldest human DNA in the Americas, pre-dating Clovis.
But when Jenkins and colleagues published a paper in Science four years ago, other scientists raised questions about their findings. The dates had been startling, and the outside scientists wondered, among other things, if maybe the layers in the cave had been churned up. Or, they speculated, water might have leached newer DNA down to older layers so that the context made the coprolites seem older than they really were.
Jenkins' new paper addressed those questions. As he and his colleagues wrote in Science: "'Blind testing' analysis of coprolites by an independent laboratory confirms the presence of human DNA in specimens of pre-Clovis age." Shortly after the new Science article appeared, Jenkins said he thought that the 190 repetitions of carbon dating on which the article was based should satisfy the skeptics.
So who were these Western stemmed guys? No one really knows.
Jenkins said the DNA hasn't been analyzed enough to identify groups with common ancestors, but not enough to pinpoint the toolmakers' origins. Eventually, perhaps, we'll know exactly where they came from. But, Jenkins explained, doing a full analysis will be very expensive, and no one has paid for it yet.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!