|
||
|
||
|
"On May 6th,
1940, "Time" reported news of an event that shook the world of
archaeology: Frank Hibben , a thirty-year-old scholar with the
University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, had uncovered a cave in New
Mexico's Sandia Mountains evidence of the oldest human culture in the
New World."---1995,
Douglas Preston, "The Mystery Of Sandia Cave," The New Yorker, p. 66.
Sandia Cave is, without a doubt, the most controversial archaeological site ever excavated in the United States. The Sandia Cave excavation became immediately famous when, "On May 6, 1940, "Time" reported news of an event that shook the world of archaeology: Frank Hibben, a thirty-year-old scholar with the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, had uncovered in a cave in New Mexico's Sandia Mountains evidence of the oldest human culture in the New World." In the beginning, when the Smithsonian first published Frank Hibben's report, the site conjured up images of first Americans and a connection to Europe. But as the years went by, Sandia has become more of a thorn in the side of the archaeological community and an embarrassment to the science. Comments about Hibben's interpretation of the site range from just honest mistakes to fraud. Sandia will probably never go away completely. Professional and non-professional publications continue to refer to this famous site. But in recent years those who do will, more-often-than-not, comment that Sandia has lost its credibility and let it go at that. |
||
|
||
|
It almost seems that in order to understand Sandia you have to study the man in charge of the excavation, Frank Hibben. The most in depth investigation of every aspect of the Sandia cave excavation and the personalities involved was written by Doug Preston in 1995 and published in "The New Yorker" magazine. This very lengthy article reads like a good movie script and would in fact make a very good movie. Frank Hibben was born in Ohio in 1910 and lived 92 years. He wore many hats. He was very wealthy and evidently had good connections with important people including at least one president. He was a big game hunter, a naval officer in World War II as an aide to one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington DC and carried shrapnel in his body from a German submarine that once shot down his plane. He was involved in at least one covert spying activity for the US government when he traveled to a foreign country. He was also a tv personality and an archaeologist. Most people agree that he definitely was a very likable guy with a unique personality. Preston writes that, "One former student, Dave Snow, recalled that when Hibben taught hominid evolution he would start the lecture by "grabbing the doorjamb and swinging into the classroom like an ape, and leap up on his desk and make ape-like sounds." |
||
|
||
|
So it would seem that understanding Sandia is not always very clear and more-often-than-not rather mysterious. There is no doubt that the excavator of the site, frank Hibben, lived an extraordinary life and was very well liked by most of the people he came into contact with. But it's been said that he could tell a good tale around a camp fire and he was known for "stretching the truth." As it turns out, the Sandia Cave report does have many peculiar inconsistencies concerning just about everything. A number of archaeologists and some of the older witnesses who were involved in various aspects of the Sandia excavation have pointed out many problems with just about every part of the excavation and interpretation of the site. These issues involve the artifacts, samples used in carbon dating and even the interpretation of the geology and stratigraphy of the site. |
||
|
||
|
The most important data connected to Sandia Cave has always been the estimated dates for the lowest occupation level. In 1955 Hibben published in the journal "Science" the results of carbon dates taken from the remains of extinct animals and charcoal. The samples returned extraordinarily ancient dates between 17,000 and 20,000 years ago. But the samples sent to the lab for dating seem to have been haphazardly done to put it mildly. On one occasion, an ivory sample sent for testing had a Mousterian tag attached and Hibben verified that he probably sent the wrong sample. Another problem involves a reference in the 1955 report about charcoal samples that were submitted and collected by Kirk Bryan from fire hearths in the Sandia level. But none of Bryan's intimate associates ever recall him mentioning anything about sending samples from Sandia Cave for carbon dating and there was no record at the carbon dating lab that Bryan ever submitted any samples at all from the site. Preston writes in his New Yorker article that one of Bryan's colleagues even wrote to "Science" demanding that Hibben's statement be retracted. Some time later, Hibben made a statement saying that, "I am in agreement----that these dates (from Bran's mysterious samples) should be removed from the record." Yet another problem that concerns Hibben's most important samples that produced the 20,000 year old date, involves distinguished professor Lewis Binford who worked at the dating lab at the time. He believed that the ivory samples that returned the 20,000 year old date were not from Sandia cave either. He bases his evidence on a mammoth tooth that Hibben sent for dating that was labeled Sandia Cave but because it was studded with concretions that included pea gravel it couldn't have come from Sandia Cave. When questioned, Hibben replied that that he agreed it was probably mislabeled. So it was at this time that Binford tested the calcium carbonate crust on the ivory samples to compare the mineral blend with the tooth and found that the ivory was probably also not from Sandia Cave. Another curious thing is that Hibben never asked for any of the samples back from the dating lab. Binford began using the mammoth tooth for a paperweight. |
||
|
||
|
Vance Haynes and George Agogino produced a report in 1986 called "Geochronology of Sandia Cave," that was published by the Smithsonian Institution. Haynes said that after the first time he went to the cave he said to Agogino, "I came out of that cave the first time we were up there and I said, "George, I don't know what in the hell's going on in that cave. There's something wrong here." The report states that Hibben's description of the cave layers are very different than what is actually there. They determined that it was not a stratigraphically well defined site and it was covered with a labyrinth of recent and ancient rodent tunnels. The most important discovery was the dating of the yellow ochre layer, that was supposed to be located above the Sandia level. It was found to be at least 300,000 years old. So all the Sandia material that was reported to be below the yellow ochre must have been transported there from above. |
||
|
||
|
There were nineteen Sandia points reported to have been found below the 300,000 year old yellow ochre layer. It's curious that they were all transported to that level and none were discovered in any of the above levels. It's also odd that almost all of the Sandia points are complete which hardly never occurs on any other type of habitation site. You would expect to find more broken points. |
||
|
||
|
Bruce Bradley examined the Sandia points several years ago at the University of New Mexico's Maxwell Museum. He found several oddities concerning various aspects of the points. The first thing he noticed is that they didn't look as if they all came from the same type of environmental location. Some looked fresh as if they were protected from weathering while others looked like they were laying on the surface and polished by wind blown sand. Another thing he noted as strange is they were made by radically different chipping techniques. Some were made by using fine pressure flaking while others were very roughly made with percussion flaking. He also noted that the points were made from many different types of stones. But what is most interesting is that he observed that, "Two of them clearly showed modern alteration." One of them had a shoulder that was made with a grinding wheel and you could see little facets. He also detected metal marks on another point suggesting that a nail might have been used to remove some of the flakes. |
||
|
||
|
Most everyone agrees there must be projectile points older than Clovis since Clovis technology is a New World invention. Bradley suggests that the Sandia point design is perfect. Especially if you want to make a connection with Europe. The single shoulder design matches one of the Solutrean projectile point types from southwestern Europe. Also, if you add fluting into the design, as some of the Sandia points do have, that makes a wonderful connection to Folsom and Clovis. It's almost to good to be true. |
||
|
||
|
Sandia Cave was a habitation site and yet the people who once lived there didn't seem to do any of the normal resharpening or repairing activities that would involve maintaining stone tools. Only six waste flakes were discovered in the upper Folsom level and only seven waste flakes were found in the Sandia level. It seems odd that more of this type of lithic debris wasn't found. |
||
|
||
|
Also, if the Sandia site was so important, why are eight of the nineteen Sandia points now missing from the Maxwell Museum. Plus, when Hibben returned from the war in 1946 it's reported that "many of the specimens of the Sandia collection (such as) notes, photographs, etc. were (also) missing or in disarray." Binford also thought it odd that Hibben never asked for any of the samples back from the dating lab. |
||
|
||
|
Binford commented that, "Frank (Hibben) had a reputation in Albuquerque for-----it would be kind to say-----stretching things." It's unfortunate, but more than one prominent archaeologist has called the Sandia Cave site a fraud and the term fibben Hibben has been thrown about. If Sandia is America's Piltdown hoax it certainly has wasted a lot of peoples time and seventy years worth of publications about Sandia must have used a mountain of paper by now. In the very least there is a good movie in it somewhere. With all the strangeness connected to the site maybe it should be called the "peculiar site" or the "bazaar-o" site and let Sandia Cave be put to rest. |
||
|
"REFERENCES"
1941, Hibben, Frank C., "Evidences Of
Early Occupation In Sandia Cave, New Mexico, And Other Sites In The
Sandia-Manzano Region," Smithsonian
Misc. Collections, Vol. 99, No.23, p. 24. |
||
