Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [223]
In their report, the commission of geologists (Roth et al. 1915, p. 419) first told what they were asked to investigate: “The two questions are: (1) Were the objects in question found in primary deposits, that is to say, were they covered over at the time the deposits were being laid down, or is there reason to doubt this and to suppose instead that the objects were buried by a different cause at that site, at a time later than the formation of the respective deposits? (2) Concerning the stratigraphic position of the beds that contain the objects, can it be determined if they correspond to levels of the Eopampean horizon (the Montehermosan of F. Ameghino); or were the respective sediments more recently deposited against an ancient barranca, or in an eroded valley or some other depression of the earth that corresponds to the later part of the Pampean series?”
The report (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420) then went on to describe the stratigraphy of the barranca in some detail, making use of a nomenclature different from that used by either Ameghino or modern authorities (Table 5.1): “The cliff displayed four Pampean horizons: Eopampean (the Montehermosan and Chapadmalalan of F. Ameghino); Mesopampean (Ensenadan); Neopampean (Bonarian and Lujanian); and Postpampean (Platean).”
Of special interest were the Mesopampean and Eopampean. The Mesopampean was a bank of water-redeposited loess, 3– 4 meters [10–13 feet] thick, extending 500 meters [1640 feet] between two transverse valleys interrupting the barranca. Of the Mesopampean layer, the commission said: “C. Ameghino, Schiller, and Roth agree that the bank in question corresponds to the Ensenadan level in the subdivisions of the Pampean made by F. Ameghino” (Roth et al. “In some parts there are layers of rounded stones,” reported the commission of geologists. “Also present is freshwater limestone, very common in the Mesopampean. The loess is traversed in all directions by veins or seams of calcareous tufa, which frequently form in such beds. These stratigraphic and lithological conditions make it impossible to suppose that cavities were formed and refilled after the Mesopampean formation was initially deposited” (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420).
This is an important consideration. One might say that the presence of stone implements in the Eopampean strata below the Mesopampean could be accounted for in the following way. Imagine a fairly recent Indian settlement on the top of the barranca. The villagers leave stone tools on the surface. Later, an arroyo forms in the barranca, cutting through the Mesopampean layers into the Eopampean formation. Stone tools are washed into the bottom of the arroyo. Later, the arroyo is refilled, leaving stone tools in the Eopampean layer. As we shall see, this is exactly the sort of challenge that would be made (Section 5.2.3).
According to the commission, the geological evidence ruled out such cutting and refilling (Roth et al. 1915, p. 420). The Mesopampean formation contained distinct layers of stones, seams of calcareous tufa (a porous limestonelike material), and deposits of tosca (a hard limestone deposit). All these would have been noticeably disturbed if cut by a gully that was later refilled.
The commission report then turned to the layers that contained implements: “The base of the barranca is formed of Eopampean deposits. Carlos Ameghino, Schiller, and Roth declare that the geological characteristics of this deposit are exactly like those of the loess found at the base of the Lobería barranca south of Mar del Plata, where F. Ameghino originally established the Chapadmalalan formation. In both locales one encounters, according