• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1578 0

and used only the crudest kind of stone tools. From one advocate of this point of view, we have heard that the Sheguiandah tills are actually storm-driven beach deposits, perhaps 10,000 years old at most. This despite the fact that T. E. Lee (1983, p. 67) said “beach action has been considered and rejected.” The reports of Lee and Sanford, full of references to old beaches on Manitoulin Island, show that they were fully acquainted with beach deposits and could make evaluations concerning their presence at particular locations. Arguing against the storm-driven beach deposit hypothesis is the fact that the stone tools found in the till are “not severely ground, battered or smashed” and that their “edges are often sharp” (T. E. Lee 1983, p. 58).

In cases of controversial claims, such as those made by Lee in connection with Sheguiandah, it is, of course, to be expected that counterarguments will be presented. But when such counterarguments and critiques are repeated blindly as conclusive verdicts, this tends to prevent any genuine discussion of the real issues. We might imagine the following classroom scene. “Tools found in till at Sheguiandah?” says the professor. “That’s nonsense. Everyone knows the so-called till is just a beach deposit.” Even a student with some genuine interest in the matter might hesitate to raise further questions because of fear of ridicule.

If one approach is to deny that the unsorted tool-bearing deposits are till, another is to demand excessively high levels of proof for a human presence at the site at the designated time. James B. Griffin, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, believed that the most certain date for the entry of humans into the New World was 12,000 years ago, although he admitted growing evidence favored a 20,000-year date. Griffin (1979, pp. 43–44) added: “There are, however, some evaluations of the antiquity of man in the New World measured in the high tens of thousands and to hundreds of thousands of years or more on what I regard as either provocative or very slim evidence. These are simply not regarded as demonstrated by a large number of competent authorities.”

This is how the social process of science works. Someone might present a good case, but if a consensus of established authorities does not support it, it goes by the wayside.

Griffin (1979, p. 46) further stated: “There are a large number of locations in North America for which considerable antiquity has been claimed as places inhabited by early Indians. Even whole books have been published on nonsites.

The reasons it is now difficult or impossible to include such ‘sites’ varies from location to location; a detailed dissent is not within the scope of this chapter.” Griffin included Sheguiandah in the category of a nonsite. Of course, it is understandable that Griffin may not have had space in a chapter authored by him in a collective work to give a detailed discussion of why Sheguiandah should not be considered quite old. But he should have at least given some reference to where such a detailed dissent might be found. This he failed to do. As yet, we have found no detailed refutation in print, by Griffin or anyone else, of Sanford’s analysis of the site’s geology.

If, according to Griffin, Sheguiandah is a nonsite, then what is a real site? Griffin (1979, p. 44) stated that a proper site must possess “a clearly identifiable geologic context. . . . with no possibility of intrusion or secondary deposition.” He also insisted that a proper site must be studied by several geologists expert in the particular formations present there, and that there must be substantial agreement among these experts. Furthermore, there must be “a range of tool forms and debris . . . well preserved animal remains . . . pollen studies . . . macrobotanical materials . . . human skeletal remains. Griffin also required dating by radiocarbon and other methods. Although Griffin (1979, p. 44) himself admitted “this is an ideal model for an ‘Early Man’ site,” he nevertheless insisted that “insofar as finds that have been proposed fail