Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [259]
On May 18, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold and Steve Porter about “suppression of data on Hueyatlaco and other possible Pre-Wisconsinian Early Man sites in the New World by unethical means.” She told how she had submitted a general paper on her dating techniques to be included in a volume in a scientific series. Steen-McIntyre then learned from the editor that “he had decided to ‘drastically edit’ this manuscript, essentially by deleting most of the section on Hueyatlaco and by treating the remainder in a negative way.” In her letter to Leopold and Porter, Steen-McIntyre stated: “I protested strongly, and he agreed to reinsert some of the deleted material, but only in a way that will hold both me and my research up for laughter and ridicule.” In a note to our researcher, Steve Bernath, dated January 29, 1989, Steen-McIntyre explained that the editor had, in the course of his drastic editing, altered one of her data tables. According to Steen-McIntyre: “when I threatened him he replaced the missing material [in the text] but forgot to retype the table.”
Steen-McIntyre’s case is not unique. Some American scientists reporting anomalous evidence for a human presence in North America have found it necessary to publish overseas. Steen-McIntyre said in her letter to Leopold and Porter that “Roy Schlemon, a pedologist who has helped date Calico and who is working at other sites in Southern California . . . had been publishing outside the country.” A pedologist is a scientist who studies soils.
Eventually, Quaternary Research (1981) published an article by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell, and Harold E. Malde. It upheld an age of 250,000 years for the Hueyatlaco site. Of course, it is always possible to raise objections to archeological dates, and Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1981) did so in a letter responding to Steen-McIntyre, Fryxell, and Malde. Her objections were answered point for point in a counter-letter (Malde and Steen-McIntyre 1981). But Irwin-Williams did not relent. She, and the American archeological community in general, have continued to reject the dating of Hueyatlaco carried out by Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues on the U.S. Geological Survey team.
As in the case of Sheguiandah, the anomalous findings at Hueyatlaco resulted in personal abuse and professional penalties for those who dared to present and defend them in the scientific literature. This involved withholding of funds and loss of job, facilities, and reputation for at least one of the geologists involved in the dating project (Steen-McIntyre, personal communication).
The case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of hurt and conflict. In general, however, this goes on behind the scenes, and the public sees only the end result—the carefully edited journals and books that have passed the censors.
A final note—we ourselves once tried to secure permission to reproduce photographs of the Hueyatlaco artifacts in a publication. We were informed that permission would be granted only if we gave a date of no more than 30,000 years for the artifacts. But permission would be denied if we intended to cite a “lunatic fringe date” of 250,000 years. We grant that the 250,000-year date may be wrong. But is it really appropriate to apply the term “lunatic fringe” to studies such as the one