Taphonomic Analysis of the Mammalian Fauna from Sandia Cave, New Mexico, and the “Sandia Man” Controversy

Abstract

Sandia Cave in New Mexico was excavated in the late 1930s by Frank Hibben, who described a unique type of chipped stone artifact-the “Sandia point”-in association with a faunal assemblage that included extinct Pleistocene species. The site was interpreted as a late Pleistocene Paleoindian hunting station, making it the earliest human occupation known in America at the time. Despite the pivotal role the faunal assemblage has played in interpretations of the site, there was never a confirmed behavioral association between the artifacts and the fossils. A subsequent series of controversies about the age of the site and the integrity of the stratigraphy has since pushed Sandia Cave into obscurity. Results from a recent taphonomic study of the large and small mammal assemblages from the original excavations are reported here. These show that the majority of the fauna were accumulated by nonhuman agents (carnivores, raptors, and rodents), but that a small proportion of large mammal fragments retain human modification. The three major points of controversy are discussed in light of these and other findings, and it is shown that Sandia Cave remains an important datapoint in archaeological, paleontological, and paleoecological studies of the region.

Radiocarbon Dating the Human Occupation at Sandia Cave, New Mexico

“…The study by Thompson et al (2008) similarly gives a much clearer picture of site use but no human modification was observed on any bone fragment that could be confidently identified as an extinct or extralimital species. Because of extensive bioturbation and poorly recorded stratigraphic associations for the original assemblage, it cannot be assumed that fossils bearing evidence of human modification and associated with extinct species without such modification were necessarily Pleistocene in age.…”

“…Almost immediately after Sandia Cave was first reported, several inconsistencies arose regarding the site's interpretation, stratigraphy, dating, and cultural associations (Bliss 1940a(Bliss , 1940bBrand 1940;Gross 1951Gross , 1957Hibben 1941aHibben , 1957Johnson 1957). Thompson et al (2008) identified three main aspects that have caused confusion: (1) the inconsistency of the dates of the human occupation; (2) the integrity of the stratigraphy in the areas that produced archaeological material; and (3) the reliability of the excavator's performance onsite and during subsequent analyses and publications. Detailed descriptions of these controversies and discrepancies regarding Sandia Cave are available elsewhere (Krieger 1957;Preston 1995;Stevens and Agogino 1975).…”

“…However, Haynes and Agogino (1986) confirmed the claim by Bliss (1940) that the stratigraphic integrity at the site had been compromised owing to extensive rodent bioturbation. This was seconded by Thompson et al (2008), who conducted a taphonomic analysis of the small and large mammalian fauna from the original assemblage described briefly by Gazin and Schultz in Hibben (1941b:33). Therefore, the stratigraphic placement of the artifacts in the breccia cannot fully determine the age of the human occupation at Sandia Cave.…”

“…This sample mainly comprised microfauna taken from under a large block of roof-fall about 70 m into the cave, in a section that requires crawling on hands and knees for passage and is therefore unlikely related to human occupation of the site. Although the site unquestionably contained Pleistocene fauna, most of the large mammal fossils were likely deposited while the site was used as a carnivore den (Thompson et al 2008). Sporadic human occupation was evidenced by low levels of human modification on the bone, indicating only occasional visits to the site.…”

“…In contrast to burning, butchery damage is only expected to occur when the bone is in a nutritive state. A few fragments from Sandia Cave preserved cut marks and percussion marks, and all of these occurred on specimens with some degree of mineralization (Thompson et al 2008). Cut marks definitively indicate human interaction with a bone assemblage but there is much debate regarding how these can be quantified and analyzed in light of other taphonomic processes (Dominguez-Rodrigo and Yravedra 2009).…”