June 3, 2019

Introduction

The Book of Mormon records in Ether 9:19 the “usefulness” of Elephants to the people. Many point to the extinction of the Mastodon, Mammoth, and Gomphothere by the end of the Pleistocene, 10,000 years ago, as one of the Book’s anachronisms. In defense, many Latter-day Saint scholars cite evidence from secular scholarship that the Proboscidea lived on into the mid-Holocene, thus allowing the probability that isolated herds survived to Jaredite times. This essay reviews these citations to independently verify their claims[1].

I find two things. One, these sources do not represent current scientific evidence or methodologies. Two, for the majority of the citations, apologists openly misrepresent the papers they cite. Out of the fourteen sources examined, nine mischaracterize what the original scholar wrote.[2]

None of the sources cited by apologetic scholars use dating work completed in the last thirty years for Probiscidea remains on the American continent. If we ignore the one paper published by a BYU professor, the apologetic work relies on dating techniques from over 40 years ago. They also ignore the caution and the care exhibited in the older scientific papers they cite. Their arguments rely on fringe possibilities.

I also review some of the current views on these digs and the scientific state of knowledge, generally, for Elephants in America. I find the scientific evidence favoring Elephants living into Jaredite times to be very weak. If we employ the most rigorous methods, relying on bone dating and controlling for contaminates, the evidence is completely non-existent.

Source Old Science Misrepresented Date Probiscidea Bones? Notes Velázquez-Valadéz (1980) Yes Paper makes no claim for Probiscidea Schmidt (1988) Yes Paper makes no claim for Probiscidea Martin and Webb (1974) Yes Paper makes no claim for Probiscidea Williams (1957) Yes Yes Wenner-Gren (1974) Yes n.a. n.a. Could not review paper Hester (1960) Yes Yes Hester (1967) Yes Yes Augusta (1966) Yes Mead and Meltzer (1984) Yes Yes n.a. Dating done in the 1960s Johnson (1952) Yes Yes Vartanyan, et al (1993) Yes Yes Dwarf Mammoth in Wrangel Island, Siberia Yesner, et al (2005) Yes Dwarf Mammoth in St. Paul Island, Alaska Pichardo (2001) Yes Yes n.a. Cites work done in 1981 Polaco, et al (2001) Yes Cites work done in 1969 Miller (1987) Yes Yes

Warren Mastodon Smithsonian Library, 1910. Source.

Apologetic scholars do present a reason. Tvedness notes, “the [young] dating has been challenged by those who have preconceived ideas about when such species had to have died out in the New World.” In favor of this view, it is a fact that because science is done by fallible human scientists, there exist community-wide biases. It can take decades or generations for a paradigm to shift. Take the difficulty in adopting Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift as an example.

However – and this is important – the capacity for bias is in no way evidence in favor of any pet opposition theory. A detractor from the mainstream, much like Alfred Wegener, must provide evidence in favor of their theory, and discuss why their view better explains the data than the accepted paradigm. At no point, in any of the apologetic works discussed, do these Latter-Day Saint scholars engage with, let alone acknowledge, the reasons why the scientists were hesitant about young Elephant dates. An honest search for truth demands it.

Examining the Evidence Cited

First, let’s discuss the timing and environment implied by the Book of Mormon. John Sorenson (2012), writing in The Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship, dates Ether 9:19 to the 2,500 BC. That is closer to the time of “the tower.” The CES curriculum places the tower from 2,500 – 2,300 BC. Ether 9:19 comes approximately ten generations later. After considering the children born in their “old age”, Ether 9:19 probably places closer to 2,000 BC. Ether 9:19 also comes under a discussion of the great riches in the land from Emer, indicating that the Elephant was not scarce at this time.

Our first series of sources discuss digs from Loltún Cave in Yucatán, México.

John Sorensen, in Mormon’s Codex (2013) cites the following article giving evidence for a Mastodon finding in the Yucatan in 1,800 BC. Other Mormon scholarship has also cited the paper. One recent example comes from Miller and Roper (2017) published in BYU Studies Quarterly. Miller is a Professor of Geology, who has published in Paleontology journals.

The text of Velázquez-Valadéz (1980) does not support this claim. The Mastodon is in the “earliest strata in the pit.” They also found “a good number of bone instruments … directly associated with the remains of Pleistocene megafauna, principally the horse and animals now extinct.” The article finds noteworthy that humans and these Ice Age megafauna are in the same “earliest strata.” The radiocarbon 1,800 BC date that Sorenson cites comes “from the uppermost level of the preceramic stratum.” This stratum is separate and younger compared to that of the Mastodon.

Peter J. Schmidt, “La Entrada del Hombre a la Península de Yucatán,” in Origínes del Hombre Americano (Seminario) compilación por Alba González Jácome (México: Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1988), 245-264.

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 2001 accurately says “Bones of extinct animals (including Mammoth) appear in the lowest layers.” It leaves out vital information.

Schmidt notes that in the Loltún Cave excavation cite named, “El Toro”, levels VI and VII contain ceramics. Level VIII is separated from VII by an irregular dividing line, possibly indicating a strong disturbance. Level VIII is the last that contains lithic flakes and flint. The radiocarbon date indeed is for 1,800 BC. It come from a mixed sample from Levels VII and VIII.

As for the Mastodon, Schmidt (1988) notes “the striking Mastodon bones appear in level X, almost one meter below the last lithic flake.” (page 253) This explicitly demonstrates that there is no association between the 1,800 BC date and the Mastodon. It further discredits any further citation of the Loltún Caves as evidence for Jaredite Elephants. Still today, the literature has maintained Schmidt’s findings about the Elephant. [3]

Robert A. Martin and S. David Webb, “Late Pleistocene Mammals from the Devil’s Den Fauna, Levy County,” in Pleistocene Mammals of Florida, ed. S. David Webb (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1974), 144–45

“Mastodon remains have been dated by radiocarbon to around 5,000 BC in Florida.” Sorenson (2012). Peterson and Roper (2004) also cite this.

Martin and Webb do begin by saying the fauna in Devil’s Den “cover the period from approximately 7,000 to 8,000 years ago.” These dates are determined by H. K. Brooks’ unpublished report “on the geology of Devil’s Den.” They found 2 Mastodon vertebrae – sample UF-16700 in the “Yellow” strata, below the surface layer (pg 131). They also found “extinct mammals” in the surface layer leading to “the possibility that … the extinct types have slumped in from a deep layer at higher elevation.” There is no mention of “mastodon remains” being dated by “radiocarbon.”

Clausen, Brooks, and Wesolowsky (1975) note that Brooks studied deer and bear bones from Devil’s Den, finding carbon dates associated around 5,000 BC. As early as Holman (1978), scientists cautioned the dating of the sinkhole noting the possibility that the whole bone dating techniques used at this time are often too young being contaminated with newer particulates. It is notable that none of the sources claim the dating came from the Mastodon bones.

Dunbar (2006) discusses the work of John Goggin, who started the Devil’s Den work. In 1962, Goggin and his students sent 14 fluoride tests of Pleistocene faunal remains, bone artifacts, and human remains. “Three of the samples were considered to be contaminated.” (page 537) Dunbar does not consider them. Of the remaining eleven he does consider, none are of the Mastodon. Of the fluoride technique, he notes, “it is limited and used as a gauge of a site’s relative age. In addition, the technique used in 1962 did not employ modern techniques such as the Ion Selective Electrode.”

More recently, Purdy, Rohlwing, & MacFadden (2015) note that very little has been published about the Devil’s Den site. “The human remains were not available for study until 2003. Unfortunately, neither the human nor animal bones can be dated by the radiocarbon method due to a lack of sufficient surviving collagen.” Using a rare-earth metal analysis, they conclude, “the humans found at Devil’s Den were contemporaneous with the extinct latest Pleistocene fauna, about 13,000 years ago.”

Sorenson 2012, citing Williams (1957), writes that Mastodons were found “in the Mississippi Valley to near 3,300 BC.”

Indeed, the text in Williams confirms Sorenson’s claim, finding it in charcoal. However, Sorenson ignored the complication mentioned in the very next sentence.

“The Richmond Mastodon has been given a date of 3,344 BC ± 400 years (Crane 1956: 667, sample M-138). However, another age determination on this sample, giving a date nearly twice this age, has not as yet been published (James B. Griffin, personal communication.)” If we go forward, we can find the published Griffin paper. Crane and Griffin (1958) report tests of the tusk fragments, rather than co-strataific charcoal, from the Richmond Mastodon. It gives the date 12,630 ± 1,000 years ago.

Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., Report for 1974 (New York, 1975), 22, reporting work by Dr. Warren L. Wittry.

Sorenson (2012) cites this in support of finding Mastodons “around the Great Lakes to 4,000 BC.” Unfortunately, this very difficult to find the source. The foundation does not have a back catalog online. Note the citation corresponds to work done in the 1970’s.

Fanciful restoration of a Columbian Mammoth hunt, John Steeple Davis, 1885. Source

Sorenson (2012) quotes from Hester (1960) claiming a dig in St. Petersburg, FL found Mastodon remains from 100 B.C. However, Hester himself notes the dating of this dig is questionable. “This anomalously low date for extinct fauna is suspect on the basis that the strata are unconsolidated and the fauna may have been redeposited. Mammal remains (all recent fauna) from Florida shell middens have been dated at 5,000 to 3,500 years BP. No extinct species were present.” In other words, none of the other Florida fauna sites from the Jaredite period included any extinct species and there is evidence that the strata are not preserved.

Elephant Family by LeRoy Neiman. Source.

Furthermore, Bullen (1963), who did the original dig, gave further comment on the dating. The specimen is from a charcoal sample (L-211), which is located where the fossil layer meets the higher “fine sands” layer. He asks, “Is the date of charcoal specimen L-211 applicable to the animals in the fossil zone? My answer is an emphatic no.” For the young date to be accepted, “it would need to be extremely well documented. Such is not the case.” He notes that the fossils are “rounded nubbins” or “eroded fossils”, indicating displacement by contact with water. The dig is located at the drainage canal for Joe Creek. In order to establish this date, Bullen argues a site should have a permissive geological situation and whole bones and an archaeology in agreement with the rest of the country.

Jim J. Hester, “Agency of Man in Animal Extinction,” in “Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause,” ed. Paul S. Martin and H. E. Wright Jr., Proceedings of the International Association for Quaternary Research, VII Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), 6:185.

Sorenson (2012) uses Hester (1967) as a “see also” for the St. Petersburg, FL 100 BC claim. However, Hester (1967) does not mention the St. Petersburg find. He does discuss the Russell Farm, Michigan find (M-347) which is dated to 5,950 ± 300 years ago. Hester cites this find in his list of “Terminal Radiocarbon Dates for Extinct Species”, rather than the St. Petersburg Mastodon (pages 182-185).

Mentioning the Russell Farm sample, Mead and Meltzer (1984) note the relatively unreliable dating technique and sample material that was common in radiocarbon dating from the 1950’s and 1960’s (page 446). (also see the discussion of Mead and Meltzer below) Also note that Peterson and Roper (2004) also cite Hester (1960)’s mention of the Russell Farm find.

J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11-12.

John Sorenson in his 1985 An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon cites this, claiming, “There is the remarkable discovery of the remains of a butchered Mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ.” Indeed, Augusta (1966) makes this claim in storybook fashion.

LDS scholar, John Tvedness, also discusses and makes a striking claim about the Ecuadorian find:

“In 1929, archaeologist Max Uhle … and Franz Spillman uncovered the remains of a butchered Mastodon at Alangasí, about twelve miles east of Quito, Ecuador. Pottery and obsidian tools found in association with the skeletal remains were dated to the first or second century AD, when Mayan pottery was introduced into Ecuador from Mexico. … Lumps of charcoal used to cook parts of the animal (whose bones had burn traces) were subsequently radiocarbon dated to ca. AD 150, recalibrated by dendrochronological evidence to ca. AD 100. As usual, the dating has been challenged by those who have preconceived ideas about when such species had to have died out in the New World.”

Unfortunately, Tvedness does not give a source. The claim is problematic for the following reasons. First, radiocarbon dating was developed in the 1950’s, far after the original dig. Second, the Mastodon remains were destroyed in a fire at the University of Ecuador in 1929, just after Uhle presented his work. The only radiocarbon dating associated with the dig that I could find is from Valastro, Varela, and Davis (1975). They note, “The precise location of the Mastodon skeleton is no longer certain. The Mastodon find is believed to have been in the same stratigraphic unit as these samples.” They sample six pieces of wood and find them to be around 40,000 years old. These “dates are older than expected for the Mastodon and much too old for the artifacts … The Mastodon are either not contemporary or not in primary associated with artifacts, or both. The Mastodon discovery evidently needs reevaluation.”

What does the rest of the literature say about the Alangasí find? After overviewing the evidence from various disciplines, Lara (1977) notes the ceramic evidence, as well as the rest of Ecuador’s Mastodon finds. He concludes, “One would have to recognize as the probable survival of … Mastodon perhaps up to 7,000 BC, therefore it is contemporaneous with the Ecuadorian Paleoindian at the dawn of prehistory.” (Page 114, translation my own)

The Ecuadorian Mastodon remains before they were burned by fire. Spillman (1929)

Lynch (1974) writes, “Perhaps the most curious mistaken interpretation, as seen in historical perspective, was the conclusion that Mastodon had survived in Ecuador long enough to coexist with ceramic technology. The famous Alangasí Mastodon … was the first such association. Today, of course, it is widely agreed that the Alangasí associations cannot be trusted. Poor methods of specimen collection and incautious interpretation of associations will always be with us to becloud some potentially important discoveries.” (page 357-359)

After the 1970’s, the literature no longer discusses the dating of the Alangasí site, they do still use the findings for their value in bone speciation and relation to humans. Is this the case of “preconceived ideas about when such species had to have died out”, as Tvedness argues? It is true that there is no direct evidence that the pottery shards or the Mastodon bones do not come from 100 AD. Because they were destroyed by fire, we cannot go back and test them directly with radiocarbon techniques. So, how strong is the evidence in favor of young date? It all relies on the association between the potshards and the bones, and the accurate dating of the potshards by Uhle. There are no radiocarbon data, nor are there careful stratification data from the original dig, nor can we follow up on the site, as its exact location is today unknown. The evidence against such a young date are the many other mega fauna (including Porbiscidea) and human remains in Ecuador that have been dated by radiocarbon going back to the end of the Pleistocene (Lara, 1977). Lara also argues that if they lasted until the Christian Era, there should be accompanying Mastodon images throughout the cultural artifacts, as there are with other animals.[4] Although unknowns remains about the Alangasí dig from 1928, a young date relies on it being the only of its kind, uncorroborated by any other site using modern dating techniques.

Next, come some citations featured in the recent paper by Miller and Roper (2017) published in BYU Studies Quarterly.

James I. Mead and David J. Meltzer, “North American late Quaternary extinctions and the radiocarbon record,” In: P. S. Martin and R. G Klein (eds.) Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution (Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 1984), 440-45.

They write, “A date of less than 6,000 years before the present was given by Mead and Meltzer (1984)” for the Mastodon.

Mead and Meltzer (1984) review the existing carbon dating for samples in North America. They note that “many radiocarbon determinations are younger than the age often claimed to mark the end of the megafaunal extinction episode (i.e. 11,00 yr BP)…Before any conclusions are drawn about Holocene vertebrate survivals, however, we would caution that this evidence is more apparent than real. When one [only includes the more reliable samples] a different pattern emerges. Nearly all the early mid-Holocene dates from the initial sample are absent from this group.” (pg. 443) “The significant and disproportionate drop in reliable dates younger than 10,000 yr BP … indicates, more probably, that late Pleistocene genera did not survive.”

As to the less than 6,000-years-ago date given by Miller and Roper (2017), Mead and Meltzer (1984) are referring to the Russell Farm, MI sample M-347. On a scale of 2 – 9, with only 8 and 9 considered “reliable”, they give this sample a reliability score of 4 due to the material dated and the strength of association.

Elephant by Alexander Calder (1928). Source.

Although, the possibility exists that the Mastodon lived into the mid-Holocene, if we use only the reliable samples, Mead and Meltzer conclude, “the radiocarbon record contains no surprises. The frequency of radiocarbon dated sites for Mammut and Mammuthus reflects the geographical distribution of the fossils of these animals. … The Mastodon persisted to about 10,300 yr BP. It appears that the Mammoth became extinct at 10,500 yr BP.”

Miller and Roper continue to say, “In the contiguous United States Mead and Meltzer provided an age of 4,885 years for a dated Mammoth specimen.” The early date for the Mammoth is from a site (Kassler, CO, W-288) with a low carbon dating reliability score of 6.

Thus, the very paper Miller and Roper cite gives evidence against the claim of Mastodons and Mammoths living to 2,000 BC. Nor do Miller and Roper mention or give counter arguments to analysis of Mead and Meltzer.

Miller and Roper say, the “some scholars [are] persuaded [that] Elephant-like species … may have survived into the region as late as 3,000 years ago.” The apologist, Michael Ash, also makes this claim in his 2013, Shaken Faith Syndrome. The source is also cited in the FARMS Review 2004 article by Peterson and Roper.

Yes, at the time – 1952 – some scholars believed this is possible. But, even Johnson reports, “The Eastern archaic projectile points found at the Koch, Richmond, and Jacob’s Cavern sites have been assigned an age of 5,000 years, but this is a tentative and uncertain dating.” (emphasis added)

Johnson (1952) continues, “A. L. Kroeber believed that most of or all the species now extinct, including the Elephants, had died out by the period 10,000-5,000 BC. A majority of anthropologists would probably subscribe to this statement. Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3,000 years.” Thus, the 3,000 years given is only a very conservative upper bound for the state of knowledge in 1952, rather than direct evidence.

Miller and Roper write, “A date for a Mammoth in northern North America was cited at 3,700 years before the present.”

The article starts by noting that “No reliable radiocarbon (C-14) dates younger than 12,000 years ago obtained directly on Woolly Mammoth fossils are known from Europe or North America, but there are 11 C-14 dates within the ranges 12,000 and 9,600 years ago from the Siberian Arctic.”

Figure 1 from Vartanyan, Garutt, and Sher (1993). I wouldn’t call this “northern North America” as did Miller and Roper (2017)

The specimens from Wrangel Island “are Holocene age (3,730-7,620 years ago).” So, where exactly is Wrangel Island? In the Arctic Ocean, north of Siberia. By no stretch of words does this qualify as “northern North America.” If we associate it with a continent, it is categorically associated with the Eurasia. Nor is evidence that the Woolly Mammoth survived the Pleistocene in the Arctic Ocean, evidence that they survived in another sub-arctic American location. Not only would the climate effects on Wrangel Island be less severe. But the effects that did occur, diminished the species’ stature sufficiently to be labeled “Dwarf Mammoths.”

David R. Yesner, Douglas W. Veltre, Kristine J. Crossen and Russell W. Graham, 5,700-year-old Mammoth Remains from Qagnax Cave, Pribilof Islands, Alaska. In L. D. Agenbroad and R. L. Symington (eds.), The World of Elepahants (Short Papers and Abstracts of the 2nd International Congress, 2005), 200-204.

Miller and Roper: “An Alaskan Mammoth was dated at 5,720 years ago.”

This statement is correct. For recent scholarship, see here. For a popular science discussion see here. Qagnax Cave is in remote St. Paul Island, which is 200 miles away from both the Aleutians and the mainland. These island Mammoths are also of dwarfed stature, coming at 10% of the size of their mainland predecessors. It is important to note this was an isolated environment. For example, 200 miles from the coastline is also the definition for international waters. Yet, because St. Paul is part of the state of Alaska, technically, Miller and Roper are correct.

The following three sources are given as support for the statement: “The American Mastodon has several dates placing its terminal existence well past the close of the Pleistocene.”

The youngest date in this paper is 8,260 years ago for the Columbian Mammoth, which is citing Madden 1981, an unpublished PhD Thesis from Univ of Boulder, CO. No dates are cited for the mammut americanum (Mastodon).

The youngest date in this paper is 9,150 years ago. Polaco et al cite Pichardo (1997) for the date. Pichardo 1997, in turn, cites sample W-1896, writing that Mastodons are found in the same fauna zone. Sample W-1896 is presented in Szabo, Malde, & Irwin-Williams (1969) as coming from “molluscan fossils dated by radiocarbon.” Thus, the precise dating is not from the same animal or specimen. Additionally, the carbon dating work was done a half-century ago.

The Miller dating is “based on carbon-14 yielded dates of 7,090 ± 200 years ago and 7,590 ± 100 years ago, while the third, using the racemization process, indicated an age of less than 10,000 years ago.” As to the quality of the dating, Miller himself notes, “The young dates of about 7,000 to 7,600 years ago reported for the Utah Mastodon fossils must be regarded as tentative.”

None of these three sources support a “well past the close of the Pleistocene” conclusion. In fact, when Miller writes for his scientific colleagues, he exercises far more epistemological caution than when writing apologetic work.

What Current Science Says

The methodology for dating continues to improve since radiocarbon dating were first employed in the 1950’s. For a summary of the details see here. In short, scientists are concerned with carbon contamination from humic acids which yields far younger dates than the original bone collagen. The 1980’s saw the advance of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) methodology, which tests only the collagen and is chemically treated to isolate the ancient matter. Scientists ignore the published young dates from previous decades not to seek consensus or satisfy “preconceived notions”, but because the older methodologies did not control for contamination. For a great discussion of this, specifically in connection with Sorenson’s claims, see anthropologist Andy White’s blog post.

As of fifteen years ago, some scientists allowed possibility for some American Mammoths and Mastodons to have lived past the major extinction threshold from 10,500 years ago. Agenbroad (2005) list all known radiocarbon-dated Mammoth localities for North America. The youngest dates are around 7,500 years ago. His sample is 196 locations, which is higher than the 78 dated sites known in 1984. He notes that they have dated less than 10% of reported Mammoth findings. This is due to the lack of any potential for human association at those sites – indicating the untested sites are from older dates.

More recently, Fiedel (2009) argues for better dating techniques. He notes the following,

“It seems obvious that the best source of dates to track the extinction event should be the bones of the animals themselves. Unfortunately, bones of such age frequently have not survived at all, or if they have, their collagen has been lost or degraded and contaminated. The contaminants, mainly humates, are usually younger than the bone.”

He compiled the “youngest published credible dates for extinct megafauna.” The Mastodon and Mammoth dates are no earlier than 10,500 years ago. Woodman and Athfield (2009) find evidence for 9,800 years before the present (or 11,000 calibrated years before present).

Haynes (2013) asks “Did some megafauna survive the [human] Clovis Era?” He notes the more northerly species of Mammoth was rarely hunted in the lower 48 United States, thus allowing for its continued survival after the Clovis people began hunting. Popular publications, like Science News (2018) write that the American Elephant relatives became extinct 11,000 years ago, except the Woolly Mammoth, lingering in isolated populations until 7,000 years ago, presumably referring to St. Paul and Wrangel Islands.

Conclusion

The work of an apologist is different than that of a scientist. A scientist assumes what they want to be false, and then shows that the data overwhelmingly reject that assumption. An apologist assumes their desired outcome and finds data to allow its possibility. The thresholds are very different. Care should be taken by defenders of the Book of Mormon to show that their methods aren’t directly scientific, in the strict sense of the word. They are arguing for plausibility, not probability.

Nevertheless, given that understanding, the arguments examined here to establish the possibility for some isolated herds of Elephants to survive late into the Holocene outside of the arctic north lack even this standard. The apologists rely on old discredited science, at best, and misrepresent it, at worst. Plausibility requires better than this.

So, how do we interpret the Elephants mentioned in Ether? I am not sure, but it appears the Mastodon hypothesis is not it. Further work is needed.

To honor the sacred faithful search for truth, Book of Mormon scholarship should be of the highest caliber. It should exercise the appropriate scholastic humility. Since they make claim to the tools of the academy – peer-review, citations, careful examination of data and logic – they should likewise do so in deed.

Portrait of an Elephant by LeRoy Neimann. Source.

[1] Some of the papers are very old and obscure, and not available on the internet or even for one with access to a large University Library. I do my best to get as close to the original source, as possible, and to post links and photos of hard to access materials.

[2] Velázquez-Valadéz (1980); Schmidt (1988); Martin and Webb (1974); Williams (1957); Hester (1960); Mead and Meltzer (1984); Johnson (1952); Vartanyan, Garutt, and Sher (1993); Pichardo (2001).

[3] Arroyo-Cabrales and Alvarez (2003) write on page 265, saying,

“Stratigraphic and chronological sequences for the excavated units were established, but contradictory data from the field notes imply possible mixing of biological and cultural remains. The sequence as reported is as follows (Schmidt 1988)

Levels I through VII are from the Ceramic Stage, but extinct animal remains occur at the bottom of Level VII.

Level VIII represents the Pre-Ceramic Stage, including some lithic elements and extinct fauna. The boundary between the Pleistocene and the Holocene may be located here or at the bottom of Level VII.

Levels IX through XVI are Pleistocene in age, without any cultural material. A volcanic ash correlated to the Rosseau tephra dated at 28,400 yr B.P. occurs in Level XI.”

The authors reiterate the only radiocarbon date of 3,800 ± 150 years ago from Level VII. They also note that the Proboscidea species is a Gomphothere, not a Mastodon.

[4] There have been some claims about ancient Americans artifacts. These have been found to be fraudulent, or misinterpreted (See a Macaw that has been mistaken for an Elephant).





Bibliography

Agenbroad, L. D. (2005). North American Proboscideans: Mammoths: The state of Knowledge, 2003. Quaternary International, 126-128, 73-92.

Arroyo-Cabrales, J., & Alvarez, T. (2003). A Preliminary Report of the Late Quaternary Mammal Fauna from the Loltún Cave, Yucatán, Mexico. In B. W. Schubert, J. I. Mead, & R. W. Graham, Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America (pp. 262-272). Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

Augusta, J. (1966). The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary. London: Paul Hamlyn.

Bullen, R. P. (1963). Artifacts, Fossils, and a Radiocarbon Date from Seminole Field, Florida. Quaterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences, 26(4), 293-303.

Clausen, C. J., Brooks, H. K., & Wesolowsky, A. B. (1975). The Early Man Site at Warm Mineral Springs, Florida. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2(3), 191-213.

Crane, H. R. (1956, October). University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates I. Science, 124(3224), 664-672.

Crane, H. R., & Griffin, J. B. (1958, May). University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates II. Science, 127(3306), 1098-1105.

Dunbar, J. S. (2006). Paleoindian Land Use. In S. D. Webb, First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River (pp. 525-544). Springer.

Fiedel, S. (2009). Sudden Deaths: The Chronology of Terminal Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinction. In G. Haynes, American Megafaunal Extinction at the End of the Pleistocene (pp. 21-37). Springer Netherlands.

Haynes, G. (2013). Extinctions in North America’s Late Glacial Landscapes. Quaternary International, 285, 89-98.

Holman, J. A. (1978). The Late Pleistocene Herpetofauna of Devil’s Den Sinkhole, Levy County, Florida. Herpetologica, 34(2), 228-237.

Johnson, L. H. (1952). Men and Elephants in America. The Scientific Monthly, 75(4), 215-221.

Lara, J. S. (1977). La Huella Del Primer Hombre Ecuatorial, Problema de Investigación Interdisciplinaria. Boletín Bibliográfico de Antropología Americana 1973-1979, 39(48), 109-126.

Lynch, T. F. (1974). The Antiquity of Man in South America. Quaternary Research, 4(3), 356-377.

Mead, J. I., & Meltzer, D. J. (1984). North American Late Quaternary Extinctions and the Radiocarbon Record. In P. S. Martin, & R. G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions: a Prehistoric Revolution (pp. 440-450). Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.

Miller, W. E., & Roper, M. (2017). Animals in the Book of Mormon. BYU Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 133-175.

Peterson, D. C., & Roper, M. (2004). Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons. FARMS Review, 16, 175-219.

Pichardo, M. (1997). Valsequillo biostratigraphy: New evidence for Pre-Clovis date. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 55(3/4), 233-246.

Pichardo, M. (2001). Valsequillo Biostratigraphy IV: Proboscidean Ecospecies in Paleoindian Sites. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 59(1), 41-60.

Polaco, O. J., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Corona-M., E., & López-Oliva, J. G. (2001). The American Mastodon Mammut americanum in Mexico. In G. Cavarretta, P. Gioria, & M. Mussi, The World of Elephants – Proceedings of the 1st International Congress, Rome, Italy (pp. 237-242).

Purdy, B. A., Rohlwing, K. M., & MacFadden, B. J. (2015). Devil’s Den, Florida: Rare Earth Element Analysis Indicates Contemporaneity of Humans and Latest Pleistocene Fauna. Paleoamerica, 266-275.

Schmidt, P. J. (1988). La Entrada del Hombre a la Península de Yucatán. In A. González Jácome, Orígenes del Hombre Americano (Seminario) (pp. 245-264). Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Educación Pública.

Spillman, Von Fr. (1929). Dad südamerikanische Mastodon als Zeitgenosse des Menschen majoiden Kulturkreises. Vorgetragen: Versammlung der Pal. Ges. in Budapest, Sept.-Okt. 1928). Mit 4 Abb. 170-177

Studies. (2001). Out of the Dust. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 10, 76-77,80.

Szabo, B. J., Malde, H. E., & Irwin-Williams, C. (1969). Dilemma posed by uranium-series dates on archaeologically significant bones from Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6(4), 237-244.

Valastro, J. S., Varela, A. G., & Davis, E. M. (1975). University of Texas at Austin Radiocarbon Dates X. Radiocarbon, 17(1), 52-98.

Vartanyan, S. L., Garutt, V. E., & Sher, A. V. (1993, March 25). Holocene Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic. Nature, 337-340.

Williams, S. (1957). The Island 35 Mastodon: Its Bearing on the Age of Archaic Cultures in the East. American Antiquity, 22(4), 359-72.

Witze, A. (2018, November 24). How Mammoths Competed with Other Animals and Lost. Science News: Magazine of the Society for Science And the Public, 194(10), 22.

Woodman, N., & Athfield, N. B. (2009). Post-Clovis Survival of American Mastodon in the Southern Great Lakes Region of North America. Quaternary Research, 72, 359-363.