Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 4 (Long)Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 26 12:01:45 EDT 2007
Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 4 (Long)
Note: my previous post in this series can be found at:
In the post, “More Muck from Paul” Mr. Grondine stated:
“Sorry for the diversion from meteorites to impacts.
What you're being treated to here is the heated
repetition by Paul of the arguments against man
having arrived in the Americas before Clovis as
well as those arguments against a catastrophe.
Here Mr. Grondine shows himself to be hopelessly confused and
ignorant of what I have written as I have never made any arguments
“against man having arrived in the Americas before Clovis”. Nowhere,
as falsely claimed above by Mr. Grondine, in my previous post, do I
argue against that early man arrived in North before Clovis. If he
would bother to closely read what I wrote, he would find, I just stated
that there are no Paleo-Indian points older than Clovis. The fact of
the matter is that contrary to the above assertions to the contrary, I
have no disagreement with people, who argue for the presence of
Pre-Clovis human occupation of North America.
In my last post, I clearly stated:
“Although (sic) there artifacts older than 13,000
BP have been found in the New World, none of
them are the type of Pale(o)-Indian artifacts,
which Hibben (1943) discussed having found
The above statement plainly shows that I acknowledge the existence
of artifacts older than Clovis, which by mine and anyone’s definition
would be regarded as being “Pre-Clovis”.
Mr. Grondine continued:
“We've already been through the use of Hibbens
data by other catastrophists who had imaginary
catastrophic physical processes, and the reaction
by the scientific community.
We now move on to the field of anthropology.
Hibbens was the first to discover pre-Clovis
points (at Sandia), and thus was particularly
attacked by those who posited no earlier
peoples than those who produced the Clovis
It is true that there existed a very heated controversy over the
presence of early man in North America before Clovis at the
time that Hibben excavated Sandia Cave. The ultimate problem with
his research, was that Hibben’s excavations at Sandia Cave were so
poorly organized and badly documented and his reports on Sandia
Cave are so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that he simply
failed to make a convincing case for the antiquity of his Sandia
Culture. The fact that his colleagues caught him sending bone
samples, from a paleontological site many miles away from Sandia
Cave, for radiocarbon dating as if they came from Sandia Cave, as
discussed by Preston (1995), certainly raised questions about, at the
best, inexcusable sloppiness of organization on his part, which
allowed him to mix samples from very different sites in his analyses
to, at the worst questions about his honesty. This and many other
contradictions by Dr. Hibben in his publications and statements
discredited himself, not only among the proponents of “Clovis First”
of which I am not one, but also among the archaeologists, who are
proponents of a Pre-Clovis occupation of North America, with
which I greatly sympathize. The question is not whether there are
Pre-Clovis Sites, but how much older than Clovis sites they are.
Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New
Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)
Douglas Preston is a journalist, who lacks either any personal
opinion, grant money, tenure or professional stake, which would
bias his opinion in the Pre-Clovis controversy.
“Unfortunately for the Clovis First argument,
there are sites with hard dates showing pre-
Clovis (Meadowcroft and Bluefish Cave sites
for the Iroquoian peoples; and Pedra Furada
for the Savannah River peoples). But these
artifacts and radio-carbon dates are not the
deciding point: the undeniable and hard
mitochondrial DNA evidence in the remaining
peoples must be the result of several crossings
at times well before Clovis.”
If Mr. Grondine would take the time and trouble to read my last
post, he would find that I clearly wrote “Although there (are)
artifacts older than 13,000 BP have been found in the New World
...” Thus, Mr. Grondine is again falsely accusing me being a
Clovis-First supporter, which I am certainly not. In addition,
whether or not Clovis was the first to enter North America is
a completely irrelevant Red Herring in this discussion as to
whether the Alaskan “Muck” was created by an extraterrestrial
Mr. Grondine wrote:
“Back now to the Fairbank muck deposit: I
WAS WRONG. I MADE A MISTAKE.
Clearly, the deposits which Hibbens observed
at Fairbanks came from the sudden ice melt
following this impact event:”
This is not the impact generated mega-tsunami, which here-to fore
you have been arguing happened and which is what I thought the
discussion was all about. I find it revealing that once your tsunami
hypothesis for the origin of specific beds described by Hibben
(1943) has been demolished, you invents a new and contradictory
explanation. If this is what Mr. Grondine is proposing, then it is
dishonest for Mr. Grondine to claim that Hibben (1943) supports his
point of view as Hibben (1943) clearly stated:
““The deposits known as muck may be definitely
described, in the opinion of the writer, as loess
material. All characteristics seem to indicate a
wind-borne origin from comparatively local
sources, as the material resembles local bedrock.
The outwash plains of the local glaciations are
likely points of origin for this material.”
Hibben (1943) clearly states above that he interprets the bulk of
the Alaskan “muck” being likely composed of wind-blown silt.
It is just specific layers, which Hibben (1943) described as being
containing the jumbled remains of plants and animals that he
argued as being the result of a catastrophe.
Even your new hypothesis cannot explain the physical characteristics
of the Alaskan “muck”. Cataclysmic floods of any type simply do not
deposit thick sequences of silty sediments. In fact, they erode
them as can be seen in the Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Basin
where loess and any other loose surficial material has been stripped
down to bedrock, which has been deeply eroded itself (Baker and
Nummedal 1978). The texture, the composition, the sedimentary
structures, layering and stratigraphy of the Alaskan “muck” deposits
show none of the characteristics that a cataclysmic flood would have
produced had it occurred. For example, as summarized in Baker and
Nummedal (1978) and seen in innumerable images of Mars,
cataclysmic floods of the type envisioned by Mr. Grondine, produce
very distinct landforms. These landforms include streamline islands;
giant ripples composed of sand and gravel and up to 15-meter (50-
foot high) gravel bars containing cobble- and even boulder-size
clasts; and other features, i.e. Baker and Nummedal (1978), Carling
(1996), and numerous other studies of the Missoula and Altai floods
and jokulhlaups. Such landforms are nowhere to be found in the
Fairbanks, Alaska region. In addition, as demonstrated by innumerable
sedimentologic studies, cataclysmic floods do not deposit just silty
sediments. They transport and deposit very coarse grained sediments,
which in the Fairbanks area would contain abundant cobble and
boulder-size clasts, much like the deposits of the catastrophic
Missoula and Altai Mountain floods.
Finally, as discussed before, the complete absence of event beds in
paleoenvironmental Alaskan records, as summarized in Ager et al.
(1985) and Barnosky et al. (1987), recovered from cores taken from
bogs and lakes from all over Alaska also refute this new hypothesis.
Some interesting pictures of the landforms and deposits of
cataclysmic flooding can be seen in “EPIC - Geologic Features
Collection: Missoula Floods Set I” at;
Some of the more interesting are these pictures are those of giant
ripples, which can be seen at the bottom of this web page.
For more information and pictures a person can look at “The
Missoula Flood” at:
Descriptions and pictures of the deposits and landforms, which
a catastrophic flood creates can found in “Altai Flood” at:
Ager, T. A., and L. B. Brubaker, 1985, Quaternary palynology and
vegetational history of Alaska. Pp. 353-384 in V. M. Bryant, Jr.
and R. G. Holloway, eds. Pollen records of late Quaternary North
American sediments. American Association of Stratigraphic
Palynologists Foundation, Dallas, Texas.
Baker, V. R., and D. Nummedal, 1978, eds. The Channeled Scabland.
NASA, Washington, D.C., 186 pp.
Barnosky, C. W., P. M. Anderson, and P. J. Bartlein, 1987, The
northwestern U.S. during deglaciation; Vegetational history and
paleoclimatic implications. pp. 289-321 in W. F. Ruddiman and
H. E. Wright, Jr., eds. North America and adjacent oceans during
the last deglaciation, Geology of North America, vol. K-3,
Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Carling, P. A., 1996, A preliminary palaeohydraulic model applied
To late Quaternary gravel dunes: Altai Mountains, Siberia. in pp.
165-179, J. Branson, A. G. Brown, and K. J. Gregory, eds. Global
Continental Changes: the Context of Palaeohydrology, Geological
Society Special Publication no. 115, Geological Society of London.
More references to other Alaskan paleonevironmnetal records can be
Mr. Grondine noted:
You have not presented a single shred of hard evidence that
there exists any relationship between the impact event described
in this video and the origin of the so-called Alaskan “muck”.
“But with this muck now accounted for, I am left
trying to locate recovered physical evidence of the
impact mega-tsunami which the Lenape described.
(The following account has been adapted to modern
usage from the one preserved in the Walum Olum,
the ancient history of the Lenape people.):”
...oral histories and their interpretations omitted...
Oral histories can provide very useful insight into possible
catastrophes, which have happened in the past. However, they
typically lack the specific information, i.e. precise calendar or
radiocarbon dates, magnitude, duration, and so forth, about an event
needed to prove what they are related to a specific event of any type.
As a result, any piece of oral tradition can often be interpreted and
argued to be proof of almost whatever event a person wants to
interpret it to be. Also, Mr. Grondine and other catastrophists take
a completely materialistic worldview in interpreting oral traditions
that ignores the purpose of oral traditions in teaching religious and
spiritual, not objective historical, truths.
Mr. Grondine wrote
“Let's look at Hibbens description of (sic) Chitna Bay:
"On one particular rainy, dark afternoon, we
were assisting one of the paleontologists in
excavating the remains of an Alaskan lion-a
great, striped beast with long fangs, slightly
reminiscent of a Bengal tiger. He looked like
a nasty customer in death, even though he
was represented only by scattered bones in
the black muck. As we sought for the lower
jaw of the lion in a newly revealed surface
of muck, we found our evidence of man-a
flint point still frozen solid in the muck bank.”
Mr. Grondine is completely confused and absolutely wrong about the
specific location, at which Dr. Hibben is talking about in the above
quote and where he found his “Alaskan lion”. If he would go to
page 97 of Hibben (1946) or page 122 of Hibben (1960), he will
find that in either edition, Dr. Hibben stated his “Alaskan lion” was
found in a gold mine near Fairbanks, Alaska. On page 121, Hibben
(1961) indicates that this gold mine was located “north of Fairbanks
at Rosey Creek”. It is quite clear from Dr. Hibben’s own words that
Mr. Grondine is wrong about Dr. Hibben’s “Alaskan lion” being found
at Chinitna Bay, which lies about 390-400 miles southwest of
Mr. Grondine quoted
"Its position was about NINETY FEET BELOW THE
ORIGINAL SURFACE. We photographed it in place,
then removed it from the frozen ground, eagerly held it
up, and turned it over for inspection. We washed the
clinging muck from it in the muddy water beneath our
feet. It was of pink stone, finely chipped and gracefully
shaped, and undoubtedly made by the hand of man."
Neither Hibben (1946) nor Hibben (1961) make any references to
marine deposits either comprising the Alaskan “muck” at Rosey
Creek or overlying where Dr. Hibben found his “Alaskan lion”.
In addition, Mr. Grondine completely ignores the fact that both
the point and “lion” were found in an active Alaskan gold mine. It
is an area where material is being moved about and around by
bulldozers and large, intact blocks of “muck” are slumping and
caving from the sides of the mine excavation as permafrost melts
and “muck” is being removed from the sides of the mine to expose
the gold-bearing gravels, which they cover. Given that this material
often refreezes in the Arctic climate of Alaska, it is impossible to
know whether the projectile point and, even the remains of Hibben’s
“Alaskan lion” without detailed photographs and field notes, which
have been, conveniently for Dr. Hibben’s arguments, have been lost.
Also, within the Alaskan “muck” there exist deep cut and fill
deposits, which can create local deep accumulations of younger
sediments cut deeply into older sediments. As a result, without
addition data, observations that the remains of an “Alaskan lion”
and projectile point were found 90 feet deep is meaningless.
Mr. Grondine concluded
“The problem here is that no large cats were living in
the area either 1575 A.D. or 1650 A.D. So obviously
the spot this team examined could not have been the
location where the remains were recovered.”
Given that Hibben’s “Alaskan lion” was found near Fairbanks, Alaska
about 390 to 400 miles northeast of Chinitna Bay, it should be quite
obvious that it is impossible for there to exist any relationship between
the above Chinitna Bay dates and the “Alaskan lion”, mentioned by
Hibben (1946, 1961). Therefore, Mr. Grondine’s conclusion is quite
Hibben, F. C., 1946, Lost Americans, 1st ed. Thomas Y. Crowell
Company. New York, 196 pp.
Hibben, F. C., 1961, Lost Americans, Apollo ed. Thomas Y. Crowell
Company. New York, 200 pp.
Final Note: Radiocarbon Dating - Calendar Years Versus Radiocarbon
In other posts, authors have wisely cautioned about differentiating
between calendar years and radiocarbon years and understanding,
which if these is being used in scientific papers and popular articles.
This can be seen in the following correlations:
10,000 BP radiocarbon is 11,400 BP calendar
11,000 BP radiocarbon is 12,910 BP calendar
12,000 BP radiocarbon is 13,800 BP calendar
13,000 BP radiocarbon is 15,320 BP calendar
More about calibrating radiocarbon dates can be found in:
The CalPal Online Radiocarbon Calibration.
CalPal - Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration & Palaeoclimate
Research Package -- http://www.calpal.de/wp/