In my recent post about Clovis First, I mentioned that Vance Haynes had assumed the role of publication gatekeeper and watchdogs to prevent anti-Clovis-First scholars from publishing research that could undermine that theory. I have found some threads in X (twitter) and in forums mentioning conspiracy theories about scientists damaging proof of pre-Clovis sites, but I am not convinced yet, that those allegations are true. What I do know for certain is that Vance Haynes did not believe in an early peopling of America. Today's post looks into a finding that he seems to have ignored due to its old age, because he discarded it, considering it far too old to fit into his neat Clovis First hypothesis!
Below is the quote from the following source: National Park Service (NPS) History Collection, NPS Paleontology Program Records (HFCA 2465). Vincent Santucci’s NPS Oral History Project, 2016-2024. Vance Haynes. May 10, 2016. Interview conducted by Vincent Santucci et al. page 32. Accessed April 10, 2026. (VH is Vance Haynes, and KS is the interviewer):
Quote begins.
VH: To Dick's dying day there were a couple of bone things that were tools.
KS: Mhmm.
VH: In fact, he illustrates them. And because they were –they were polished they were spirally fractured and polished. But I, you know one of the things I pointed out was that if they get into the spring conduit—
KS: Right.
VH: —that's exactly what's going to happen to them
KS: Right.
VH: And it's also about this time that I got to know Hibberd who was this—
KS: Right.
VH: —famous paleontologist from Michigan.
KS: Right, right
VH: And Hibbard was working on these springs in Kansas and one of his springs was, this was a Pliocene spring you know.
KS: Mhmm.
VH: And it's just identical to what we were finding out here. And there were even some stone fragments in that thing that were polished. And they're not artifacts, they're Pliocene. So, it's a springs, it's very interesting what springs can do to make things look like artifacts. There's one I didn't put it in the report, because I always going to, write a little separate thing about it. Potential pre-Clovis artifacts from the spring conduit of Tule Springs. There is a, it's a part of a camel bone. I've forgotten which end of it is, but it's broken in such a way that it forms a perfect point. And exposed the inside.
KS: Mhmm.
VH: And it's beautifully braided on all sides, so it looks like a tool. But it came out of a 30,000- year-old conduit. So, there’s just. You can go through the art assemblages from there and pick but these assemblages that do look like tools."
Quote ends.
Context
Vance Haynes had taken part of the Big Dig at Tule Springs, near Las Vegas, Nevada, a National Monument (visit its official website). He unearthed many bones of extinct and extant animals, and of course, Clovis tools starting around 12 kya. Nothing earlier. This led Haynes to believe that the Clovis people were the first to reach the area. Earlier stuff was not even considered.
He seems to argue that Claude W. Hibbard (1905–1973) had found smilar artifacts in his studies in Kansas (maybe in Meade County). Dick, is Richard Shutler (1921-2007), and Vance implies that Dick believed the polished bones were indeed man made!
But Vance is terminant: "it looks like a tool. But it came out of a 30,000- year-old conduit", and added that "they're not artifacts, they're Pliocene" Their age, in his opinion did not allow him to consider them as tools!
Vance decided to defend the Clovis-First theory and published an article in which he states that the polished bones could be either 12-13 ky or 40 ky old, and guess what? He proves they were young, and fitted them into the Clovis theory: "Two bone objects from the Tule Springs site, possibly tools, occurred in ancient sedimentary fill of a small spring outlet-channel remnant. The ancient spring was active more than 40,000 years ago and again 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. The fill and the bone contained therein could be of either age. Chemical and X-ray analysis on bone of the known ages and bone from the fill showed no significant or systematic differences in fluorine, uranium, nitrogen, or phosphate content. On geological grounds, it is concluded that the bone objects are 12,000 to 13,000 years old." Case Closed, Clovis-First saved.
It is relevant to point out that a pre-Clovis age had been assigned to Tule Springs (Richard Shutler, 1965), but this was dismissed by Vance. Shutler had written that Pleistocene animals, burned earth, stone and bone tools had been radiocarbon dated to 23-28 kya at the site (Harrington and Simpson, 1961).
In The archaeology of archaeologists: "Camp Harrington" and the "Big Dig", Tule Springs, Nevada, 1962-1963, Swope, Murrell, and Aldi, report that "A small unifacial scraper was uncovered in a deposit containing camel bone fragments and organic deposits thought to be charcoal, and a sample from the deposit produced a date in excess of 28,000 BP (Fergusson and Libby 1964; Shutler 1967b). The results of Harrington’s subsequent excavations yielded but a single stone tool definitively linked to human activity and the radiocarbon date."
I wonder what happened to the "bone tools" are they in some box in a university?
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©
