What Type Of Teeth Are These?

[luckyinkentucky]

Can someone please identify what type of teeth these are? I know they are molars, but what did they belong to? They are mineralized and were found in a wash out of a very sandy area.

Also, what is the best way to preserve them? They show signs of cracks and breaks in the material itself.

[Gatorman]

Horse Equus sp. normally horse teeth are well preserved on their own without any treatment but you could soak in in an acetone duco mix

[luckyinkentucky]

Horse Equus sp. normally horse teeth are well preserved on their own without any treatment but you could soak in in an acetone duco mix

Is in a Prehistoric horse you speak of, or is it a modern horse as we know them? The reason I ask is that they were found at a Paleo-Indian site that has many Paleo-Indian artifacts.

My second question is .... how old do you think they might be?

[Gatorman]

Age is normally determined by the layer they are removed from. Do you know the formation?

[luckyinkentucky]

Age is normally determined by the layer they are removed from. Do you know the formation?

I will try and explain best I can, and if I'm not clear enough please let me know.

These teeth came from a Paleo Indian site in my area that I recently discovered / stumbled upon in my search for Native American Artifacts. With the extreme rains we have had in the past several months a lot of land eroded by the torrential rains and flooding of some lower lying areas. As far as the landowner knows I am the first person to hunt this site since it has been in his family which dates back around 40 years ago.

The site was recently very fertile and had 3 inches of topsoil over the layer of sand that makes up the entirety of the site now. Due to the rain and wind over the past months the site has all but lost almost all of it's topsoil, and is showing sand along with a deep clay base under the sand. Some of the 'wash outs' have cut 2 to 3 feet deep into the clay base in some areas of the site.

I have spoken to a local geologist about the site, and he has informed me that the area that I am hunting was a glacial river or lake around 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. Today it shows no physical signs of being a river or lake simply because it is above sea level at this point in time. The only sign that it was once a river or lake is the sandy 'beaches' that surround the area. There are several inches of sand with a clay base beneath that is close to 15 feet thick before you hit rock.

I have found several Paleo Indian artifacts at the site recently, but there are no signs of recent habitation such as an old homesite or farmstead. In the same 'wash out' where I found the teeth and fragments of other bone I found a broken base of a Quad Projectile point that dates to Paleo Indian times. I also found an Early Archaic Projectile Point that would indicate that this site was inhabited by both cultures at one time. Whether it was a transition period from Paleo to Early Archaic , or they inhabited the site on two totally different occasions, due to it's preferable location, is unknown. However, I have never found any signs of a later culture inhabiting the site such as Woodland, Mississipian, or any other Historical cultures. The site looks like a sandy beach that sits on a ridge in the middle of a corn field that is 6 miles from the Ohio River and 4 from the Green River.

I hope I haven't confused you. If the site seems to be a worthwhile habitation site the landowner has agreed to allow me ,and a few of my friends from the local University, excavate the site to see if we can unearth any other bone. If it is only a recent horse, within the past 300 years, we will not worry with it. Although, the mineralization on the teeth lead me to believe they are older than 300 years. I am also wondering if this was an ancient 'kill site' where they butchered the animal, or if it were a short term village or camp.

What is your opinion on the teeth as far as being older than 300 years?

[kauffy]

they look mineralised to me, i would say that they are older than 300yrs.....im sure some other collectors here know more than me though?

Anyway i would say go excavate, you never know what hiding under there!

[Boesse]

I might point out something: if they are in fact definitely from a Paleoindian archaeological site, then it is between 9 and 12,000 years old. However, if it is from an 'archaic' type culture, then it could be as young as 3,000 years.

There are no widely accepted pre-12,000 BP dates for north american humans, so its younger than that.

Bobby

[Harry Pristis]

I will try and explain best I can, and if I'm not clear enough please let me know.

These teeth came from a Paleo Indian site in my area that I recently discovered / stumbled upon in my search for Native American Artifacts. With the extreme rains we have had in the past several months a lot of land eroded by the torrential rains and flooding of some lower lying areas. As far as the landowner knows I am the first person to hunt this site since it has been in his family which dates back around 40 years ago.

The site was recently very fertile and had 3 inches of topsoil over the layer of sand that makes up the entirety of the site now. Due to the rain and wind over the past months the site has all but lost almost all of it's topsoil, and is showing sand along with a deep clay base under the sand. Some of the 'wash outs' have cut 2 to 3 feet deep into the clay base in some areas of the site.

I have spoken to a local geologist about the site, and he has informed me that the area that I am hunting was a glacial river or lake around 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. Today it shows no physical signs of being a river or lake simply because it is above sea level at this point in time. The only sign that it was once a river or lake is the sandy 'beaches' that surround the area. There are several inches of sand with a clay base beneath that is close to 15 feet thick before you hit rock.

I have found several Paleo Indian artifacts at the site recently, but there are no signs of recent habitation such as an old homesite or farmstead. In the same 'wash out' where I found the teeth and fragments of other bone I found a broken base of a Quad Projectile point that dates to Paleo Indian times. I also found an Early Archaic Projectile Point that would indicate that this site was inhabited by both cultures at one time. Whether it was a transition period from Paleo to Early Archaic , or they inhabited the site on two totally different occasions, due to it's preferable location, is unknown. However, I have never found any signs of a later culture inhabiting the site such as Woodland, Mississipian, or any other Historical cultures. The site looks like a sandy beach that sits on a ridge in the middle of a corn field that is 6 miles from the Ohio River and 4 from the Green River.

I hope I haven't confused you. If the site seems to be a worthwhile habitation site the landowner has agreed to allow me ,and a few of my friends from the local University, excavate the site to see if we can unearth any other bone. If it is only a recent horse, within the past 300 years, we will not worry with it. Although, the mineralization on the teeth lead me to believe they are older than 300 years. I am also wondering if this was an ancient 'kill site' where they butchered the animal, or if it were a short term village or camp.

What is your opinion on the teeth as far as being older than 300 years?

The question seems to be: Are these Equus horse teeth actually associated with the Paleo-Indian occupation site? The answer is probably not.

I have never seen a suggestion that Paleo-Indians domesticated horses, though they lived contemporaneously for a few thousand years.

I'm sure that horses were on the Paleo-Indian menu whenever one could be killed. Since a horse represents quite a lot of weight in meat, it is likely to have been butchered where it fell. The meat would have been carried back in manageable portions to a semi-permanent camp. It seems unlikely that the head would be one of those portions (but, who can say for sure).

So, the likelihood of an association between horse and Paleo-Indian depends on your site being a butchering site/hunting camp. If that is the case, you should be finding a good number of flake knives and debitage from making those knives and choppers. You shouldn't be finding signs of a larger camp such as hearths or post-holes. (I realize most Paleo-Indian sites don't offer much of anything but lithic clues!)

Think of it another way . . . the Equus horses were living in ice-free areas for about two million years, while the Paleo-Indians were there for a few thousands of years. What is the greater probability; that one such horse should wind up recently-dead in a camp? . . . or, that an aboriginal camp should be erected over the bones of a long-dead horse?

You may never have an adequate answer to this question unless you can find some horse bones with butcher-marks from stone tools.

--------Harry Pristis

[CURT]

The question seems to be: Are these Equus horse teeth actually associated with the Paleo-Indian occupation site? The answer is probably not.

I have never seen a suggestion that Paleo-Indians domesticated horses, though they lived contemporaneously for a few thousand years.

I'm sure that horses were on the Paleo-Indian menu whenever one could be killed. Since a horse represents quite a lot of weight in meat, it is likely to have been butchered where it fell. The meat would have been carried back in manageable portions to a semi-permanent camp. It seems unlikely that the head would be one of those portions (but, who can say for sure).

So, the likelihood of an association between horse and Paleo-Indian depends on your site being a butchering site/hunting camp. If that is the case, you should be finding a good number of flake knives and debitage from making those knives and choppers. You shouldn't be finding signs of a larger camp such as hearths or post-holes. (I realize most Paleo-Indian sites don't offer much of anything but lithic clues!)

Think of it another way . . . the Equus horses were living in ice-free areas for about two million years, while the Paleo-Indians were there for a few thousands of years. What is the greater probability; that one such horse should wind up recently-dead in a camp? . . . or, that an aboriginal camp should be erected over the bones of a long-dead horse?

You may never have an adequate answer to this question unless you can find some horse bones with butcher-marks from stone tools.

--------Harry Pristis

Harry, That is a brilliant answer. Reading the replies of you guys has really humbled me. Just thought I'd say that. Sincerely. Curt

[Harry Pristis]

The picture remains cloudy when we look at the overlap of early man and Late Pleistocene mega-fauna. See below how the authors of the cited paper treated cut-marks on mammoth, horse, and giant tortoise bone.

PALEO-INDIANS IN FLORIDA

In 1983, Jim Dunbar and Ben Waller published a distribution map and interpretation of the paleo-Indian sites in Florida.

Dunbar and Waller mapped finds of diagnostic Paleo-Indian artifacts. These "diagnostics" are "...Clovis, Suwannee, or Simpson projectile points and carved ivory foreshafts or pins." (Butcher-marked bone of mammoth, horse, and giant tortoise were not included because there is evidence that these now-extinct animals lived on into a later period and may have been hunted by early Archaic Indians.)

It is clear that Florida Paleo-Indians favored the two karst regions of the state. "Karst" is a geological term referring to near-surface, highly eroded limestone characterized by erosional features such as sink-holes, caves, fissures, and deeply-incised stream-channels.

The isolated region (map) on the Florida-Alabama border is an area of uplifted limestone which is the toe of the Chattahoochee Anticline.

The larger karst region is a result of the Ocala Uplift, a crustal movement which took place a few tens of millions of years ago. Today (just as 12,000 years ago), forty-million-year-old limestone is exposed at the surface in this region. Limestone of the same age (Late Eocene) remains deeply-buried in other parts of the state.

Dunbar and Waller suggest that Paleo-Indians favored these karst regions for two reasons: 1.) for access to fresh water through sink-holes and other karst features; and 2.) for access to exposures of chert (for tool-making) which occurs within the exposed limestone.

Adapted from: James S. Dunbar and Ben I. Waller, A DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS OF THE CLOVIS/SUWANNEE PALEO-INDIAN SITES OF FLORIDA--A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH (in) The Florida Anthropologist, Volume 36, Nos. 1-2, 1983.

--------Harry Pristis

[Shleppel]

Cool find!

There aren't that many well documented paleoindian sites out there.

You sound like you know your archaeology stuff pretty well.

Just in case, if you haven't already, you might check on the legality of digging for archaeological materials.

Here in Indiana it's illegal to dig up such materials even on private land.

Here you can surface collect - but digging isn't permited.

Perhaps it may be the same way south of the border.

(Early 1980's fallout from the private excavations on Slack Farm - I'm thinking you might have some definite statues to check on.)

But this sounds way cool - a once in a lifetime find.

Best of luck.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I'm thinking that here in Ky we had a rash of grave robbers a few years back and legislators finally got around to making the prospecting of paleo sites illegal.

[luckyinkentucky]

Cool find!

There aren't that many well documented paleoindian sites out there.

You sound like you know your archaeology stuff pretty well.

Just in case, if you haven't already, you might check on the legality of digging for archaeological materials.

Here in Indiana it's illegal to dig up such materials even on private land.

Here you can surface collect - but digging isn't permited.

Perhaps it may be the same way south of the border.

(Early 1980's fallout from the private excavations on Slack Farm - I'm thinking you might have some definite statues to check on.)

But this sounds way cool - a once in a lifetime find.

Best of luck.

I'm thinking that here in Ky we had a rash of grave robbers a few years back and legislators finally got around to making the prospecting of paleo sites illegal.

I am well familiar with the Indiana Laws concerning excavation of Amerind Artifacts. Art Gerber - one of the persons responsible for why it is completely illegal to dig any sort of site in Indiana is a good friend of mine. In Indiana it is illegal to dig ANY sort of Native American Artifact, and also, anything that is over 120 yrs. old. This includes but is not limited to coins, Civil War Memorabilia, jewelry, pottery, etc ... So, what most people don't realize is MOST metal detectorists in Indiana are breaking the law as well in digging up their finds on a daily basis!

In reply to the second comment :

Paleo Indian sites are no different than Archaic, Woodland, or Mississippian sites in the eyes of the law. It has been illegal in Kentucky to dig burial sites for some time now. That DOES NOT include encampments or village sites. Although, with the Mississippian Culture this is a two edged sword. You can rarely find a village site that does not have a burial of some sort in the village itself. Therefore, it is best to stay away from Mississippian sites when excavating.

As long as the site is on my land, or I have written permission from the owner, and I am not digging burials it is 100% legal. Don't take my word for it .... call Dr. George Carothers at the University of Kentucky. He will tell you the same thing I have. Even though I am an Avocational Archaeologist I still catalog everything I find.

[Shleppel]

Well,... I guess a kindly word of caution wasn't needed.

Sounds like you have done your research into legalities of digging.

So best of luck on the paleo site! As you drink your morning latte (uhhh,... preferably decaf) and dig on the site I hope you find plenty of horse teeth and maybe a few Native American items too - burins, points, scrapers,...

[Big shark fan]

I'm new to the forum and have had a great time looking over the different discussion threads. Especially the fossil ID posts, since i need all the help i can get in that respect. This is the only one i've viewed that seems harsh. I think if you go on a new site to ask for info you should at least be kind about it all.

There i go again - sticking my nose into things. it's a bad habit of mine. But this has been such a positive forum I just wanted to make this comment.

Jas

[luckyinkentucky]

I'm new to the forum and have had a great time looking over the different discussion threads. Especially the fossil ID posts, since i need all the help i can get in that respect. This is the only one i've viewed that seems harsh. I think if you go on a new site to ask for info you should at least be kind about it all.

There i go again - sticking my nose into things. it's a bad habit of mine. But this has been such a positive forum I just wanted to make this comment.

Jas

What exactly did I say that came across as being negative? I've only stated facts. The bottom line is that I was wanting to have these teeth ID'd. I already know quite well about Native American cultures, but know very little of bone artifacts or bone remains found at these sites. I've been in the Native American Artifact community for close to 30 years, but know very little about bone/fossil remains.