Scientific consensus rejects Calico as natural geofacts, not human tools. In 1970, an international conference of archaeologists met at Calico to settle the debate Leakey presented evidence but the meeting ended in stalemate In 1973, geologist Vance Haynes published a paper in Science identifying geological processes that could produce tool-like fractures without human involvement
In 1973, geologist Vance Haynes identified geological processes (earthquakes, freeze-thaw, stream transport) that can mimic tool fractures. Archaeologist Sam Payen's Barnes test and DuVal/Venner's attribute analysis found Calico specimens clustered with naturally broken stones, not human tools. Archaeological consensus still rejects it. The debate wasn't settled easily.
Key Facts
- In 1970, an international conference of archaeologists met at Calico to settle the debate
- Leakey presented evidence but the meeting ended in stalemate
- In 1973, geologist Vance Haynes published a paper in Science identifying geological processes that could produce tool-like fractures without human involvement
- Haynes identified tectonic stress from earthquakes, weathering and freeze-thaw cycles, stream transport, pressure from overlying sediment, and erosion cycles
- In 1982, archaeologist Sam Payen applied the Barnes test, a statistical method measuring flake scar angles
- Payen's analysis found no significant difference between Calico specimens and naturally fractured stones
- Duval and Venner measured seven attributes of each specimen and compared them to authenticated ancient tools
- Calico materials clustered with naturally fractured cobbles, not human-made tools
- Every other site in the Americas pointed to a date of roughly 13,000 years ago or younger
Related site: Calico Early Man Site — view location, images, and history on the Ancient Nerds map.
Source: This Discovery in America Destroys the Timeline by Michael Button