G. Haynes Anthropology Department University of Nevada, Reno Part 2 of the Inglewood Mammoth Site Technical Report, distributed online (www.academia.edu, www. researchgate.net, www.linkedin.com). ABSTRACT: Tis paper provides more information about a 24,000 year old mammoth site, and challenges a recent re-interpretation (Karr 2015) of bone fragmen- tation at the site. Te re-interpretation contends that the mammoth bones had been defeshed, disarticulat- ed, broken, and dispersed by carnivores and other ta- phonomic processes over a considerable period of time before burial. Some assertions advanced to support this claim are inappropriate, such as a reference to results of experiments on cattle bones placed in water, or they are faulty, such as reliance on an early sketch of few bones. Still other assertions are based on inadequate evidence, specifcally a single hole in a bone (mis)identifed as a carnivore tooth puncture. No supportable evidence exists that carnivores afected the bones. Also, no val- id evidence exists for any other inferred taphonomic disturbances before burial, such as animal trampling or subaerial weathering, which would be discernible if there had been lengthy bone exposure before burial. Te sediment enclosing the bones was anaerobic until digging began on a drainage channel in sediments over the bonebed, afer which oxidation and mineral reac- tions in the no longer anoxic sediments caused patchy staining and crust formation on bone surfaces. Both before and during this subsurface process, some bones were probably deformed or crushed by heavy equip- ment. Impact marks and scratches on surfaces of some spirally fractured bones can be seen to penetrate through stain patches or expose unstained cortical tissue, or the marks partly removed stained surface layers, indicat- ing they are post-burial. Curvilinear fracture fronts on some specimens are contiguous with more linear or ir- regular fracture fronts (Fig. 1), suggesting that ancient bones which are not fresh can still be spirally fractured. Te cause of the animal’s death is unknown. One rib has a midshaf swelling that may be a healed fracture; there are no clear signs of acute or chronic disease. INTRODUCTION In 1991, I published the only mention ever made in print of the Inglewood mammoth site in Maryland, to illustrate what I considered recent bone breakage that could be mistaken for prehistoric fracturing (Haynes 1991: 234-236). Karr (2015), without contacting me to understand my reasoning, now claims he has discredit- ed my interpretations; but the claim is based on misin- formation and a defcient analysis. Fig. 1: Part of the Inglewood mammoth’s innominate show- ing a fracture front that is partly spiral, continuing to the right to split the acetabulum. The spiral fracture front crosses the original surface staining in places, re- flecting a recent event. This breakage was most likely caused by crushing under earth-moving equipment while the element was still buried. The mammoth bones were pre- served in anaerobic sediments, but the first phase of con- struction of a drainage ditch in the summer of 1981 trans- formed a deeply buried potential acid sulfate sediment into an active one nearer the ground surface. I propose here that active oxidation of iron minerals and sulfides in the bone’s enclosing sediments could have rapidly led to the creation of patches of dark staining and variably col- ored mineral crusts on some bone surfaces. heavy equip- ment crushed and fragmented some elements both before and after the staining began. Photograph by G. Haynes. BACKGROUND Te site is situated on formerly cultivated land in the coastal plain physiographic province of Maryland. Bone-Breakage and Other Disturbances at the Inglewood Mammoth Site 1