Texas A&M's Dating of Artifacts Discovered at Hueyataco,

[john]

I guess my question would be

why should the N/S american continent be excepted from early human habitation, seeing as how we seem to have done a pretty good job of inhabiting all the others?

tell me a reason........

john

[DougWeller]

I guess my question would be

why should the N/S american continent be excepted from early human habitation, seeing as how we seem to have done a pretty good job of inhabiting all the others?

tell me a reason........

john

It may well not have been. But the evidence for elsewhere seems to be much more common and clearcut. It's easy to see it in the UK for instance and that's a very small island.

So if our non HSS ancestors did reach the Americas, it appears they must have in comparatively small numbers.

The scientific arguments still have to be examined one way or another.

[Charlie Hatchett]

How old is the Xalnene Ash? I gather OSL dates suggest 38 to 43 thousand years. A problem, eh?

Schwenninger, J-L., Gonzalez S., Huddart, D., Bennett, M.,
and A. Gonzalez-Huesca, in press, The OSL dating of the
Xalnene ash: A reply to comments by G. Duller on ''Human
footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years''.
Quaternary Science Reviews.

So you aren't interested in any experts that disagree? How can you comment on an article not yet published and say it's wrong?

Definitely interested, but Sylvia's 40k dates for the Xalnene Ash have been out for some time now. Berkeley, Stanford, Cal-Tech and the USGS have all come up with dates in the 280k-1.3m range, using methods that have better resolution for these ranges (Fisson Track, U/Th/He, Ar/Ar etc...). Sylvia's dates are limited, on the top end, by the method she used: C14. Hence, the "older" than 40k C14 dates being published.

What I do find interesting are the bone dates in the Vasequillo gravels. Are you able to ascertain these strata, where the bones were found, underlie the Hueyatlaco Ash? Some of these dates appear to be well within C14's resolution... If so, it would be interesting to find out how these bone dates are reconciled by Berkeley, Stanford, Cal-Tech and USGS.

Peace

[DougWeller]

Charlie, I'm just a messenger.

On Ma'at, Paul Heinrich replied to Charlie's post:

Author: Paul H.
Username: Paul H. (heinric-1.lsu.edu)
Subject: Gonzles et al. (2006, in press) was \"Re: A Response to Doug\"
Link: http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,42 ... msg-429045

Hatchett quoted Doug:

"How old is the Xalnene Ash? I gather OSL dates suggest
38 to 43 thousand years. A problem, eh?"

Hatchett replied:

"Talk to Paul Renne, at Berkeley...he got
reverse polarity (greater than 750,000),
and actually publicized the date of
1.3 MYA:"

Well, if you would read Gozzales et al. (2006), you will
find that it discusses Renne's dating of the Xalnene Ash in
detail. It also discusses the oft-cited Uranium Series dates
as well.

Gonzales et al. (2006) attempted replicate the Ar/Ar dates
reported by Renne et al. (2005). They found it impossible
to determine a valid age for the Xalnene Ash because of
the presence of extraneous argon, which caused this dating
method to give incorrect (“apparent”) ages for the material
being dated, which Renne et al. (2005) apparently overlooked
with their dates. They also concluded that the Xalnene Ash
does contains insufficient K for reliable Ar/Ar dating.
Gonzales et al. (2006) argued and concluded that it is
impossible for Ar/Ar dating to provide a valid date for
the age of the Xalnene Ash. It is interesting that in the
discussion and reply to Gonzales et al. (2006), which is
press in Quaternary Science Reviews, Dr. Renne is
completely absent from the discussion. According to
Schwenninger et al. (in press), more discussion about
the problems with the dates of Renne et al. (2005) from
Xalnene Ash also will appear in Huddart et al. (in
press). Also, Schwenninger et al. (in press) states
that they will be doing further dating of the Xalnene
Ash and samples from other Pre-Clovis sites in Mexico.

In addition, Gonzales et al. (2006) raises serious questions
about Renne et al. (2005)'s and paleomagnetic data because
the measurements were done on "un-orientated rock samples".
This is a scientifically unaccepted manner for collecting
paleomagnetic samples. If samples lack markings indicating
their original orientation, it becomes quite easy for people
to confused about how the measured paleomagnetism relates
to the original outcrop and know for sure whether it was
either normally or reverse magnetized. People in the past
have created normally magnetized samples from reverse
magnetized samples, and visa versa, by accidentally
flipping an unmarked ("un-orientated”) core or sample
when collected, transported, curated, or dated.

Also, Schwenninger et al. (in press) makes an excellent
defense of the OSL dates, which were obtained from baked
sediments associated with the Xalnene Ash. Their dose-
response curves show the OSl dates to be lacking any
obvious problems. This ash bed underlies and, thus, is
older than the Valsequillo gravel and volcanic ashes,
lahars, and archaeological sites, which it contains. If
the Xalnene Ash is 38,000 - 43,000 years old, it raises
obvious questions about any million year BP dates from
the volcanic deposits, which overlie it.

In case of the Uranium Series dates, Gonzales et al.
(2006), stated:

"A priori assumptions of uranium uptake,
such as the 'early uptake' model employed
to date the bones from the Tetela Peninsula,
do not identify or account for leaching or
recent uptake of uranium and have been shown
to be both unreliable, and potentially
leading to Uranium Series dates grossly in
error (Pike et al., 2002)."

As Gonzales et al (2006) also note, the large standard
deviations, which the Uranium Series and fission track
dates exhibit, are solid evidence that they are completely
unreliable. This something any geologist understands.

Another problem are a number of finite radiocarbon (C14)
dates and one Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) date, which
Gonzalers et al. (2006) obtained from the Valsequillo
gravels, which contain the Hueyatlaco and related sites.
In case of radiocarbon dates, the paper stated:

"AMS 14C dating of shell and organic remains
was undertaken at the Oxford Radiocarbon
Accelerator Unit (ORAU; University of Oxford).
Shell species from the Valsequillo sites for
radiocarbon dating were identified by S. de
Grave and J. Davies of the Oxford University
Museum of Natural History (Table 2)."

The dates in Table 2 are:

C14, 25,080 ± 130 BP, organic + ash ball, (OxA-12913)
C14, 27,880 ± 120 BP, mollusc shell, (OxA-13662)
C14, 30,620 ± 140 BP, mollusc shell, (OxA-14224)
C14, 36,950 ± 600 BP, mollusc shell, (OxA-14356)
C14, 38,900 ± 800 BP, mollusc shell, (OxA-14355)

The ERS date, which they got from the Valsequillo gravels is:

ESR, 27.8 ± 3.8 K BP, mammoth molar.

Note K = thousands of years.

Other finite dates from the Valsequillo gravel, which have
been published in older publications and summarized by
Gonzales et al. (2006) in Figure 5 include:

C14, 9.15 ± 0.5 K BP mollusc, W1896
C14, 21.85 ± 0.85 K BP mollusc, W1895
U/Th, 20 ± 1.5 K BP & U/Pa 22 ± 2 K BP bone
C14, 26 ± 0.53 K BP bone, KI266
C14, 30.6 ± 1 K BP mollusc, W2189
U/Th, 19 ± 1.5 K BP & U/Pa 18 ± 1.5 K BP bone

Note K = thousands of years.

The stratigraphic position of these dates are shown in
Figure 5 of Gonzales et al. (2006).

Notice that the above list contains Uranium Series dates in
the 20,000 BP range. The fact that the Uranium Series dates
from the Valsequillo gravel yielded, in addition to the
20,000 BP dates, 245,000, 280,000, 345,000 BP dates only
confirms a fact, that any competent geologist should know,
that the Uranium Series dating of bone can be quite
unreliable. and yield inconsistent dates from the same
deposits as discussed by Gonzales (2006). What is
interesting here is that alternative archaeologists accept
as the gospel truth the 245,000 to 345,000 Uranium Series
dates as being valid and yet either reject or ignore the
20,000 BP Uranium Series dates as being invalid
without giving a logical reason why the reliability of
Uranium Series dating should be accepted with the former
and rejected with the latter dates. If one set of dates
is regarded as being unreliable, then the other set should
also be suspected as being unreliable.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the research done on the
Valsequillo sites by Dr. Pichardo, who published several
carefully done studies of them, which provided solid faunal
and geochronologic evidence that they are valid Pre-Clovis
sites within the 20,000 to 30,000 BP range. For some reason,
he and his research seems to be typically ignored by
alternative archaeologists.

References Cited:

Gonzalez, S., Huddart, D., Bennett, M.R., Gonzalez-Huesca,
A., 2006, Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000
years. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 25, pp. 201-222.

Huddart, D., Bennett, M. R., Gonzalez, S., and Velay, X., in
press, Documentation and preservation of Pleistocene human
and animal footprints: an example from Toluquilla,
Valsequillo Basin (Central Mexico). Ichnos,

Renne, P., Feinberg, J. M., Waters, M. R., Arroyo-Cabrales,
J., Ochoa-Castillo, P., Perez-Campa, M., Knight, K.B.,
2005. Age of Mexican ash with alleged 'footprints'.
Nature vol. 438, pp. E7-E8.

Schwenninger, J-L., Gonzalez S., Huddart, D., Bennett, M.,
and A. Gonzalez-Huesca, in press, The OSL dating of the
Xalnene ash: A reply to comments by G. Duller on ''Human
footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years''.
Quaternary Science Reviews.

Best Regards

Paul H.

I don't think that can just be waved away.

[War Arrow]

I guess my question would be

why should the N/S american continent be excepted from early human habitation, seeing as how we seem to have done a pretty good job of inhabiting all the others?

tell me a reason........

john

It may well not have been. But the evidence for elsewhere seems to be much more common and clearcut. It's easy to see it in the UK for instance and that's a very small island.

So if our non HSS ancestors did reach the Americas, it appears they must have in comparatively small numbers.

The scientific arguments still have to be examined one way or another.

Unless the info in this (admittedly old) book I'm looking at has since been revised, the UK was part of mainland Europe at least until around 8,000 years ago. The Americas have (I believe) been largely independent (continentally speaking) for much longer. Hence I think it makes sense that if early humans were there, their numbers would have been small and it might have been a far greater mystery if this weren't the case. Isn't there some critical population number below which a species is unlikely to flourish and actually quite likely to die out?
In case it sounds like I'm suggesting that the general absence of evidence proves a neanderthal presence, I'm not - just saying that what little has been found (pending confirmation) might at least be consistent with the above. Er... that is that maybe any early colonisation of the Americas would have been patchy, which is what a few people here have suggested anyway.
Is it me or have I just tied myself in a philosophical knot?

[Beagle]

I don't think that can just be waved away

Doug, I don't think anybodys' opinion should be "waved away". Of course Paul has posted a very credible reponse. But Doug, I have noticed that time after time you seem to reference Paul H. in your responses. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes me wonder sometimes if you can cite another source.

Charlie has cited a number of extremely reputable sources. I really think it is incumbent upon you to match that. No disrespect to Paul.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Thanks, Doug and Beags. This is a very intriguing site, which should spark debate. I'm glad to see this long overlooked site receiving the scientific scrutiny it deserves.

I don't think that can just be waved away.

No it can't. I'm actually working on a response,which obviously can't be summed up in one or two paragraphs. Paul brings up points that need to dealt with by all three parties: Classic Crew; New Crew; and Gonzales.

Just like the site's "trilemma status": archeology, geochronology, and theory, we have a trilemma of researchers: Classic- Geochronology; New- Theory; and Gonzales-Archeology (she knows the place like the back of her hand).

I've got a full response forthcoming. I'll post it on both sites.

Peace

[DougWeller]

I don't think that can just be waved away

Doug, I don't think anybodys' opinion should be "waved away". Of course Paul has posted a very credible reponse. But Doug, I have noticed that time after time you seem to reference Paul H. in your responses. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes me wonder sometimes if you can cite another source.

Charlie has cited a number of extremely reputable sources. I really think it is incumbent upon you to match that. No disrespect to Paul.

Why? This isn't my field, I know when I should rely on experts. Paul is a geologist and keeps up to date with the relevant publications. Why shouldn't you be doing it? Probably the same reason. Why hasn't Charlie done it?

[Beagle]

Well Doug, I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to point out my particular lack of expertise. But thanks.

[DougWeller]

Well Doug, I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to point out my particular lack of expertise. But thanks.

I wasn't either.

My point was that I have very little to contribute from my own experience and expertise, but that I am friends with a specialist who does. He keeps up with the relevant published and unpublished literature, so of course I rely on him.

In this specific case, what I quoted was a direct response to a post from Charlie, so it was obviously relevant here as a response to the identical post from Charlie.

Doug

[Beagle]

Berkeley, Stanford, Cal-Tech and the USGS

Very well Doug. All I'm saying, with no disrespect to Paul, is that you're not citing evidence at that level.

Since I feel like I'm walking a thin line here, as I am basically a nice guy, I'm going to withdraw from the conversation for now.

I'm certain that you get my point.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hatchett quoted Doug:

"How old is the Xalnene Ash? I gather OSL dates suggest
38 to 43 thousand years. A problem, eh?"

Hatchett replied:

"Talk to Paul Renne, at Berkeley...he got
reverse polarity (greater than 750,000),
and actually publicized the date of
1.3 MYA:"

Paul replied:

”Well, if you would read Gonzales et al. (2006), you will
find that it discusses Renne's dating of the Xalnene Ash in
detail. It also discusses the oft-cited Uranium Series dates
as well”

__________________________________________________________________
Good Morning, Paul.

Gonzales "may" have a valid argument with Renne, and to tell you the truth, I wish Renne would publish his analysis of his dating of the Xalnene (1.3 million B.P.), including reconciliations with other researcher's results. Also his Ar/Ar dating of the overlying Hueyatlaco Ash (1.1 million B.P.). Until then, we won't know both sides of the argument. Renne has been asked by his university to not publish an analysis of the dates, provided to A&M, under a subcontracting arrangement. I suspect it's for reasons other than Gonzales. The New Vasequillo Project (Waters et. al) and the Classic Project (Malde, McInytre, Fryxell, Naeser...) are at each other's throats. Mike Water's from A&M hired Renne for the dating, and Mike announced the Hueyatlaco Ash dates publicly: 1.1 million B.P. But he and Gonzales need to reconcile their dating with:

1. Chuck Naeser’s (USGS) dates: 400k-600k B.P.

Remember, Naeser’s dates were accepted at Olduvai, while in the same year and field season, the Vasequillo dates, also reported by Naeser, were ignored . Why were the Vasequillo dates were ignored, even though the Olduvai dates ( 1.8-2.0 million) preceded the Vasequillo dates (400-600k B.P.) by 1.4 million years. It seems as if there is this holding to theory...man was in Europe and Australia prior to North America...selective listening, of sorts...

2. Ken Farley’s (Cal-Tech) 400,000-500,000 B.P. dates via the U/Th/He method.

3. Ray Donelick’s (University of Idaho) 250,000 B.P. minimum dates via the fission track method, which has been reconciled to Ken Farley’s dates.

4. Coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, the Cretaceous, and from the Pennsylvanian dating consistently at remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian, or ca. 50,000 RCYBP. So do we go with these C14 dates, or long age resolution methods for the geological column. Gonzales needs to reconcile her interpretation with this tidbit.

5. Sam Vanlandingham's diatom dating: 220,000-430,000 B.P.


So my question to you, Paul, is do we reject all the long range dating methods that have been used to develop the modern Theory of Evolution, and the “Out of Africa” theory? We can’t say a method or methods are valid and reliable in one case, and then reject them when they’re inconvenient...

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,42 ... msg-429125

Peace.

[Minimalist]

We can’t say a method or methods are valid and reliable in one case, and then reject them when they’re inconvenient...

Actually, the Club does that all the time, Charlie.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Actually, the Club does that all the time, Charlie.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[Barracuda]

It is the inherent bummer of archeology.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so we will never really know what we don't know. Its hard for the human ego to accept.