Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
If I get my wish, Jim Bischoff (USGS-Geologist Emeritus) and Warren Sharp (Berkeley Geochronology Center) will write the report. Jim has released initial dating on 2 specimens: ca. 13,500 B.P. (minimum) and ca. 147,500 B.P. (minimum), both preClovis. Warren's in the process of analyzing 6 additional specimens as I write.When is anybody going to do a proper write-up and argumentation of your treasure trove, Charlie? And who is going to do that?
All greater than 1.1 million B.P.,
It should, Min. It would be a real bonus if Mike Waters, being an archeologist, agrees that even some of the artifacts are that old. He still has this announcement on the Center for the Study of the First Americans' site:Minimalist wrote:All greater than 1.1 million B.P.,
That's great....it will force The Club to speak out!
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/res ... t_projects...We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site...
If the dating holds, and by the way the Head Lice diversion essentially agrees with Renne, there is a serious amount of re-thinking and history to construct in the Americas. There is now only one piece missing in the trier of facts: a decent skull or datable bones. I suspect that people have been stumbling upon these finds occasionally, but they are treated out of context since, after all, they don't officially exist!The Hueyatlaco Ash is the material that was dated, by Renne (Berkeley), to 1.1 million B.P. (Ar/Ar).
I think your right, Cog. Virginia has a thread, I believe in her "Questions" forum, that has a few old skulls documented, one dated by Sam Vanlandingham to at least the Sangamonian Interglacial:I suspect that people have been stumbling upon these finds occasionally, but they are treated out of context since, after all, they don't officially exist!
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... ifacts.pdfABSTRACT: Important artifacts have been found in situ (i.e., not redeposited) within lacustrine deposits in the Valsequillo region.These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP). Two of the four samples in this study are associated with the Dorenberg skull or with stratigraphic units which contain bifacial tools...
An article by Chris Hardaker is posted on the Graham Hancock site. Link from the Daily Grail. Very good. Also a link to buy his new book.The modern period starts with the Old World Upper Paleolithic period, around 30-40,000 years ago. This was the beginning of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, "man who thinks he thinks." The blade-to-biface revolution happened over there also. And now for the first time in the New World, this critical phase of technological evolution turns up in the New World, in Central Mexico. This was huge in itself. The theoretical potentials of such discoveries would be shattering.
That's an apt description of only half of 'the Club', Digit. The other half describes as 'vested interests'.Digit wrote:There possibly isn't Min, my own experience is of individuals who believe that there reputation is more important than than advancing the discipline they represent.
They tend to be like Lemmings. I've always found that being shown that you are wrong is the first step to being right. Some I've met would rather die than be proved wrong!
