Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

[shawomet]

The Hueyatlaco archaeological site has been discussed on this forum before a few years ago. I found 3 pieces, which taken together, represent an opportunity to consider the overall problem of how anomolies are dealt with by dominant paradigms.
So those of you who enjoy examining "evidence that doesn't fit" might enjoy reading these. uniface, I was thinking of yourself, actually.

First, a synopsis of the controversy of the Mexican archaeological site known as Hueyatlaco, and what can happen when one discipline, geology, contradicts another discipline, archaeology...

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science ... 39498.html


"On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”


Next, a recent paper including one of the original geologists involved with the site, and concluding the "ridiculously early" dates are valid....

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_3/27 ... index.html

Last, an essay by philosophers discussing what happens when anomolies confront orthodoxy in times of scientific flux or revolution, e.g. the pre-Clovis "revolution".

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... life18.htm



"In this study, we examine in detail a particular case of anomalous evidence meeting received view. In this case, the received view is a theory about human origins in the Americas, and the anomaly is a site in Mexico, the age of which is apparently in conflict with that received theory. Without trying to decide whether the received view is correct, or whether the anomalous evidence is worth considering (which is, after all, a job for specialists), we will follow the story of what happened to the scientists involved, and draw conclusions about what can and cannot be expected from science as a real human institution.

In particular, we will argue that, in periods of instability in science (“revolution,” if you like), it is in the very nature of science to treat anomalous evidence with hostility and suspicion, even when there is little evidential reason to suspect it."

I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!".

[Cognito]

I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!"

I did some research work with Sam Van Landingham on the Dorenberg skull that was retrieved by Joseph Dorenberg, the German Consul to Puebla, Mexico in the 1890s and sent to Leipzig for analysis. Although the skull was bombed to dust by the British in 1943, samples of the diatoms that were preseved inside the skull were taken and stored at the Alfred Wagener Institute in Bremen ... where they are today.

Sam demonstrated that the diatoms found within the skull date from the Sangamon Age, or about 114,000 years ago and older, give or take, depending upon the resource. Nobody has refuted his findings since he is too well respected in the field, but nobody is talking either.

[uniface]

Good stuff !

But be advised that there is nothing less at stake here than the demise of the Darwinian Cave Man.

Clovis (Not) First was a (reluctantly) acceptable tactical concession, because it left the underlying model (assumption set) intact.

Hueyatlaco goes to the heart of the matter . . .

It's probably the Blackwater Draw of the 21st Century.

[shawomet]

Yep, that's quite the apple cart all right:

One of its early excavators Virginia Steen-McIntyre writes “Hueyátlaco is a dangerous site. To even publicly mention the geological evidence for its great age is to jeopardize one’s professional career. Three of us geologists can testify to that. It’s very existence is blasphemous because it questions a basic dogma of Darwinism, the ruling philosophy (or religion, if you will) of the western scientific world for the past 150 years. That dogma states that, over a long period of time, members of the human family have generally become more and more intelligent. The Hueyátlaco site is thus ‘impossible’ because Mid-Pleistocene humans weren’t smart enough to do all that the evidence implies. Besides, there is no New World anthropoid stock from which they could have evolved."(From the first link above)

[E.P. Grondine]

I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!".

I certainly agree that you are not qualified, and not only in the judgement of the merits of ancient dates.

You are simlarly ignorant of cult archaeology, and how those con men work.

Its based on the suspension of judgement, which is something you are demonstrating, either as a victim or con man.

You have continually made false equivalencies since you first showed up here.

By focusing on process, you are trying to engage in "special pleading" of your case.

That is something that I do not do.

There is a big difference between physics and meta-physics, and paradigm shift is something that you also clearly do not understand or qualified in.

[oldarchystudent]

...always the gentleman...

So - interesting site although if true, I don't see that it challenges evolution in any way. I do think that all dates are suspect and that more geological evidence should be brought to bear on orthodox archaeological dating per Schoch's work on the Sphinx.

[shawomet]

Deleted my reply to Mr. Grondine. Like talking to a stone wall..

[Minimalist]

That dogma states that, over a long period of time, members of the human family have generally become more and more intelligent.

The emergence of the Tea Party should be evidence enough to refute that claim.


Occasional contributor to this site, Chris Hardaker, has written a book called "The First Americans." I recommend it.

[shawomet]

Deleted reply to Mr.Grondine, like talking to a stone wall....

[shawomet]

That dogma states that, over a long period of time, members of the human family have generally become more and more intelligent.

The emergence of the Tea Party should be evidence enough to refute that claim.


Occasional contributor to this site, Chris Hardaker, has written a book called "The First Americans." I recommend it.

Bingo!! LOL. Yes, thanks Minimalist, I have Hardaker's book around here somewhere.

[E.P. Grondine]

I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!".

I certainly agree that you are not qualified, and not only in the judgement of the merits of ancient dates.

You are simlarly ignorant of cult archaeology, and how those con men work.

Its based on the suspension of judgement, which is something you are demonstrating, either as a victim or con man.

You have continually made false equivalencies since you first showed up here.

By focusing on process, you are trying to engage in "special pleading" of your case.

That is something that I do not do.

There is a big difference between physics and meta-physics, and paradigm shift is something that you also clearly do not understand or qualified in.

Once again. The subject title is Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy. Implying both sides could be considered. The subject title was not Hueyatlaco: Case Closed for Early Dates. When uniface posted his take, I quoted the "geologist" who shared his take and simply observed, in so many words, that "yeah, that would be quite the matzo ball". I posted what seems to be very qualifying observations on the "objectivity" of said "geologist". I really don't want to take responsibility for triggering your imaginative flights of irrelevant observations, but I am beginning to chuckle more by now, and I may start posting on this forum more frequently for the entertainment value of your self-inflating babblings

shwomet -

Your behaior is quite well known by all here.
Your reasons for posting here are evident as well.
Excuse me for not helping to aid in your confusion.
I have work to do in the real world.

[shawomet]

"Your behaior is quite well known by all here.
Your reasons for posting here are evident as well.
Excuse me for not helping to aid in your confusion.
I have work to do in the real world."

I'm here to discuss, post things that I think might be interesting to this forum, and just the normal reasons anyone would register here. There are no undisclosed motives. But I agree no sense in you or I discussing this any longer. Good luck in your work.

[Cognito]

Personally, I don't really care whether Hueyatlaco/Valsequillo is 250,000 years old or 20,000 years old. However, it is an interesting site as an 'outlier' that cannot yet be adequately explained or reliably dated to the satisfaction of many, and that is a shame. Even if the site turns out to be 'only' 20,000 years old, that is a major revelation for American archaeology at this time.

I view the Puebla, Mexico site the same as Calico in California. A tremendous amount of careful geological and excavation work has been done at Calico, but it exhibits the same problem: no reliable dating that anyone can agree on so far. I have walked all over the Lake Manix shoreline countless times and noticed well-formed human lithics above the ancient 543m shoreline that do not exist below the shoreline. According to most geologists, the lake catastrophically drained circa 18,000 years ago. See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1281/pdf/OF07-1281_508.pdf. In my estimation, people were there working chert, chalcedony and petrified palm years before 16,000bce.

Even agreeing with human occupation at Calico in excess of 16,000bce is a major accomplishment for archaeologists. Dee Schroth, Curator at the San Bernardino Museum and site archaeologist at Calico, identified 82 heat treated lithics as of just over a year ago that are well-provenanced from the master pits. Those lithics can be reliably dated with thermoluminescence that will date the time since the last heating of the lithics' crystals, but paying a lab to do the analysis is expensive and the Calico budget has limitations. Best guess? They'll range from 10,000bce to 40,000bce. Heck, I'd even be happy if they ended up at 20,000bce.

Hueyatlaco/Valsequillo needs to go through the same careful, conservative process to determine the site's age since dating the geology surrounding artifacts will always be problematic.

[Minimalist]

Maybe its me, Cogs, but I have not heard of any refutation of VanLandingham's diatom dating of Hueyatlaco to the Sangamonian Interglacial period.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1661/0 ... Code=mipa&

The other side cannot pretend that this does not exist. The ball is in their court and they should hit it back.... if they can.

[Cognito]

Maybe its me, Cogs, but I have not heard of any refutation of VanLandingham's diatom dating of Hueyatlaco to the Sangamonian Interglacial period.

It's not you, Min, since archaeologists have no problem with Sam VanLandingham's dating. They're just stating that his sampling of diatoms differs from the date of the artifacts which were 'inserted' into an older strata by inclusion. Voila! Instant doubt.

The other side cannot pretend that this does not exist. The ball is in their court and they should hit it back.... if they can.

The other side will pretend that Sam's data doesn't exist for the Dorenberg skull since, after all, it was bombed into oblivion by the Royal Airforce in 1943 during a night raid on Leipzig. Joseph Dorenberg sent the skull to Hugo Reichelt in Leipzig for analysis, but they didn't have the technology available in the 1890s to determine its age. However, Reichelt stored slides with the diatoms from inside the skull and placed them in the Afred Wegener Instiute in Bremen, Germany. One of the slides made it to San Francisco where Sam analyzed it and came up with the Sangamon age for the diatoms present.

The slides exist, but since the skull is history nobody wants to admit that there could be a skull dated to greater than 80,000 years that was found in Puebla, Mexico. We're still looking for a sketch of the skull by Prof. Eduard Seler, a famous German anthropologist. See:

Part 1. http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newslet ... er2009.pdf

Part 2. http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newslet ... er2009.pdf