Archaeologica.org

Paul:

What you seem to be overlooking is that all dating techniques have
limitations.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

Such as C14 reliably dating anything older than 50k? Why has nothing at Hueyatlaco produced, even 1, valid C14 date? Instead you try to project dates from another site, over 5 km away, where only one tool was found, and where the stratigraphy is far from secure.


______________________________________________________________________________

Paul:

Just because someone dates something, utterly fails automatically mean that their dates are valid.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:


Not understanding you here, Paul.


_____________________________________________________________________________________


Paul:

Whether or not a date agrees with what a person's expect the age of
the material dated to be is a rather useless criteria for judging its validity.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

Exactly. Why opt for one team’s opinion when you have 4 other independent research teams providing dates in excess of 250,000 B.P. I suspect it’s because theory is blurring your objectivity.

____________________________________________________________________________________


Paul:

In case of rejecting the Uranium Series dates on bones, rejecting
them has nothing to do with them being “inconvenient”. It is
well documented in the geologic literature that they are
unreliable and prone to producing excessive old apparent dates
(Pike et al. et al.). You need only look the fact that the dating
of bones from the Valsequillo gravels produced one set of
Uranium Series dates in the 20,000 BP range and another set
in the 245,000 to 345,000 BP range to see that they are
inconsistent to the point of being unreliable in dating bone.
In this case tou seem to be the person rejecting the Uranium
Series dates in the 20,000 BP range as being invalid while
accepting the 245,000 to 345,000 BP dates, derived from the
very same method as being valid simply because they agree
with your ideas about how old the Valsequillo sites should
be. The discrepancy between the 20,000 BP and older dates
and and the well-known and well documented problems
with the Uranium series dating of bones provides more
than enough reasons to question the validity of these dates.
Being “inconvenient” has nothing to do with disregarding
them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

How did we get to bones here? We’re discussing the Xalnene and Hueyatlaco Ash, and dating the zircons within them. The University of Berkeley, Cal Tech, Stanford, USGS, University of Idaho, etc... have dated the Hueyatlaco Ash in excess of 250,000 B.P. ((Vasequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)). The artifact bearing beds have been shown by USGS, Cynthia Irwin-Williams and A&M, to securely underlie the Hueyatlaco Ash. This is why Mike Waters has to resort to discrediting Cynthia Irwin-Williams competence as an archeologist ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)): The geology is indisputable. If your geochronology and archeology are lining up, then the only other leg to give, is theory. Mike refuses to consider this as an option. Wouldn’t it just be easier for Mike to dispute the dating from Berkeley. He doesn’t think the dating is invalid ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)). And, as you know, Mike is a very competent field geoarchaeologist...top notch, so he could easily question the stratigraphy, but he doesn’t:

“We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I).”

[www.centerfirstamericans.org]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul:

.That attempts to Ar/Ar date the Xalnene Ash, an unit which
formed in a matter of weeks to months during a single
volcanic eruption, by Ar/Ar has produced dates ranging from
1.1 to 4.6 million years certainly shows that Ar/Ar dating
of the Xalnene Ash has significant credibility problems,
which has nothing to do with the 1.1 million BP date being
“inconvenient”. The low levels of K and presence of
extraneous argon, for which Renne et al. (2005) apparently
failed to account, are valid reasons for rejecting his dates.
If you regard the Ar/Ar dating of the Xalnene Ash as being
valid, you need to explain how it is physically possible
for a single ash bed, lacking internal paleosols and
unconformities and produced by a single volcanic eruption,
can accumulate over a period of 3.5 million years. In this
case, common sense, not “inconvenience” provides good
reason for suspecting and even rejecting the validity of
these Ar/Ar dates.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

Why in the heck would Mike Waters announce 1.1 million B.P. dates (Ar/Ar) for the overlying Hueyatlaco Ash, if there are “any” problems with Berkeley’s” dating. He has every reason to discount and “find problems” with the dating. He completely rejects the idea of humans being in North America, even 250k B.P. ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)). So, at this point, you’re questioning the competence of Dr. Mike Waters, Dr. Paul Renne, Dr. Ken Farley, Dr. Ray Donelick, Dr. Hal Malde, etc...and opting for one teams dates, which are palatable to your taste in theory.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Paul:


In case of the dates by Chuck Naeser, Ken Farley, and Ray
Donelick, it is impossible for me to evaluate them unless either
they publish something in the literature and or you can provide
a citation where these data supporting these dates are published.
All you provide are some numbers without any of the supporting
information, including a detail study of the deposition processes,
which created the ash beds being dated. Without this information,
you are asking me to accept these dates as being valid as a matter
of faith. Given that older volcanic rock, including ash, can be
recycled or redeposited during volcanic eruptions and cold lahars,
the sedimentology of the volcanic ashes and what precisely is
being dated needs to be documented and discussed in great detail.
______________________________________________________________________

Charlie:



Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn

(Mike Waters has copies for distribution)

______________________________________________________________________________________________


Paul:

You have to remember that there are a number of instances where
historically erupted and late Quaternary volcanic rocks have been
“dated” to tens of and hundreds of thousands, even millions of
years older than when they actually erupted. For example, basalts
have yielded K/Ar dates which are 1.7 million years apart for the
same rock and a 13,000 BP basalt yielded a “date” of 110 million
years BP (Damon et al. 1967). If I found a Pre-Clovis site
beneath that lava flow, I could claim that early man was in
North America 110 million years ago. This is an extreme
example. However, its demonstrates that just because a volcanic
rock yields a date, it does not guarantee that it an accurate
indication of when the volcanic rock was erupted. In order to
argue that any date indicates the time of eruption, a person
needs to provide their audience the specific details of what
exactly was dated, how it was dated, the stratigraphic and
depositional context of the strata containing the material,
which was dated. These are the details, which people need in
order to evaluate whether the date has been properly interpreted.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

And your saying these highly qualified geologists aren’t aware of these issues? Quite presumptuous, Paul.

Again, ask Mike for a copy of the newly released study.


_______________________________________________________________________________________


Paul:

The micropaleontologists, who have no stake in the Vasequillo sites
controversy, whom I have talked to, regard Dr. Vanlandingham's
diatom as being badly flawed and not as conclusive as he claims
its to be. They found his papers on dating the Vasequillo sites to
be quite disappointing for someone of his caliber. One primary
problem, which they find, is that dating sediments on “the
relationships of percentages of taxa”, which they find to be a
unproved practice. Although differences ands similarities in
fauna composition can be interpreted to show environmental
changes, it is highly questionable that such changes can be used
to date Quaternary deposits. In contrast, Pichard (1997, 2000)
basis his dating on vertebrate faunas with unique chronological
and well documented time spans and finite dates. A person has to
explain how Late Wisconsinan vertebrates traveled in time back
to when Dr. Vanlandingham claims the Vasequillo gravels
accumulated.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

This is an empty claim with no backing reference. You do attempt to confuse the issue by presenting research by a non-doctorate type, in a unrelated field.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul writes:

The only real reason you present for rejecting these dates is that they are inconveniently young to the point of grossly contradicting what you argue for the age of the Valsequillo gravels. You need to remember that unverifiable / undocumented “contamination” is
the standard ad hoc explanation used by people to reject “inconvenient” dates.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie:

My reasons have nothing to do with contamination, but everything to do with the inability of the C14 to date anything over 50,000 B.P. Why has it not been possible to successfully produce 1 valid C14 date at Hueyatlaco, though many have tried?

Your overall response indicates a bowing to theory, where scientific objectivity appears to take back seat to your faith in the current "Out of Africa" philosophy.

I think Chris Hardaker's statement hits the nail on the head, and should be remembered by all true scientists working in archeologically related fields:

"We don't know enough yet to know what is impossible and what is not. We are still students of our ancestors."

[www.hallofmaat.com]


Cheers!

Confusing.

Charlie, you know more about this than I, but there didn't seem to be any axe to grind in what Paul had to say. It isn't that you or the others are "wrong." It just seems that Paul is asking for a higher standard of proof. He says hasn't seen the information that are citing. I am sure he doesn't want to look like a fool in the eyes of other scientist by commenting on something his hasn't seen.

You, however, seem to accuse him of attacking the reputations of other scientists as well as having ulterior motives for
his position.

That is how your exchange looked to me. I know there is probably more to it.

Paul:

>What you seem to be overlooking is that all dating
>techniques have limitations.
>___________________________________________________________
>Charlie:

>Such as C14 reliably dating anything older than 50k? Why
>has nothing at Hueyatlaco produced, even 1, valid C14
>date? Instead you try to project dates from another site,
>over 5 km away, where only one tool was found, and
>where the stratigraphy is far from secure.

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Paul:

This is not true. It does not matter that the radiocarbon
dates came from over 5 km way because the research by
Pichardo (1997, 2000), the geologists, whose work he cites,
all provide solid evidence, in the form of well-defined
vertebrate faunal and heavy mineral zones, that they occur
within the same package of sediments, the Valsequillo
Gravels, which contains the Hueyatlaco Site. Gonzale et
al. (2006) also provides a very detailed discussion of the
Valsequillo Gravels, which argues that the radiocarbon
dates and the Hueyatlaco Site do occur in the same
stratigraphic unit and falls within the range of time dated
by the radiocarbon dates.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

I disagree, Paul. I think it matters significantly that the C14 dates came from over 5 km away:

“The archaeological sites with the old U-series dates (ca 250,000
years) occur at the base of the widespread Valsequillo gravel formation;
the Caulapan site with the ca 20,000 year dates near the top. The old
U-series dates are associated with 14C samples in which "no suitable
carbon remains for dating" (too old?) The young U-series dates at
Caulapan (ca 20,000 years) are associated with a 14C date from the same
layer of ca 22,000 years. This latter 14C date is one of a series
collected at site R-14 that range in age from ca 9,000 years at the top
(W-1896) to greater than 29,000 years (W-1975) and greater than 35,000
years (W-1898) at the bottom. See Szabo et al., 1969, p. 239, Fig. 2.”

Personal correspondence with Dr. Steen-McIntyre.
________________________________________________________________________
Paul:

I do not understand how samples older than 50,000 BP would
give dates as young as some of the finite dates, which were
obtained by Gonzales et al. (2006) and the other studies
summarized by them. Also, I can see no explanation how
dating material, which is older than 50,000 BP would yield
dates, which are consistent with their stratigraphic position,
with the youngest at the top and getting older towards the
bottom with the "greater than" radiocarbon dates, which are
clearly samples older 30,000 to 35,000 BP in age, at the very
bottom. This is not the distribution, which a person would
expect the dating of samples older than 50,000 BP to
produce. Furthermore, in case of shells, it is possible and
standard procedure to use visual inspection to weed out
shells, which are altered and of questionable use in
radiocarbon dating. The only reason, which I can see, for
you to deny that these are valid dates, deny that they occur
within the Valsequillo Gravels, and dismiss their
significance is that they contradict the arguments, which
you are making. These dates are just as much part of the
puzzle about the age of the Hueyatlaco Site as are the dates
from Hueyatlaco Ash.

Another matter, which you ignore, is that Gonzales et al. (2006)
also dated four samples, which were cut from a mammoth
tooth obtained from the Valsequillo Gravels in the Barranca
Caulapan, by electron spin resonance (ERS) dating. These
analyses yielded a date of 27,800±3,800 BP. The fact that
this date is stratigraphically consistent with the radiocarbon
dates obtained from samples from the same stratigraphic
section is very strong evidence that these radiocarbon dates
are valid and **not** the result of contamination as you
repeatedly claim above.

I agree that there is a major contradiction between the
research of Gonzales et al. (2006) and others and the recent
dates from the Hueyatlaco Ash. However, solving this
problem by dismissing what under any other circumstances
would be regarded as perfectly valid radiocarbon, ESR, and
OSL dates, is a rather intellectually and scientifically
bankrupt way of resolving this enigma.
______________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

Paul, where have I made any claim of contamination at Caulapan? My argument doesn’t consist of discrediting the Caulapan C14 dates. It’s the methods limited resolution in the 50,000 B.P. plus range, in addition to the debate over stratigraphy.

Again, I think your making the mistake of grouping the Barranca Caulapan strata with the Hueyatlaco and El Horno strata:


“All of González' samples come from Barranca Caulapan or the
Toluquilla quarry (González et al., 2006, Fig. 5). As stated above,
that's from the upper part of what is call the Valsequillo gravel
formation; the old sites along the Valsequillo Reservoir are from the
lower part. We of the Classic Valsequillo Project would agree with
González et al.'s Caulapan dates.”

“We accept happily the 20,000 year U-series dates for Caulapan; it
agrees with the 14C date for the same stratum (See Szabo et al., 1969).
By contrast, there are no 14C dates for Hueyatlaco and the other old
archaeologic sites. "Carbon not suitable for dating" at the reservoir
sites, although permineralized bone is plentiful. We believe this is
because the bones are too old to date by the 14C method.”

Personal correspondence with Dr. Steen-McIntyre.

_______________________________________________________________

Paul:
>
>Whether or not a date agrees with what a person's expect
>the age of the material dated to be is a rather useless
>criteria for judging its validity.
>____________________________________________________________>
>Charlie:
>
>Exactly. Why opt for one team's opinion when you have 4 other
>independent research teams providing dates in excess of 250,000
>B.P. I suspect it's because theory is blurring your objectivity.
_____________________________________________________________
Paul:

First, I am not dismissing the Hueyatlaco Ash dates out of hand.
I am just saying that it impossible for me to evaluate them
without having the detailed data on which these dates are based.
I fail to see why wanting to wait until I can read through and
evaluate the details of how these dates were obtain shows a lack
of “objectivity” on my part. Just because I do not to regard what
you written about the Hueyatlaco Ash dates as the gospel truth
does not, in my opinion, indicate a lack of "objectivity" on my
part.

Second, in case of Dr. Vanlandingham's papers, I have read them
and found them unconvincing. Just because I am not convinced
by his arguments and do not regard him as an infallible source of
knowledge does not, in my opinion, indicate that I lack
"objectivity”.

___________________________________________________________________________________________


Charlie:

I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed objection to Vanlandingham's research, though his first paper concerning Valsequillo was peer reviewed and accepted 2 years ago.

I understand your need to review the research by the various professors performing the current U dating. I’m sure Dr. Waters will be happy to provide you with this. If not, let me know, and I’ll mail you a copy.

_______________________________________________________________________

Paul:

In case of rejecting the Uranium Series dates on bones, rejecting
>them has nothing to do with them being "inconvenient". It is
>well documented in the geologic literature that they are
>unreliable and prone to producing excessive old apparent dates
>(Pike et al. et al.). You need only look the fact that the dating
>of bones from the Valsequillo Gravels produced one set of
>Uranium Series dates in the 20,000 BP range and another set
>in the 245,000 to 345,000 BP range to see that they are
>inconsistent to the point of being unreliable in dating bone.
>In this case tou seem to be the person rejecting the Uranium
>Series dates in the 20,000 BP range as being invalid while
>accepting the 245,000 to 345,000 BP dates, derived from the
>very same method as being valid simply because they agree
>with your ideas about how old the Valsequillo sites should
>be. The discrepancy between the 20,000 BP and older dates
>and and the well-known and well documented problems
>with the Uranium series dating of bones provides more
>than enough reasons to question the validity of these dates.
>Being "inconvenient" has nothing to do with disregarding
>them.
>____________________________________________________
>
Charlie:
>
>How did we get to bones here? We're discussing the Xalnene
>and Hueyatlaco Ash, and dating the zircons within them. The
>University of Berkeley, Cal Tech, Stanford, USGS, University of
>Idaho, etc... have dated the Hueyatlaco Ash in excess of 250,000
>B.P. ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall Payn-
>(Mike Waters has copies for distribution)). The artifact bearing
>beds have been shown by USGS, Cynthia Irwin-Williams and A&M,
>to securely underlie the Hueyatlaco Ash. This is why Mike Waters
>has to resort to discrediting Cynthia Irwin-Williams competence as
>an archeologist ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006,
>Marshall Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)): The
>geology is indisputable. If your geochronology and archeology are
>lining up, then the only other leg to give, is theory. Mike refuses to
>consider this as an option. Wouldn't it just be easier for Mike to
>dispute the dating from Berkeley. He doesn't think the dating is
>invalid ((Valsequillo: An Archaeological Enigma, 2006, Marshall
>Payn- (Mike Waters has copies for distribution)). And, as you
>know, Mike is a very competent field geoarchaeologist...top notch,
>so he could easily question the stratigraphy, but he doesn't:
>
>"We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed
>overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing
>deposits (Bed I)."

_______________________________________________________________________

Paul:

First, I mentioned the Uranium Series dates, because they are
used repeatedly by various people in various articles about the
Hueyatlaco Site. These articles include Covey (2002), which
Dr. Vanlandingham cited as a critical part of one of his
arguments for a greater than 250,000 BP age for the Hueyatlaco
Site.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

Understood. But the argument here is from where the samples, which have been dated, were removed. There’s concordance between U and C14 methods at Caulapan (ca. 20,000 B.P.), then U dates at Hueyatlaco (250,000 min), and the unproductiveness of the C14 method. From the data we have to date, the most obvious conclusion is the strata at Hueyatlaco are much older than the strata at Caulapan.

________________________________________________________________________

Paul:


Second, in case of the Hueyatlaco Ash, I am reframing from
them because at this time as I do not have the specific details
as written by the people, who did the dating themselves in
front of me. Your comments above are the first that I heard
of any printed material authored by the investigators
themselves, being available for reading. I will contact Dr.
Michael Waters to get a copy this publication and read through
it as time permits. My lack of knowledge of this publication
was not for lack of asking about information about these dates.
Rather, None of the people, whom I know told me about this
publication. If there is a notice to this publication posted
somewhere, I overlooked it among the “jillions” of web pages,
which are the Internet.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Charlie:


Understood. Not sure why no one made you aware of this important research. It’s been going on since 2001. Again, request a copy of the research from Dr. Waters. If that’s unproductive, let me know, and I’ll mail you a copy.
______________________________________________________________________

Paul
>
>The micropaleontologists, who have no stake in the Vasequillo
>sites controversy, whom I have talked to, regard Dr.
Vanlandingham's diatom as being badly flawed and not as
>conclusive as he claims its to be. They found his papers on dating
>the Vasequillo sites to be quite disappointing for someone of his
>caliber. One primary problem, which they find, is that dating
>sediments on "the relationships of percentages of taxa", which
>they find to be a unproved practice. Although differences and
>similarities in fauna composition can be interpreted to show
>environmental changes, it is highly questionable that such
>changes can be used to date Quaternary deposits. In contrast,
>Pichardo (1997, 2000) basis his dating on vertebrate faunas
>with unique chronological and well documented time spans and
>finite dates. A person has to explain how Late Wisconsinan
>vertebrates traveled in time back to when Dr. Vanlandingham
>claims the Vasequillo Gravels accumulated.
>_______________________________________________________
>Charlie:
>
>This is an empty claim with no backing reference.

____________________________________________________________

Paul:

There exist very good reasons why the there is “no backing
references”. I have been advised not to post these reasons in
a public forum. Rather, it is best that I explain any reasons,
including supporting documents, for the lack of "backing
references" in private email.

________________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

Understood, Paul. But, at this point, your claim is unsubstantiated.

_____________________________________________________________________
Charlie:


>You do attempt to confuse the issue by presenting research
>by a non-doctorate type, in an unrelated field.
____________________________________________________________________
Paul:


In my opinion, the lack of a Ph.D. is an utterly ignorant and
quite laughable excuse for anyone reject a person's research.
Just because person has only a Master's or lesser degree is a
remarkablky stupid reason to dismiss his or her research. Mario
Pichardo has published a number of papers, which have been cited
by other paleontologists and geologists, on the geology and
paleontology of Mexico. If you look through his papers, you
will find that he done just as much, if not more, field work
and research on the Vasequillo Gravels and sites than Dr.
Vanlandingham has done.

It is true that Dr. Vanlandingham is an expert in diatoms.
However, the fact that he is a recognized expert fails to mean
that he is an infallible "Pope" of paleontology, whose word
has to be regarded as the gospel and an unquestionable truth.
Even Ph.Ds, including one, who cited Michael Cremo’s
"Forbidden Archaeology" as valid scientific publication in
his Fifth World Archaeological Congress paper and cited an
article, Covey (2002), from the “Midwestern Epigraphic Journal”
in a peer-reviewed paper can from time to time have significant
lapses in judgment and logic.

Given that the papers of Mario Pichardo, which I cited deal with
dating the Vasequillo Gravels and sites using vertebrate fossils,
radiocarbon dates and correlating units and sites using heavy
mineral zones (a well-known and accepted methology), I find it
completely incorrect for anyone to claim that his research is
"unrelated" to the discussion of the age of the Vasequillo sites.
Given that both studies use biostratigraphy of different types to
argue their case, I find the claim that their methodologies are
unrelated to be completely unsupported by either any facts or
logic.

In this case, I would invite the lurkers reading this exchange of
posts to read Pichardo (1997, 2000) and decide for themselves
whether his papers are "unrelated" to the discussion of either
the biostratigraphy of the Vasequillo Gravels or the age of the
Vasequillo sites.
___________________________________________________________
Charlie:

The question in this case, though, is whether Pichardo possesses the knowledge to refute the following concordant dates: Dr. Vanlandingham’s 2004 and 2006 peer reviewed, and undisputed diatom dating research, dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P.; USGS’ (Dr. Malde, Dr. Fryxell, Dr. Naeser, Dr. Steen-McIntyre, Szabo, etc...) fission track dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P; Dr. Ken Farley’s 400,000-500,000 B.P. U/Th/He dating; Dr. Ray Donelick’s greater than 250,000 B.P. dating; etc...

Couple the above with Dr. Water’s announcement: “We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I).” and his announcement that the Hueyatlaco Ash is, indeed, greater than 250,000 B.P. (1.1 million B.P.- I’m not saying I agree with that extreme of a date, but it does fall in line with the strata being greater than 250,000 B.P.)

[www.centerfirstamericans.org]

_______________________________________________________________________


Paul:
>
>The only real reason you present for rejecting these dates is that
>they are inconveniently young to the point of grossly contradicting
>what you argue for the age of the Valsequillo Gravels. You need to
>remember that unverifiable / undocumented "contamination" is
>the standard ad hoc explanation used by people to reject
>"inconvenient" dates.
>___________________________________________________________
>Charlie:
>
>My reasons have nothing to do with contamination, but everything
>to do with the inability of the C14 to reliably date anything over 50,000
>B.P. Why has it not been possible to successfully produce 1 valid
>C14 date at Hueyatlaco, though many have tried? Then you have the concordant dating of multiple researchers: Dr. Vanlandingham’s 2004 and 2006 papers, dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P; USGS’ (Dr. Malde, Dr. Fryxell, Dr. Naeser, Dr. Steen-McIntyre, Sabo, etc...) fission track dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P; Dr. Ken Farley’s 400,000-500,000 B.P. U/Th/He dating; Dr. Ray Donelick’s greater than 250,000 B.P. dating; Mike Waters Ar/Ar dating of 1.1 million B.P., etc...all well beyond C14’s resolution.
Then you have the concordant dating, in the upper, Caupulan strata: C14 (ca. 20,000) and U (ca. 20,000).

We’re obviously dealing with two very different strata, separated by hundreds of thousands of millennia.


_________________________________________________________________
Paul:

As previously discussed in great detail, I cannot find any solid
evdience for concluding that the contamination of sample, which
are greater than 50,000 BP has occurred. The only reason, which
I can see, for the persistent claim on your part that these dates,
where obtained from samples older than 50.000 BP and unquestionably
contaminated by younger carbon, is that they are is that they are
“inconvenient” to what you argue to the true age of the Hueyatlaco
Site. There can be many reasons the failure for valid C14 vdates
from the Hueyatlaco Site. Thus, this fact is evidence of absolutely
nothing. From the arguments, which you have so far presented, the
only conclusion, which I can come to at this time, is that the
claim that your “reasons have nothing to do with contamination” is
nothing more than a scientifically bankrupt and rather worthless
opinion.

Using your logic, anyone can argue just about any radiocarbon
date older than 9,000 or 19,000 BP is the result of dating samples,
which are older than 50,000 BP. According your logic, any
radiocarbon date older than 19,000 BP is meaningless because
it can be explained away, if “inconvenient” to the idea being
argued by a person, as being over 50,000 BP in age. According to
the manner in which you interpret the finte radiocarbon dates
from Valsequillo Gravels, I and innumerbale other geologists are
completely ignorant that a good part of Quaternary geology is
based the misinterpretation of radiocarbon samples, which are
over 50,000 BP.

_______________________________________________________________________________


Charlie:

Again, please see my previous response:

>My reasons have nothing to do with contamination, but everything
>to do with the inability of the C14 to reliably date anything over 50,000
>B.P. Why has it not been possible to successfully produce 1 valid
>C14 date at Hueyatlaco, though many have tried? Then you have the concordant dating of multiple researchers: Dr. Vanlandingham’s 2004 and 2006 papers, dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P; USGS’ (Dr. Malde, Dr. Fryxell, Dr. Naeser, Dr. Steen-McIntyre, Sabo, etc...) fission track dating the Hueyatlaco strata at greater than 250,000 B.P; Dr. Ken Farley’s 400,000-500,000 B.P. U/Th/He dating; Dr. Ray Donelick’s greater than 250,000 B.P. dating; Mike Waters Ar/Ar dating of 1.1 million B.P., etc...all well beyond C14’s resolution.
Then you have the concordant dating, in the upper, Caupulan strata: C14 (ca. 20,000) and U (ca. 20,000).

We’re obviously dealing with two very different strata, separated by hundreds of thousands of millennia.

The most obvious conclusion is the range of tested samples at Hueyatlaco is beyond the resolution of C14 dating.. U dating gives us 250,000B.P., plus, dates. U dating samples (bone, etc...) recovered in the strata, where C14 dating is possible, give dates concordant with the C14 dates found in the same strata (ca. 20,000).

_____________________________________________________________________

Charlie:

> I think Chris Hardaker's statement hits the nail on the head,
>and should be remembered by all true scientists working in
>archeologically related fields:
>
>"We don't know enough yet to know what is impossible and what
>is not. We are still students of our ancestors."

_______________________________________________________________________
Paul:

This a rare weird statement for you to use since you are the
person engaging in the “knowledge filtering” by dismissing the
validity out of hand of radiocarbon, ERS, and any other dates
or data, apparently because you regard them as being as
“impossible”.

Best regards,

Paul H.

______________________________________________________________________________________________


Charlie:

As discussed above, Gonzales’ dates for Caulapan are probably valid, and I’ve never discounted the validity of the C14 dating by Gonzales, et. al, at Caulapan. Her dating actually confirms what many seasoned veterans have deduced (Waters, Malde, Fryxell, Naeser, Steen-McIntyre, Sabo, Farley, Donelick, Vanlandingham, etc...) Again, I think your making the mistake of grouping the Barranca Caulapan strata with the Hueyatlaco and El Horno strata. Even Gonzales’ own concordant U and C14 dating confirms these strata are much younger than the lower, artifact containing, strata, where C14 dating is unproductive and U dating produces results in the 250k, plus, range. Then, you have the undisputed, concordant, diatom dating by Dr. Vanlandingham, and Mike Waters 1.1 million B.P. Ar/Ar dating.

Cheers,

Charlie Hatchett

www.preclovis.com

Charlie, you know more about this than I, but there didn't seem to be any axe to grind in what Paul had to say. It isn't that you or the others are "wrong." It just seems that Paul is asking for a higher standard of proof. He says hasn't seen the information that are citing. I am sure he doesn't want to look like a fool in the eyes of other scientist by commenting on something his hasn't seen.

You, however, seem to accuse him of attacking the reputations of other scientists as well as having ulterior motives for
his position.

That is how your exchange looked to me. I know there is probably more to it.

Hey Stan.

You have a valid point, and I believe I addressed it in the post above. I just assumed a geologist working in academia for 17 + years would have been on top of this pivotal research.

But, you no what assuming does....

Very enlightening discussion Charlie.

Very enlightening discussion Charlie.

Yeah, it's interesting to get the take of those that buy into Gonzales' intepretations of Vasequillo. Though I don't agree with all of Gonzales' interpretations, I've learned quite a bit about different data that's out there.

Charlie, these findings at Hueyatlaco have been pretty exciting. I love new discoveries, and pushing back the curtain of time is especially sexy (for lack of a better word).

As open-minded as I am, however, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the implications of these studies. It's caused me to do much more thinking than I care to do.

With the action at the Topper site, I can only hope we're all here a year from now, when something more definitive might be available.

Charlie, these findings at Hueyatlaco have been pretty exciting. I love new discoveries, and pushing back the curtain of time is especially sexy (for lack of a better word).

As open-minded as I am, however, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the implications of these studies. It's caused me to do much more thinking than I care to do. Laughing

With the action at the Topper site, I can only hope we're all here a year from now, when something more definitive might be available.

Right. Topper should be coming out with some updates soon.

http://www.originsnet.org/nenatoolsfems ... rekram.htm

A detailed analysis of this object was conducted by Alexander Marshack. [Marshack, A. (1997). The Berekhat Ram figurine: a late Acheulian carving from the Middle East. Antiquity 71:327-337]. Marshack observes that the artifact is the result of human workmanship; slight modifications accentuated a resemblance in natural form.

Charlie, this is a little off topic but I'd like your opinion. This is the Berekhat Ram figurine. It was found on the Golan Hieghts in Israel and is dated to 230kbp through analysis of an overlying ash layer.

There is argument about H. Erectus being capable of this kind of art. Neandertal is not known to be in the middle east at this time but the figurine bears resemblance to the other "venus" figurine found in Europe dating to around 30,000 BC I think.

There is no argument about the fact that a sharp stone was used to carve the figure in some way. So, do you have an opinion or any knowledge about why the dating of this artifact from Israel is so readily accepted due to dating the ash and Hueyatlaco is not?

That's a very interesting link, Beagle.

There is no argument about the fact that a sharp stone was used to carve the figure in some way. So, do you have an opinion or any knowledge about why the dating of this artifact from Israel is so readily accepted due to dating the ash and Hueyatlaco is not?

Hi Beag.

I suspect it has to do with theory versus observation driving the science.

Gosh, any place in North America, that piece from Isreal would be written off as a geofact. But then you have no brainer artifacts underlying a firm layer of ash, dated, concordantly by several researchers, but the mainstream holds to the notion that they couldn't be that old...not in North America...

Here is a flaked item that was found at Lake Manix, California, near Calico. The pebble layer is 13.7 m (45 ft) below a volcanic ash (tephra) geochemically correlated to the 185,000 +/- 15,000 b.p. However because this is in North America, the find cannot be valid!

http://calicodig.com/node/view/139

Cognito wrote: However because this is in North America, the find cannot be valid!

I'm starting to understand what you lot mean by the "club". That was a great link from Beagle, plus there's been something similar around here recently (can't remember - Manystones? AD?) - another vague looking object which was proven to have been worked. Surely, out of all the rock specialists in the world there must be some who would be sympathetic to the preclovis cause? Okay, maybe not sypathetic. Impartial would be preferable, but what do these people have to lose?
Yeah. I already know the answer to that. It was a rhetorical question, but nevertheless, if Cognito's quote above is a true summary of the general attitude of this "club" then it seems very much contrary to the aims of science in general.

Right. Topper should be coming out with some updates soon.[/quote by Charles Hatchett.

Hey Charles, I set in on the symposium discussing the Topper site at S.E.A.C. last week. MOST FASCINATING! And I couldn't help but to think about your site and it's comparison. You might take note and study this site a bit more. What I got out of it, in the short time I had, was that that the Topper site was largely a flint extraction/debris site. The settlement was more atop the ridge, up slope. Going downslope this good grade of flint/chert was exposed. This is where they where extracting the lithic material, doing a rough shaping of preforms before exporting the material back up slope. Could your site be similiar? Have you looked upslope for any cultural material, or possible nice rises that are seem upslope? You certainly appear to have a heavy lithic scatter of early preforms and shaping. Most of your lithic material is rather large isn't it?
Oh yea, and there is suppose to be an archaeological conference coming to Austin here real soon. Is that the Southwestern Archaeolgical or Anthropological Conference? I'll try to find the date and time. You'll meet everybody you need to know at that conference quite posssibly. State, University and Park Service people, along with a lot of Graduate students who would take note of this site if that is what you want.