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

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:16 pm

Geologists have nothing to lose. They haven't written their dissertations stating that there are no hand axes in North America. That's why Schoch pissed off the Egyptological community so much with his revised dates for the sphinx. He is looking to date the rock that the artifact was made from rather than the artifact itself. Subtle difference. When the Zahi Hawasses of the world screamed that "there was no civilization that could have built it back then" Schoch's response was "that's not my problem. I'm telling you WHEN it was built....you figure out WHO built it."

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:35 pm

"That's not my problem. I'm telling you WHEN it was built....you figure out WHO built it."

That is so correct. Geologists date things and don't worry about who or what made them. If their dating procedure is sound, they really don't give a crap what people write or say. However, archaeologists are always on the lookout for a blindside from the people who determine whether they eat or not. All in all, a nasty situation.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:49 pm

I maintain that is because archaeology is a less exact (or 'soft') science as opposed to stuff like geology, physics, biology, etc which are 'hard.'

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:40 pm

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

Roberto.

Good to hear from you...and you come bearing tasty tidbits.

For not seeing this site, and for you to come to the conclusion you have, is pretty cool. I think the lower levels were used for their quarrying, butchering, smelting (

) and other industrial type activities you probably didn't want around your camp.

The surface archaic middens (huge!!!) are two terraces up from the creekbed (Mike and Mike B in the following images):

I assume this was always the place to live throughout the ages...about as close as you can set up a permanant camp to the creek, without getting it washed away once a year, or so...this baby can really rage...coming out of the Hill Country...with 9-10" rains in 24 hours...

There are quite a few large pieces found eroding from the alluvial gravels,
capping the limestone creekbed, at the limestone's lowest elevation:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20170.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20171.jpg

____________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20178.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20179.jpg

__________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2023.jpg

__________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2022.jpg

________________________________________________________________

Then, I have several tons more (literally) of large cores, retrieved from the lowest strata, stacked around my trees...

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.

Heck yea!! Sure, if you have the info handy, that would be great. I've been trying for about 16 months to get a team of pros interested enough to formally excavate... It's taken a bit, but some interest appears to be growing.

Hey Charles, I set in on the symposium discussing the Topper site at S.E.A.C. last week. MOST FASCINATING!

I try to watch Topper as close as I can. I see, as apparently you do, alot of similarities:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw233.jpg

When I first saw this core retrieved from Topper, I started paying very close attention. The iron staining and flaking styles are identical to here. The stone is different, though...which would be expected.

Again, good to hear from you Bro.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:11 pm

I maintain that is because archaeology is a less exact (or 'soft') science as opposed to stuff like geology, physics, biology, etc which are 'hard.'

Agreed. Archeology is just an offshoot of Anthropology. More students these days, that are serious about getting gigs, are getting a balanced dose of each- Geoarcheology...still, pure geologists, from what I've encountered, tend to be much more objective...hard science types.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:17 pm

That is so correct. Geologists date things and don't worry about who or what made them. If their dating procedure is sound, they really don't give a crap what people write or say. However, archaeologists are always on the lookout for a blindside from the people who determine whether they eat or not. All in all, a nasty situation.

Well, look at Bischoff, who did the U/Th (200,000 B.P./ Min) dating in the lower units of the Calico site. He did his science, announced his dates, and nobody in his field blinked. Bischoff is very, very highly regarded in the Geology field...on the cutting edge. And, in the Calico Site's case, he was highly confident of his dates, whereas, at my site, he had low confidence in the dates. He shoots straight. My kinda guy.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:18 pm

Schoch's response was "that's not my problem. I'm telling you WHEN it was built....you figure out WHO built it."

I love it!!!

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:53 am

Minimalist wrote:I maintain that is because archaeology is a less exact (or 'soft') science as opposed to stuff like geology, physics, biology, etc which are 'hard.'

Mind you, said disciplines can involve mathematics which is kind of hard to argue against. If somehow there were no sums involved I'm sure they'd be just as soft. We need either (a) time machines or (b) the archaeological equivalent of equations on a blackboard.
Having said that, maths or not, superstring theory still sounds fishy to me, although I'm not as bad as my friend Andy who refuses to accept the big bang over steady state. I think he's just being contrary, personally.
Sorry. I digress.
Please continue.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Sorry. I digress.

It has been known to happen around here.

Don't worry about it.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:16 pm

Geologists can give you a point of potential but not who, how, or why most of the time. How did the Rocky Mtns. form? What Geological event created the Andes 7mil yrs. ago? What event happened to make the flint and distribute it? Geologists are having a tuff time right now!

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:28 pm

Geologists can give you a point of potential but not who, how, or why most of the time. How did the Rocky Mtns. form? What Geological event created the Andes 7mil yrs. ago? What event happened to make the flint and distribute it? Geologists are having a tuff time right now!

I think geologists can usually explain the when, how and why...but obviously not the who involved with the particular geologic formation...

The Rocky Mountains took shape during a period of intense plate tectonic activity that formed much of the rugged landscape of the western United States.Three major mountain-building episodes reshaped the west from about 170 to 40 million years ago (Jurassic to Cenozoic Periods). The last mountain building event, the Laramide orogeny, (about 70-40 million years ago) the last of the three episodes, is responsible for raising the Rocky Mountains...

This sketch shows the plate tectonic setting during the growth of the Rocky Mountains (Laramide orogeny). The angle of the subducting plate is significantly flatter, moving the focus of melting and mountain building much farther inland than is normally expected.

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/pro ... kymtn.html

The formation of the Andes extends into the Paleozoic Era, when terrane accretion was the dominant process. It was during the Cretaceous Period that the Andes began to take their present form, by the uplifting, faulting and folding of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the ancient cratons to the east.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo52 ... intro.html

Roberto · Post by **Roberto** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:29 am

http://www.saa.org/
http://www.saa.org/meetings/hotel.html

Senior Charlie,
This will be right on your door step. Need to be getting your shit
together for this up coming event.
2007 S.A.A. (72nd) Annual Meeting
April 25-29, 2007

And I believe I will try to make that meeting myself. Hopefully I might be able to talk that friend my mine, with the ground penetrating radar to come at the same time where we can meet you and visit your site. I'll pass this
info to him this week and see if he's up to it, and can make the trip during
this time frame.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:20 am

Here's an interesting comment on the Ma'at forum, by Chris Hardaker:

Hi. I apologize for adding this kind of late but I just got hooked up again and had a chance to read the posts about Valsequillo dating. One thing Dr. Charles Naeser told me about the U Series dates by Szabo was that, though it was an experimental technique at the time (much like Farley's technique is regarded currently), the certainty factor seems to have been a lot different from the way C14 dates are generally regarded. In the latter, the plus-minus is given equal weight so that we have a middle range given for the date and its co-equal extremes.

Apparently, not so for U Series. Naeser told me that U Series has a 96% certainty for its minus end; that it was for the plus end of the date that there were still questions. In other words a 250k date with +/-50k would provide a 96% certainty that the date is NOT YOUNGER THAN 200k. Whether or not is was older than 300k was still a problem.

Chris

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,42 ... msg-430027

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:29 am

http://www.saa.org/
http://www.saa.org/meetings/hotel.html

Senior Charlie,
This will be right on your door step. Need to be getting your shit
together for this up coming event.
2007 S.A.A. (72nd) Annual Meeting
April 25-29, 2007

And I believe I will try to make that meeting myself. Hopefully I might be able to talk that friend my mine, with the ground penetrating radar to come at the same time where we can meet you and visit your site. I'll pass this
info to him this week and see if he's up to it, and can make the trip during
this time frame.

Excellente, Roberto!!

I did note on the info page, that it's too late for submissions. I still plan on going. The GPR sounds very interesting, indeed. We often tease each other here: "If we just had underground vision, we could make a lot faster progress". Then you come along, out of nowhere...very cool!! I hope we can pull it off!!

Thanks, Bro.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:59 am

In other words a 250k date with +/-50k would provide a 96% certainty that the date is NOT YOUNGER THAN 200k.

You aren't going to quibble about a mere 50,000 years, are you?