Archaeologica.org

Could have is the weakest of all possible protests.

My grandmother could have assassinated President Kennedy.

And because no one can prove a negative (like that she did not), no resolution is possible on that basis.

Could have is the weakest of all possible protests.

True enough. However, if you are claiming the oldest site in the Americas (at that time), then proof needs to be solid and convincing. Believe me, nobody on site at Calico is certain just how old the alluvial fan is at this point. Until the actual artifacts are dated with TL, any skeptical archaeologist will have an argument about the site's geology.

Fortunately, dating will resolve the geology issue since the group knows exactly when and where each item was retrieved in the dig pits. The last five years plus have been spent cataloging everything and throwing away the junk, leaving many hundreds of classic tools and a few thousand interesting maybes.

It then necessarily accomodates a series of regressions and progressions in the same line of what now isn't development toward an outcome.

"Evolution" that happens in a Yo-Yo trajectory is pretty hard to reconcile with the idea of gradual, (punctuated), incremental advance from simple to complex -- with Evolution at all. It's more like oscilation around a mean.

African Iron Artifacts
http://newapocalypse.altervista.org/blo ... -ottosdal/

(Google translation of the first paragraph) : "The miners of the Wonderstone Silver Mine in South Africa, have brought to light several metallic-looking spheres whose existence raises some interesting questions. Until now, it has been extracted about 200, from steel blue with a reddish cast, within the metal fibers are present in white color. Their dimensions are around seven inches diameter and seem to be formed from an alloy of nickel and steel, mainly a meteorica.Quello is most surprising, is the fact that, although the three parallel lines etched on the equator of a these balls make you feel like an artificial origin, the geological stratum in which it was made the find was dated to almost three billion years ago."

uniface wrote:

It then necessarily accomodates a series of regressions and progressions in the same line of what now isn't development toward an outcome.

"Evolution" that happens in a Yo-Yo trajectory is pretty hard to reconcile with the idea of gradual, (punctuated), incremental advance from simple to complex -- with Evolution at all. It's more like oscilation around a mean. :(

African Iron Artifacts
http://newapocalypse.altervista.org/blo ... -ottosdal/

(Google translation of the first paragraph) : "The miners of the Wonderstone Silver Mine in South Africa, have brought to light several metallic-looking spheres whose existence raises some interesting questions. Until now, it has been extracted about 200, from steel blue with a reddish cast, within the metal fibers are present in white color. Their dimensions are around seven inches diameter and seem to be formed from an alloy of nickel and steel, mainly a meteorica.Quello is most surprising, is the fact that, although the three parallel lines etched on the equator of a these balls make you feel like an artificial origin, the geological stratum in which it was made the find was dated to almost three billion years ago."

Good heavens. Not the Klerksdorp/Ottosdal spheres again.

http://ncse.com/rncse/28/1/mysterious-s ... uth-africa

Even "Wiki" presents this matter with a modicum of dignity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere

.

And refreshing objectivity.

For once.

IOW, nobody really knows.

The observation that preceded the link, I think, stands unaffected.

uniface wrote:And refreshing objectivity.

For once.

IOW, nobody really knows.

The observation that preceded the link, I think, stands unaffected.

My apologies for not fully understanding your response.

As to the "spheres", these have been clearly demonstrated to be of natural origin.

As to your personal observation: Were such postulated sites as Calico or Hueyatlaco to be eventually confirmed, such confirmations would not necessarily indicate "yo-yo" evolution.

In more specific regards to Calico and Hueyatlaco: Both of these postulated site areas (as often discussed) "suffer" from debatable taphonomy/geomorphology and the demonstrated potential for allochthonous deposition. The essentially global paradigm shifts of the nature proposed by some advocates of these postulated sites will likely need to be supported by well defined sites with more sound provenience before a substantial argument can be made.

.

Hi Nacon

You understood my response OK -- I just cited a bad example without checking further into it.

As to your personal observation: Were such postulated sites as Calico or Hueyatlaco to be eventually confirmed, such confirmations would not necessarily indicate "yo-yo" evolution.

This is one I don't understand.

The entire "evolutionary" picture posits that those-who-went-on-two-legs went from crude hand axes @ when ? 800K ? to Levallois making things occasionally recognisable as tools by non-specialists @ 80 K (?) to HSS, whose tools actually look like tools. A long, slow climb from apedom to the human realm.

Look at the quality of workmanship & design of those and the geological dates of the strata they came out of. They knock the current scheme of progress into a cocked hat.

Yeah, I understand that the archies still want all kinds of stratigraphic niceness that is -- in the face of all other conclusions from all other disciplines involved -- dotting the "I"s & crossing the "T"s. If my wheaties got yiddled in like theirs is, I'd probably want that too.

But IMO, all things in the sublunary realm being subject to accident & imperfection as they are, there will always be some objection possible to nearly any picture like that. But for all practical purposes (about the only ones I can manage), if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck and lays duck eggs, insisting on duck DNA for analysis before concluding (and all conclusions are provisional anyway -- Clovis wasn't first after all) that it probably is what it gives every other appearance of being is less of a leap of faith than it is portrayed as.

uniface wrote:Hi Nacon

You understood my response OK -- I just cited a bad example without checking further into it. :?

As to your personal observation: Were such postulated sites as Calico or Hueyatlaco to be eventually confirmed, such confirmations would not necessarily indicate "yo-yo" evolution.

This is one I don't understand.

The entire "evolutionary" picture posits that those-who-went-on-two-legs went from crude hand axes @ when ? 800K ? to Levallois making things occasionally recognisable as tools by non-specialists @ 80 K (?) to HSS, whose tools actually look like tools. A long, slow climb from apedom to the human realm.

Look at the quality of workmanship & design of those and the geological dates of the strata they came out of. They knock the current scheme of progress into a cocked hat.

Yeah, I understand that the archies still want all kinds of stratigraphic niceness that is -- in the face of all other conclusions from all other disciplines involved -- dotting the "I"s & crossing the "T"s. If my wheaties got yiddled in like theirs is, I'd probably want that too.

But IMO, all things in the sublunary realm being subject to accident & imperfection as they are, there will always be some objection possible to nearly any picture like that. But for all practical purposes (about the only ones I can manage), if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck and lays duck eggs, insisting on duck DNA for analysis before concluding (and all conclusions are provisional anyway -- Clovis wasn't first after all) that it probably is what it gives every other appearance of being is less of a leap of faith than it is portrayed as.

Hi Uniface,

This is not likely to be an adequate format for extensive discussions regarding lithic technology. However, a basic timeline may be of assistance. The following is material that you are probably quite familiar with and is presented merely as a matter of insuring that we are both working within the same temporal framework(s). Also, please bear in mind that the following categorizations are based upon Old World parameters. In addition, also please keep in mind that these categorizations are broad and there are a number of sub-divisions and regional classifications.

Oldowan: Circa 2.6-2.5 mya (Semau et. al. 1997, 2003). Earliest accepted lithic technology. While essentially a spall/flake technology, de la Torre (2004) does note the presence of some bifacially modified specimens from Omo 123 and Omo 57. These sites are dated to circa 2.34 mya. There is debate over the originators of this technology, with both robust Australopithecines (such as A. garhi) and early Homo (H.habilis) being suggested.

Acheulean: Circa 1.75 mya - 30-35 kya. This is the technology that you are most likely associating with the bifacial "hand axes". Earlier stages associated with H. erectus. Varying interpretations. Note that these can be quite sophisticated from a reduction perspective.

Mousterian: Circa 300 kya. Associated with Neandertal and archaic H. sapiens. While the Levallois technique (a debate unto itself) is often associated with the Mousterian, it actually appears earlier (Acheulean, and, based upon some research, is suggested during the Oldowan).

Omo 1: 196 kya. Earliest documented anatomically modern H.sapiens.

H.s.s.: Another topic of ongoing evaluation. Current indications support the cognitive shift occurring circa 50-70 kya. However, recent research has the potential to push this date back somewhat.

Which, brings us to the lithic specimens of Hueyatlaco. While the above information would not necessarily preclude the early dates based upon purely technological capabilities, there are a number of other issues including population dispersement, procurement strategies, and artifact typologies. For example, the contracting-base lanceolate biface reportedly recovered from Unit E (Szabo et.al.) is consistent with North American Paleo traditions, while the somewhat asymmetrical stemmed biface recovered from Unit C (superimposed above Unit E) would be arguably more consistent with Archaic traditions.

Enough for the moment. Hope that the above is of assistance.

Edit: Addition.

Thank You. It is.

I've much less familiarity with the people's work from the eastern side of the pond than I wish I had. But within the limits of available time and $$, I do what I can while keeping up with developments on this end. Thus, you probably see specific details in what I see as a sweeping generalisation. Well and good.

That acknowledged, kindly review the first artifact pictured at
http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/AFW ... -artifacts
captioned

This small, finely-worked, symmetrical, black chert graver has been created by the sequential removal of dozens of flakes in a patterned manner. The ventral side is a smooth flake bulb. Found in cemented reddish-tan sands at a depth of nearly 4 m in the Lower Yermo Formation. There is no possibility that this object could be a geofact produced by natural geologic processes. Coated with powdered aluminum.

The first thing you're looking at here is pressure flaking. And carried out to realise a self-evidently planned, purposeful design. You (I) would expect to see this in the work of HSS. But while edge modification of a flake after removal shows up in Mousterian, no example of it I've been fortunate enough to see illustrated comes anywhere near approaching the symmetry and regularity of the removals on this one -- or the small size and uniformity of them.

On the evolutionary scale in place, this artifact announces, "I was made by people with HSS cognitive and motor skills. (Pressure flaking carried out via a a prepared antler or bone sliver NBB ! A tool made using a prepared tool)

Should it turn out that it does, in fact, come from a period of time far earlier than the archies acknowledge as possible within their scheme, then (and/or)

1) HSS was here far, far earlier than currently imagined, (albeit was an elusive bugger)

2) HSS hadn't appeared yet, but someone else with the ability to do this sort of thing had

3) The record -- with artifacts like this included -- is right enough, and demonstrates that between the time this piece was made and the appearance of HSS, human evolution (or evolution toward people with our contemporary abilities) collapsed (from whatever cause) and started over from scratch.

Whatever way things went, the idea of progress (however erratic, punctuated an random) (at least where hominins are concerned) -- of "evolution" from Australopithecus to HSS -- is no longer either as tidy or as certain as it seemed. What it now looks like is, indeed, oscilation.

Now what have I overlooked or misconstrued ?

uniface wrote:Thank You. It is.

I've much less familiarity with the people's work from the eastern side of the pond than I wish I had. But within the limits of available time and $$, I do what I can while keeping up with developments on this end. Thus, you probably see specific details in what I see as a sweeping generalisation. Well and good.

That acknowledged, kindly review the first artifact pictured at
http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/AFW ... -artifacts
captioned

This small, finely-worked, symmetrical, black chert graver has been created by the sequential removal of dozens of flakes in a patterned manner. The ventral side is a smooth flake bulb. Found in cemented reddish-tan sands at a depth of nearly 4 m in the Lower Yermo Formation. There is no possibility that this object could be a geofact produced by natural geologic processes. Coated with powdered aluminum.

The first thing you're looking at here is pressure flaking. And carried out to realise a self-evidently planned, purposeful design. You (I) would expect to see this in the work of HSS. But while edge modification of a flake after removal shows up in Mousterian, no example of it I've been fortunate enough to see illustrated comes anywhere near approaching the symmetry and regularity of the removals on this one -- or the small size and uniformity of them.

On the evolutionary scale in place, this artifact announces, "I was made by people with HSS cognitive and motor skills. (Pressure flaking carried out via a a prepared antler or bone sliver NBB ! A tool made using a prepared tool)

Should it turn out that it does, in fact, come from a period of time far earlier than the archies acknowledge as possible within their scheme, then (and/or)

1) HSS was here far, far earlier than currently imagined, (albeit was an elusive bugger)

2) HSS hadn't appeared yet, but someone else with the ability to do this sort of thing had

3) The record -- with artifacts like this included -- is right enough, and demonstrates that between the time this piece was made and the appearance of HSS, human evolution (or evolution toward people with our contemporary abilities) collapsed (from whatever cause) and started over from scratch.

Whatever way things went, the idea of progress (however erratic, punctuated an random) (at least where hominins are concerned) -- of "evolution" from Australopithecus to HSS -- is no longer either as tidy or as certain as it seemed. What it now looks like is, indeed, oscilation.

Now what have I overlooked or misconstrued ?

Hi Uniface. My apologies for the slow reply, but am in the process of travel/field research and thus away from my primary files (in addition to having very limited time). As you express a genuine interest in the topic, it would my wish to be able to present you with somewhat thorough information. Thus, will defer a more comprehensive response until my return.

As a quick note or two: The modified tertiary flake from the Calico "site" (graver/burin) is not a particularly unusual form. Examples of this tool type appear from at least the earliest Aurignacian onward (Burkitt 1988:104). This tool type is rather common amongst North American Paleo/Archaic/Woodland lithic assemblages.

.

It seems that every time I think I'm being clear, it turns out that I'm not.

In this case, you've pointed out that such tools date, in North America, from the Paleo era on. And in Europe,

from at least the earliest Aurignacian

.

Rather than rely on memory (and trusting Wiki -- in this case), the Aurignacian era

lasted broadly within the period from ca. 45,000 to 35,000 years ago . . . 47,000 and 41,000 years ago using the most recent calibration of the radiocarbon timescale.

Although finds of human skeletal remains in direct association with Early Aurignacian technologies are scarce in Europe, the few available are also probably modern human.

In short, both of the earliest peoples to make and use such tools were, beyond argument, HSS. Modern humans.

The point I keep returning to is that the Calico example came from a stratum dating from far, far earlier than the acknowledged date when HSS appeared. How much earlier is archaeologically moot but, from all appearances, geologically established as "impossible" within the current evolutionary schema.

IOW, either/and/or :

1) HSS was here far, far earlier than currently imagined, (albeit was an elusive bugger)

2) HSS hadn't appeared yet, but someone else with the ability to do this sort of thing had

3) The record -- with artifacts like this included -- is right enough, and demonstrates that between the time this piece was made and the appearance of HSS, human evolution (or evolution toward people with our contemporary abilities) collapsed (from whatever cause) and started over from scratch.

In consequence of which, "evolution" -- at a minimum -- appears to be oscilating around a mean rather than progressing.

I don't think it's possible for me to articulate this any more clearly.

uniface wrote:It seems that every time I think I'm being clear, it turns out that I'm not.

In this case, you've pointed out that such tools date, in North America, from the Paleo era on. And in Europe,

from at least the earliest Aurignacian

.

Rather than rely on memory (and trusting Wiki -- in this case), the Aurignacian era

lasted broadly within the period from ca. 45,000 to 35,000 years ago . . . 47,000 and 41,000 years ago using the most recent calibration of the radiocarbon timescale.

Although finds of human skeletal remains in direct association with Early Aurignacian technologies are scarce in Europe, the few available are also probably modern human.

In short, both of the earliest peoples to make and use such tools were, beyond argument, HSS. Modern humans.

The point I keep returning to is that the Calico example came from a stratum dating from far, far earlier than the acknowledged date when HSS appeared. How much earlier is archaeologically moot but, from all appearances, geologically established as "impossible" within the current evolutionary schema.

IOW, either/and/or :

1) HSS was here far, far earlier than currently imagined, (albeit was an elusive bugger)

2) HSS hadn't appeared yet, but someone else with the ability to do this sort of thing had

3) The record -- with artifacts like this included -- is right enough, and demonstrates that between the time this piece was made and the appearance of HSS, human evolution (or evolution toward people with our contemporary abilities) collapsed (from whatever cause) and started over from scratch.

In consequence of which, "evolution" -- at a minimum -- appears to be oscilating around a mean rather than progressing.

I don't think it's possible for me to articulate this any more clearly.

Am back at home base for the day, but only have a few moments.

To continue: Yes, your basic position is well understood. However, as you are aware, there are notable problems with some of the interpretations of Calico and Hueyatlaco. To date, it has been my intention to slowly add elements related to the interpretation of these sites. To this point, these elements have taken two forms.

The first would be the hypothetical technological aspect. You have previously stated that the retouched tertiary flake recovered from Calico was ...carried out to realize a self-evident, planned, purposeful design (Uniface 7-15-13) and thus infer these capabilities to be restricted to H.s.s. One must, however, bear in mind such factors as:

First documented use of fire by the lineage: 1 mya (H. erectus)
Earliest documentation of stone-tipped spears: ~ 500 kya (H. heidelbergensis)
Earliest documented continuous control of fire: ~ 400 kya (H. neanderthalensis)
Earliest evidence of planned equid ambush: ~ 350 kya (H. heidelbergensis)
Earliest documentation of prepared adhesives: ~ 80 kya (H. neanderthalensis)
Possible association of H. neanderthalensis with the Chatelperronian industry.
Etc. etc.

All of the above are reflective of various degrees of cognitive and motor skills that one may mistakenly presume to be strictly reflective of H.s.s.

The second would be timeline. While the capabilities for the production of the graver/burin were arguably within the potential spectrum of H.n. and archaic H.s., there are differences in the toolkits of these species as opposed to H.s.s. This can be interpreted in numerous manners based upon lifeways and procurement strategies/needs.

So we can agree that, based upon the tool morphology of specimens recovered from secure proveniences, the graver/burin is consistent with H.s.s.

Thus the problems with the interpretation of the Calico site. The emergence of H.s.s. from Africa is currently placed at ~ 50-70 kya. The presence of H.n. has been documented no further east than western Asia. An earlier emergence of H.s. may have (possibly) reached as far as the near Middle East.

Two of the factors to be considered are the nature of the reworked alluvial fan and the presence of the Manix Lake Industry. The Rock Wren biface is also consistent with (and has been dated to) the early Holocene. The following may be of interest. Note that this paper by Bamforth and Dorn is a bit dated and has been subject to some revision:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/87v6x9ph#page-1

And an abstract:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/m ... 4/art00006

The upcoming POC will include a more current presentation on the Calico situation.

Can provide further amplification upon my return to base.

Edit: Addition.

Thank you for the links and comments.

Paper : an entire article about artifacts and not a single one illustrated. Normal.