Calico Dig

[Minimalist]

"This new date confirms earlier estimates that humans were in the Manix Basin, near the base of the Calico Mountains, as early as 125,000 to 200,000 years ago," Budinger explained.

Hmmm.....what kind of 'humans?'

[Charlie Hatchett]

Who knows, Min?


"Geofacts" from Calico:

Artifacts or Geofacts?

Over 12,000 possible stone implements have been found at Calico. Due to their shape and size, it has been hypothesized by many archaeologists that these objects are artifacts, that is, that they were shaped by human actions. If confirmed, dates for these objects would indicate human presence at Calico concordant with human presence at Topper (50,000 RCYBP- 200,000 B.P.uranium series). These dates are based on the age of the sediments containing the stones, which were most recently dated by thermoluminescence at 135,000 years BP[2], and by uranium/thorium analysis at 200,000 years BP [3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Ear ... eofacts.3F

[stan]

I note the statement that the populations at Topper and Calico might have been "concordant." That must have a specialized meaning in archaeo-speak. But there is a 150ky gap between the two, as well as a 3000 mile distance.

I take it to mean that human habitation at Calico is confirmed by the earlier habitation at Calico. but that seems questionable.

Maybe the peopleing of the Americas can be compared to the several waves of migration to Britain, which seem to go back to 700k years ago. Maybe another way to say this is that the current study being undertaken in Britain may shed some light on the american question.

[Beagle]

Maybe the peopleing of the Americas can be compared to the several waves of migration to Britain,

I'm not sure that works Stan. During glacial maximums all of Britain was uninhabitable. All fauna had to leave or perish.

That's never been the case in the Americas. Survival simply meant moving a little south.

[stan]

I see your point, but maybe it just means that climate may have determined the timing of various waves of migration.

And what about the motivation to migrate? They kept going back to Britain, or maybe it was different cultural groups at different times..

[Beagle]

And what about the motivation to migrate?

That's food for discussion right there. I can think of many noble reasons for man to keep going over that next hill - but I think that early man was no better than us when it came to over utilization of resources.

He probably harvested flora, fauna, firewood, potable water, etc. 'till little was left. That's just my guess. I'm sure there were noble reasons.

[Minimalist]

Don't forget the less noble reasons. Theft or fear.

[Beagle]

No question about less noble reasons.

However.....I've seen a lot of very intellectual discussions about this sort of thing (mans' destiny, yada yada), but I have to remember that all animals and plants have migrated to every corner of the planet - restrained only by their physical properties.

So it may not require brains.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I note the statement that the populations at Topper and Calico might have been "concordant." That must have a specialized meaning in archaeo-speak. But there is a 150ky gap between the two, as well as a 3000 mile distance.

I take it to mean that human habitation at Calico is confirmed by the earlier habitation at Calico. but that seems questionable.

Maybe the peopleing of the Americas can be compared to the several waves of migration to Britain, which seem to go back to 700k years ago. Maybe another way to say this is that the current study being undertaken in Britain may shed some light on the american question.

Well, remember, the announced Topper's dates are minimal dates:

http://allendale-expedition.net/pressre ... 117pr.html



Note, the artifacts dated at a minimum of 50,000 B.P., were found below an Ice Age riverbed, which deposited heavy amounts of carbonate. This is usually indicative of a prolonged dry spell...perhaps The Sangaminian Interglacial, prior to the Wisconsin glacial advance.

No long range dating results have been released...yet.

[stan]

Charlie, I just don't understand the justification or logic for saying they are
"minimally" 50k years old. How can you say they are older? Seems like cheating. Where does the range come from? BTW< thanks for the great photo.

[Minimalist]

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request ... &page=0313



Here's one way to get a "range."

These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP).

Then there is this....

For over a century North American archaeologists repeatedly have ignored the numerous detailed reports of thegreat antiquity of the Valsequillo artifacts in the Puebla Region of Mexico. Archeologists who insist on maintaining that humanity first arrived in North America during the Late Wisconsinan (i.e., <22,000 y BP) or Postglacial times are going to find it more difficult, if not impossible, to try to discredit the rapidly growing body of evidence suppliedby diatom studies and by various investigations which have provided sophisticated and sustained lithostratigraphic,biostratigraphic, paleoecologic, etc. data from the Valsequillo Region, all of which agree with a Pre-Wisconsinan(>80,000 y BP) age for the Valsequillo artifacts. Four diatomaceous samples from deposits associated directly with
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 31
31the Dorenberg Skull (an ancient human) and other artifacts from the Valsequillo Region yielded 30 extinct and 143extant taxa. A Late Glacial or Postglacial age for these four diatom bearing samples is precluded by the presence ofNavicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which evidently are known only from the Sangamonian (or its =) and by the presence of 13 diatoms which apparently have known, long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions beforethe end of the Sangamonian. The possibility of redeposition (which archaeologists are so fond of invokingwhenever the ages of artifacts contradict their favored ideas) in these Valsequillo samples is precluded, because diatom paleoecology indicates deposition under conditions of low energy water (lacustrine), instead of high energywater (fluviatile) or air (aeolian) which are required for redeposition.

Underlining added.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:7KV ... =clnk&cd=2

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie, I just don't understand the justification or logic for saying they are"minimally" 50k years old. How can you say they are older? Seems like cheating. Where does the range come from? BTW< thanks for the great photo.

With C14 Dating, when you get around 40,000 B.P., your extending the method pretty close to it's limit. 50,000 B.P. plus dates are notoriously underestimated , because there's very little detectable carbon activity left in the sample.

“The dates could actually be older,” Goodyear says. “Fifty-thousand should be a minimum age since there may be little detectable activity left.”

http://allendale-expedition.net/pressre ... 117pr.html

Note, that the C14 dates for the hypothesized footprints in the Valsequillo Xalnene Tuff were ca. 40,000 B.P., whereas long range methods, such as Ar/Ar, brought in a 1.3 million B.P. date.

Alleged 40,000-year-old human footprints in Mexico much, much older than thought

...Renne determined the new date using the argon/argon dating technique, which reliably dates rock as young as 2,000 years or as old as 4 billion years. The British-led researchers, however, relied mainly on carbon-14 dates of overlying sediments. Carbon-14 cannot reliably date materials older than about 50,000 years...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... 0_fp.shtml

These guys usually play their cards pretty close to their chest until their ready to release their findings. So Al may have had some long range dating analyses performed (I would guess so), but just hasn't released the dates. Guess time will tell...




Yeah, the strat shot of Topper is a nice shot. It's on Al Goodyear's main site:

http://allendale-expedition.net/pressre ... 117pr.html

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's one way to get a "range."

Wouldn't doubt if Al's got someone performing diatom analyses, plus several other long range dating methods, on the Pleistocene terrace sediments, and those immediately overlying the deposit.

[Beagle]

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request ... &page=0313



Here's one way to get a "range."

These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP).

Then there is this....

For over a century North American archaeologists repeatedly have ignored the numerous detailed reports of thegreat antiquity of the Valsequillo artifacts in the Puebla Region of Mexico. Archeologists who insist on maintaining that humanity first arrived in North America during the Late Wisconsinan (i.e., <22,000 y BP) or Postglacial times are going to find it more difficult, if not impossible, to try to discredit the rapidly growing body of evidence suppliedby diatom studies and by various investigations which have provided sophisticated and sustained lithostratigraphic,biostratigraphic, paleoecologic, etc. data from the Valsequillo Region, all of which agree with a Pre-Wisconsinan(>80,000 y BP) age for the Valsequillo artifacts. Four diatomaceous samples from deposits associated directly with
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 31
31the Dorenberg Skull (an ancient human) and other artifacts from the Valsequillo Region yielded 30 extinct and 143extant taxa. A Late Glacial or Postglacial age for these four diatom bearing samples is precluded by the presence ofNavicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which evidently are known only from the Sangamonian (or its =) and by the presence of 13 diatoms which apparently have known, long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions beforethe end of the Sangamonian. The possibility of redeposition (which archaeologists are so fond of invokingwhenever the ages of artifacts contradict their favored ideas) in these Valsequillo samples is precluded, because diatom paleoecology indicates deposition under conditions of low energy water (lacustrine), instead of high energywater (fluviatile) or air (aeolian) which are required for redeposition.

Underlining added.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:7KV ... =clnk&cd=2

That is a great link Min. Are you a member of bioone? If not - I may join.

[Minimalist]

Nope. I just went looking for the Dorenberg Skull and found that.