Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates

From: Lee Olsen (paleocity_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: 24 Nov 2004 10:31:02 -0800

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<9pSod.11718$Qh3.4966@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40a73547.0411230624.46cb8976@posting.google.com...
> > "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<tuyod.10225$Qh3.922@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >> Snippage. . .
>
> >>
> >> Im wondering what other dating techniques might be available in SC. No
> >> lava
> >> flows or ash falls there that I know of! ;-)
> >
> > There are numerous ways to date this site (or at least get a handle on
> > the problem if the site is for real in a general sense) that don't
> > rely on 14C dating. OSL, stratigraphic relationships, whether it
> > compares with the known geology/geoarchaeology of the area and so on.
> >
> > I posted "A few Topper references" for a reason, and one of those
> > reasons was a reality check.
> >
> > The very first reference mentions OSL, a clue that answered your: "Im
> > wondering what other dating techniques might be available in SC." No
> > question mark added at the end of your sentence, but a statement of
> > fact?
> >
> > Some homework for you.
> > http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_24e.pdf
> > http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a=14
> > http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a=13
> >
> > And try staying awake in class this time :-)
> >
>
> Wassa matter, campaigning for an apple, Teach? ;-))))

The Topper site has been investigated since the early 1980s. There
have been many publications, in rather obscure journals, since that
time. When looking at all the people who have posted on various
threads and forums, it appears that I am the only one (at least no one
is posting otherwise) who has other data on this site than what has
been distributed by the latest round of news-media hype. I don't have
much more, since conference papers and journals published back east
are hard to come by where I'm at, but I do have some very good graphs
and photos that don't show up in the citations above. Mammoth Trumpet
does not show these online, but I get the original hard copies, so I
can see what's going on a little better. I also get Current Research
in the Pleistocene, which puts me up-to-date down to the 2 ½ meter
mark (the 14C date is at about 4 m) this is where the OSL dating stops
and becomes "saturated undatable" says Steve Forman, the guy that did
the OSL dating.

>
> Im thinking about the fact that this site is along the Savanna River
> (right?)

Roughly 75 miles upriver from the Atlantic.

> Unless Im mistaken largely marine sediment,

 This doesn't have an affect on the artifact typology or the OSL
dating that's been done so far.

> maybe more than a few
> floods, all sorts of good things to "stir up" the stratiography, maybe
> lots of things that COULD churn up the mix a bit.

What they have is a very rough scale. OSL and artifacts date down to
18 kya and are pretty much in agreement. Their resolution is not fine
enough to be able to pick up events like the Younger Dryas or plant
growth during this period. This seems odd to me because when you look
at the USC photos, the area is heavily wooded.

> Dont get me
> wrong now, I think that it would be a great kick in the pants if this
> was real, Im just thinking of some of the different ways that it might
> just fall apart.
>
> I was fishing around for some dating techniques that are relatively
> independent of any of the "stirring" that might have contaminated
> the C14 one way or another.

Unfortunately, you thinking about what has already been thought of and
published in legitimate (yet obscure) publications isn't going to
matter very much, you are too late.

> Lava flows and ash falls use radioactive
> decay but. . . . a little bit harder to get trashed out than C14 since
> the radioactive elements are locked away in solid rock. 8-)

Irrelevant as 14C was not used for the first 18 k years. OSL,
artifacts, and their relative position was used instead (14C failed).

>
> Electro Luminescence would be nice.

Already done and published (down to 18K) years ago.

> Stratiography is a good one if
> this was not a river valley kind of environment.

Well, all I can say is the they have a very pronounced "transition"
layer just below the Clovis artifacts. This appears as a light colored
band/layer just as ash would look, at least according to a very sharp
profile photo I have.

> (Remember they
> often try to claim that the charcoal at Meadowcroft was washed in
> from a forest fire.)

See more on forest fires below.

> Who knows you might even be able to find
> a few dated copies of Field and Stream or some head-stamped
> 30-30 brass in the midden to help out! Needless to say, Tarheels
> have a healthy disrespect for those little banty roosters down to the
> south of the state line!
> 8-)

What I'm waiting for now are some good graphs below the *transition
zone* along with good descriptions of the artifacts as they were found
in situ.

>
> Seriously, given the potential impact on a pile of theses and
> reputations I hope that they have this puppy covered every way
> from Sunday.

So far, what they have is something quite unusual. Down to 18 kya the
association between the OSL, artifacts and the depth of the
stratigraphy forms a perfect diagonal (on a not so fine scale as I
pointed out above). This is to say that 10 thousand years equals 1
meter of stratigraphical depth; 20 thousand years equals 2 meters of
depth, then the OSL dating stops. If we project the diagonal line down
to 4 meters and try for a match with the new 14C dates, then things
start to fall apart. At this rate, 50 kya should be at 5 meters, yet
it is at 4 meters so this suggests 1 meter may be missing. BUT, no one
knows if the rate (it was during the first 18 k) of sedimentation was
*constant* during this large amount of time or not. So this may not
mean anything in itself.

If, if.... if this being a flood zone and the terrace formed by
overbank sediments, then Inger has asked the best question of all so
far: "...if so how come that the coal-dated(if I understood it
correctly) and the fireplace still remained."

Even though the glaciers did not cover this area, they did affect the
southern climate as a whole.

Inger's question then becomes why didn't these overbank-flooding
events wash away the alleged fireplace when no humus soils were able
to form???????? Another words we have a fire and no evidence of a
forest. Why should easy-to-move campfire ash and charcoal remain and
not the trees with their great root systems be missing? Even if this
alleged fire was the remains of a forest fire, where is the forest? No
forest, then just where did the oak, red cherry, buckeye and pine come
from (see the USDA report, fig. 24.2 again)? If the 14C dates are
correct, then no forest should have existed anyway (see GRIP cores
etc. for what was going on elsewhere at 50 k). IMO, something is
wrong, but without a site report everyone is dead in the flood waters.

The excavations have uncovered an enormous amount of ground and not
just a tiny fireplace pit. Where's the beef (oops, I mean humus) and
better yet, why should there be any in the first place 50 thousand
years ago? Humus soil does not necessarily form in dunes, but it
doesn't seem possible that some wouldn't have formed somewhere in that
amount of time. I have never been to the Topper area, but I can assure
you out here on the Pacific Coast vegetation takes hold in the dunes
and on the over-bank flood-plains rather rapidly. For example, the
Kennewick Man site has 14C dates on humus (this area gets only 7
inches of rain a year and no oak, pine etc. grows there) and the
Columbia River has a history of more violent flooding than anything
seen on the Savannah River. The *no humus* seems like a legitimate
puzzle.

I'm going south over Thanksgiving so I won't be able to re until first
of next week. Have a good one and stay awake!

 
> Regards
> bk

Relevant Pages