Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates

From: I E Johansson (inger_x_e.johanssonx_at_telia.com)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:49:50 GMT

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:41A6B797.305CB71E@not.com.au...
>
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > >
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > >>Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:<41A43E2D.8654F9A8@not.com.au>...
> > >>
> > >>>Bob Keeter wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>"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? ;-))))
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Im thinking about the fact that this site is along the Savanna River
> > >>>>(right?)
> > >>>>Unless Im mistaken largely marine sediment, 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. 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. 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-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Electro Luminescence would be nice. Stratiography is a good one if
> > >>>>this was not a river valley kind of environment. (Remember they
> > >>>>often try to claim that the charcoal at Meadowcroft was washed in
> > >>>>from a forest fire.) 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-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Seriously, given the potential impact on a pile of theses and
> > >>>>reputations I hope that they have this puppy covered every way
> > >>>>from Sunday.
> > >>>
> > >>>Every time I see something said to go beyond the "Clovis barrier" (or
> > >>>pre-Columbian) people start poo-pooing and kite flying with "what if"
> > >>>cases. There are many finds already that predate Clovis - it is not
> > >>>new.
> > >>
> > >>http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/rose2.html
> > >>
> > >>"Criteria
> > >>From the time of the Folsom discoveries of fluted points with the
> > >>bones of extinct bison (Bison antiquus) in 1926 and 1927 to today,
> > >>various criteria have been proposed to demonstrate first the great
> > >>antiquity of people in the New World and later to demonstrate a
> > >>pre-Clovis occupation. C. Vance Haynes (1969: 714) summarized the
> > >>criteria as follows: "For establishing man's presence, the minimum
> > >>requirements met for the Folsom site still apply for future
> > >>excavations. The primary requirement is a human skeleton, or an
> > >>assemblage of artifacts that are clearly the work of man. Next, this
> > >>evidence must lie in situ within undisturbed geological deposits in
> > >>order to clearly demonstrate the primary association of artifacts with
> > >>stratigraphy. Lastly, the minimum age of the site must be demonstrated
> > >>by primary association with fossils of known age or with material
> > >>suitable for reliable isotopic age dating." E. James Dixon (1999: 48),
> > >>based on Haynes and on Stanford (1983: 65), suggests the following
> > >>questions must be answered:
> > >>1. Are the artifacts clearly the product of human manufacture?
> > >>2. Is the recovered material within clear stratigraphic context?
> > >>3. Are there reliable, concordant, and stratigraphically consistent
> > >>radiocarbon dates from the deposit?
> > >>4. Are paleoenvironmental studies consistent with ages assigned to the
> > >>site?
> > >>5. Are there human remains that are reliably dated older than 11,500
> > >>B.P.?"
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think any formula type set criteria are of much use. Logic and
> > > evidence has to carry the day - and it is not something that can be
> > > governed by hard and fast "rules". In those 5 points are inbuilt
> > > mechanisms for outright rejection based in nothing better than a "what
> > > if" and evidence is very often rejected on nothing stronger than that.
> > > Further more "paleoenvironmental studies" are as rubbery as all hell
> > > and rely on the orthodox dogma mentioned below, for its foundation.
> >
> > Seppo,
> >
> > Please describe the type of logic and evidence that are needed
> > to carry the day (meaning, I guess, giving us "confirmation to
> > the extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > consent" to peopling of the New World prior to Clovis). The 5
> > criteria listed above seem eminently reasonable, and no rational
> > archaeologist would accept anything less.
>
> Tom, you do realise you are asking me to (A) restate what I have
> already stated (B) resort to a formula I don't think is wise. It has
> to be evaluated case by case. There is undoubtedly going to be
> similarities in each case - but there are also going to be
> differences.
>
> Let me suggest an example close to your beliefs - no pre-Columbian
> contact (other than a brief stay on LAM). I have seen statements made
> to the effect "there are no authentic pre-Columbian artefacts".
> Aha.... and this is based on arguments infinitum on INDIVIDUAL items
> and "reasoning" plucked mostly out of thin air for why they are not
> genuine.
>
> Take that scenario and multiply it hundred + fold and you get the
> picture - there are hundreds of these "non authentic" items around.
> Items many consider to be genuine indication of pre-Columbian visits.
> I'll name a few - KRS - Roman figurine ca 800AD - beards - Skeleton -
> Arabic writing of unknown language - Norse Axe - coin ....... etc
> etc.... every one are said to be "fakes" or whatever convoluted
> reasoning for them NOT being pre-Columbian. No, don't even THINK about
> asking for specifics - that isn't what this is about.
>
> Step back, take a broader more all encompassing view. When there are
> so many artefacts around, the myopic view of formula derived "finding"
> to say it is a "fake" can no longer apply to every one of them. It no
> longer fits logic nor common sense that ALL items are FAKES and
> forgeries or con artists attempting to earn some kudos as inevitably
> the claims suggests!!

And what to say of all those artifacts which have been established(!) to be
genuine but haven't been presented in journals due to the Anti-Pre-Columbian
contact group which made many serious respected scholars hesitate to tell
what they know to be true.

As Tom and the other naysayers so eagerly ask for conctrete examples I have
one recently discussed subject in mind which I guess he as so many other
interested, scholars and non-scholars, forgotten to take a closer look at:
The old ax cut.

How many of the naysayers have taken themselves time to locate a copy of
"Historical Collections of New York
State"? How many of you located Lyon and asked around for information that
the Historian dept in the area can provide? I know one, the best researcher
I ever heard of, who has. Had Tom and/or anyone else among the naysayer
taken themselves time to do their homework, they would have had a very very
hard time continuing their naysay!

IE Johansson

>
>
>
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > Tom, you do realise you are asking me to restate what I have ... > Items many consider to be genuine indication of pre-Columbian visits. ... As Tom and the other naysayers so eagerly ask for conctrete examples I have ... "Historical Collections of New York ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > Tom, you do realise you are asking me to restate what I have ... > Items many consider to be genuine indication of pre-Columbian visits. ... As Tom and the other naysayers so eagerly ask for conctrete examples I have ... "Historical Collections of New York ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Greenland Vinland and the Vinland Map part 2
    ... Inger E. Johansson wrote: ... > Lewis and Clark Expedition" hasn't been noticed by the naysayers who ... Tom McDonald ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: OT to the sexmail-abuser
    ... >>convincing than the real thing. ... > I defend this post too if you naysayers don't learn better and stop abusing me. ... Tom McDonald ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: NPR Unfair to Progressive musicians
    ... (editor of the 16 year old zine Musea) ... Tom. ... A question that is asked out of genuine interest. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)