Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:11:55 GMT

I E Johansson wrote:
>
> "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.

As I suggested, there are a whole raft of artefacts, and evidence that
points to pre-Columbian contact - the view I tried to show is
non-specific of any particular item, artefact etc. It is the whole -
all of them together that makes the claim "no pre-Columbian contact -
barring LAM" implausible. There is just too much of it for it ALL to
be fake - just too much, even if SOME are found to be fakes (and
probably are).

I think there are much better bits of evidence than the axe cut to
rely on - The KRS is such, it cannot be refuted - sanely that is.
There is no point in going over the same ground, round and round in
circles with the same naysayers who have no genuine interest in
anything much at all.
 
> 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!

Yes well, that is going back to looking at individual items once more,
and a different perspective from that one I was dealing with here. 

-- 
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
    ... > As Tom and the other naysayers so eagerly ask for conctrete examples I have ... be fake - just too much, even if SOME are found to be fakes (and ... There is no point in going over the same ground, ... > "Historical Collections of New York ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > As Tom and the other naysayers so eagerly ask for conctrete examples I have ... be fake - just too much, even if SOME are found to be fakes (and ... There is no point in going over the same ground, ... > "Historical Collections of New York ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)