[_ Old Earth _] "Out of Africa" Out the Window?

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's the latest dates reported from A&M and Berkeley concerning the

Hueyatlaco and El Horno sites, 40 km East of Mexico City.

Note, the El Horno site has unifacial tools found in situ, sandwiched between

Xalene ash dated at 1.3 million (reverse polarity has been observed in this

strata) and a sedimentary strata dated at a minimum of 280,000. Bifacial

tools have been found in situ, sandwiched between the Hueyatlaco ash,

dated at 250,000 and the El Horno strata dated at 280,000.

The El Horno unifacial tools have been assigned to the CroMagnon culture.

The Hueyatlaco bifacial tools have been assigned to Homo Sapien Sapien.

Until now, CroMagnon was thought to have existed from 40,000 -10,000,

emerging from Homo Sapien in Africa and migrating into Europe.

Homo Sapien Sapien is thought to have decended from Homo Sapien in

Africa 130,000 ago.

Homo Sapien was thought to have decended from Homo Erectus 200,000

ago...in Africa.

 

[jwu]

Source?

What is on the X and on the Y axis of that graph?

Any bones which indicate who actually made them? Else it could have been a population of e.g. homo erectus that somehow made it there.

 

[reznwerks]

finally

I see Charlie is finally giving up on the YEC agenda. Actually there was evidence I posted some time ago about the possibility of man originating in China and not Africa. Getting to the truth is what it's all about.

 

[Quadeshet]

Hmmm. Why is it that googling this topic produces only 15 hits, and most of those are rants about how 'science' is covering up the amazing new evidence of 'advanced ancient cultures.'

Indeed it's very likely that modern humans were in the americas a lot longer than has been commonly reported- but until new evidence comes to light it's hardly a reason to discount the mountains of other information from Africa and Europe.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

"Out of Africa"

jwu:

Source?

What is on the X and on the Y axis of that graph?

Any bones which indicate who actually made them? Else it could have been a population of e.g. homo erectus that somehow made it there.

It's actually not a graph, it's just a diagram of the geologic sequence.

I'll work on making it less confusing (hey, I never claimed to be an

artist..lol!)

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Several potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna. Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966. Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

VanLandingham, S. 2004, Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico by means of diatom biostratigraphy. micropaleontology, 50:4, 313-342.

http://micropal.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... t/50/4/313

---------, in press, Diatomaceous evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP).

Here's sources for each of the strata dates:

A. Xalnene Tuff-Bottom of Sequence-

In 2005, a research team in England announced the discovery of hundreds of human footprints in a stone quarry south of Puebla, Mexico. These human footprints were within a volcanic tuff known as the Xalnene. The English team reported that the footprints were over 40,000 years old. The Toloquilla Quarry is very close to the site of Hueyatlaco. While working at Hueyatlaco, several visits were made to the Toloquilla Quarry to examine the reported footprints and obtain samples for dating. Samples of the Xalnene Tuff were collected and taken to the Berkeley Geochronology Center for Argon-Argon and Paleomagnetic dating. These results showed that the rock in which the reported footprints occurred was 1.3 million years old. The marks on the floor of the quarry, that have been interpreted as human footprints by the English team, are likely marks made during the quarrying of the stone for building material. This research was done in collaboration with Paul Renne, Joshua Feinberg, and Kim Knight (Berkeley Geochronology Center); and Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH). The results of our findings have been published in the journal Nature.

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

B. Sediment below Hueyatlaco Ash

A bone from an articulated camel pelvis collected from one of the channel

deposits (Unit C, bifacial tools) , by C.E. Ray, paleontologist with the U.S.

National Museum, gave uranium-series dates of ca. 250,000 years

Szabo, B., H.E. Malde, and C. Irwin-Williams, 1969, Dilemma Posed by Uranium-Series Dates on Archaeologically Significant Bones from Valsequillo Puebla, Mexico, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 6, pp. 237-244.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969E&PSL...6..237S

A fragment of tooth from a butchered mastodon, collected from the nearby,

topographically lower El Horno site (unifacial tools) gave U-series dates of

greater than 280,000 years. (Szabo, B., H.E. Malde, and C. Irwin-Williams,

1969, Dilemma Posed by Uranium-Series Dates on Archaeologically

Significant Bones from Valsequillo Puebla, Mexico, Earth and Planetary

Science Letters, v. 6, pp. 237-244.

c. Hueyatlaco Ash and Tetela Brown Mud Pumice

The younger Hueyatlaco ash and Tetela brown mud pumice have been

dated previously by zircon fission track dating At around a quarter-million

years.

Steen-McIntyre,V., R. Fryxell and H.E. Malde, 1981, Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico, Quaternary Research, v. 16, pp. 1-17.


Renne has 2004 samples of both the Hueyatlaco ash and Tetela brown mud

pumice, plus the overlying (younger still) Buena Vista lapilli, but I’ve seen

no official report on the dates. Another group of west-coast scientists

(Berkeley-added by Charlie) also dated some of these tephra layers in the

late 1990s. I’ve read their manuscript, but they have yet to submit it for

publication.


[quote:56f26]
charlie:

What dates did the West Coast's group come up with for the

tephra layers ?

Virginia:


Old ones.

Charlie:

Interesting Virginia.

Any idea when the research will be formally released?

Virginia:

Don't know if they ever will.

The lead author let it be known that he was being hassled, and dropped the

whole thing.

Charlie:


Wow....sounds like lousy science to me.

Was he hassled because it contradicts current Evolution Theory?

I could see these findings raising some eyebrows.

Virginia:


I never asked. I was afraid he would have considerd any questions from me as additional hassles.

But such data suppression is not unusual. It’s dangerous to present facts that threaten an entrenched paradigm, in this case the time of the first appearance of humans in the New World. Look what happened to my career!

The cover-up that really bugs me is that site from San Diego County (California):

____________, July 28, 1995, State Route 54 Paleontological Mitigation Program, Final Report, Prepared for Caltrans, District 11, 51 pp. plus attachments. (I’ve left off the authors’ names; don’t want to shame them publicly.)

Obvious mastodon kill site, discovered in a deep excavation during a road project. Several establishment scientists, including well known archaeologists, gave advice as the work progressed. A fragment of ivory tusk from the mastodon was dated by the U-series method: 335,000 plus/minus 35,000 years.

The authors buried the data in an open file report and tippy-toed away.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre

http://www.valsequilloclassic.net/Forum ... c.php?t=13

[/quote:56f26]

We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C).

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

I say the dates haven't been officially submitted for good reason. The

Berkeley Team is informally passing there findings around first to get input

from the community (including Virginia). I'd also be super cautious before I

submitted something this anomalous for critical review. It could ruin careers

if the results are not 99.9 % sure.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre's career was temporarily ruined because

of her publication of the same finds...in 1981...25 years ago. She recently

has been fully funded to study the site along with the A&M and

Berkeley crews. Cynthia Irwin-Williams, the archeologist in charge, now

dead, apparently is being vindicated (Virginia Steen-McIntyre was one of the

geologists with the USGS that secured the dating while Cynthia

Irwin-Williams pointed out the in situ finds).

I think the recent general acceptance of the Topper Site

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

South Carolina site as having H.s.s tools greater than 50,000 rcybp gave

scientist's the political leeway to investigate beyond common paradigms

without political and often career repercussions.

Again verbatim from the transcript; Dr. McIntyre on camera says: "When we first began work at the Hueyatlaco site, we thought we had an old site.... Perhaps 20,000 years old. At that time, that was considered a very old age for the site. When we finally got the dates and all the different methods we used to date it, it came out to be 250,000 years old."
We don't need to show evidence that it was not dropped there by a modern Indian (or do you think the local shopkeeper from California planted these too?) If you're going to doubt the word of the entire archeological team that the spearpoints were found under an unbroken layer of volcanic ash, then who can we trust? All the details are given in a report by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell and Harold E. Malde entitled Geological Evidence for Age of Deposits of Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico, in Quaternary Research 16, 1-17 (1981) Is this evidence so threatening that the archeological community must resort to distortion in order to dismiss it? So far, to our knowledge, no one has successfully refuted Dr. McIntyre's evidence. Instead, all they have done is attack her character.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-reply.html

As to the tools being Homo Erectus, it is true that the Homo Erectus culture had the technology to create both unifacial and bifacial tools.
Yet the type of bifacial tools found in situ (very similar to Sandia Cave points-also reopened for research very recently) under secure strata dated at least 250,000, are almost unanimously assigned to the H.s.s culture. Of course I totally respect your option to question these assumptions. With a little research, you might be able to come up with a plausible hypothesis showing these points to be of Homo Erectus manufacture.

Here’s a few representative points found by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, in situ, and subsequently dated by a team from the USGS (including Dr. McIntyre) at 250,000:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20181.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20180.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20182.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20184.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20188.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20189.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2029.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2023.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2024.jpg

You taking classes this Summer, or are you taking a break?

It’s been absolutely hotter than anything down here in Texas. I think it’s about time for a vacation in the mountains.

Saw something on a RSS feed about two butterflies producing a hybrid offspring that prefers, strongly, to only mate with it’s hybrid fellows. Their studying to see if it might be a precursor to speciation. Haven’t had a chance to read much on it yet.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I see Charlie is finally giving up on the YEC agenda. Actually there was evidence I posted some time ago about the possibility of man originating in China and not Africa. Getting to the truth is what it's all about.

And who says an Athiest and YEC type can't agree?

If both are seeking the truth, one would expect some overlap of opinions.

Do you have a link to the China study. I'd love to read it.

Some really cool discoveries are happening in archeology and geology

currently.

Alot of paradigms are being questioned and tested.

And the research dollars are in place for those with viable hypotheses.

The NorthStar program at A&M is one of these programs. Other's are the

Monte Verde site in Brazil, Taima Taima in Venezuela, and Topper in

South Carolina.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Indeed it's very likely that modern humans were in the americas a lot longer than has been commonly reported- but until new evidence comes to light it's hardly a reason to discount the mountains of other information from Africa and Europe.

Here's a few keywords to Google for dates that are pushing the "Out of Africa"

theory:

Topper-PreClovis

Monte Verde, Brazil-PreClovis

Hueyatlaco site, Mexico

El Horno site-Mexico

Calico Early Man Site

Sandia Cave Site, New Mexico

____________, July 28, 1995, State Route 54 Paleontological Mitigation Program, Final Report, Prepared for Caltrans, District 11, 51 pp. plus attachments. (I’ve left off the authors’ names; don’t want to shame them publicly.)

Obvious mastodon kill site, discovered in a deep excavation during a road project. Several establishment scientists, including well known archaeologists, gave advice as the work progressed. A fragment of ivory tusk from the mastodon was dated by the U-series method: 335,000 plus/minus 35,000 years.

The authors buried the data in an open file report and tippy-toed away.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre

http://www.valsequilloclassic.net/Forum ... c.php?t=13

Interestingly, yet very controversial and basically ignored until very recently,

Hueyatlaco, El Horno, Sandia, Calico and the San Diego mastodon kill site

all have dating of strata containing human tools in situ in the

200,000-335,000 range (Uranium Series).

It's cool times in geology and archeology 8-).

These sites are found in the extreme Southern portions of the United

States and South of there. The Beringia Land Bridge apparently is also out

the window, and most pro's are opting for a model that contains multiple

migrations, including very early entry into America. I say "why does it have

to be migrations"? Could man not have originated in America and migrated

to Europe, Asia and Africa?

Carboniferous Globe

PreCambrian Globe

 

[reznwerks]

link

[

Do you have a link to the China study. I'd love to read it.

.

I don't think this is the one I referenced but it is all I could find right now.

http://english.people.com.cn/200210/12/ ... 4924.shtml

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Do you have a link to the China study. I'd love to read it.

reznwerks:

I don't think this is the one I referenced but it is all I could find right now.

http://english.people.com.cn/200210/12/ ... 4924.shtml

Thanks, I'll give it a read.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

...With a new dating method, scientists determined that Liujiang Hominid roamed south China approximately 70,000 to 130,000 years ago, rather than 30,000 years ago or less as it was previously believed. This new finding supports the theory that modern Chinese man originated in what is present-day Chinese territory rather than the mainstream "out of Africa" hypothesis which held that modern humans evolved from African ancestors alone...

...the out-of-Africa theory... now faces a serious challenge.

...The estimated age of "Liujiang Man" challenges the 15-year-old "out of Africa" theory that holds that modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 150,000 years ago, migrated out of the continent between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago, and moved across the globe to sweep aside populations, with no inter-breeding...

...The dating of the Liujiang Hominid proved that He lived in south China 70,000 to 130,000 years ago or even earlier, ruling out the possibility of migration from Africa...

...Early last year, Australian scientists analyzed DNA taken from remains unearthed in 1974 at Lake Mungo in the state of New South Wales.

...The analysis astonishingly revealed that neither "Mungo Man's" completely modern skeleton nor its DNA had any links with modern human ancestors from Africa found in other parts of the world.

The Australian researchers said that because Mungo Man is modern anatomically, yet has a vanished DNA line, it means at least one group of Homo erectus's descendants evolved outside of Africa....

...Apart from the fossil evidence, Paleolithic tools excavated in China, created according to ancestral techniques, also support the theory that modern Chinese man is more likely to have originated in China, said Huang Weiwen, a senior research fellow with the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences...

Very cool Rezn. 8-)

Any idea of what latitude these finds were located?

So far, in the Americas, the older finds are popping up on the Mexico-U.S.

Border, down to Brazil, sandwiched roughly between the Tropics of Cancer

and Capricorn (ca. 25 degrees North and 20 South):

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... ifacts.pdf

Here's the diatomic evidence for the antiquity of the Hueyatlaco strata

containing the laurel leaf, bifacial spear points.

Does it not enrage you guys that Berkeley never presented the results of

their dating research concerning the Hueyatlaco ash overlying these bifacial

tools?

And no significant rebuttal to the Uranium series dating executed by the

USGS (250,000 years, Uranium Series) by anyone? Just kinda swept under

the carpet.

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Excavations at the Hueyatlaco siteSeveral potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna. Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and this Excavations at the Hueyatlaco sitematerial was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966. Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).

The A&M crew has promised dates that "should resolve the conflict for

good".

It's been two years, and nothing....


How do the tax payers here in the U.S. hold the researchers accountable for

negligent research and not reporting on the very research for which the

public paid? Remember, much of this research is conducted by public

institutions with public funds. If information is withheld, for whatever reason,

the public is being cheated and deceived for the very research for which they

paid.

 

[jwu]

As to the tools being Homo Erectus, it is true that the Homo Erectus culture had the technology to create both unifacial and bifacial tools.
Yet the type of bifacial tools found in situ (very similar to Sandia Cave points-also reopened for research very recently) under secure strata dated at least 250,000, are almost unanimously assigned to the H.s.s culture. Of course I totally respect your option to question these assumptions. With a little research, you might be able to come up with a plausible hypothesis showing these points to be of Homo Erectus

It's certainly an interesting find...however, i soo no major implications regarding the overall theory of evolution, just details, and i'd be fine either way.

You taking classes this Summer, or are you taking a break?

Classes for some months, and the time without classes is used to learn for exams. Of course, it's quite a relaxed time nonetheless ;)

However, i have been very busy recently, significant private dealings and deadlines of projects of the uni.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Classes for some months, and the time without classes is used to learn for exams. Of course, it's quite a relaxed time nonetheless
However, i have been very busy recently, significant private dealings and deadlines of projects of the uni.

Sounds like fairly smooth sailing for ya...8-)

Do you also work for the university?


Here's another cool find out in Southern California that The San Diego

Museum of Natural Sciences conducted:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... n_1995.pdf

From my reading of the report, there was no doubt in the researchers

minds that this was a radiometrically dated, 335,000 B.P., Mastodon kill

site.

The researchers' lack of backbone in announcing this site to the public is

appalling.

How do the taxpayers that funded this research hold these researchers

accountable for not announcing to them one of the most amazing

discoveries... ever??? In the Navy we had a term for this, for which you were

potentially expelled permanently: Dereliction of Duty.


Wonder if The Discovery Channel or National Geographic is in need of a

Blockbuster??? :-?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's an email to the editors of the Discovery Channel network I sent out today:


From: Hatchett Talent Agency
Date: 07/01/06 17:09:10
To: hwilliamson@discovery.ca; kmckeown@discovery.ca; bcowley@discovery.ca
Cc: Dr. Al Goodyear; Dr. Bruce Bradley; Dr. D. Clark Wernecke; Dr. Darrell Creel; Dr. Dennis Stanford; Dr. Jim Adovasio; Dr. John Edward Clark-BYU; Dr. Mario Pino; Dr. Mike Collins; Dr. Mike Waters; mconkey@mac.com; paleo@sdnhm.org; rcerutti@sdnhm.org; prothero@oxy.edu
Subject: San Diego Museum of Natural History- Undisputed 335,000 Year Old Mastadon Kill Site-Final


Hi ladies and gentlemen.

This research submitted by the San Diego Museum of Natural

History seems to have "fallen through the cracks":

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... n_1995.pdf


In summary, the report unequivocally dates a mastodon kill site near San

Diego at 335,000 year B.P. (uranium series). Included are exhaustive core

refit analyses, and mastodon bones displaying distinctive, human made

fracture marks.


Other examples of North American researchers burying critical data, for

which the taxpayers have funded, in open reports, then "tippy toeing away"

include El Horno (Berkeley and Texas A&M), and Hueyatlaco ( Again,

Berkeley and Texas A&M).



Other’s example’s of undisputed early homo lineages in Mexico and the

U.S. Southwest include:

- “Prehistoric Human Remains from Jalisco, Mexico†by Joel D. Irish, Stanley D. Davis, John (Jack) E. Lobdell, and Frederico A. Solórzano published in Current Research in the Pleistocene 17, 2000.



“One Chapala superciliary arch deserves specific mention due to its large size. Studies by Solórzano show the bone resembles that in archaic Homo sapiens at Arago, France. In an unpublished 1990 report, Texas A&M osteologists suggest the brow’s thickness and robustness are comparable to those of KNM-ER 3733 (African Homo erectus). Our measurements show the central torus thickness is 13.3, compared with 8.5 mm for KNM-ER 3733; the lateral torus thickness is 11.5 versus 9.0 mm (Rightmire 1998). Thus for the sake of comparison, the brow is more like that of Zhoukoudian Skull XI (Asian Homo erectus), with a central torus thickness of 13.2 +/- mm; lateral torus thickness was not measured (Rightmire 1998). Modern brows are too diminutive to allow these measurements. The brow also shows pneumatization (air pockets) along its length.â€Â

and so on...



My idea for production includes interviewing each of the researchers as each

site is discussed. Also interspersed within the discussion of each of the sites

will be researchers that have investigated these same sites, and letting

them express their interpretations.

At the end, a scene concerning public accountability and science could be

brought up with comments from the top researchers in the field.


Thanks for taking the time to review this proposal.

Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis, Clovis and Archaic Artifacts

1-877-252-2351/ 1-512-453-6178 ( Austin)

charlie@preclovis.com / http://www.preclovis.com



Any questions or comments concerning this email are more than welcomed.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

-------Original Message-------

From: Bob Wishoff - dirtbrothers.org/outlawforpeace.com

Date: 07/01/06 21:52:02

To: Hatchett Talent Agency

Subject:San Diego Museum of Natural History- Undisputed 335,000 Year Old

Mastadon Kill Site-Final

having done this kind of solicitation before, I think you'll find TV is

different animal...we should talk more about this...

Bbo


charlie:

Sure you want to get wrapped up in this. Might not a great move for one in

pro field.

Of course I'm always up for anonymous advice ;).

-------Original Message-------

From: Bob Wishoff - dirtbrothers.org/outlawforpeace.com
Date: 07/02/06 11:11:34
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: San Diego Museum of Natural History- Undisputed 335,000 Year Old Mastadon Kill Site-Final

what are you talking about

you have a skewed view of pro life!

HA!

Bob

From: Charlie Hatchett
Date: 07/02/06 13:50:35
To: bwishoff@ev1.net
Subject: Re: Fw: San Diego Museum of Natural History- Undisputed 335,000 Year Old Mastadon Kill Site-Final

Well, heck yeah Bro.

If you want to help promote these overlooked, brushed under the carpet

type sites, that would be cool dude.

Any connections in mind?

The San Diego, El Horno and Hueyatlaco sites have indisputable evidence,

or nobody has disputed the evidence to date. Each excavation was

conducted by a well respected archeologist and team and a

corresponding, well respected team of geologists (El Horno and Hueyatlaco

were investigated twice, by two entirely different teams with, apparently, the

same conclusions).

Each of the sites are dated at a minimum of 250,000 B.P., Uranium series.

All seem to be located in the Southwest U.S. down to Central Mexico.

Calico is a controversial site, also in the Southwest, with similar dating.

There has never been a processual debate concerning the site's excavation,

but, instead, the debate centers around the interpretation of the

pieces: manmade or geofacts.

Here's a few photos of the pieces found in the 235,000 dated strata at

Calico:

http://cayman.globat.com/%7Ebandstexas.com/afw97.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/%7Ebandstexas.com/afw98.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/%7Ebandstexas.com/afw99.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/%7Ebandstexas.com/afw185.jpg



As to the San Diego, El Horno and Hueyatlaco sites, there seems to be no

debate at all. Just...nothing.

My take on it, Bob, is these people with prestigious positions are not

reporting these findings to the public for fear of losing their positions.

There's a lot at stake.

Mike Waters, Alan Goodyear, The Berkeley Crew, and the San Diego

Museum of Natural History know that some hominid lineage was hear in The

Americas at a very, very early age.

It's like their waiting for someone to go first.

That's my 2 cents brother.

Let me know your thoughts.

Later my man.


Charlie Hatchett
PreClovis, Clovis and Archaic Artifacts
1-877-252-2351/ 1-512-453-6178 ( Austin)
charlie@preclovis.com / http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Firearch:

Well, the evidence here, imo, is not conclusive at all. Firstly, there is no statement by the primary author - whose integrity I am personally familiar with, as I have worked with Tom in the past - that there is clear evidence of human manipulation (spiral fracture is no indication of human behavior in and of itself). Second, it is clearly stated that the context for the find is an ancient streambed, thus the collection of bones could have been secondarily deposited, or others had been washed down stream, or have disintegrated prior to being fossilized. Thirdly, there is no mention at all that the other vertebrate fossil were "butchered" in anyway, and given human behavior, people hunt darn near everything, not just the biggest specimen. Lastly, I've seen one of those tusks personally, touched it, talked with Tom about it, and he never once suggested that it was part of a butchering site.

Now before labels of "nonbeliever" are bandied about, I'm sure that if there was clear evidence in SD county, where I have worked for 20 years, of Pleistocene occupation proffered by one or more of the many respected researchers here, there would be some rather rigorous substantiation and debate taking place. That hasn’t happened with this site, or any other for quite some time.

Charlie:

I think the researchers are making it clear that they feel this is a 335,000

B.P. mastodon kill site.

Here's a few excerpts from the Caltran report, Tom being the primary

author:

1. Unnamed Pleistocene stream deposits (which contain the mastodon

remains- added by Charlie) produced well preserved fossil remains...

2. The fragmentary skeletal remains of ...mastodon...collected...

3. Radiometric Dating of ivory and soil carbonate...yielded dates of 335,000

and 196,000 respectively...

4. The bone is moderately well preserved...

5. There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend

to their placement in the quarry...

5. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of breakage...

6. ...portions of a single mastodon molar were found scattered over three

units...

7. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads

side-by-side...

8. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was

found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...

9. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft

displaying distinct spiral fracturing...

10. ...sharply fractured piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal

surface

11. ...distal 70 cm of a tusk was found distal end down, in an upright

orientation...

12. Coarse sand from Bed D was found as an infilling along side of the tusk

some 40 cm into Bed C...

13. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces,

indicative of stream transport...

14. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that

lacked signs of abrasion...

15. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders

found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled...

16. It is plausible that all of the plutonic rock fragments ...are part of the

same original boulder...


Why the researchers didn’t press for further research of this site and,

especially, why they didn’t announce this to the public, is disturbing, to say

the least.

That’s my 2 cents.

Peace.

Firearch:

Sorry, but none of this is clear evidence of human agency. There is no analysis of, description of, or pictures of stone tools ("Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that lacked signs of abrasion... There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled... It is plausible that all of the plutonic rock fragments ...are part of the same original boulder..." is not evidence at all - butchering tools tend to show abrasions... Reassembleable lithics are not necessarily evidence of human manipulation, as they could have been fire spalls, and without clear discussion of platforms, bulbs of percussion, terminations, etc. the authors do not seem to be indicating that these are flakes or flake tools... Plutonic rocks in SD county are, for the most part, granitics, which tend to be useful only for groundstone tool technology [much too recent to be considered Pleistocene], as the granitics are usually coarse-grained...).

Preservation of the specimen is particularly troublesome as only portions of the skeleton were recovered, and their state ranges from “Unnamed Pleistocene stream deposits produced well preserved fossil remains...†to “The bone is moderately well preserved...†to “Many bones were fragmentary…â€Â. So which is it? I suppose they could be “well preserved†for being fossils, though their fragmentary and moderate preservation belie that. And again, “distinct fracture†– not defined, and spiral fractures are not evidence of any human behavior, but rather the taphonomic processes – which, again, are not specified in any clear detail.

Perhaps you can entice Tom into elaborating on this topic.

Cheers

Morning Firearch.


The way I took Tom's reporting of the sharp, angular edges of the

pegmatite, lacking abrasion, contrasts in comparison to the smoothly

rounded (abrasion), intact larger rocks. The smoothly rounded surfaces of

the larger rocks are attributed to be the work of stream transport.

It didn't appear to me that he was presenting a microwear analysis. To me,

the sharp angular pieces, not showing signs of abrasion, indicates the lack

of high-energy stream transport. It would be interesting to compare

the refit pieces of pegmatite to Chris Hardaker's summary of bipolar

reduction:

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/index_bipolar.html.

Also, Bed E, where the mastodon fossils were recovered, is said to be

mudstone: a very low energy, depositional formation.


Tom's statement, “Unnamed Pleistocene stream deposits produced well

preserved fossil remains...†to “The bone is moderately well preserved...â€Â

to “Many bones were fragmentary…†indicates to me that something was

different about the mastodon remains, compared to the other fossils found

in Bed E.

What purpose would pointing out "distinct" fractures serve?

My hope is that Tom will elaborate on these findings. I copied him on the

email.

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Frank:

Wow, Charlie. Looks like you got some of the big boys in on this thing now. I have to agree with Tom (or whoever it was) about the bone evidence from the manuscript. None of that sounds like it was caused by humans, with the possible exception of the spiral cracked bone. I was about to reply to that effect, but he beat me to it. Minimal evidence like that will stop extablished archaeologists from making a big deal about it. They would be ridiculed at the very least if something better wasn't found to support the theory that they were caused by human agency. Remember "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I'm glad Bob came to see you. Keep at it, buddy!
Frank

Frank! What's up Rascal?

Long time, no see.

You still need to get your butt down here!! You know your always

welcome.

The way I took the report, is Tom and crew were reporting the facts

without coming right out and saying they had a potential 335,000 B.P.

mastodon kill. I've heard through the grapevine that they are between a

rock in a hard place, where politics rule.

Concerning the bones, the authors reported the following observations:


1.There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no

anatomical trend to their placement in the quarry... whereas many other

fossilized critters still displayed significant articulation...in the same strata

the mastodon was found.

2. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of

breakage...

3. ...portions of a single mastodon molar were found scattered over

three units...

4. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated

femur heads side-by-side...

5. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was

found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...

6. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft

displaying distinct spiral fracturing... and ...sharply fractured

piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal surface

7. ...distal 70 cm of a tusk was found distal end down, in an upright

orientation...


8. This quarry produced interesting and puzzling taphonmic results.

Radiometric dating of the mastodon tusk and soil carbonate yielded

dates of 335,000 B.P. and 196,000 B.P.

9. This site represents the most significant Pliestocene paleontoloogical

discoveries known for coastal San Diego County.


Concerning the rocks, the authors reported the following observations:

1. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces,

indicative of stream transport...

2. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that

lacked signs of abrasion...(i.e.- no sign of stream transport- Charlie's 2

cents) (why did the author report this?)...

3. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders

found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled...(why did

the author report this core refit analysis?)

4. It is plausible that all of the plutonic rock fragments ...are part of the

same original boulder... (again, why did the author report this?)



I ask, from where did the plutonic cobbles and fragments originate?

The whole formation at the site is a sequence of low energy, sedementary

deposits. With these kinds of deposits, it's hard to invision a hard rock like

pegmatite being shattered...but just enough to where many of the

shattered cobbles could be refit.


Then there's the completely disarticulated horse.....

I say the whole site, at the very least, merits further study.

Peace Bro 8)

David:

I had to read the Caltran report twice to catch the implied human element that Charlie listed and I was looking for it. If I had not read so much on the geofact vs artifact controversy on these impossibly old sites, it would have sailed right past me. Despite what firearch says, there is a tacit agreement among archaeologists to ignore sites like this ever since they pulled the plug on Leakey and Simpson. If you want to commit professional suicide, just seriously propose the legitimacy of a Calico-aged site. You can see how even Leakey's own family turned on him like a shark pack when he stuck to his guns on Calico. They pulled the character assassination riff on Ruth "Dee" Simpson too, accusing her of planting evidence. Anybody who has spent any time at all in academia knows what a pack of turf guarding dogs the majority are and that goes for any discipline. It's a matter of survival, I know. That "publish or perish" contains more literal truth than many realize. Any PhD who pushes too hard against the unspoken agreements had better have an alternate source of income. Just take a look at any of the recent professionals who have bucked the system too hard, like McNeish. It doesn't matter what grand accomplishments you've made before, once you venture into extreme paleo advocacy, the pack will turn on you and your methods will suddenly become unsound. As I have mentioned before, I don't see this as any kind of dark conspiracy; it's just the way things work in this society. What is true in politics, industry, the military and organized religion is equally true of educational and scientific institutions; the hierarchies of authority are built upon the same template, which resembles nothing so much as the social structuring of a crime family.
Hey! Good thing I took my blood pressure medicine before I started this desultory polemic. icon_wink.gif

David Campbell

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

terrascythe:

Wait a minute! My question is, if this is true, doesn't this mean that the whole archaeo record for CA is all f't up?
I've monitored my share of ground disturbances in San Diego County and I've run across a few mastodons, shark and other remains. To think they might have been cultural? This presents several problems.
First off, it gives validity to Luis Leakey’s find near China Lake. And let's not forget Michael Cremo either.
Second, it would mean that multiple paleontologists need to re-examine their findings.
Plus, have archaeologist ever examined other paleo finds in SD, especially mastodon?
Third, the truth of this report would only mean added expenses to the environmental monitoring aspect, which has already artificially inflated the cost of development in California.
Not to mention the sheer economic logistics of changing reports and text.
And finally, what do the Native Americans think about this?
Has and band claimed lineage that far back. And, does this mean that Native American monitors will be needed for ground disturbance paleo/archaeo sensitive areas?
Just a few thoughts....

dmack89:

I took a look through the posted report, and did not find any suggestion at all that there was a cultural connection to these finds. I am not sure where that idea started.

I am very open to the idea of pre-clovis folks, but pushing it back to 335kBP is more than stretching the envelope. There is no -NO - evidence for anything nearly that far back that I am aware of.

I'd be interested in seeing anything that has some validity to it, but this instance seems to be more wishful thinking than anything that will stand up to inquiry - so I would not worry about rewriting the history books or the way that survey is done based on this find - that is not to say that the way survey is done should not be critically evaluated and changed - but that's a whole other topic.

DM

Imho, the parts of the report that suggest a cultural connection follow:


1. There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend to their

placement in the quarry...

2. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of

breakage...

3. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads

side-by-side...

4. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was

found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...

5. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone

shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing...

6. ...sharply fractured piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s

internal surface

7. ...distal 70 cm of a tusk was found distal end down, in an upright

orientation...

8. Coarse sand from Bed D was found as an infilling along side of the

tusk some 40 cm into Bed C...

9. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded

surfaces, indicative of stream transport...

10. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that

lacked signs of abrasion...

11. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/

or boulders found separated in the quarry were able to be

reassembled...

12. It is plausible that all of the plutonic rock fragments ...are

part of the same original boulder...


(emphasis added)

I'm trying to figure out why in the world these respected archeologists

would have made these statements if there was no cultural connection.

The statements, without cultural affiliation, are

irrelevant.

Heard anything about Berkeley's dating of The Hueyatlaco bifacial tools

and El Horno's unifacial artifacts ,via the Hueyatlaco Ash and Tetela Brown

Mud Pumice securely overlying both units, in 1998?

Very few have.

Wonder why the author has made it known that he won't be releasing the

dates, though an informal manuscript from the researcher is floating

around with 250,000 B.P. as the date of the ash pumice

mud?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

I'm trying to figure out why in the world these respected archeologists

would have made these statements if there was no cultural connection.

FireArch:

Uh, none of these folks are archæologists; they are palæontologists.

Charlie:

The statements, without cultural affiliation, are irrelevant.

FireArch:

That, I believe, is the point some of us are trying to make.

Cheers,

Richard

So what in the world are palæontologists doing performing core refit

analyses, making statements concerning "distinct" types of

fractures (implying human involvement), making remarks such as a

rib lying directly on a plutonic cobble, noting a sharply fractured piece

with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal surface, stating that is

plausible that all plutonic fragments in the quarry were originally from

the same boulder, making special note of the discovery of both

isolated femur heads side-by-side, etc...This is not typical information

included in a palæontological report, needless to say the summary of

findings.

Sounds as if either these guys are acting as archeologists, or a team of

archeologists was involved in the study, or they're trying to tell

archeologists something.

To me, the findings scream mastodon kill site. If these observations were

made somewhere in the Old World, how then would you interpret the

findings? Would you think it was worth at least looking into a

little deeper? I certainly wish someone would. What a shame it would be if

these observations do indeed indicate a kill site, but were dismissed

because we know humans weren't in the Americas 335k B.P.

To me, this would be the tail wagging the dog.

Peace 8-)

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Not only were humans not in the Americas 350,000 years ago, they weren't on the planet yet, having not evolved before at the very most 200,000 years ago.

This is not a legitimate mammoth 'kill' site, and no paleontologist I know would credit such a claim.

Kris
-----
K. Kris Hirst
About Archaeology
http://archaeology.about.com
http://www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company