[meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and RCYB (radiocarbon years)

From: Thaddeus Besedin <endophasy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <135439.28094.qm_at_web62508.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Well-dated fluted point sites (Clovis) seem to,
according to recent work in clovis site chronology
bracketing (Waters and Stafford 1997
http://dmc-news.tamu.edu/templates/?a=4202&z=0 ) date
from an ~200-400 year period terminting abruptly by
the end of the last interglacial period, the Younger
Dryas Stadial, which is dated to ~12,900 - 11,500
years ago. Popular press does not usually catch their
naive confuaion of radiocarbon and calibrated years.
Archaeologists seem to make the same mistake. There
are no true, well-dated Clovis sites (with full
classis Clovis prismatic blade toolkit) dating from
after ~12,900 cal BP, but Fluted point technology
persists. Clovis points were probably curated by later
people, since their size made them visible to late
Pleistocene people, which then allowed the continued
use of functional bifaces (ofetn of great size).
Fluted point sites proliferate in the east because of
environmental factors, not necessarily because a
greater frequency of sites occurs. Sedimentary
preservation of sites is more common in places of
lower relief, like Florida. The record is skewed.

Recently, Radiocarbon dates at the non-fluted-point,
non-microlithic Mesa site in Alska
(http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/research/StatePages/PDFs/lo_res_%20kunz%2014ap03.sep.pdf)
have returned dates both earlier and contemporaneous
with Clovis (e.g. Beta-55236 (intact hearth): 11,660
+/- 80 14C YBP
returns the calibrated date of 13,431 +/- 141, or
2-sigma 13290 - 13572, and GX-26461: 12,240 +/- 610
14C YBP calibrates to 14718 +/- 1084
for a 2-sigma calibrated range of 13634 - 15802 BP
[CalCurve: CalPal2004_SFCP
QuickCal Ver. 1.3.1])


the removal of fluting flakes has only occured in the
Old World at the Uptar site in NE Siberia
(http://www.archaeology.org/9611/newsbriefs/uptar.html),
which may represent a late migration of North American
toolmakers into Siberia, but may be an in situ
development. The Uptar point has a contracting
stem-like base, similar to well-represented Ushki and
Windust/Lake Mojave style late Pleistocene-early
Holocene forms. A late influx of North American people
into Siberia may have iincluded representatives of
both stemmed and fluted traditions, contemporaneous in
North America, where terminal Pleistocene stemmed
point technology survived into the Holocene. Basal
thinning of hafted objects is common in East Asia from
the Upper Paleolithic. The preference by fluted point
makers for a common bifacial thinning style which
produces outrepasse flake terminations to define
biface edges opposing the striking platforms of
removed surface does not make Clovis technology
similar to any Western European tradition, such as the
Solutrean tradition. Clovis is late, brief, and often
invisible, since projectile point forms can hardly
define a "culture."
-Thaddeus
--- Paul <bristolia at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 3
> (Long)
>
> Note: my previous post in this series can be found
> at:
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html
> ,
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-July/036230.html
> ,
> and
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html
>
> In the thread "[meteorite-list] Intro the muck once
> again",
> Mr. Grondine wrote:
>
> "I wrote:
>
> "That point may be placed between say about 45,000
> BCE and 8,249 BCE.?"
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "Contrary to what Mr. Grondine claims above, none of
> the projectile points reported by Hibben (1943) has
> been dated as being older 11,000 BP."
>
> What I claimed was "between". Last time I checked
> 11,000 BP came between 45,000 BCE and 8,249 BCE.
> But then perhaps its new math, or new archaeology,
> or
> something else. I go with something else."
>
> Again, the fact of the matter is that there is a
> complete lack of any
> evidence for Pale-Indian points older than 11,000 to
> 13,000 BP,
> if you include recent discoveries in Maryland that
> were announced
> after my last post. Although there artifacts older
> than 13,000 BP
> have been found in the New World, none of them are
> the type of
> Pale-Indian artifacts, which Hibben (1943) discussed
> having found
> in Alaska. Thus, your age range from 45,000 BCE and
> 8,249 BCE
> is completely wrong. This is well documented in
> innumerable papers
> and textbooks, which Mr. Grondine either has not
> bothered to read
> or simply ignores because they completely refute his
> pet theories.
> For the details, a person can go look at:
>
> Haynes, C. V., Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age
> and Dispersion.
> Science. vol. 145, no. 3639, pp. 1408-1413.
>
> Holliday, V. T., 2000, The evolution of Paleoindian
> geochronology
> and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology.
> vol. 15, no. 3,
> pp. 227-290.
>
> Holliday, V. T., C. V. Haynes, J. L. Hofman and D.
> J. Meltzer,
> 1994, Geoarchaeology and Geochronology of the Miami
> (Clovis)
> Site, Southern High Plains of Texas. Quaternary
> Research. vol. 41,
> no. 4, pp. 234-244.
>
> Hibben (1943) is:
>
> Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in
> Alaska.
> American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.
>
> More recently, Clovis points dating to about 13,000
> BP have been
> found in Maryland as discussed in "UD grad student's
> discovery
> could help rewrite prehistory, Univ. of Delaware
> Daily at;
>
>
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/aug/lowery080807.html
>
> Even these Clovis Points are 35,000 years too young
> to support
> Mr. Grondine's claims of PaleoIndian points being as
> old as "45,000
> BCE".
>
> Mr. Grondine continued,
>
> "Given this level of discussion, one has to wonder
> why I carry on - oh yes, its because there was an
> impact that killed large numbers of people, and
> that and only that makes it worth the time and
> aggravation."
>
> I sorry, but given the completely imaginary nature
> of your impact
> and the fictional nature of the "large numbers of
> people" killed
> by your imaginary impact, you are wasting a large
> amount of time
> and aggravation for nothing. The few geologists,
> whom have seen
> your book consider it a boring piece of fiction,
> which I call
> "geopoetry", much like disaster movies such as
> "Volcano", "10.5",
> "The Core", "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York",
> and "Crack
> in the World".
>
> I am wasting my time and effort on this discussion
> because, a
> considerable number of catastrophists deliberately
> mislead their
> readers by falsely citing and portraying Hibben
> (1943) as a
> reliable and credible source of information about
> the so-called
> Alaskan "muck" deposits. The bankruptcy of these
> catastrophists
> illustrated by the fact they have to completely
> ignore over 60
> years of research by world-class scientists and
> ignore the complete
> lack of expertise by Hibben (1943) and his numerous
> credibility
> problems to argue for there being tsunami deposits
> of any types in
> his so-called Alaskan "mucks". The catastrophists,
> who accept
> Hibben (1943) as an authoritative source and
> rejecting everything
> else written in the 60 year since it was published
> are practicing
> what I call "Cafeteria Catastrophism", in which
> data, papers,
> interpretations, and arguments are accepted and
> rejected like a
> person selects food at a cafeteria based on either
> how tasteful or
> distasteful the food is.
>
> Mr. Grondine continued,
>
> "Now it's all very easy to say some 60 years
> later to say that "this was the deposit that
> Hibbens saw" or that "this was the place he was",
> and then make claims about his work. The specific
> deposits which Hibbens examined were destroyed
> in the same hydraulic mining operation that
> exposed them."
>
> The claim is completely false. Any comparison, as I
> did in my
> previous post of the descriptions given by Hibben
> (1943) of his
> "muck" deposits and the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and
> Holocene
> deposits of show that Hibben's so-called "muck"
> deposits are
> exactly the same deposits, which have been studied
> by the later
> researchers in the past sixty years. Although the
> specific outcrops
> are gone, the same deposits can be seen in newer
> outcrops and
> those described in the papers described at the end
> of this post.
> The people reading this list can judge for
> themselves by
> comparing the descriptions given in any of the
> papers listed at
> the end of this post. In addition, the cataclysmic
> mega-tsunami
> hypothesized by Mr. Grondine would have blanketed
> thousands of
> square miles with a very distinctive sedimentary
> layers that would
> be physically impossible for any mining operations
> and other
> human activities to have completely removed.
>
> This topic was discussed in mind-numbing detail in:
>
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html
>
> In addition, the imaginary nature of his "muck"
> deposits. mammoth
> bones and archaeological site, which Hibben (1943)
> reported from
> Chinitna Bay is well documented by:
>
> Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett and E. J. Dixon,
> 1978,
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
Received on Tue 21 Aug 2007 09:24:56 PM PDT