The Topper site, 50,000 year old North American excavation?

reply to post by Harte


I suspect so too Harte. The stone tools in that layer seem natural made also.

A rather technical discussion on Topper at the Hall of Maat: Warning Archae tech lingo in full bloom!

The link

Originally posted by Hanslune
A rather technical discussion on Topper at the Hall of Maat: Warning Archae tech lingo in full bloom!
The link

That's some demolition job by Mr Hatchett on the idea of there being anything at all pre-dating Clovis. No hearth removes the likelihood of the the area being settled and the artifacts are explained as being created by natural forces ie. river impact. There is also some question about the dates being suggested by Goodyear? Is that a fair summary? I may have misunderstood the terminology.

I certainly enjoyed the argument between Hatchett and Olsen that concluded in this reply to Olsen...

A discussion between a butcher and a brain surgeon on how to proceed with removing a brain tumor without killing the patient is not a pissing contest. Let's see who the surgeons are.

source

The last time I followed one of your links to Hall of Maat, it was much less technical

Will other peer reviews of the evidence at Topper also appear at the Hall of Maat?

I believe there are other discussions on that and Calico which covers some of the same issues.

The search function at HOM is fairly good or just ask one of the people there.

Harte informs us also that there were previous mentions of Topper here at ATS.

The search function here at ATS is like an Italian Cavalry division in 1943 Russia; look down on as antiquated, often misused, poorly organized and usually doesn't do what you want it too, and in the end you'll come to realize its the wrong tool, in the wrong place for what you want to do.

Originally posted by Hanslune

If - as the one article notes, the date is correct, it would throw things around. Siberia is not particularly well surveyed for archaeological sites - but then most of the world isn't either!
/quote]

But supposedly a bunch of sites in extreme northeastern North America are now under water. It would be fascinating to know what can be found there, date it, and see the patterns of migrations.

reply to post by haika


Yep Beringia might have some interesting secrets to share as will/would the shore line, however the people weren't clued to the coast line and could and did venture inland. With small nomadic family groups moving thru an area the chance of finding stuff is small. I'm not sure what the stone tool percentage per square kilometer is in say Alaska but it probably fairly small. Compared to say some areas of the Middle East where it's in the hundreds if not thousands per km2. The difference between long term human habitation and recent movements.

Well I for one am very excited I wont even call myself an amateur but a very interested person.

I've heard of this location a while ago but lost track and great find and I also hope it pans out.


[edit on 19-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by Hanslune


What exactly are the limits to carbon dating?

“…The timing of the first change from meandering to braided is unknown, with only dates in excess of 50,000 yr B.P. being reported from the upper portion of the deposits of the first meandering stream package. This study of the terraces at the Topper site yielded similar minimum limiting ages (>55,000 yr B.P.) for the initial meander period. Leigh and others (2004) have suggested that the shift from meandering to a braided stream regime occurred in other streams in the Southeast possibly as early as 70,000 yr B.P. and as late at 30,000 yr B.P., though this age span may reflect precision limits on radiocarbon dating…”

reply to post by SLAYER69


Briefly and going from memory. Around 50,000 years is the limit of accuracy due to the difficulty of measuring the half lifes for the C-14 once it gets below a certain number.

I will now go and check a reference to see if that is right!

Checking and I was fairly close

As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years. This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).

So after ten half lives correct determination is not possible/accurate.

reply to post by Hanslune


Ok so I know they cannot carbon date stones and that brings me to the next question how do they determin dates older than 50.000

I mean say for example they find some megalithic sites and determine from some camp fire nearby that the site is say 3.000 years old right because they believe the builders also made those campfires etc.

But what if the monument were already there and 3.000 years ago it was already 5.000 years old

reply to post by Hanslune
Until the past couple of days and especially the HoM link, I had a limited idea of how technical archaeology is before drawing conclusions. The idea that terrain, gradient, water speed and geology is taken into account is excellent. It reminds me of Sherlock Holmes and his study of the mineral content and burn rate of tobacco in cigarettes

Following your mention of Beringia, I was looking at this site here (I'm still reading up on Siberian sites). This quote here reminded me of Newfoundland as Spring arrives...

During those thousands of years Beringia was an arid, desolate land with thin snow cover and strong winter winds and storms. In the spring, rains and melting snowdrifts would change the barren land into a patchwork of vegetation. Beringia was mainly a treeless land with most plants being very low shrubs. In the rare more sheltered places alder, dwarf-birch and heath shrubs would be found. In these sheltered area animals would graze and browse on the available plants.

Quite a hostile environment and then I thought of the predators. I doubt that bears and other apex predators were on any endangered list back then. Then, as now, we probably weren't first choice on the menu. Nevertheless these (possibly) small groups of people still had to share the environment with lions, bears, wolves etc. It's quite the tale of endeavor under adversity.

Edited to add this link to Beringia predators. 3 metre tall Short-faced bears, scimitar cats, lions? What a place to raise a family!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hopefully they look for materials underneath the stones, as ancients often made scrafices in a receving hole. Megalithic stone is impossible to date, especially if un-modified, some types of 'stone' can be dated for when it was modified, obsidian, etc.

Here is a good site that goes over the various dating systems

archaeology.about.com...

Questimate is common in such cases too. However in example for the Gizah pyramids while you cannot date the limestone rocks you can look at the quarry rubble and find Old kingdome materials mixed in with the dumped rock.

Context is your friend

[edit on 19/2/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Kandinsky


Yeah Newfoundland is a good descriptor, particularly the Great northern peninsula. I'm not sure I've read whether the area was forested or what.

Nomads use to follow herds, based on what we know of nomads in the pre-modern world they did lose people to preying animals.

It must have been a hostile place.

i was digging around on the net regarding topper and other pre-clovis sites, i have come across the "Meadowcroft RockShelter"

Meadows Rockshelter is an archaeological site located near Avella in Washington County, in southwestern Pennsylvania, United States. A rock shelter in a bluff overlooking Cross Creek (a tributary of the Ohio River), Meadowcroft Rockshelter is located about 36 miles west-southwest of Downtown Pittsburgh and is part of the Pittsburgh Metro Area. It is operated by the Heinz History Center.

The site was excavated from 1973 until 1978 by a University of Pittsburgh team led by James M. Adovasio. Radiocarbon dates from the site indicated occupancy as early as 16,000 years ago and possibly as long as 19,000 years ago. The "Clovis First" camp has tried to dispute the age of the findings, but generally their efforts have been dismissed.[citation needed] Although the dates are still controversial to some, archaeologists familiar with evidence from the site agree that Meadowcroft was used by Native Americans in the pre-Clovis era, and as such, provides evidence for very early human habitation of the Americas. In fact, if the 19,000 years ago dating is correct, Meadowcroft Rockshelter is the oldest known Native American cultural site.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter has yielded Woodland, Archaic and Paleoindian remains, indicating evidence of the processing of animals, such as deer, elk, bird eggs, and mussels; as well as plants such as corn, squash, fruits, nuts and seeds. The site also has yielded many tools, including ceramics, bifaces, biface fragments, lamellar blades, a lanceolate projectile point and chipping debris. At least one basin-shaped hearth was reused over time.

It was given the name Meadowcroft from the nearby Meadowcroft Village historical park. Although sometimes referred to as "Meadowcroft Rock Shelter", the more accepted and popular term is "Meadowcroft Rockshelter".

en.wikipedia.org...