PDA

View Full Version : 30 kya dating of Pedra Furada, Brazil painting questioned.


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Philip Dei
Sat, Jul-05-03, 18:22
Article originally posted by Mikey Brass in PaleoAnthro.

July 2, 2003, 10:11AM ROCK OF AGES Method developed at A&M
challenges claims over cave paintings By ERIC BERGER Copyright
2003 Houston Chronicle Science Writer

" Brazilian scientists recently used this method for
setting the age of several Pedra Furada paintings at
between 27,000 and 44,000 years old, backing Guidon's claim
of a very old site.

To add validity to the findings, however, the Guidon team sent
material to Marvin Rowe, a professor of archaeological
chemistry at Texas A&M University, who has developed a novel
method of dating cave art called plasma extraction.

Rowe's method is unique because he can extract traces of
carbon within the non-living pigments, giving scientists a
potentially powerful new tool to date cave painting.

In his lab, Rowe tested 12 mostly reddish paint samples and
found ages ranging from 1,230 to 3,730 years ago, hardly
eyebrow-raising dates for human habitation in South America.

"I was so disappointed myself because it would really have
been a fantastic result," Rowe said.

Guidon did not accept the results, Rowe said.

Guidon was at the research site and unavailable for comment.

But the physics professor who performed the dating for Guidon,
Shigueo Watanabe of the University of São Paulo, said he
stands by the older dates. In an e-mail, Watanabe said he is
flying this week to Pedra Furada to obtain a new sample of the
calcium found in another area to date it.

He points out that there has been little independent
verification of Rowe's technique.

Human occupation at Pedra Furada 30,000 years ago, let alone
50,000, would shatter scientific theories of the peopling of
the Americas. "

Dr.Gh
Sat, Jul-05-03, 18:22
Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<og69gvkg5va7vnuefnpljl8qhu0avor25g@4ax.com>...
> Article originally posted by Mikey Brass in PaleoAnthro.
>
> July 2, 2003, 10:11AM ROCK OF AGES Method developed at A&M
> challenges claims over cave paintings By ERIC BERGER
> Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Science Writer
>
>
> " Brazilian scientists recently used this method for
> setting the age of several Pedra Furada paintings at
> between 27,000 and 44,000 years old, backing Guidon's claim
> of a very old site.
>
> To add validity to the findings, however, the Guidon team
> sent material to Marvin Rowe, a professor of archaeological
> chemistry at Texas A&M University, who has developed a novel
> method of dating cave art called plasma extraction.
>
> Rowe's method is unique because he can extract traces of
> carbon within the non-living pigments, giving scientists a
> potentially powerful new tool to date cave painting.
>
> In his lab, Rowe tested 12 mostly reddish paint samples and
> found ages ranging from 1,230 to 3,730 years ago, hardly
> eyebrow-raising dates for human habitation in South America.
>
> "I was so disappointed myself because it would really have
> been a fantastic result," Rowe said.
>
> Guidon did not accept the results, Rowe said.
>
> Guidon was at the research site and unavailable for comment.
>
> But the physics professor who performed the dating for
> Guidon, Shigueo Watanabe of the University of São Paulo,
> said he stands by the older dates. In an e-mail, Watanabe
> said he is flying this week to Pedra Furada to obtain a new
> sample of the calcium found in another area to date it.
>
> He points out that there has been little independent
> verification of Rowe's technique.
>
> Human occupation at Pedra Furada 30,000 years ago, let alone
> 50,000, would shatter scientific theories of the peopling of
> the Americas. "

There is no particular need to question Rowe's methods, they
are mostly well established C14 methods. His group's use of a
low temerature oxygen plasma to extract carbon from rock art
pigments has been in the literature (that I know of anyway)
since 1990 at the San Diego Museum of Man Rock Art '90
Symposia (Published 1992 Rock Art Papers, San Diego Museum of
Man Papers #28:121-128 ).

There is nothing that is very difficult in the method. The
most likely problems are the same as for any C14 date:
contamination. For example, recent fungal, bacterial or even
lichen growth might alter the dated material. We are talking
very small samples. The method of oxygen plasma extraction is
not an significant issue, but sample collection and
pre-extraction procedure could be important.

Philip Dei
Sat, Jul-05-03, 18:22
On 5 Jul 2003 13:45:07 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
(Dr.GH) wrote:

>There is no particular need to question Rowe's methods, they
>are mostly well established C14 methods. His group's use of a
>low temerature oxygen plasma to extract carbon from rock art
>pigments has been in the literature (that I know of anyway)
>since 1990 at the San Diego Museum of Man Rock Art '90
>Symposia (Published 1992 Rock Art Papers, San Diego Museum of
>Man Papers #28:121-128 ).

Actually I question now any early C14 date, because there is
so little left after 20 ky (4 half lives leaves 1/16th the
original amount of C14) and because any contamination from
external sources can heavily affect dating. IMHO C14 is
probably the most overused and overinterpreted dating method
out their, other than comparative anatomy itself. early C14
dates are heavily affected by contamination. In this
particular case when you talk about paintings on cave walls
the continual leaching of -C03 from calcium carbonate can
replace carbonate in a sample if the sample has a high -CO3
composition.

>There is nothing that is very difficult in the method. The
>most likely problems are the same as for any C14 date:
>contamination.

Contamination is not much of a problem for later dates because
there is so much C14 and so little has decayed. However as C14
decays the 'signal to noise' ratio drops and small amounts of
contamination can affect the datings. A sample bury in a dry
cave where little leaching or intrustion has occurred may be a
good choice for early sample, but something that is
continually exposed to the elements is not.

> For example, recent fungal, bacterial or even lichen growth
> might alter the dated material. We are talking very small
> samples. The method of oxygen plasma extraction is not an
> significant issue, but sample collection and pre-extraction
> procedure could be important.

Fungal growth would act to decrease the C14 date.

Dr.Gh
Sun, Jul-06-03, 19:15
pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in message
news:<3f0757ff.20885649@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On 5 Jul 2003 13:45:07 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
> (Dr.GH) wrote:
>
>
> >There is no particular need to question Rowe's methods,
> >they are mostly well established C14 methods. His group's
> >use of a low temerature oxygen plasma to extract carbon
> >from rock art pigments has been in the literature (that I
> >know of anyway) since 1990 at the San Diego Museum of Man
> >Rock Art '90 Symposia (Published 1992 Rock Art Papers, San
> >Diego Museum of Man Papers #28:121-128 ).
>
> Actually I question now any early C14 date, because there is
> so little left after 20 ky (4 half lives leaves 1/16th the
> original amount of C14) and because any contamination from
> external sources can heavily affect dating. IMHO C14 is
> probably the most overused and overinterpreted dating method
> out their, other than comparative anatomy itself. early C14
> dates are heavily affected by contamination. In this
> particular case when you talk about paintings on cave walls
> the continual leaching of -C03 from calcium carbonate can
> replace carbonate in a sample if the sample has a high -CO3
> composition.

I more or less agree. When I taught medical students, I
noticed that the residents with the least grasp of labwork
ordered the most tests. It will always depend on the technical
experience of the fieldworker, and the pre-extraction labwork.
I have samples of rock art pigments that were not from
limestone substrates (granite and sandstone). Again, it is a
question of the appropriatness of the situation.

>
> >There is nothing that is very difficult in the method. The
> >most likely problems are the same as for any C14 date:
> >contamination.
>
> Contamination is not much of a problem for later dates
> because there is so much C14 and so little has decayed.
> However as C14 decays the 'signal to noise' ratio drops and
> small amounts of contamination can affect the datings. A
> sample bury in a dry cave where little leaching or
> intrustion has occurred may be a good choice for early
> sample, but something that is continually exposed to the
> elements is not.
>
> > For example, recent fungal, bacterial or even lichen
> > growth might alter the dated material. We are talking very
> > small samples. The method of oxygen plasma extraction is
> > not an significant issue, but sample collection and
> > pre-extraction procedure could be important.
>
> Fungal growth would act to decrease the C14 date.

Again depending on substrate, which is the better reason to
question the "late" as opposed to an "early" date as due to
contamination. As a matter of fact, I doubt that the early
pigment dates are reliable. But, if I did want to challenge
the late date, I would not do so based on some unfounded
objection the Lowe's methods.

What we really need to see is multiple methods employed when
dating sites and features. Too few hearths are sampled for
thermo-remnant magnetism AND C14. Even better, find a hearth
with a sherd in it with a matching piece outside, a partially
burnt jaw, and an obsidian flake in it with a matching piece
outside the hearth: C14, hydration rind measurment, fission
tract, TRM, TLD, electron spin resonance, U/Th, amino acid
racimization all on one tight context.

LOL. That would be so cool.

Philip Dei
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
On 6 Jul 2003 16:18:50 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
(Dr.GH) wrote:

>What we really need to see is multiple methods employed when
>dating sites and features. Too few hearths are sampled for
>thermo-remnant magnetism AND C14. Even better, find a hearth
>with a sherd in it with a matching piece outside, a partially
>burnt jaw, and an obsidian flake in it with a matching piece
>outside the hearth: C14, hydration rind measurment, fission
>tract, TRM, TLD, electron spin resonance, U/Th, amino acid
>racimization all on one tight context.

Agreed but being able to triangulate 3 different methods is, I
think, a better ruler to use.

David Timp
Fri, Jul-11-03, 19:14
"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f08d633.11205684@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
| On 6 Jul 2003 16:18:50 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
| (Dr.GH) wrote:
|
|
| >What we really need to see is multiple methods employed
| >when dating sites and features. Too few hearths are sampled
| >for thermo-remnant magnetism AND C14. Even better, find a
| >hearth with a sherd in it with a matching piece outside, a
| >partially burnt jaw, and an obsidian flake in it with a
| >matching piece outside the hearth: C14, hydration rind
| >measurment, fission tract, TRM, TLD, electron spin
| >resonance, U/Th, amino acid racimization all on one tight
| >context.
|
| Agreed but being able to triangulate 3 different methods is,
| I think, a better ruler to use.

Not to mention that if you're dating hearths, flakes, bones,
etc. you're now talking about people who actually left traces
as opposed to mysterious painters who apparently left no other
contemporaneous artifacts in the environment. Especially given
the difficulties dating rock art in general. If humans were
around at the dates posited, they must have done something
other than paint. Maybe the soil is acid, so the likelihood of
fossils is low, but stone tools aren't affected by such an
environment (unless they used limestone or marble, and I don't
think I've ever heard of anyone successfully using them as raw
material).
--
Dave Timpe

dtimpe at new dot rr dot com

Dr.Gh
Sat, Jul-12-03, 06:12
"David Timpe" <DTimpe@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<wpDPa.202292$Xl.3368013@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message news:3f08d633.11205684@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> | On 6 Jul 2003 16:18:50 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
> | (Dr.GH) wrote:
> |
> |
> | >What we really need to see is multiple methods employed
> | >when dating sites and features. Too few hearths are
> | >sampled for thermo-remnant magnetism AND C14. Even
> | >better, find a hearth with a sherd in it with a matching
> | >piece outside, a partially burnt jaw, and an obsidian
> | >flake in it with a matching piece outside the hearth:
> | >C14, hydration rind measurment, fission tract, TRM, TLD,
> | >electron spin resonance, U/Th, amino acid racimization
> | >all on one tight context.
> |
> | Agreed but being able to triangulate 3 different methods
> | is, I think, a better ruler to use.
>
> Not to mention that if you're dating hearths, flakes, bones,
> etc. you're now talking about people who actually left
> traces as opposed to mysterious painters who apparently left
> no other contemporaneous artifacts in the environment.
> Especially given the difficulties dating rock art in
> general. If humans were around at the dates posited, they
> must have done something other than paint. Maybe the soil is
> acid, so the likelihood of fossils is low, but stone tools
> aren't affected by such an environment (unless they used
> limestone or marble, and I don't think I've ever heard of
> anyone successfully using them as raw material).

The cave rock art sites receive so much popular attention
that some people don't seem to know that there are faunal
middens and lithic sites as well. And there are ample numbers
of artifacts manufactured from limestone. I don't know if
there are many from the paleolithic, or mesolitic Europe or
Levant. But they are plenty common where I work, in the
Southwest Deserts of North America. Actually there should be
plenty from the Negev. Does Mazar mention any? How about
Stern? I'll check tonight.

Dr.Gh
Sun, Jul-13-03, 19:24
garyhard@earthlink.net (Dr.GH) wrote in message
news:<37245bbf.0307111902.5d687147@posting.google.com>...
> "David Timpe" <DTimpe@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<wpDPa.202292$Xl.3368013@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> > message news:3f08d633.11205684@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > | On 6 Jul 2003 16:18:50 -0700, garyhard@earthlink.net
> > | (Dr.GH) wrote:
> > |
> > |
> > | >What we really need to see is multiple methods employed
> > | >when dating sites and features. Too few hearths are
> > | >sampled for thermo-remnant magnetism AND C14. Even
> > | >better, find a hearth with a sherd in it with a
> > | >matching piece outside, a partially burnt jaw, and an
> > | >obsidian flake in it with a matching piece outside the
> > | >hearth: C14, hydration rind measurment, fission tract,
> > | >TRM, TLD, electron spin resonance, U/Th, amino acid
> > | >racimization all on one tight context.
> > |
> > | Agreed but being able to triangulate 3 different methods
> > | is, I think, a better ruler to use.
> >
> > Not to mention that if you're dating hearths, flakes,
> > bones, etc. you're now talking about people who actually
> > left traces as opposed to mysterious painters who
> > apparently left no other contemporaneous artifacts in the
> > environment. Especially given the difficulties dating rock
> > art in general. If humans were around at the dates
> > posited, they must have done something other than paint.
> > Maybe the soil is acid, so the likelihood of fossils is
> > low, but stone tools aren't affected by such an
> > environment (unless they used limestone or marble, and I
> > don't think I've ever heard of anyone successfully using
> > them as raw material).
>
> The cave rock art sites receive so much popular attention
> that some people don't seem to know that there are faunal
> middens and lithic sites as well. And there are ample
> numbers of artifacts manufactured from limestone. I don't
> know if there are many from the paleolithic, or mesolitic
> Europe or Levant. But they are plenty common where I work,
> in the Southwest Deserts of North America. Actually there
> should be plenty from the Negev. Does Mazar mention any? How
> about Stern? I'll check tonight.

Mazar, Amihai 1992 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible:
10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York:
ABRL/Doubleday

Stern, Ephraim 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol.
II: The Asserian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732-332
B.C.E.) The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York:
ABRL/Doubleday

both report limestone artifacts, but they are incence burners
and so on. In fact, (like most historic archaeologists) they
both nearly ignor basics like hammers, milling/grinding
stones, abraders etc.: the tools to make tools. They are not
at all "paleo" but at least there are limestome artifacts that
one can reasonably expect to find. Oh well.