Why 50,000 bp is a "Crazy Date" for Topper

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Kris's Archaeology Blog

Later this year, the first peer-reviewed report on the geostratigraphy of the Topper site in South Carolina will be published in the Journal of Archaeological Science. I got to look at the paper, and it allows a solid look at the site stratigraphy, and raises a bunch of questions.

The Topper site is a stratified deeply buried site on the Savannah River about fifty miles in from the Atlantic coast in South Carolina. Excavated for the past 20 years by Al Goodyear and the Allendale Paleoindian Expedition, Topper has confirmed archaic and paleoindian occupations, including a well-preserved Clovis. That in itself makes Topper remarkable—there are very few stratified Clovis sites in North America.

But, below the Clovis site are two additional strata, one dated (now firmly) 15,000 RCYBP, and a second (now firmly) at >50,000 RCYBP. Both layers have similar lithic tools, what excavator Al Goodyear calls a smashed core and microlithic industry.

I have said before here that 50,000 years is a "completely crazy" date for human occupation of the Americas. Recently I was called to task for it, because "completely crazy" isn't what you might call a professional way to characterize scientific archaeological research, which is what the Allendale Paleoindian Expedition is, absolutely. I must agree, my tone was wrong—but I stand by my basic meaning. If Topper turns out to be 50,000 years old, then everything we understand about the world and its population will have to be re-addressed. Let me explain.

http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/why-50000-bp-is-a-crazy-date-for-topper.htm

[Orrex]

1. That's a lot of basis points--no wonder Wall Street's in the shitter

Oh, wait a minute...

[Adsos Letter]

2. ! lol...

:spray:

[HeresyLives]

3. Then if 'everything we understand about the world

and it's population will have to be re-addressed', then re-address it!

[Adsos Letter]

4. Indeed! The article to be released, which this author addresses...

is peer-reviewed, so that should mean something.

[HeresyLives]

5. Well I'm sure it's inconvenient

as hell, but being willing to re-examine old truisms is the only way we've moved forward.

You'd think the very idea is unheard of!

[Adsos Letter]

6. Not at all...Historians are constantly revisiting previous conclusions...

asking new questions, questioning previous answers.

[HeresyLives]

9. Exactly!

[dysfunctional press]

7. what's all this talk about topper's age?

[Adsos Letter]

8. Significant to a certain era, my friend...

:D

[Submariner]

10. Oh good.....someone else who remembers....I don't feel as old now

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Me too!

[MineralMan]

12. Topper Trivia Question

What was the name of the martini sipping dog in Topper, the TV show?

[trof]

13. Neal. Or Neil.

[MineralMan]

15. You got it, in one try.

I'm not sure of the spelling, either, but I really liked the dog that drank the martinis.

[On the Road]

14. It *Is* a Completely Crazy Date

Certainly humans had developed sufficiently to travel from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere under the right conditions. It just doesn't fit into anything else that's known about early human migration patterns.

If the Topper site is going to be accepted as being from 50,000BC, it needs more than a published article reporting the results of a carbon dating test.

On Edit:

Perhaps the site is not so unique. From the comments section of the article:

7) Allan Shumaker says:

There is a growing body of evidence for some variety of tool using hominid in the Americas prior to last LGM. Steve Holen’s reports on La Sena and Lovewell indicate high plains scavengers stacking camel bones at 18kya. Pendejo Cave had worked bones dating to 51 kya and fingerprints in clay hearths that dated to 28kya. At Monte Verde I, Tom Dillehay recovered a stone tool with blood residue that dated 33kya. Neide Guidon has a series of hearths and stone tools with use wear striations that date back to 50kya at Pedra Furada in Brazil.

So maybe the jury is out. What I think a lot of people don't appreciate is how many spurious claims in this and most other academic fields, and even published in peer reviewed journals. You might even call the skepticism part of the peer review process. Sometimes they turn out to be right, but initial skepticial is warranted.