I am still going through back issues of journals catching up after
my 3 months break. On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 21:13:03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>GM>This is a list of human technological achievements which I compiled for
>>another list. ...History of Human Chronology, compiled by G.R. Morton,
>>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>>
>>Age BP Oldest example of... place Species
>>Ref.
[...]
>GM>75-116 kyr rock engraving Jinmium, Australia a. H. s.58
[...]
I don't know if this has been posted while I was away but here
is an extract of article in SCIENCE which casts doubts on the
Jinmium TL dates. It seems they could be only 10,000 years old,
rather than the 116-176,000 claimed!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doubts Over Spectacular Dates
A dating technique based on a faint glow from sediments long hidden
from light has yielded some of the most startling and fiercely disputed
dates in archaeology
In the remote Northern Territory of Australia, a huge sandstone
boulder marks the spot where, according to aboriginal lore, a spirit
named Jinmium turned herself to stone to escape her pursuer. This
rock shelter has long been a magical place where ancient people
camped, painted ochre figures, and carved holes in the walls.
Archaeologists have been eager to know how far back its history
extends, and last year, they got an answer that even the leader of the
dating team called "pretty outrageous": between 116,000 and
176,000 years. The date implies, among other things, that humans
have been in Australia two to three times longer than previously
thought and it makes Jinmium the oldest known rock art site in the
world. Admits Richard Fullagar, the Australian Museum
archaeologist who led the team, "We worried about the date."
But the team published the results anyway, along with a few caveats.
Appearing in the journal Antiquity in December 1996, the report
drew worldwide attention-and intense scrutiny. 'When I first heard
about those dates, I didn't believe them," says Rhys Jones, an
archaeologist at Australian National University in Canberra who is a
member of the team now redating the site. "I doubt that the date will
be confirmed." Even Fullagar isn't sure of the date he published. He
jokes: "I'm sticking to my guns. We're still uncertain."
If the date falls and there are early signs that Jinmium's real age may
be as little as 10,000 years-it will eliminate a major challenge to the
conventional view of Australian prehistory. But it will also deal a
blow to the credibility of the experimental dating method used at the
site: determining the age of sediments by measuring a tiny
luminescence signal that builds up while the rock or sand grains are
hidden from sunlight. The method is a potential boon to archaeology,
offering a way to put a time scale on sites that can't be dated by any
other method. Indeed, over the past decade, luminescence techniques
have yielded a series of spectacularly early dates, which have put
people in Siberia more than 260,000 years ago, modern humans in
South Africa 260,000 years ago and in Australia 60,000 years ago (at
sites other than Jinmium), and remarkably sophisticated toolmakers in
central Africa 90,000 years ago."
[...]
(Gibbons A., "Doubts Over Spectacular Dates", Science, Vol. 278, 10
October 1997, p220)
In view of these doubts about the Jinmium dates, maybe it should be
removed from your list?
God bless.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------