Hueyatlaco: Anomalies and Orthodoxy

[CMD]

The Hueyatlaco archaeological site is highly controversial and may be as interesting as a case study of dueling disciplines as it is for the conclusions suggested by some. I found 3 pieces, which taken together, represent an opportunity to consider the overall problem of how anomolies are dealt with by dominant paradigms.
So those of you who enjoy examining "evidence that doesn't fit" might enjoy reading these.
First, a synopsis of the controversy of the Mexican archaeological site known as Hueyatlaco, and what can happen when one discipline, geology, contradicts another discipline, archaeology...

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-scie...h-2439498.html

"On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”

Next, a recent paper co-authored by geologist Steen-McIntyre, and concluding the "ridiculously early" dates are valid.
http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_3...lde/index.html

Last, an essay by philosophers discussing what happens when anomalies confront orthodoxy in times of scientific flux or revolution, e.g. the pre-Clovis "revolution".
Hueyatlaco: Anatomy of an Anomaly
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...cia_life18.htm

"In this study, we examine in detail a particular case of anomalous evidence meeting received view. In this case, the received view is a theory about human origins in the Americas, and the anomaly is a site in Mexico, the age of which is apparently in conflict with that received theory. Without trying to decide whether the received view is correct, or whether the anomalous evidence is worth considering (which is, after all, a job for specialists), we will follow the story of what happened to the scientists involved, and draw conclusions about what can and cannot be expected from science as a real human institution.

In particular, we will argue that, in periods of instability in science (“revolution,” if you like), it is in the very nature of science to treat anomalous evidence with hostility and suspicion, even when there is little evidential reason to suspect it."

I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!".

[CMD]

Just received this comment from another forum where I posted the same thread...
  "I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams "impossible!!""
I did some research work with Sam Van Landingham on the Dorenberg skull that was retrieved by Joseph Dorenberg, the German Consul to Puebla, Mexico in the 1890s and sent to Leipzig for analysis. Although the skull was bombed to dust by the British in 1943, samples of the diatoms that were preseved inside the skull were taken and stored at the Alfred Wagener Institute in Bremen ... where they are today.
Sam demonstrated that the diatoms found within the skull date from the Sangamon Age, or about 114,000 years ago and older, give or take, depending upon the resource. Nobody has refuted his findings since he is too well respected in the field, but nobody is talking either.

[Ron Kelley]

Don't confuse me with the facts. Next thing you know someone will want me to believe that the world is round or that earth is not the center of the universe. When Columbus "discovered" America there were only about 100 million people living in the Americas. I hope I'm not beheaded for that nonsense.
Ron

[CMD]

Greg, hope you don't mind, I am posting a comment you offered, as well as my reply, from another forum. I'm doing this because, although I could not truly care less if folks here wonder if I've somehow lost my mind and am actually suggesting these dates cannot be disputed, at the same time it probably helps if I clarify where I am coming from. I can't answer your direct questions but I can at least point out I was not actually trying to promote the geologists' conclusions as much as illustrating how orthodoxy responds to heresy.
  "Interesting Charlie.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were other artifacts found in context in the following excavations? Or we're they just researching the soils? So a camel tooth and mastodon are 250,000 years old. The artifacts, were they found in context or were they brought in by the hired help? The soil conditions couldn't possibly have been changed, shuffled, in 20,000 years?
The possibility of humans, in the new world, making stone implements 250,000 years ago, is quite a stretch."
  Of course it's a stretch within today's accepted parameters. As noted I thought the subject was as interesting for what it showed about how science reacts to anomolies that appear too extreme in relation to accepted parameters. Hence that 3rd link. Prior to the early 19th century, peasants who reported seeing stones fall from the sky were dismissed as uneducated fools. Science did not have a paradigm into which they could plug "rocks falling from the sky", therefore it was impossible that rocks fell from the sky. But, as it turns out, it was the orthodox holding scientists who were the fools. In graduate school, admittedly ages ago, I concentrated in Western intellectual history and the history of Western science. Thomas Kuhn's 1970 classic "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" reminded me that every generation has its orthodoxy and orthodoxy can be harsh and irrational at times. Galileo ended up on house arrest because he undermined a faith dominated orthodoxy. Wilhelm Reich ended up in prison. Not saying I embrace every anomaly, I am saying I never embrace orthodoxy uncritically. Today orthodoxy dismisses so-called psychic phenomena. Yet Nobel winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, one of the founders of modern psychiatry, were open minded enough to consider if there might be models that would permit entry of such phenomena into more acceptance. Hence their collaborative essay "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle in Nature." I will always prefer to be free from the unconscious worship of orthodox opinion. The creator gave me a keen discriminating intellect, and my professors honed my ability to use it. I'm not concerned with easily falling victim to silly claims. I am concerned that I never be bound by any straight jacket orthodoxy. Wasn't "nobody in America prior to about the time of Christ" orthodoxy at one time? I would fully expect these "way too early dates" here to be reacted to by archaeologists exactly as they have been. Which is not the same thing as saying their opinion is not correct in this instance. I just prefer to stand outside my time and place as much as I am able, so as not to fall into the trap of thinking we know more then we really know. And I thought the Hueyatlaco story was a classic example of how orthodoxy reacts to extraordinary claims, and as the authors of the article at the 3rd link suggest, this is never more true then when the orthodox theories are already under fire.
And, if I could journey to the year 2213, and examine what is known at that time regarding prehistory in general, I can well imagine finding myself saying "man, were we ever clueless or what?!"
I'm no enemy of truth. But, looking at the history of Western science, one will find many examples in which scientists do act as enemies of truths not yet recognized. For that reason, while ultimately it is not fully possible, I nonetheless strive to stand outside my time and place to gain that perspective rather then any hide bound opinions or orthodoxy of the day. Charles Fort was an iconoclastic early 20th century American who enjoyed compiling anomalies. There are many people today who enjoy adopting a Fortean perspective. I am one such. I'm educated enough in how to use my mind not to worry about subscribing to a belief in nonsense. Taking the perspective I do preserves my independence of mind, and that is really the only thing that concerns me, preserving my independence of mind at all times. Standing outside my own time as much as is humanly possible.

[Ron Kelley]

Thanks Charlie, I am only 66 years old and a lot of scientific "FACTS" have changed in my lifetime. As a child I was discussing the moons affect on tides with my sister. My father was laughing so hard he nearly fell of the floor. He wanted to know who told us that nonsense. My father never did come to believe that man traveled to the moon. That was a Hollywood production. I thought that he was one of a kind but learned later that his "Hollywood theory" was shared by thousands.
Ron

[CMD]

Ron Kelley wrote:

Thanks Charlie, I am only 66 years old and a lot of scientific "FACTS" have changed in my lifetime. As a child I was discussing the moons affect on tides with my sister. My father was laughing so hard he nearly fell of the floor. He wanted to know who told us that nonsense. My father never did come to believe that man traveled to the moon. That was a Hollywood production. I thought that he was one of a kind but learned later that his "Hollywood theory" was shared by thousands.
Ron

  Ron, when I was younger, I lived across the street from a small farm run by 2 brothers, the last members of their family. One had the unusual habit of barking and howling and waving his fist at every full moon. We had to jump out of our car and drag him off a dangerous curve in front of his farmhouse one night. Since then, whenever I hear a scientist say there is no evidence that the full moon has an affect on the human mind, I just chuckle and shake my head. That full moon affected that man to no small degree.

[painshill]

I’m kinda staying out of the scientific arguments on this one since it opens up a very complex and controversial debate. But I can’t sit on my hands any longer. A few things (well more than a few actually) trouble me. Virginia Steen-McIntyre is often referred to as a “geologist”, but I’m not sure that’s correct. My understanding is that although she held a junior position as a graduate student in the US Geological Survey when she was asked to join the Hueyatlaco team in 1966, I thought she was an anthropologist with a doctorate in Tephrochronology (the study of the stratigraphy of volcanic ash) which – if correct - is not the same thing at all.

I’ve also seen it stated that she’s a devout creationist. Although there’s no evidence in her published work of that creating a bias, I intensely object to the emotive titles of some of her work. “Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico” published in NEXUS in 1998 for example. She seems to play the role of “victim” rather well and that has encouraged the “usual suspects” (all the way to Graham Hancock) to jump onto her wagon.

This exchange is said to come from a manuscript of an interview with Paul Williams Roberts for Harper’s magazine, which apparently was never published (Roberts’ questions in bold caps and Steen-McIntyre’s reported responses in italics):

… IS "SOMETHING WRONG" WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Not if you realize it is JUST a theory, and a shaky one at that.
But think for a moment. Every major despot and would-be dictator since Darwin has loved that theory - Marx, Hitler, Mao. It gives them such freedom to kill off those they don't like and to mess around with genetics to create superman.
After all, when the Theory of Evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, the only moral imperative demanded is "survival of the fittest".

SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
No, I don't like it, for scientific reasons: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics for one thing. I don't like it for philosophical and religions reasons. I especially don't like it because it helped ruin my career.

She may be a creationist (nothing wrong with that if that's your persuasion and it doesn't cloud your judgement), but at least she’s not a “young-earther”.
Continuing to point out the considerable difficulties presented to mainstream archaeology and the majority expert view by her radical interpretation of the data from Hueyatlaco is not the same thing as “suppression of evidence”. Nor does it represent some kind of conspiracy to deny the truth.

There’s a lot of stuff trotted out that says her career was “destroyed” (eg she was ridiculed, denied permission to publish, forced out of her university teaching job and so on) because she held out for an early date for the Hueyatlaco tools against the advice of the Cynthia Irwin-Williams who led the first excavations at the site in 1962. That seems to be a considerable exaggeration of the truth without much substance to support the “persecution” stories.

What is true is that the conditions at the site were extremely complex. Deep trenches were cut into the formation to obtain samples. The stratigraphy comprised different layers of sand, silt, and clay interspersed with layers of volcanic ash. The site was near a lake and had been subjected to flooding. In some cases the strata had been tilted considerably and the tool-bearing strata appeared to have been eroded by an ancient stream bed. Sampling location was a critical factor and there was considerable disagreement among Steen-McIntyre, Irwin Williams, and Jose Lorenzo concerning sampling location and interpretation. That’s largely what led to the disagreements concerning the data and those disagreements continue today.

[CMD]

"I’m kinda staying out of the scientific arguments on this one since it opens up a very complex and controversial debate. But I can’t sit on my hands any longer. A few things (well more than a few actually) trouble me. Virginia Steen-McIntyre is often referred to as a “geologist”, but I’m not sure that’s correct. My understanding is that although she held a junior position as a graduate student in the US Geological Survey when she was asked to join the Hueyatlaco team in 1966, I thought she was an anthropologist with a doctorate in Tephrochronology (the study of the stratigraphy of volcanic ash) which – if correct - is not the same thing at all."


Thank you, Roger. I knew you were biting your tongue

[gregszybala]

A creationist who is not a young-earther.
Kind of an oxymoron?