tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post1427042539081094349..comments2023-11-02T08:42:23.947+00:00Comments on The Subversive Archaeologist: It's About Time! El Sidrón Neanderthals are 49 kyr old, not 10thesubversivearchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-90112958366374933942014-05-23T09:40:49.037+01:002014-05-23T09:40:49.037+01:00Sorry for the late reply, I only recently saw the ...Sorry for the late reply, I only recently saw the post. Spawn of Endra is not quite correct on a few points. First, the ultrafilter method was initially applied to collagen destined for radiocarbon dating in Simon Fraser university, BC, not in Lawrence Livermore, and the work was mostly done by Tom Brown, who was working on it for his doctoral dissertation. Of course ultrafiltration is an old technique (first reference 1907) and in use in science in a range of industrial filtering and membrane applications. In Oxford, we started tested this method in 2000. It was Mike Richards (formerly in BC and a DPhil student in Oxford at the time) who was a key mover in beginning the first stages of testing the method once again in our lab. I arrived in early 2001 and we continued testing specifically on Palaeolithic bones, steadily chipping away at a series of what seemed to be strange dates in the literature (many which had been previously dated in our laboratory). Our first paper on this was in 2004 (Bronk Ramsey et al.) and later in 2006 (Higham et al.). Fiona Brock started with us in 2005. <br />Spawn is right that methodological developments in labs are team efforts, and the result often of groups of people working together. Our lab is no exception! We are fortunate to have had, and to have, many bright young students who develop and improve the radiocarbon method. We always cite Brown et al. (1988) in our publications when discussing ultrafiltration, although we know now that the technique is not without its potential problems, and certainly when dating old bone samples using radiocarbon it is key that corrections are made for lab background because with bone there are many more preparative stages. For this we use sample specific (bone) backgrounds (see Rachel Wood et al. 2011). <br />Thanks for the Blog and comments on posts. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12326641876963039502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-47696595723210346542014-05-23T09:40:11.878+01:002014-05-23T09:40:11.878+01:00Sorry for the late reply, I only recently saw the ...Sorry for the late reply, I only recently saw the post. Spawn of Endra is not quite correct on a few points. First, the ultrafilter method was initially applied to collagen destined for radiocarbon dating in Simon Fraser university, BC, not in Lawrence Livermore, and the work was mostly done by Tom Brown, who was working on it for his doctoral dissertation. Of course ultrafiltration is an old technique (first reference 1907) and in use in science in a range of industrial filtering and membrane applications since that time. In Oxford, we started tested this method in 2000. It was Mike Richards (formerly in BC and a DPhil student in Oxford at the time) who was a key mover in beginning the first stages of testing the method once again in our lab. I arrived in early 2001 and we continued testing, and then applying it specifically on Palaeolithic bones, steadily chipping away at a series of what seemed to be strange dates in the literature (many which had been previously dated in our laboratory). Our first paper on this was in 2004 (Bronk Ramsey et al.) and later in 2006 (Higham et al.). Fiona Brock started with us in 2005. <br />Spawn is right that methodological developments in labs are team efforts, and the result often of groups of people working together. Our lab is no exception. We are fortunate to have had, and to have, many bright young students who develop and improve the radiocarbon method. We always cite Brown et al. (1988) in our publications when discussing ultrafiltration, although we know now that the technique is not without its potential problems, and certainly when dating old bone samples using radiocarbon it is key that corrections are made for lab background because with bone there are many more preparative stages. For this we use sample specific (bone) backgrounds (see Rachel Wood et al. 2011). <br />Thanks for the Blog and comments on posts. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12326641876963039502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-18867953833991179872013-04-28T23:59:47.184+01:002013-04-28T23:59:47.184+01:00Hi, Anonymous.
I fully understand why anyone migh...Hi, Anonymous.<br /><br />I fully understand why anyone might be confused by the equivocal 'picture' that arises from the two cited articles. However, both Torres et al. (2010) and Wood et al. (2013) are definite that the bipedal ape remains from the cave of El Sidrón are those of our close relations, the Neanderthals. Yet, curiously, in their Table 1, Torres et al. (2010) list the fossil remains as "Hominid." <br /><br />For that reason I can't fault you for being a little unsure about the species to which SID-2A and SID-3A are ascribed. Nevertheless, the directly dated Neanderthal fossils from El Sidrón range in age from about 10,270 at the low end of the range to above 50,000 at the high end (Torres et al. 2010).<br /><br />Thus, Wood et al.'s (2013) abstract is correct when it states that "direct radiocarbon dates on the human fossils [in the 2010 paper] were inconsistent, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 BP." <br /><br />Thanks for visiting. You're welcome any time.<br />rhgthesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-2305478634735739972013-04-28T16:03:53.297+01:002013-04-28T16:03:53.297+01:00Having read the article of Torres et al. 2010, I c...Having read the article of Torres et al. 2010, I couldnt find any 'report' claiming that the SID-3A tooth dating back to 10.340 +/- 70 ka is that of a Neandertal. The authors have adressed it as hominid molar. <br /><br />So I was wondering, how you came up with a Neandertal origin?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-86548458385950947472013-04-04T00:20:00.936+01:002013-04-04T00:20:00.936+01:00Right you are, Anon. A 10,000 year old Neanderthal...Right you are, Anon. A 10,000 year old Neanderthal would indeed be extraordinary. The longest I've ever heard anyone suggest that they lived is about 35. ;-) But seriously, folks. Yep. Torres et al. 2010 report a date on a Neanderthal tooth that's just over 10 Kyr.thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-46034218321486507362013-04-04T00:13:03.472+01:002013-04-04T00:13:03.472+01:00wait, people were saying there were 10,000 year ol...wait, people were saying there were 10,000 year old Neanderthals?<br /><br />how does that work? I'm confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-49931831722661861682013-04-03T17:18:11.035+01:002013-04-03T17:18:11.035+01:00Well, you've got me there, Spawn. They say ign...Well, you've got me there, Spawn. They say ignorance is bliss. No wonder I've been feeling so good, lately!thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-34955979716061188922013-04-03T16:53:57.453+01:002013-04-03T16:53:57.453+01:00Obviously you have a crush on Tom Higham, Rob, and...Obviously you have a crush on Tom Higham, Rob, and Tom Higham is great, but give credit where credit is due. The paper's lead author is Rachel Wood. Ultrafiltration was developed at CAMS Lawrence Livermore back in the 1980s by Tom Brown, John Southon and others, not by Tom Higham in the last decade. Many of the methodological developments in ultrafiltration at Oxford preceded Higham's tenure there and are associated with Robert Hedges, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Fiona Brock and others in that lab.<br /><br />What Tom is doing very effectively is applying the method to important and interesting questions about human evolution, and that's certainly one of his talents. But it's important to recognize all the hard work that that whole group puts into these studies.Spawn of Endrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10431848914619887998noreply@blogger.com