Recent Laser Test

[uniface]

Long and detailed read, but a very promising technique after some fine-tuning. You guys who wanted it explained better than I can will probably find what you're looking for in it. Main test was Cumberland vs. Clovis. Excerpt :

In a paper at the 2010 Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Walley (2010) described results of testing Cumberland and Clovis points of Fort Payne chert, primarily from Lawrence County, Tennessee. Walley obtained these points from acquaintances and performed the tests in his own laboratory. This was undertaken in response to Michael Gramly’s (2009) discussion of the origin and antiquity of the Cumberland complex.

Walley found the average of the Cumberland maxima was 23-24 percent higher than that for Clovis, apparently validating Gramly’s hypothesis of greater antiquity for Cumberland points. Using a 13000bp date for Clovis and assuming a linear increase in luminescence, Walley observed that this suggested an age of ca. 16,000 bp for Cumberland Fluted.

"In any event and regardless of the age of Eastern Clovis, it would appear that these Cumberlands are appreciably older than these Clovis points, unless some subtle and consistent difference in flint types can be demonstrated."

www.monah.us/Walley_Report_New-2.pdf

Knock yourselves out, Gents

[joshuaream]

I look forward to reading the article after the kids go to bed.

It's kind of disapointing that Gramly hasn't published any C-14 dates from Stratton Cumberland site, it seems he has both keys to this mystery. (I could be wrong, I just haven't heard of seen of any.)

It would be interesting to compare the C-14 date with these dates.

Originally Posted by uniface

Long and detailed read, but a very promising technique after some fine-tuning. You guys who wanted it explained better than I can will probably find what you're looking for in it. Main test was Cumberland vs. Clovis. Excerpt :

In a paper at the 2010 Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Walley (2010) described results of testing Cumberland and Clovis points of Fort Payne chert, primarily from Lawrence County, Tennessee. Walley obtained these points from acquaintances and performed the tests in his own laboratory. This was undertaken in response to Michael Gramly’s (2009) discussion of the origin and antiquity of the Cumberland complex.

Walley found the average of the Cumberland maxima was 23-24 percent higher than that for Clovis, apparently validating Gramly’s hypothesis of greater antiquity for Cumberland points. Using a 13000bp date for Clovis and assuming a linear increase in luminescence, Walley observed that this suggested an age of ca. 16,000 bp for Cumberland Fluted.

"In any event and regardless of the age of Eastern Clovis, it would appear that these Cumberlands are appreciably older than these Clovis points, unless some subtle and consistent difference in flint types can be demonstrated."

www.monah.us/Walley_Report_New-2.pdf

Knock yourselves out, Gents

[Mojave]

A long read?
Must be my Macintosh. I only see a few pictures and tables. I'll try tomorrow on my PC.

[uniface]

Twenty-three pages on my Mac.

[willybee]

uniface-took your suggestion and knocked myself out on this paper. here are some interesting facts:

1: while both cherry and mcnutt are established credentialed book writing scientists david walley has no credentials or published papers i can find beyond a patent, and anyone can get a patent for just about anything-legitimate or not.

2: the mid south archaeological conference is put on by a private for profit company -anyone can submit and present a paper. if i were clever enough, and could make a good poster, i could present there too.

3: the link to this --paper-- is on a privately owned business website, david bogle of bentonville arkansas owns the museum- and its even headed as being submitted to this museum, which means exactly diddly squat. the museum is privately owned for profit business.

4: david walley is using the screen name archeometry --in other words the inventor of this --technology-- will not even admit who he is when he pseudo-defends his pseudo-science. ok.........

5: this same dog and pony show happens on other sites with archeometry (david walley) defending his right to make money from anyone who will pay it to him.

now that we are past the facts that anyone with google and half a brain can check lets examine some theories of mine, just theories:

1: scientific papers are published by scientists in scientific journals and not on private for profit business websites selling museum tickets.

2: this paper reads like walley took cherry and mcnutts paper and added his name to it, then officially submitted it to the privately owned museum in arkansas---oooh-aaaah feel the true science...........

3: while i am glad that real scientists are looking at the validity of what is and already established science (raman spectroscopy) being used to date lithics instead of its original testing purposes--this report is not conclusive beyond a MAYBE.

4: if you read this report, apparently the lasers used to test lithics are off the shelf models with off the shelf laser heads, what exactly did walley invent here- a new use for someone else's science and machinery that has no conclusive evidence of reliability.

in conclusion

maybe if a private business posts a scientific paper written by a non credentialed scientist with a profit motive selling laser units and authenticating service, it just doesn't mean that much.

it seems like everything walley does is constructed to look legitimate, without actually being so. maybe i am wrong, won't be the first time.


willy

[Mojave]

I believe he has the right to make money from anyone who is willing to pay him.

Beyond that,....my previous opinions remain.

[uniface]

(sigh)

uniface-took your suggestion and knocked myself out on this paper. You surely did. here are some interesting facts:

1: while both cherry and mcnutt are established credentialed book writing scientists david walley has no credentials or published papers i can find beyond a patent, and anyone can get a patent for just about anything-legitimate or not. So ? Nobody without a PhD can come up with innovative applications of technology ?

2: the mid south archaeological conference is put on by a private for profit company -anyone can submit and present a paper. if i were clever enough, and could make a good poster, i could present there too. So ? The venue determines the quality of the presentations ?

3: the link to this --paper-- is on a privately owned business website, david bogle of bentonville arkansas owns the museum- and its even headed as being submitted to this museum, which means exactly diddly squat. the museum is privately owned for profit business. So ? Then science is alien to the corporate world ? Corporate R/D isn't science ?

4: david walley is using the screen name archeometry --in other words the inventor of this --technology-- will not even admit who he is when he pseudo-defends his pseudo-science. ok......... So ? You are using a screen name yourself. Your free use of "pseudo-" seems to be, as yet, lacking in any other foundation than your own emotional dislike.

5: this same dog and pony show happens on other sites with archeometry (david walley) defending his right to make money from anyone who will pay it to him. So ? You must have supported Obama.

now that we are past the facts that anyone with google and half a brain can check (none of which have been relevant to the technology at issue) lets examine some theories of mine, just theories:

1: scientific papers are published by scientists in scientific journals and not on private for profit business websites selling museum tickets. So the value of a paper depends on who publishes it. A very curious notion.

2: this paper reads like walley took cherry and mcnutts paper and added his name to it, then officially submitted it to the privately owned museum in arkansas---oooh-aaaah feel the true science........... Hardly. What I'm feeling is the same vibe I get from mainstream media hacks trying every which way to link the assasin(s) in Arizona to the tea party movement. Throw poop by the handful and hope some of it sticks.

3: while i am glad that real scientists are looking at the validity of what is and already established science (raman spectroscopy) being used to date lithics instead of its original testing purposes--this report is not conclusive beyond a MAYBE. If you bothered to read it, that's a minimisation of the conclusion he came to himself.

4: if you read this report, apparently the lasers used to test lithics are off the shelf models with off the shelf laser heads, what exactly did walley invent here- a new use for someone else's science and machinery that has no conclusive evidence of reliability. In conclusion, he described what was tested, how it was tested, the control protocols and the results. I.e., everything you've ignored to focus on (alleged) guilt by association, ridicule, perjorative non sequetur conclusions and casting the entire project in the worst light your imagination could come up with.

In other words, you've posted a Hatchet Job -- an elaborate Smear that focuses on everything BUT the actual test and the actual results.

in conclusion

maybe if a private business posts a scientific paper written by a non credentialed scientist with a profit motive selling laser units and authenticating service, it just doesn't mean that much.

it seems like everything walley does is constructed to look legitimate, without actually being so. maybe i am wrong, won't be the first time.

I think you're wrong. But then again, with (apparently) only half a brain (for not using google to come up with pretexts for guilt-by-association), who's to say ?

Oh -- and by the way -- sentences start with capital letters.

Really. They do !

Edit : typo

[Mojave]

Wow,
Uniface,
I am sure I have never agreed with you more than in what I just read.
Don't let that get out.

[uniface]

LOL, Mojave ! It means a lot !

I was going to add a bit about you being a warm & decent guy who used his curmudgeon persona like a lobster uses his shell (to keep the soft inside protected) but I figured it would distract from it.

[Mojave]

Now that made me laugh/