Hueyatlaco es un sitio arqueológico en
Valsequillo (
Puebla,
México)
donde fueron descubiertas herramientas hechas por el hombre en un
estrato geográfico que algunos arqueologos han fechado hacia 250 mil
años A.C.
1 2 3 4
Estos hallazgos se hallan en un orden de magnitud mucho más antiguo que la
hipótesis Clovis,
que ubica la migración humana entre 13 a 16 mil años A. D. Las
dataciones fueron confirmadas por un amplio sector de la comunidad
científica, y ya hay poca discusión en el ámbito de la literatura
científica.
5
Hueyatlaco: 250,000 Year Old Settlement In Mexico Found Under Volcanic Ash
Friday, October 5, 2012
Humans were hunting mastodons in Mexico 250,000 years ago. This archaeological heresy is supported by finding at Hueyatlaco.
Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in Valsequillo, Mexico. Several
potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge
of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the
site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams
in 1962, 1964, and 1966.
One of its early excavators Virginia Steen-McIntyre
writes
“Hueyátlaco is a dangerous site. To even publicly mention the
geological evidence for its great age is to jeopardize one’s
professional career. Three of us geologists can testify to that. It’s
very existence is blasphemous because it questions a basic dogma of
Darwinism, the ruling philosophy (or religion, if you will) of the
western scientific world for the past 150 years. That dogma states that,
over a long period of time, members of the human family have generally
become more and more intelligent. The Hueyátlaco site is thus
‘impossible’ because Mid-Pleistocene humans weren’t smart enough to do
all that the evidence implies. Besides, there is no New World anthropoid
stock from which they could have evolved.:
The Hueyatlaco Archeological Site is situated on the Tetela Peninsula,
along the north shore of the Valsequillo reservoir in the State of
Puebla, Mexico, approximately 100 km southeast of Mexico City and 10 km
south of the City of Puebla.
In the 1960s, highly sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work
of Cro-magnon man in Europe were unearthed by Professor Juan Armenta
Camacho and Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams at Hueyatlaco, near Valsequillo.
Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams
Credit: Smithsonian National Archives
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to
geochronologists’ analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco
was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.
Professor Juan Armenta Camacho
Beds containing human artifacts at Valsequillo, Mexico, have been dated
at approximately 250,000 years before the present by fission-track
dating of volcanic material and uranium dating of a camel pelvis. The
dilemma posed by such dates is clearly stated in the following quotation
from the conclusions of the subject article.
“The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that
the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr old. We who have worked on
geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so
great an age poses an archeological dilemma. If the geological dating is
correct, sophisticated stone tools were used at Valsequillo long before
analogous tools are though to have been developed in Europe and Asia.
Thus, our colleague, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, has criticized the dating
methods we have used, and she wishes us to emphasize that an age of
250,000 yr is essentially impossible.”
(Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, et al; “Geologic Evidence for Age of
Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico,”
Quaternary Research, 16:1, 1981.)
Credit: mcremo.com
These controversial findings are orders of magnitude older than the
scientific consensus for habitation of the New World (which generally
traces widespread human migration to the New World to 13,000 to 16,000
ybp). The findings at Hueyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the
larger scientific community, and have seen only occasional discussion in
the literature
According to Steen-McIntyre “we have evidence for two primitive human
skulls. The Dorenberg skull was collected in the area over 100 years ago
(Reichelt,1899 (1900)) . The interior cavities were filled with a
diatomite that contains the same Sangamon-age suite of taxa that occurs
associated with the artifacts at Hueyátlaco (VanLandingham 2000,
2002b,c, 2003). It was on display in a museum in Leipzig for many years,
and was destroyed during the bombings of WW II. We are looking for a
photo or drawing of it.
The second skull, the Ostrander skull, is rumored to have been
collected illegally at Hueyátlaco sometime in the late 60’s or early
70’s and recently to have been turned over to a Native American tribe
for reburial. No attempt was made to date it.”
Ostrander skull to the rignt, allegedly from the Hueyatlaco Site. On the left a modern skull
Credit: Austin Whittall patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com
Cynthia Irwin-Williams led
the team that first excavated the site in 1962 The dig is often
associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing
efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was
actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams.
Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the
request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated
with the U.S. Geological Survey.
The region, about 75 miles SE of Mexico City, was known for its
abundance of animal fossils, and Irwin-Williams described Hueyatlaco as a
“kill site” where animals were hunted and butchered.
These tools are believed to be 250,00 years old from the Hueyatlaco site.
Credit: Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams/H.S. Rice
Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing
the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances. During
excavation, investigators discovered numerous stone tools. The tools
ranged from relatively primitive implements at a smaller associated
site, to more sophisticated items such as scrapers and double-edged
blades uncovered at the main excavation site. The diversity of tools
made from non-local materials suggested that the region had been used by
multiple groups over a considerable period.
Credit: Chris Hardaker
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In 1967, Jose L. Lorenzo of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia claimed that implements had been planted at the site by local
laborers in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible to
determine which artifacts were discovered in situ and which were
planted. Irwin-Williams counter-argued that Lorenzo’s claims were
malicious and without merit. Furthermore, in 1969 Irwin-Williams cited
statements of support from three prominent archeologists and
anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick
A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested
to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the
group’s methodology
Credit: Chris Hardaker
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In mid-1969, Szabo, Malde and Irwin-Williams published their first
paper about dating the excavation site. The stone tools were
discovered in situ in a stratum that also contained animal remains.
Radiocarbon dating of the animal remains produced an age of over
35,000 ybp. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ybp, ± 60,000
years.
The site had been buried by the ash of La Malinche. The reservoir,
which lies 100 km southeast of Mexico City and south of the city of
Puebla is surrounded by four of Mexico’s famous volcanoes: Tláloc,
Iztaccíhuatl, Popocatepetl, and La Malinche, which is shown below.
Credit: Wikipedia
The authors admitted that they had no definitive explanation for the
anomalous results. However, Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had
possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and
newer strata and complicating dating.
Credit: Chris Hardaker
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to
Hueyatalco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately
determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out
Malde’s streambed hypothesis. Moreover, the team undertook an
exhaustive analysis of volcanic ash and pumice from the original
excavation site and the surrounding region. Using the zircon
fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash
from Hueyatlaco’s tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ybp +/- 240,000 years.
The confirmation of an anomalously distant age for human habitation at
the Hueyatlaco site led to tension between Irwin-Williams and the other
team members. Malde and Fryxell announced the findings at a Geological
Society of America meeting, admitting that they could not account for
the anomalous results. Irwin-Williams responded by describing their
announcement as “irresponsible”. Given the substantial margin of error
for the fission-track findings, and the then-new method of uranium
dating, Irwin-Williams asserted that Hueyatlaco had not been accurately
dated to her satisfaction.
Credit: Chris Hardaker
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
Excerpt of letter to Marie Wormington from Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams [circa 1969]:
“…Meanwhile, I recently got a letter from Hal, with some (completely
wild) uranium dates on Valsequillo material. I don’t see how he can take
them seriously since they conflict with the archaeology, with his own
geologic correlations, and with a couple C14 dates. However, God help
us, he wants to publish right away! I am enclosing a copy of Hal’s
letter and my reply. Needless to say any restraint you can exercise on
him would be greatly appreciated. All we need to do at this point is to
put that stuff in print and every reputable prehistorian in the country
will be rolling in the aisles.”
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.”
Eventually, Quaternary Research (1981) published an article by Virginia
Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell, and Harold E. Malde. It upheld an age of
250,000 years for the Hueyatlaco site. Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1981)
objected to these findings in a letter responding to these authors. Her
objections were answered point-for-point in a counter letter from Malde
and Steen-McIntyre (1981).
Credit: Chris Hardaker
http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
The case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre opens a rare window into the actual
social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes
that involve a great deal of hurt and conflict. In general, however,
this goes on behind the scenes, and the public sees only the end
result—the carefully edited journals and books that have passed the
censors.
The Sangamonian Stage, also known as the Sangamon interglacial, is the
name used by Quaternary geologists to designate the last interglacial
period in North America from 125,000—75,000 years ago, a period of 0.05
million years. The Sangamonian Stage precedes the Wisconsinan
(Wisconsin) Stage and follows the Illinoian Stage in North America
Reconocimiento de la excavación
Cynthia Irwin-Williams condujo un equipo de arqueologos que excavaron por vez primera en 1962.
6
La excavación es a menudo asociada con Virginia Steen-McIntyre debido a
sus continuos esfuerzos para publicar sus hallazgos y conclusiones. Sin
embargo, el sitio fue descubierto por Juan Armenta Camacho e
Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre se unió al equipo en 1966 en calidad de
estudiante graduado, en respuesta al geólogo Hal Malde. La excavación se
llevó a cabo en asociación con la
U.S. Geological Survey.
La región, a 75 millas al sureste de la Ciudad de México, era
conocida por su abundancia en fósiles animales, e Irwin-Williams
describió a Hueyatlaco como un "coto de caza" donde los animales eran
cazados y descuartizados.
7
Las excavaciones se realizaron mediante estándares tradicionales, que
incluian el aseguramiento de la zona para prevenir una invasión ilegal o
accidental.
8
Durante las excavaciones, los investigadores descubrieron numerosas
herramientas de piedra. Las herramientas encontradas abarcaban de
relativos implementos primitivos, a sofisticados artefactos como
raederas y raspadores. La diversidad de herramientas hechas de
materiales ajenos al lugar sugería que la región había sido ocupada por
múltiples grupos en un lapso considerable de tiempo.
Controversia inicial
En 1967,
José Luis Lorenzo del
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
arguyó que los implementos habían sido plantados en el lugar por
trabajadores locales de tal forma que era imposible determinar cuáles
artefactos fueron descubiertos
in situ y cuales fueron plantados.
8 Irwin-Williams replicó que las aseveraciones maliciosas de Lorenzo no tenían fundamento. Por lo tanto, en 1969 Irwin-Williams,
6 citó declaraciones en apoyo de tres prominentes arqueologos y antropólogos (
Richard MacNeish,
Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) quienes cada quien
visitaron el sitio y dieron crédito a la integridad de las excavaciones y
el profesionalismo de la metodología del grupo.
8
Publicación de los primeros datos
A mediados de 1969, Szabo, Malde y Irwin-Williams
1 publicaron sus primeros resultados sobre datación del sitio de la excavación. Las herramientas de piedra fueron descubiertas
in situ
en un estrato que solo contenía restos animales. Los resultados del
examen de radiocarbono de los restos de animales arrojaron una edad de
35 mil años AP. La datación por uranio arrojó una edad de 260 mil años
AP (+/-60 mil).
Los autores admitieron que no tenían una conclusión definitiva para
el anómalo resultado. Sin embargo, Malde sugirió que el estrato con
herramientas había sido posiblemente erosionado por un antiguo arroyo,
revolviendo así estratos antiguos con recientes y complicando la
datación.
Intentos para resolver la anomalía
En 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde y Roald Fryxell regresaron a
Hueyatlaco para reexaminar el estrato geográfico y determinar más
exactamente la edad del estrato de herramientas. Fueron capaces de
excluir la hipótesis del arroyo de Mealde.
8
Más aún, el equipo llevó a cabo un análisis axhaustivo de las cenizas y
piedras volcánicas del sitio de la excavación original y de la región a
su alrededor. Usando el método de zirconio para fechar, el geoquímico
C.W. Naeser fechó muestras de ceniza del estrato de herramientas de
Hueyatlaco hasta una antigüedad de 370,000 años, con un margen de error
de 200,000 años.
8
La confirmación de una anómala edad tan distante de población humana
en Hueyatlaco condujo a un conflicto entre Irwin-Williams y los otros
miembros del equipo. Malde and Fryxell anunciaron sus hallazgos en una
reunión de la Sociedad Americana de Geología, admitiendo que no podían
expicar los resultados anómalos. Irwing-Williams respondió calificando
sus hallazgos como una "irresponsabilidad". Dado el margen sustancial de
error para los hallazgos por zircónia, y el entonces novedoso método de
datación por uránio, Irwin-Williams aseveró que Hueyatlaco no había
sido fechado con exactitúd para su satisfacción.
8
Retrasos
Posteriormente, el equipo de excavación discutió, sobre como proceder
sobre los hallazgos de Hayatlaco. Malde y Steen-McIntyre deliberaban
sobre si los hallazgos de hace 200 mil eran validos, mientras
Irwin-Williams discutía a favor de una fecha más reciente, aunque
todavía controversial, de 20 mil de antigüedad. Webb y Clarck,
8
sugieren que el promover una fecha de 20 mil años es "particularmente
perpleja" debido a que no tenía el soporte de ningúna evidencia.
Los retrasos obligaron a Steen-McIntyre a escribir para su doctorado
un ensayo ya no para Hueyatlaco, sino sobre la datación de ceniza
volcánica en estratos geográficos. A pesar de conducir las excavaciones
originales, Irwin-Williams nunca publicó un reporte final sobre el
sitio.
Publicaciones de 1981
En 1981, el periódico
Quaternary Research publicó un documento
por Steen-McIntyre, Fyxell y Malde que defendía una distante edad
anómala de habitación humana en Hueyatlaco.
2
El documento reportaba los resultados de cuatro pruebas independientes y
sofisticadas: la prueba de uranio-torium, la de trazas de fisión, y la
de tefra hidratación y de intemperización de minerales, para determinar
la fecha de los artefactos. Estas pruebas validaron una fecha de 250 mil
años AP para los artefactos de Hueyatlaco. Como apuntaron:
La evidencia mostrada consistentemente indica que el sitio de
Hueyatlaco tiene una antigüedad de 250 000 años. Aquellos quienes hemos
trabajado en los aspectos geológicos de Valsequillo, muy a nuestro
pesar, sabemos que una edad tan grande impone un diléma arqueológico
[...] En nuestra opinión los resultados reportados aquí amplian una
ventana de tiempo en la cual serias investigaciones de la edad del
Hombre en el Nuevo Mundo deberían ser discutidas. Continuaremos
analizando criticamente toda la información, incluida la nuestra.
Consecuencias
En una carta a
Quaternary Research, Irwin-Williams objetó
varios puntos en el artículo de Steen-McIntyre et al.; Malde y
Steen-McIntyre respondieron rebatiendo cada punto.
Steen-McIntyre apunta que algunos miembros del equipo original fueron
acosados, y señalados de incompetentes, o vieron sus carreras
obstaculizadas debido al haber estado involucrados en una investigación
anómala.
8
En 1996, Steen-McIntyre apareció en un especial de televisión
El Misterioso origen del Hombre. Narrado por
Charlton Heston,
el programa detallaba una variedad de teorías que contradecían o
desafiaban el consenso científico acerca del génesis de la humanidad y
su desarrollo. Frank Steiger,
9
dio una refutación del programa, incluyendo las declaraciones de
Steen-McIntyre, sobre una mesa de discusión. Sin embargo, la refutación
de Steiger afirma que Steen-McIntyre descubrió una
punta de lanza
en Nuevo México en lugar de múltiples artefactos en México. No está
claro si el error fue de Steiger, o una falsa afirmación en el especial
de televisión. Más aún, la refutación de Steiger no hace mención de los
documentos revisados por pares que parecen apoyar la anómala antigüedad
del estrato de herramientas en Hueyatlaco. Repitiendo, es incierto si el
programa fracasó al detallar los hallazgos de Steen-McIntyre o si la
refutación de Steiger estuvo incompleta.
Una investigación bioestatigráfica del especialista Sam VanLandingham
ha publicado dos análisis revisados por pares que confirman los
hallazgos de hace 250 mil años del estrato que contiene herramientas. Su
análisis de 2004 encontró que las muestras de Hueyatlaco podrían ser
datadas al periodo interglacial Sangamoniano hace aprox. 80 mil a 220
mil años, por la presencia de múltiples especies de
diatomea, una de las cuales apareció por primera vez durante este periodo y otras que se extinguieron al final del mismo,
3 el documento del año 2006 de VanLandingham,
4 reconfirma sus hallazgos de 2004.
Hay que reconocer que las implicaciones del hallazgo suponen un duro
revés para algunas teorías ya aceptadas por el estamento científico,
como el poblamiento de américa e incluso la teoría de la evolución, que
indicaría retroceder en más de 200 mil años el poblamiento de américa y
también aceptar que el homo sapiens o alguna especie del género homo ya
estaba fabricando herramientas en américa, cuando en este continente no
existía ninguna especie del género homo, mucho menos un sapiens que aún
no había evolucionado en ningún rincón del planeta según la evolución,
hace 250 mil años. Por tales motivos este descubrimiento goza de la más
estricta omisión e ignorancia por parte de los científicos académicos.
Several
fossilized “human” tracks have been reported through the years. To the
right is the “feminine print in dinosaur track” that was found in the
Paluxy River area of Glen Rose, Texas. Below to the left is the Delk
Print, which shows a human footprint intruded by a tridactyl dinosaur
print (click for higher resolution). The Delk Track has been
authenticated by spiral CT scan, which can verify that there is greater
compression density below the tracks then elsewhere in the rock. Along
with the footprints of the Taylor Trail and the Burdick track, these
“man-tracks alongside dinosaur-tracks” have been the source of
considerable controversy.
People Who Knew Them)
and the film “Footprints in Stone” was produced by Stan Taylor. Over
time, the exposed prints became quite eroded and evolutionists argued
that they were merely elongated dinosaur footprints that had experienced
infilling. Most creationists are now inclined to agree that the famous
Taylor Trail was made by a dinosaur, though some point to the mixture of
human and dinosaur characteristics as evidence that the tracks are a
composite, the human track superimposed upon the existing dinosaur
footprints. (See Robert Helfinstine and Jerry Roth’s 1994 book Texas Tracks and Artifacts.)
To
the right is pictured the Zapata track, found in Permian limestone in
New Mexico. It is a very shallow track, almost invisible unless wet with
strong side lighting. This accounts for the dramatic hour glass shape
with dots in front, similar to what you see when you walk with a wet
foot on a tile floor. Geologist Don Patton attempted to cut this print
out of the rock, but wore out four carborundum blades trying to make one
cut! Patton reports to have personally seen a photograph of four,
virtually identical tracks in an obvious right left pattern taken about
one quarter mile from the Zapata track. The rock and the tracks look
virtually identical. Some critics claim the Zapata print is “too
perfect.” But the mud push-up on the sides and the fact that the matrix
proved extremely hard to cut out (lab tests indicated it was limestone
with 30% silica) would make a carving quite unlikely.
To the left is the “Meister Print,” found in Utah within a block of shale. It was first publicized in the CRS Quarterly as
the footprint containing a trilobite fossil. Bottom left is a
fossilized shoe sole found petrified in Triassic rock. This print
specimen is so clear that the threads are visible to the naked eye! Also
published in this journal is the 1995 study of quasihuman ichnofossils
(supposed human tracks) found with tracks of dinosaurs in strata near
Tuba City, Arizona. Photomicrographic analysis indicates that the
human-like impressions were created by pressure which created relatively
smooth surfaces, unlike the rougher surfaces of impressions formed
inside concretions and unlike surrounding surfaces. Comparison of the
quasihuman ichnofossils with modern tracks in wet mud shows them to be
closely comparable, supporting their theory that the fossil imprints
were made by human feet. (Auldaney, Rosnau, Back, and Davis, CRS Quarterly, vol. 34, pp. 133-146.)
Perhaps
the most intriguing such fossil footprint report was that made by the
head of department at Berea college in Kentucky of a human-like track
left in sandstone of the Upper Carboniferous Period. Numerous scientists
have investigated these tracks and concluded that they are genuine
(even going so far as to count the sand grains under magnification to
ensure that it was compressed at the bottom rather than carved). In Scientific American,
geologist Albert G. Ingalls writes, “If man, or even his ape ancestors,
or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far
back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of
geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign
their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least,
science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these
mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous with his feet.”
Ingalls suggested that they were made by some unidentified amphibian.
But a human-sized Carboniferous amphibian is just about as problematic
for evolutionary timetables as humans in that era!