Virginia Steen-McIntyre - PART 2 Trench Profiles

This blog exists to promote Hueyatlaco and Virginia Steen-McIntyre's work, as there is no current working website that Virginia runs, which is a shame as there is a loss in her ability to keep her work online for all people and humanity to access, and educate themselves about her life long work.
In 2011, Virginia was given access by the The Pleistocene Coalition to post her items on their website, that had gone from her three previous websites. Below is a direct copy of this from source:  http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/index.html

Following on from the previous Post : Virginia Steen-McIntyre Recommended Reading, Research and Unpublished manuscripts published 30th August 2016, this continues Virginia's posting of information covering Trenching profiles.

TRENCH PROFILES
Stratigraphic cross-sections at the Hueyatlaco archaeological site, Valsequillo area, State of Puebla, Mexico.
INTRODUCTION
Following are the Hueyatlaco trench profiles available to the “Classic” Valsequillo project as of October, 2005. The bulk of Irwin-Williams’ data, including her original profile drawings, had been removed from her files in Portales, New Mexico before Steen-McIntyre had a chance to copy them in 1997. The original INAH profiles have not been located. The original Fryxell profiles are archived, along with copies of other pertinent Valsequillo data, in the Harold E. Malde file, Field Records Library, Central Regional Library, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

The trench profile drawings shown here were transferred to computer by Steen-McIntyre using Adobe Illustrator, with the available profile copies used as templates. The work extended over many months, from June 2004 to October 2005, and was a learning experience for her. Irwin-Williams’ profile 1966 10/B-J and INAH profile 1966 66-4  were traced from copies she gave to us (Malde, Fryxell, Steen-McIntyre) shortly before we left for field work at Hueyatlaco in 1973. Her profile 1964? 8?/B-YY was pieced together from 8.5x11 sheets (exact location not given) found in her extant Portales materials. Grateful thanks to Chris Hardaker, who recently uncovered the sheets for the eastern half of the profile while looking through her data. The 2004 Waters profile is a copy of an interim drawing by Waters, made by me in the field. It is included only to show placement of the samples I collected during excavations at Hueyatlaco in May, 2004.

The Fryxell profiles were drawn primarily from a series of annotated blue-line prints provided to Steen-McIntyre by Roald’s widow, Helen, in 1977. Only recently did she discover that the originals were at the U.S.G.S. offices in Denver, and Hal Malde kindly provided sharper copies of them.

All profiles were carefully transferred to computer. Contact lines were traced at a magnification of 1100 per cent for the most part. The bedding units in the lower  trenches (includes those containing artifacts) were identified by Irwin-Williams on her profiles, either by label or pattern overlay, and were the standard to which Fryxell sheet 4 and Waters’ interim profile 4-extension were compared when correlating beds and adding the color overlay.

TRENCH PROFILES

A word here about trench profiles, especially the Fryxell series.

Trench profiles are accurate, vertical drawings of the sedimentary layers encountered at an archaeologic site during the process of excavation. They preserve the record of the stratigraphy of the site; a record that can be used by future researchers after the site itself has been reduced to a backfilled cavity.

At the beginning of the first season of excavation, a bench mark is chosen and the site is surveyed. A horizontal grid is established, usually at metre intervals, and the grid lines are identified in some way.  Excavation usually takes place vertically in blocks controlled by the placement of this horizontal grid. The vertical walls that form around the sides of the blocks as the material within them is removed show in cross section the layers of sediment encountered, the sedimentary beds. They provide the raw data for the trench profiles.

Periodically excavation work is halted while the scientist in charge, after previously scribing the bedding contacts directly on a newly exposed trench wall, transfers the information to a large sheet of graph paper. Sedimentary units of interest are labeled in the field with a number or letter, and the position of any archaeologic or geologic feature is carefully measured and drawn to scale. A surveyed grid of strong twine, attached to the vertical wall with long nails, guides the transfer. A series of such profiles is drawn as the excavation continues, often spaced only a metre apart. The annotated profiles are later reconstructed in the office or on computer to form a three-dimensional picture of the site.

The “Classic era” Hueyatlaco trench profiles shown below were originally drawn in 1964?, 1966 and 1973. Site archaeologist Cynthia Irwin-Williams provided us (Malde, Fryxell, Steen-McIntyre) with a copy of her 1966 profile 10/B-J in 1973, shortly before we left for new work there. The plan was to use this profile, in which she identified her bedding units, and her survey datum point to tie our planned excavation in with hers. This we were able to do (see join lines, Irwin-Williams’ 1966 profile, Fryxell sheet 4, Waters interim 4--extension).

Profiles on Fryxell sheets 1 through 4 were drawn in 1973 by Fryxell assisted by Steen-McIntyre. Each dashed line represents an actual bedding plane, and shows in cross section the ground surface as it existed just prior to the deposition of the sedimentary layer immediately above it. Periodically over the years, erosion would remove portions of the bedding units, then the sequence of deposition would begin all over again. These “breaks” in the sedimentary sequence, which actually represent periods of “lost” time, show up as lacunae , some quite distinct, between the two series of beds. (Sedimentary beds are most easily recognized when a newly exposed trench wall is allowed to dry naturally for a day or two undisturbed. Then, the sandy beds will appear lighter in color than the clay-rich ones, and natural cracks, or parting planes, will develop along the bedding planes.)

When examining a trench profile, Fryxell first concentrated on the bedding planes at the bottom and top of a sedimentary unit of interest rather than the unit itself. This enabled him to recognize the unit, deposited during the same time period, by its various sedimentary facies: for example, a deposit of overbank sediment from a flooding stream will grade from sand to silt and finally to clay as one moves away from the ancient stream channel. This is what we found for the uppermost sequence of the  upper channel deposits exposed in Irwin-Williams’ Hueyatlaco trenches, the ones labeled “sand grading to clay” on Fryxell sheet 4.

Following excavation in 1973, a series of stabilized columns of undisturbed sediment from the trench walls ("monoliths") were collected. Their locations are shown on the trench profiles, and their appearance in a series of photos and brief notes taken at Midland, Texas in 2002, when the packing crates were finally opened.The photos and notes are located in the Hueyatlaco 1973 file, under "Hueyatlaco 1973 monoliths, Monolith photos."

Virginia Steen-McIntyre October 6, 2005

FILES

Introduction to the Trench Profiles (doc. same text as above)
Hueyatlaco 1973 fence diagonal (pdf)
Hueyatlaco trench map (provided by Hal Malde 2006, pdf)

Irwin-Williams pdf profiles:

• I-W 64 B-YY
• I-W 66 10 B-J

Fryxell Sheets 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4

INAH profile 66-4 (pdf)

Waters profile:

• Waters profile 4 sanslines
• Malde 2004 photos: Trench 4-a, Trench 4-b, Trench 4-c. (NOTE: These are 24MB tiffs and load slowly.)
  

Michael Cremo presents "Forbidden Archaeology"

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DKfGC3P9KoQ" width="480"></iframe>

Michael Cremo presenting "Forbidden Archaeology" lecture at 'Talks at Google'

Published 7 October 2014

Michael A. Cremo, Historian of Archeology
Abstract:

Over the past two centuries, archaeologists have found bones, footprints, and artifacts showing that people like ourselves have existed on earth for many millions of years. But many scientists have forgotten or ignored these remarkable facts. Why? Primarily because they contradict the now dominant evolutionary views about human origins and antiquity. According to these views, humans like ourselves have existed for only about 100,000 or 200,000 years, and before that there were only more primitive human ancestors. This evolutionary paradigm, to which influential groups of scientists are deeply committed, has acted as a "knowledge filter." And the filtering, intentional or not, has left us with a radically incomplete set of facts for building our ideas about human origins. Recovering the complete set of facts takes us on a fascinating expedition, across five continents to various archaeological sites, some long forgotten, some the center of ongoing controversy. On the other hand, the complete set of facts is consistent with the accounts of extreme human antiquity found in the Puranas, the historical writings of ancient India.

Bio:

Michael A. Cremo is research associate in history of archeology. He is a member of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) since 1993. His WAC3 paper "Puranic Time and the Archaeological Record" was published in the Routledge One World Archaeology series volume Time and Archaeology (1999), edited by Tim Murray. He is also a member of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA). In 2004 Cremo's paper "The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their Impact on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy," presented at the XXth International Congress for History of Science, Liege, Belgium, was published in a conference proceedings volume of this congress, by the scientific publisher Brepols.

Cremo is the principal author of the book Forbidden Archeology, a comprehensive historical survey of archaeological anomalies. In a review in British Journal for History of Science, Tim Murray said the book "provides the historian of archaeology with a useful compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one's discipline."

Cremo is particularly interested in examining the history of the archeology from the standpoint of alternative worldviews, particularly worldviews with foundations in ancient Indian thought. He has given invited lectures on his work at the Royal Institution in London, the anthropology department of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, the archeology department of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and many other scientific institutions. He has also lectured on his work at universities throughout the world.

Michael Cremo's website: http://www.mcremo.com/
Michael Cremo on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelCremoItsReallyMe/

What's Wrong With Science? An interview with Virginia Steen-McIntyre

An Interview with Virginia Steen-McIntyre, FMES, Idaho Springs, Colorado 
Originally published: MIDWESTERN EPIGRAPHIC JOURNAL, Vol 16, Nbr 1, 2002 

Note: This is a revised version of a manuscript first prepared in 1997 for investigative reporter Paul Williams Roberts, part of an article on maverick scientists for Harper's Magazine. According to Roberts, the article was accepted and, I assume, paid for, but never published.

Interview:

Q: WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?

VSM: Nothing with science per se. It is a method used for looking at a small part of reality, mainly the physical universe. The problem arises when people, both scientists and the general public, try to make it something it is not -- a world view, for example. 

Q: BUT YOU OFTEN HEAR OF "THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW" 

VSM: A contradiction in terms. Science deals with measuring and manipulating concrete facts. A world view looks at those facts from a certain perspective. ALL world views are taken on faith, even supposedly scientific ones.

Q: SUCH AS? 

VSM: Such as the one that claims the physical universe we know is all there is, and that it developed by chance over time. 

Q: IS THAT SUCH A BAD THEORY? 

VSM: Not if we remember it is only one theory or philosophy, or religion or world view among many equally as valid. The danger arises when it becomes THE ONLY theory. Then it is only a matter of time until it is crammed down our throats as FACT.  When that happens, good-by free enquiry. 

Q: DO YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING IN WESTERN CULTURE?

VSM: Look around you. When was the last time you heard that particular theory seriously questioned by the scientific media? 

Q: BUT AGAIN, IS THAT BAD IF IT'S THE CORRECT WORLD VIEW? 

VSM: Do you mean politically correct? It obviously is that, but that would make me question it more than ever! 

Q: WHY?? 

VSM: Look at history.. Since when has any government, even the best, remained faithful to the ideal of the welfare of the common man? 

Q: WHY WOULD GOVERNMENTS BE SO INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR WORLD VIEW? 

VSM: Because it's interwoven with the Theory of Evolution: accept one, you have to accept the other.

Q: AND IS "SOMETHING WRONG" WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?     

VSM: 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".

Q: SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION? 

VSM: 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. 

Q: HOW SO? 

VSM: The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years1.' because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago.  He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don't fit. 

Q: HOW COULD SHE GET AWAY WITH SUCH FAULTY THINKING? 

A matter of influence on her part and lack of it on mine. She was an anthropologist, a graduate of Radcliffe and Harvard with powerful friends; I was a geologist with a new PhD from the University of Idaho, looking for a job.

Q: IT SOUNDS LIKE A MAJOR CONTROVERSY EXISTS ABOUT THE HUEYATLACO SITE: ARCHAEOLOGISTS VS GEOLOGISTS.

VSM: There would be if all the facts were generally known. But the dates were run almost 25-30 years ago. Have you ever heard them mentioned? There is no controversy. The site and our geologic work are simply ignored. 

Q: NOT A VERY SCIENTIFIC APPROACH! 

VSM: No, of course not. But there it is. 

Q: WHAT CRITICISMS DO THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS BRING AGAINST YOUR GEOLOGIC WORK? 

VSM: None to my face: that's the frustrating part. Since the paper on Hueyatlaco was first published in 1981 only five scientists have contacted me on their own for more information.  And only one of those was an archaeologist.

Q: THAT'S INCREDIBLE! AND WHAT DO THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS SAY AMONG THEMSELVES? 

VSM: Nothing nice, I imagine. I worked with a group of them in a laboratory setting back in the mid-60's. It was a different world. No matter their specialty, each graduate student left that place with an extra-curricular BS degree -- BS for Back Stabber.  First thing you learned in the coffee room was who was "in the know" and who was "out of it". It became almost a game, verbally cutting to pieces those who didn't count. C.S. Lewis caught the flavor of the game in his novel.

Q: THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH. I TAKE IT YOU HAVE BEEN DELEGATED TO THE "OUT OF IT" CATEGORY?

VSM: That seems evident. And once you get a bad rep in the scientific community, even if it's the result of rumor and down right lies, it spreads. In 1973, when we first announced the results of our new excavations and the fission track dates, I was sitting pretty. I had the beginnings of an international reputation because of my basic research on volcanic ash layers, a wide correspondence with my peers, a part-time job in a government laboratory that I assumed would lead to better things, and later, an adjunct professorship in the anthropology department of a state university. Today, all that is gone. My last job was as a gardener, caring for flower-beds in a local nursing home a few hours a week.

Q: ARE YOU BITTER? 

VSM: I fight against bitterness. But that emotion, if it becomes chronic, will ruin your life. I'm certainly not happy with how things turned out. It hurts! 

Q: MAVERICK SCIENTISTS OBVIOUSLY DO NOT HAVE IT EASY. DO YOU SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE THE LONE RANGER? 

VSM: More like one of a bunch of Davids slinging stones at Goliath. Hueyatlaco isn't the only censored early man site in the New World, it's the tip of an iceberg.  There's the late Tom Lee, a Canadian archaeologist. He had the misfortune to find an early site on an island in one of the Great Lakes in the 50's. Not only did he lose his government job, he actually was committed to an insane asylum for a time!  There's Dee Simpson and her Calico site in the Mojave Desert of California. The soil developed on top of the sediment column containing the artifacts is 200,000 years old, which makes the sediment layers and artifacts beneath it much older.  Louis Leakey of African fame recognized the stone tools as tools -- not the result of natural causes -back in the 60's. Then there's George Carter and his sites in the San Diego area. He's been battling the archaeologic establishment for 50 years! And many more.

Q: WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE NOW?

VSM: Several things.

First of all, there needs to be more research in the Valsequillo area: more radiometric dates, more field work, more archaeologic excavations. Fortunately, through support of a wealthy philanthropist, this is happening. Scientists from the USA and Mexico have been working there since the fall of 1997.  I have not been told the results of their research -- I'm certain that they will want to report on it themselves -- but I have been told that it should make me very happy!

Second, we must somehow reverse an alarming trend that has appeared in the research community today, a trend towards "feel good" science, where facts no longer count if they question a politically correct world view. It was precisely that type of "science" that reigned in the Soviet Union for decades. And what a headache it caused to all concerned! 

Third, the censorship of our work and the work of our colleagues MUST STOP! Scientists cannot afford to be rigid in their theories, at least if they are searching for truth.  We must separate science- as-a-method, which is available for all to use, from our world views. Each one of us has a world view we live by, whether we are aware of it or not.  Each is unique, developing out of our personal life experiences. Each is taken on faith.  Recognize the fact! Work with it! A knotty problem such as the age of the first humans in the New World can only benefit from a multi-pronged attack by scientists with different world views.     

My ideal: a search for truth in an atmosphere of free inquiry and mutual respect. After all, isn't that what science should be all about? 

END OF INTERVIEW
1. VC Steen-McIntyre, "A Quarter-Million-Year-Old Habitation site Found in Mexico", Ancient American, NO. 19/20, 72-78 (1997). 

2. VC Steen-McIntyre, "Has Man Been in the New World for a Quarter - Million Years? " , Midwestern Epigraphic Journal 12/13, 35-42 (1998-99); Barnes Review, $(I), 31-36 (1998)

Source: http://www.s8int.com/wrong-science.html

Additional Source: http://www.robertschoch.net/

Further information: Midwestern Epigraphic Society
Facebook: MES--Midwestern Epigraphic Society

Oldest Civilzation Discovered: Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site and the "Extreme Dating Controversy"

The following is an Article Originally from:

Early Sites Research Society, Newsletter Volume 1; No 1, by Neil Steede  

 

The Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site has found remains of human habitation at about between 250,000 to 350,000 years ago.

Many things are happening with this site, which have not been reported in other magazines such as "the Ancient American." We would like to report some of these events to our readers at this time. Hueyatlaco was excavated at first by an archaeologist by the name of Cynthia Irwin-Williams.
 

Williams found that she had a very early occupational site. She found some crude stone tools and also found many animal bones from which meat had been butchered.  The animal bones consisted of such things as the wooly rhinoceros and other pre-glacial fauna. She realized, having such an early site, that she must get laboratory dating done on the site, and requested that to be done by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The U.S. Geological Survey sent down a three member team who dated the site and found the range of very ancient dates mentioned above. Much of their controversy has been reported by Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre.

We consider Virginia to be a very good friend of ours, and have helped channel some of the financing that she needed to complete her work more recently. We will not attempt here to cover ground which she has already covered in her articles. What we do wish to relate to our readers in this article are the steps that we took in parts of the investigation of this enigma.

Shortly after the excavation of the Hueyatlaco site, and shortly after the dating of the site was made public, the Mexican Government came to be directly involved. The head of the Archaeological Department of the Mexican Government was very upset at these very ancient dates at this site. 

It is also believed by us that he did not like the fact that Americans were finding this site, nor did he like that the Americans involved were women. Whatever his motive, he had the Mexican army go and close the site down, and confiscate all of the artifacts and related materials. 

The man who was in charge of this was a very powerful man in the Mexican archaeological community, and no one would confront him directly with these misdeeds. About three years ago, this gentleman passed on to that "big dig in the sky where all archaeologists go."

When that happened, it was once again a subject that could be talked about in the archaeological world. We began doing interviews with different people that were related to the site or to the area at that time, We found archaeologists who now are very famous, but who were students then.

One of them related to us the story that the head Mexican archaeologist had come to him and told him that since his site, that he was excavating, was several hundred feet up the mountain from the site at which these people were excavating, that he should claim that he had found some more artifacts at his site, and that artifacts from his site probably had washed down to their level in ancient times.

He also told us that, in fact, this was not true. He had not found any artifacts. In fact, he had found no artifacts whatsoever, and had a barren dig at the site.

After the death, some thirty years later, of the "head honcho" of Mexican archaeology, this now-famous archaeologist published a paper simply claiming that he had found nothing.

To him, that was very important, from the standpoint that he could report honestly for the first time in three decades what he had really found. He was well aware that the head Mexican archaeologist was trying to destroy the validity of the site.

For the sake of continuity, we will give this head Mexican archaeologist the name of "Dagwood." "Dagwood" had an immense amount of power. He controlled all archaeology executed within the Mexican borders. He was a very opinionated man, and was a man whom very few people liked.

"Dagwood" not only controlled what archaeology and what sites were excavated, but also controlled what was published about them. It is obvious the amount of power he had, since he could muster up the Mexican army to carry out his purposes.

The young archaeologist, located farther up the mountain that we have referred to, we will call "Rusty." "Rusty" was very intimidated by "Dagwood." He knew that his whole future lay within "Dagwood's" grasp, and he would be crushed if he did not do "Dagwood's" bidding.

Therefore, "Rusty" decided simply not to write a report on his site. Only thirty years later, after "Rusty" had become a well-known and respected Mexican archaeologist, and after "Dagwood" had passed away, did Rusty, feel comfortable enough to publish on the excavation he had done hundreds of feet above the Hueyatlaco site.

His report simply says he found "barren ground." All of this is important to understand to what point "Dagwood" would go to control what was said about the site of Hueyatlaco. Once "Dagwood" had stopped the excavations at the Hueyatlaco site, he realized that he was not finished. He realized that he had to control more information and more knowledge. Other people had found similar things to this site. Those collections lay in private hands, and under the control of the University of Puebla.

Therefore, he sent the Mexican army to seize those collections, also; and they also disappeared. "Dagwood" never gave his permission to reopen the site, though there were several requests.

Even after "Dagwood" retired, he had named "puppets" to take his place which would follow his bidding and follow his orders not to allow the site to be opened. Time passed. An immense amount of people who had never heard that any of this had happened, continued their daily lives. The few who had been scarred, "licked their wounds and went to their corners."

One last step "Dagwood must take to fulfill his plan:

 
There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned. 

He must get that date changed. He went to the United States Ambassador and told him in no uncertain terms, that no more Americans would be allowed to excavate in Mexico, unless that date were changed. In fact, he would try to make all relations with the United States extremely difficult. 

The Ambassador reported this to the Secretary of State of the United States, who "leaned upon" the U.S. Geological Survey to change their dates. The U.S. Geological Survey went back to their team and told the members that the date was going to be changed. They were going to take away one zero, thus making the date "35,000" years ago.

This still would be an incredible date, it was claimed, and still would be the oldest date known, they claimed. But one member of the team would have nothing to do with it. The other members reluctantly agreed, knowing that their jobs were "on the line."

One single member stood her ground. Her name was Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Virginia would go on to carry the torch for years, trying to force the truth to come out. If not for her, very possibly all of this would have been lost in the "brambles" of history.

At that time, I was a student in Mexico. I heard in class of the Mexican army's coming and containing the artifacts. I heard how the excavation had been forced to shut down. However, I was guilty, along with many others, of laughing at the story of the "foolish archaeologists" who were finding the dates of early man at hundreds of thousands of years ago in the Americas.

"We simply know it could not be." So I was guilty of lack of judgment at the time, and later I felt guilty about this. However, there was nothing I could do till years later.

By a very happy circumstance, I was brought to meet Virginia Steen-McIntyre. And I had long ago decided that whether I believed her or not, that was irrelevant; the point was, at least she was standing her ground and saying, and practicing something she believed.

When I met her, of course, I asked her many things about the excavation, now some thirty years old--I asked her for clues that I might be able to pick up, and she was very giving with her information.

I decided to re-open the case. You see, during that thirty year lapse, several people had found similar finds in the Americas. One of those people was Dr. Leakey. He had found a very similar ancient site in California called "Calico." So the feasibility of what Virginia was claiming seemed to be true.

First, we must find out if the artifacts still existed. Through a friend, I contracted a "mole." This " mole" worked for the National Institute of Anthropology in the warehouses where all the artifacts from all excavations were kept. And we had him look, and he found the artifacts from Hueyatlaco.

For, you see, "Dagwood" had been so egotistical that he did not think he would have to destroy them. Upon finding the artifacts and examining them, we determined that, in fact, they were authentic. Then, we went to the site and looked at the strata. The strata (the layerings of soil and rock) were all in order. The site did, in fact, seem to be very old, and very ancient.

Could, in fact, man have arrived to the Americas 200,000 years ago? Only time will tell as we develop this site. We are hoping that we resolve this question one way or another within the next year. We will keep our readers informed as this project develops. Whichever side you are for in this controversy, we ask that you "keep your fingers crossed" that everything occur with integrity.

Source: http://www.s8int.com/hueyatlaco.html
Originally Published: Early Sites Research Society, Newsletter Volume 1; No 1, by Neil Steede

Virginia Steen-McIntyre Recommended Reading, Research and Unpublished manuscripts

This blog exists to promote Hueyatlaco and Virginia Steen-McIntyre's work, as there is no current working website that Virginia runs, which is a shame as there is a loss in her ability to keep her work online for all people and humanity to access, and educate themselves about her life long work.

In 2011, Virginia was given access by the The Pleistocene Coalition to post her items on their website, that had gone from her three previous websites. Below is a direct copy of this from source:  http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/index.html

Virginia writes:

For those of you new to the Valsequillo Saga, I'll start off with a couple of popular articles by way of introduction, followed by a list of critical references. Here also are the unpublished trench profiles from the Hueyatlaco archaeological site, and select photos by Hal Malde (2004). Soon I hope to add Roald Fryxell's b/w photos of the trench stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco (1973) and links to unpublished Hal Malde material.

The Valsequillo Saga, Introduction

Steen-McIntyre, V. 1998. Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico. NEXUS Magazine, August-September 1998: 47-51.

Steen-McIntyre, V. 2008. AReview of the Valsequillo, Mexico Early-Man Archaeological Sites(1962-2004) with Emphasis on the Geological Investigations of Harold E.Malde. Presentation at the 2008 Geological Society of America Joint Annual Meeting (October 5-9) Houston, Texas. Published online. [12MB pdf file may require several minutes to load.]

Critical References

Armenta Camacho, J. 1978. Vestigios de Labor Humana en Huesos de Animales Extintos de Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico (Traces of Human Workmanship on Bones of Extinct Animals from Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico). Published privately with aid from the American Philosophical Society and the Mary Street Jenkins Foundation, Puebla, Mexico; 125 pp; 1,000 copies. [NOTES: This is Armenta's complete monograph. The file is extremely large, 50MB pdf. The file includes the cover and blank pages. If printed double-sided, it is a virtual duplicate of the original publication.]

Armenta Camacho, J. 1978. Traces of Human Workmanship on Bones of Extinct Animals from Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico. Translated into English from the original Spanish by Virginia Steen-McIntyre (September 1996 - February 1997). [NOTE: This is the text only. For the figures, see the original Spanish monograph above.]

Szabo, B. J., H. E. Malde, and C. Irwin-Williams. 1969. Dilemma Posed by Uranium-Series Dates on Archaeologically Significant Bones from Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6: 237-44. [2MB pdf]

Steen-McIntyre, V., R. Fryxell, and H. E. Malde. 1981. Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico. Quaternary Research 16: 1-17.

Unpublished manuscripts

Steen-McIntyre, V. 2003. Geological observations at Hueyatlaco archaeological site, Valsequillo area, Puebla, Mexico. Submitted to CURRENT RESEARCH IN THE PLEISTOCENE on February 20, 2003 for inclusion in the section called Paleo-environments, Geosciences. Slightly modified September 27, 2003.Rejected.

Steen-McIntyre, V. 2002. Geologic observations at Hueyatlaco, a Late Mid-Pleistocene archaeological site, Valsequillo area, Puebla, Mexico. Submitted to THE MAMMOTH TRUMPET, August, 2002. First draft August 8, 2002, modified slightly September 27, 2003. Rejected.

Steen-McIntyre, V. 2002. Geologic observations at Hueyatlaco, a Late Mid-Pleistocene archaeological site, Valsequillo area, Puebla, Mexico. Submitted to THE MAMMOTH TRUMPET, August, 2002. First draft August 8, 2002, modified slightly September 27, 2003. Rejected.

Steen-McIntyre, V. 1982. Report on numbered specimen 378, a platy fragment of indurated tuff with groove-like markings on two sides. Pp. 1-8. Unpublished report produced for Archaeological Research Associates, Inc.; now: Archeological Research Books.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre PhD, Tephrochronologist, Specialist in volcanic ash studies

Who is Virginia Steen-McIntyre A.B., M.S., Ph.D?

Virginia Steen-McIntyre was born in Chicago into a working-class family. She received her AB from Augustana College, Rock Island in 1959 (geology, minors in chemistry and art), the MS from Washington State University (1965, geology, minor in soils), and the PhD from the University of Idaho (1977, geology, minor in ecology).

She is a Tephrochronologist (volcanic ash specialist) with a secondary interest in archaeological site stratigraphy. She has worked with others in the Valsequillo area, Mexico, since 1966 especially at the Hueyatlaco archaeologic site. Most of her professional life has been spent working on the Hueyatlaco site, Puebla, Mexico. Virginia and her husband David live in Colorado.

The following taken from Virginia's Website:

The purpose of this website is threefold:
* To introduce the interested layman to the very early archaeologic sites clustered on the north shore of the Valsequillo Reservoir, 100 km east of Mexico City.
* To give much of the history of The Valsequillo from its beginning to 2004.
* To supply hard data for research scientists, much of it unpublished, that would be difficult if not impossible to find elsewhere.

Much of the data concerns Hueyatlaco, the youngest of four archaeologic sites discovered in 1964 by Mexican Prehistorian Juan Armenta Camacho and archaeologist Cynthia Irwin-Williams, then a graduate student in anthropology at Harvard. It contains the most complete sedimentary record. El Horno, a topographically lower, older site is also discussed. Both have been dated using U-series methods (on a bone and a tooth fragment respectively) to approximately 250,000 - 300,000 years. The Hueyatlaco site in addition has had volcanic ash layers dated by the zircon fission-track method and the tephra hydration dating method, and more recently its sedimentary layers by diatom stratigraphy. All methods agree as to the site's great age.

The word "classic" in the address is intentional. The Valsequillo Saga is ongoing, with new scientists, new excavations, new dates, new research. I refer to them as The New Valsequillo Project. There is disagreement between the old and the new groups that has not yet been resolved. We hope to work together to do so.

Source

Resource:
Palaeontologia Electronica (PE), established in 1997, is the longest running open-access, peer-reviewed electronic journal and covers all aspects of Palaeontology.
http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/

Hueyatlaco: 250,000 Year Old Settlement In Mexico Found Under Volcanic Ash

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.

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

Source:
http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2012/10/hueyatlaco-250000-year-old-settlement-in-mexico-found-under-volcanic-ash-2439498.html

Also good reference: 
http://valsequillo.earthmeasure.com/Val6/index.html