Cuddie Springs critique

[Richard Gillespie]

Contrary to Judy Field's assertion, there are clear published instances
that say some of the deposits are disturbed.

Field & Dodson (1999) p284:
Stratigraphic Units 1, 2 and 3 are described in subheadings as "disturbed
deposits", SU 4 contained European artefacts and "considerable disturbance".

This accounts for the top ca. 1 metre of sediment, from which we should
expect very little reliable information on age, environment, megafauna or
archaeology. In SU 5 (deflation pavement) "the bone assemblage may be
mixed" so we probably shouldn't expect much reliable information here
either.

The most interesting bits are in SU 6a and 6b, subdivided into
archaeological levels 1-4, where nobody disputes the presence of both
megafauna and archaeology. This ca. 70 cm of deposits contains randomly
distributed charcoal dates of 28-33,000 BP (32-37 ka calibrated) and a
multiple aliquot OSL date of 35.4±2.8 ka (Field & Dodson, 1999). Single
grain OSL work by Roberts et al (2001) says that "some sediment mixing has
occurred" in SU 4, 5, 6a and 6b. It doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude
that these levels may be disturbed too.

Adding my point about differential organic preservation in SU 6a & 6b to
this solid scientific data, there is genuine cause to doubt some aspects of
the Cuddie Springs interpretation as presented by the excavators. Reading
the literature leads to clues that evidence to strengthen their case (such
as pollen and stone tool residues) might reside in unpublished documents.
What remains hidden that can demonstrate people and megafauna both living
at Cuddie Springs ca. 35 ka?

richard