Talk:Ancient footprints of Acahualinca

Nicaragua Low‑importance

	Nicaragua portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nicaragua, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nicaragua on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NicaraguaWikipedia:WikiProject NicaraguaTemplate:WikiProject NicaraguaNicaragua articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Needs references

This information comes from my memory of a tour of the museum and these websites:

If you have references in English, please add them! Dr d12 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

It would be nice to have a section describing the geologic conditions that preserved the footprints. Dr d12

the name of these footprints has been corrupte by modern non indigenous scholars, its name is from the indigenous Lenca language and would be Acahualenka or acahualenca. The Lenca indigenous people were the first nation of an ancient paleoindian land called Managuara that includes that land near MANAGUA, henece its name. The heartland of Managuara was the eastern region of nowdays El Salvador, they are the same people that painte the Corinto Cave in El Salvador. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.33.190 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sand dated?

How was the sand dated. Please explain. Jclerman (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the actual article of the reference 6, which is about "sand dated." Is it possible that is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.54.223 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that the ""sand dated" reference refers to Optically stimulated luminescence dating. However, in the various papers that I have read about about the Acahualinca trackways, I have found a complete lack of any mention of anyone having dated any of the sediments at the Acahualinca trackway site using this technique. Therefore, the "sand dated either is reference to some other dating technique or simply in error.

The age of the footprints at the Acahualinca trackway site is well establishes at 2,120 ± 120 B.P. Based upon their composition and local and regional stratigraphic studies, the volcanic deposits that contain these fossil mantracks have been correlated with the Masaya Triple Layer, which was erupted by Masaya volcano about 2,120 ± 120 BP as dated by numerous radiocarbon dates. Therefore, these footprints, contrary to previous estimates, are definitely Late Holocene in age and not the footprints of PaleoIndians. The pertinent papers are:

Schmincke, H.-U., S. Kutterolf, W. Perez, J. Rausch J, A. Freundt, and W. Strauch, 2008, [Walking through volcanic mud: the 2,100 year-old Acahualinca footprints (Nicaragua). I Stratigraphy, lithology, volcanology and age of the Acahualinca section.] [Bulletin of Volcanology.] doi: 10.1007/s00445-008-0235-9

and

Schmincke, H.-U., J. Rausch, S. Kutterolf, and A. Freundt, 2009, [Walking through volcanic mud: the 2,100 year-old Acahualinca footprints (Nicaragua) II - The Acahualinca people, environmental conditions and motivation.] International Journal of Earth Sciences. DOI 10.1007/s00531-009-0438-0 Paul H. (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "sand dated" refers to a radiocarbon date obtained from organic matter in a buried (fossil) silty sand “soil” that lies just below the footprint layer. Bryan (1973) obtained a 14C age of 5,945±145 ka from the soil humates. What got "lost in translation" is the fact noted by Bryan (1973) that the organic matter in soils contains a mixture of organic material that ranges in age from the time that the soil was buried to organic matter that accumulated in the soil thousands of years before it was buried. AS a result, as noted by Bryan (1973), this radiocarbon date is only an "apparent" date that is significantly older than the true age of the buried soil because of the presence of a substantial amount of older carbon comprising the organic material that resides in any soil. In this case, Ryan (1973) greatly underestimated the degree that the presence of this older carbon effected the age of this apparent radiocarbon date and overestimated the real age of the buried soil. This is a well known problem with radiocarbon dating of the organic matter, soil humates, found in any modern or buried soilPaul H. (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture has been flipped. It shows mirror images of feet. Kevin D Jackson 28/7/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.246.48.130 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]