@Ragman,
I believe thats "News speak", they said this AM (as if responding to some assertion that a reporter may have made)
" I must say that we have not done any dating of the bone (if they did a std C14 and it was said to be 2 million years old, can you see the possible error implicate with that statement??
If theyve done some thermoluminescence, that too is limited to a specific upper age (usually less than 800K years), optical stimulated luminescence ( limited to lass than 900K), or electron spin resonance--This may work but since its from a cave, they would have to develop a series of standard curves for ionizing radiation getting in the caves
Flourine dating (limited to about 250K).
Cave depoit accretion rates (if a Carbonate crust develops over the bone material, often they are able to do C14 of specific layers of the Carbonate and then determine an approximate deposition rate and taking a wild ass guess (aided by many math formulae).
In any casem these bones have been collected and sectioned for only about 2 years and all the more exotic dating techniques will require time for replicates and duplicates
Most all of the radiological dating with exception of the above and C14 and C13/14 are only good for rad "clocks" reset by extreme heat or actual melting.
Bummer
Ive begun reading the geo paper and theyve done some initial stratigrqphy but their initial conclusions (IMHO) may be circular in reasoning and need some careful QA to cut down any systematic errors .
I hope theyve taken some pollen or spore cores to do counts of pollen that may have been drug in by rats and other seed eaters.
While these arent exact dating techniques, they are "environmental indicators" that can be compared to what we already know about the climate of specific Pleistocene sub epochs.
We should wait. There is waaay more to come and getting our science from newspapers is not the best. Oralloys posting of the e-science articles is much closer to understand whats doing