Chris Hardaker's The First American

[Rokcet Scientist]

Daddy was there!

[Cognito]

So if scientific dating does not fit your pre-conceived notions they must be wrong! Does this guy not understand just how stupid he sounds I wonder?

Apparently not. The normal, inquiring scientific mind might wonder if something went awry with the experiments and attempt to repeat them for a greater data set, but to dismiss data simply because it contradicts current dogma because "it cannot be correct" is not science, it's a cross between stupidity and cowardice.

Proceed with caution and prove the data wrong. But if you cannot prove it wrong, then just admit "I don't know what to say." It's a more honest approach.

[Beagle]

This was posted by Chris at Virginias' forum yesterday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chris Hardaker is mad."

This is the first sentence of a review of my book you probably did not see. It kind of went downhill from there. It was written and posted by the host of a popular archaeology website last weekend. As I was wrapping up a list of comments to be appended to the review, I received another email telling me the review had just been pulled. Reason: that such a negative review would do no good for the cause of archaeology, and that the subject of Valsequillo will not be entertained at that website without an official excavation report.

The review was removed the same day, but I don’t know how many people read the review during the time it was posted nor how many others the host may have emailed it to. I wanted it to remain on the site as long as my comments could be included. Afterwards, I wanted to post it here but decided not to for the present because the host is currently having second opinions after I sent her a positive note about the book, The First American, from a highly regarded geologist.

Instead, for the time being, these are comments based on points brought up in the review using snippets of criticisms and misunderstandings about what the book is about. The criticisms are fairly standard, and it seemed like a good opportunity to clear the air. The second sentence said that “my anger permeates every page” and then goes on to say:

A. 1.
“... he refers to people who disagree with him as "gringo archaeologists"”

Wrong. I’m a gringo too; specifically, a honkey gringo.

A. 2.
“makes blanket statements such as "all geochemists believe thus and are scientists, and all archaeologists believe thus and are not."

I am not against all archaeologists, but rather have a beef with members from the PaleoIndian sector who knew all about Valsequillo and just vamoosed and/or later denied/ignored it. That’s not mature behavior. It’s definitely not scientific behavior. Valsequillo should be about science, not emotional loyalty.

The genius of gringo archaeology is that it has inspired great field methodologies and has cultivated for decades a forensics approach to the field and lab second to none. The rest of the world has benefited greatly from gringo-inspired field methodologies, practices, concerns and cautions. It helped that we happened to live in one of the richest nations ever.

It is the theory of American cultural origins that has weakened, and this extends to all of American Anthropology. The modern scenario for American prehistory is Isolationist, that everything you find here was made and invented in America, from the 12,000 year old Clovis Flute onwards, but especially “our” civilizations. There are no boats to America until Columbus; at least there are no Old World visitors who influenced/upset the purely indigenous trajectories of New World civilization building. You never got an NSF grant saying anything different.

Now that we have very probable 16.000 year old Iberians crossing to the East Coast and Siberians to the West Coast during the Pleistocene – it kind of rocks those traditional foundations. Pleistocene seafaring threatens to pop the pre-Columbian cultural bubble that Isolationism always assumed. It makes it harder to argue for pure American civilizations when it is okay for folks to navigate across 16,000 years ago but not 3000 to 5000 years ago.

B. [describing the original art piece, Tetela 1]

“carved with elephants and horses and something that looks like a dinosaur.”

Dinosaur? There is no dinosaur on the piece. That’s probably close to libel. Strange the Smithsonian found nothing strange with the art when they put it on exhibition in 1960, and it was extremely well received and reviewed by the prestigious American Heritage Book of Indians, the following year.

C.
“There are established ways one overthrows a paradigm …”

The book was not about overthrowing a paradigm but about putting the Valsequillo discoveries back on the public table and recovering the lost artifacts and art treasures. Presently, talk of a paradigm shift might be premature; maybe it’s more about yielding to logic and reason and thinking through implications of new discoveries and seeing where the cards fall; you know, science. If there is a New World paradigm shift going on maybe it could be described as passing from Clovis First Isolationism to Agnosticism. Besides, …

1967 Was The Year the Clovis Paradigm Died.
That’s when Irwin-Williams got her 22,000y date from Caulapan from the stratum containing a retouched flake, in tandem with all the artifacts and features she was finding lower down by the reservoir. The Clovis Firsters knew all about it. Vance Haynes was involved at the outset with Juan Armenta Camacho and later Jose Lorenzo. The Paleo scholars knew full well the Valsequillo sites were pre-Clovis.

D.
“Where's the [2001 excavation/site] report? Is it available?”
It was part of the US sponsor’s 2001 agreement that he would receive a full report from INAH by the end of 2001. It still hasn’t arrived. There’s a narrative in the book, but it’s not the same. In the meantime, please visit this link, and you will see quite a bit of the primary data that has survived and some great photos; also data from recent investigations:
The Classic Valsequillo Website, put together by Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre.
http://www.valsequilloclassic.net/nuke/ ... n-Williams

E.
“and scientists are not falling in line behind him to believe with him.”

It just ain’t me babe. USGS personnel reported the dates in peer-reviewed journals. Archaeologists just ignored them. Read Dr. Naeser’s Foreword again. I’m just reporting what the scientists found, and what I observed in 2001, and some of what I experienced during the last thirty years regarding the pre-Clovis issue.

F.
“As it should be: science isn't for sissies.”

Then why did our archaeological elders just run away and behave as though Valsequillo never happened or didn't count. The information was impeccable, as archaeology sites go. And they knew it. So it’s in your/their court. Why didn’t they ever go back?

Chris Hardaker
Tucson, AZ
THE FIRST AMERICAN
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Su ... 1564149420
FIRST AMERICAN Article (summary)
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HardakerC1.php
******************
NATIVE AMERICAN GEOMETRY
http://earthmeasure.com

So, it appears that his book about the suppression of information about Hueyatlaco is also being suppressed. Nothing new under the sun.

[Minimalist]

Surely, no one expected the Club to bend over and spread their cheeks?

When you can't attack the evidence, you attack the proponent. I've seen them do this often.

[MichelleH]

Great post Beags!

[kbs2244]

Amen, Michelle!
But, like it or not, the US establishment is the 800 pound gorilla in Western hemisphere archeology.
All we can do is keep up the sniping, from outside the walls, until the evidence is overwhelming, and wait until the next generation doesn’t see the need for a fight.