Holocaust in America?

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...]I've lived most of my 66 years rural,[...].

Really? I'd never have guessed.

[gunny]

Be nice-----Rokcet.

[Guest]

I'll second that.

You young guns gotta show some respect for us old gals, even if it's just becaue we've lived a little longer than you.

Leona (not time to sign on as I'm at work)

[Rokcet Scientist]

I'll second that.

You young guns gotta show some respect for us old gals, even if it's just becaue we've lived a little longer than you.

Leona (not time to sign on as I'm at work)

LOL!
You must've misplaced your glasses, Leona
(he said as he quickly smoothed the last sparse patches of his pure silver hair, hoping nobody'd notice)

[stan]

I think you have to give daybrown a lot of credit for her posts and ideas.

It seems that she has developed a unified theory of human development which she articulates very well. It is based only partly on archaeological finds. She talks a lot about dna, which is based largely on specimens from living modern people. (I know there is some archaeological dna.)
And she includes primate behavioral studies as well as witchcraft history.
Overall, I think many of her concepts are plausible and she is very insightful.
(I agree it would be difficult to respond to everything she has written, and I agree that she ought to provide more citations.)

However, there is a certain pattern on this bulletin board for correspondents to
niggle over small points of disagreement, without acknowledging the major assertions of a particular post.
That has sometimes happened to me in my modest contributions, maybe because, without the erudition of some of you, I am trying to make sense of the big picture without tripping over the small stuff.

I would appreciate "Yes, but" responses more than, "but" responses, unless it is understood that saying "but" implies agreement with the uncontested parts of what I write.

Maybe i'm just thin -skinned, a beta male....

[stan]

I think you have to give daybrown a lot of credit for her posts and ideas.

It seems that she has developed a unified theory of human development which she articulates very well. It is based only partly on archaeological finds. She talks a lot about dna, which is based largely on specimens from living modern people. (I know there is some archaeological dna.)
And she includes primate behavioral studies as well as witchcraft history.
Overall, I think many of her concepts are plausible and she is very insightful.
(I agree it would be difficult to respond to everything she has written, and I agree that she ought to provide more citations.)

However, there is a certain pattern on this bulletin board for correspondents to
niggle over small points of disagreement, without acknowledging the major assertions of a particular post.
That has sometimes happened to me in my modest contributions, maybe because, without the erudition of some of you, I am trying to make sense of the big picture without tripping over the small stuff.

I would appreciate "Yes, but" responses more than, "but" responses, unless it is understood that saying "but" implies agreement with the uncontested parts of what I write.

Maybe i'm just thin -skinned, a beta male....

[Leona Conner]

Stan, your first few paragraphs explain the problem most people have with Day's postings. Too much to absorb at one time. If she would keep her postings shorter and stick to just one subject (or just one of her ideas on the subject at hand). I don't know about the rest of you, but my time on the internet is limited, even if I go on both at work and at home. It makes it hard to respond to anything because I can't figure out which one I want of respond too. But then maybe she had more time the the rest of us.

[daybrown]

Who getsta decide what proof is? How many trees to make a forest? at http://anzi.biz/artifax.htm, I show the cover of JP Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", which the fly leaf describes as an "Iranian Steppe nomad taking a classic 'parthian' shot over his shoulder'.

Only problem is, when you look at the mounted archer taking a parting shot over the horse's ass, you can clearly see *her* left tit. Dont get me wrong, as I say next to the jpg, Mallory is a fine scholar with a wide knowledge of Eurasian Pre-history. I also have his book, co-authored with Muir, "The Tarim Mummies", which I find a valuable resource. Nor can I rag on his case too much for just reporting what he found, but not going into what he didnt find that he should have, but it wasnt there because the culture was so different.

How many "Amazon" graves do they havta find before academics admit that there is some real substance to the myth? I've seen 5 reports on the net from Southern Siberia to Uzbekistan to Iran of armed women. I really dont know. Nor do I know how many times my assertion that matriarchy did exist was unproven, to put it mildly. Yet if you surf "China" and "Mosuo" you get several hits that show that matriarchy *still* exists.

I know there is a paucity of reports. But even if matriarchy existed as far and wide as I have said, it was still just a small population compared to all of the patriarchic tribes around at whatever era I look at, mostly in out of the way places not that different than Yunnan. Matriarchy's greatest cultural impact was in the handful of early city states of what is now Tien Shen province that started what we know as the Silk Road.

But even then, if you add up all the people of Urumchi, Kucha, Niya, Khotan, and the others West of the Jade Gate, Xian alone was far more people. Likewise, the Amazons were nomads, left us no monuments at all, just the myth and a few graves we've found so far.

And so far, the derision and unwarrented dismissiblity I've seen here is all too common, so I'm not surprised that experts like Mallory, with careers already established, want to get involved in the controversy. Granted, I am dismayed with the femmonazi exaggerations of what went on, but nevertheless, there was *something* going on that dont fit into the academic mindframe.

[Guest]

Who getsta decide what proof is?

In my own case, I decide what I consider acceptable proof; as it should be! Why don't you actually give us something to back up your claims, and then we can discuss it further? All your postings are just opinions otherwise.

And so far, the derision and unwarrented dismissiblity I've seen here is all too common

How can asking for proof of some of your theorising be 'unwarranted dismissability'? Anyone presenting statements as facts- without providing sources to back them up- should expect to be challenged.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I concur.
(Who would have thought we would ever agree on something, eh, Realist? )

Anyone presenting statements as facts- without providing sources to back them up[...]

...strongly reminds me of a certain "WMD" issue in recent years...

[and] should expect to be challenged.

Like good old Ronny said: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Frank Harrist]

I think you have to give daybrown a lot of credit for her posts and ideas.

It seems that she has developed a unified theory of human development which she articulates very well. It is based only partly on archaeological finds. She talks a lot about dna, which is based largely on specimens from living modern people. (I know there is some archaeological dna.)
And she includes primate behavioral studies as well as witchcraft history.
Overall, I think many of her concepts are plausible and she is very insightful.
(I agree it would be difficult to respond to everything she has written, and I agree that she ought to provide more citations.)

However, there is a certain pattern on this bulletin board for correspondents to
niggle over small points of disagreement, without acknowledging the major assertions of a particular post.
That has sometimes happened to me in my modest contributions, maybe because, without the erudition of some of you, I am trying to make sense of the big picture without tripping over the small stuff.

I would appreciate "Yes, but" responses more than, "but" responses, unless it is understood that saying "but" implies agreement with the uncontested parts of what I write.

Maybe i'm just thin -skinned, a beta male....

I agree, Stan. The long dissertations sometimes go over my head, or are too long for me to comprehend in the one reading I usually have time for, but, they are all logical and well thought out, mostly. Occasionaly DB does tend to ramble, it seems, but then again that could be me not grasping the entire meaning. I have no doubt the "Amazon" culture did exist in some form. How widespread and influential they were is still up in the air and probably always will be. We'll never answer all the questions about the past, but theorizing about it helps with the scientific method in finding out as much as we can. I must also say that the people who dispute her theories aren't supplying much proof to back their arguments either. I know very little about the subject so as for facts and opinions in this regard I can't add much. Stan I also agree about the nitpicking. Some people seem to find one little inconsistency and latch onto it and ignore the main body of the post. For instance, bringing romans into a discussion about lithic points. What's up with that? Ya'll stop that!

[Rokcet Scientist]

I think you have to give daybrown a lot of credit for her posts and ideas.

It seems that she has developed a unified theory of human development which she articulates very well. It is based only partly on archaeological finds. She talks a lot about dna, which is based largely on specimens from living modern people. (I know there is some archaeological dna.)
And she includes primate behavioral studies as well as witchcraft history.
Overall, I think many of her concepts are plausible and she is very insightful.
(I agree it would be difficult to respond to everything she has written, and I agree that she ought to provide more citations.)

However, there is a certain pattern on this bulletin board for correspondents to niggle over small points of disagreement, without acknowledging the major assertions of a particular post.
That has sometimes happened to me in my modest contributions, maybe because, without the erudition of some of you, I am trying to make sense of the big picture without tripping over the small stuff.

I would appreciate "Yes, but" responses more than, "but" responses, unless it is understood that saying "but" implies agreement with the uncontested parts of what I write.

Maybe i'm just thin -skinned, a beta male....

I agree, Stan. The long dissertations sometimes go over my head, or are too long for me to comprehend in the one reading I usually have time for, but, they are all logical and well thought out, mostly. Occasionaly DB does tend to ramble, it seems, but then again that could be me not grasping the entire meaning. I have no doubt the "Amazon" culture did exist in some form. How widespread and influential they were is still up in the air and probably always will be. We'll never answer all the questions about the past, but theorizing about it helps with the scientific method in finding out as much as we can. I must also say that the people who dispute her theories aren't supplying much proof to back their arguments either. I know very little about the subject so as for facts and opinions in this regard I can't add much. Stan I also agree about the nitpicking. Some people seem to find one little inconsistency and latch onto it and ignore the main body of the post. For instance, bringing romans into a discussion about lithic points. What's up with that? Ya'll stop that!

"Occasionaly DB does tend to ramble"
Occasionaly?

"I have no doubt the "Amazon" culture did exist in some form."
You don't? What is that 'conviction' based on then?

"I must also say that the people who dispute her theories aren't supplying much proof to back their arguments either."
That's because whatshername doesn't provide any arguments in the first place, Frank. If there are no arguments there's no 'proof' to disprove.

"Some people seem to find one little inconsistency and latch onto it and ignore the main body of the post."
The issue with whatshername is not 'one little inconsistency', Frank. It is one BIG inconsistency: 100% opinion, no basis (offered).

[Frank Harrist]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_amazon/index.html
If you'd like to google "amazon women" you'll find many sites about them and many archaeological finds which point to them.
Examples of mother goddesses are Gaia, Demeter, Cybele, Isis, Tellus, Kali, and Cihuacoatl.
Maybe, since you're so informed, you've heard of the hundreds of mother goddess figurines found throughout the world?

Maybe you can supply some reason for such strong disagreement?

And when I was talking about nitpicking "one incosistency" I wasn't just talking about DB's posts. Sometimes a statement doesn't apply all the time, but it does apply to the specific subject being discussed. For instance when I said that spears became largely ceremonial after the invention of the bow. The "largely" part was completely ignored and someone pointed out that romans used spears. It was a discussion about atlatls and lithic points stypes. Romans ain't got nothin' to do with that.

I'm beginning to think some of you are only here to find someone to argue with. RS, we gave your theory the benefit of the doubt and I think we all deserve the same consideration.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[quote="Frank Harrist"][...]we gave your theory the benefit of the doubt and I think we all deserve the same consideration.[/quote]

NO! Three times NO!
I'm not here for a bit of 'civil discourse'. I'm not here to leave tons of stuff unsaid, because someone with long toes might be offended. I'm here to find out more, learn more. Of stuff that I did not know about before.

I don't WANT the benefit of the doubt! Quite the contrary: in fact, as you may remember, I've invited all and sundry, a number of times, to try to shoot holes in my 'theory'. Sofar, however, nobody has. YET!
Imo, Frank, by giving me, and/or anybody else, the benefit of the doubt you would undermine the whole purpose of this forum!

[Frank Harrist]

Perhaps "benefit of the doubt" was the wrong way to put it. Maybe I should have said "serious consideration", instead. I might point out that , also that there is a temporal discrepency with your theory. I thought I had posted this before:

"The general claim that Solutrean folks came across the north Atlantic in hide boats is a hypothesis put forth by Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley.
Their claims are based largely on similarities in lithic technology between Pre-Clovis and Clovis materials from the New World and Solutrean in the Old World. * The problem with these claims is that most of the best comparisons are between Solutrean and Clovis, and they are separated by at least 6000 years in time as well the difference in location.* The quantity of Pre-Clovis materials from the Eastern U.S. is sparce at best and roughly compares to Solutrean in that they had blades and lanceolate points. Comparative technology is not the best way to demonstrate connections since there are only a limited number of ways to flake stone tools. Similar techniques were independently developed or rediscovered by different groups in different periods. For example, prismatic blades were made by both Clovis and Hopewell groups, but they are separated by 9000-10000 years with folks not making those things. Hopewell developed blade technology without contact with Paleoindians. Thus, take such comparisons with some skepticism, especially when there is no direct developmental link in the areas where they were found. Temporal separation negates most of these claims. As for the generalized comparisons of Solutrean with Clovis, etc., Lawrence Strauss (a Solutrean specialist) pretty well destroyed those arguments in an article:



Straus, Lawrence Guy

2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality.

American Antiquity 65(2):219-226.



Finally, the claim that Kennewick is Caucasian is simply BS. That was a mistaken claim based on a statement by Chatters when he was first studying the remains. However, additional examinations indicate Kennewick (and other early remains) are most closely related to Asian populations like the Ainu and early generalized Asian groups.



Mark A. McConaughy"

6000 years is a little tough to overcome. I still like your theory, though it may need a little tweeking.