Deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:47 pm

deleted

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:08 pm

Take a look at some of these posts. Making a furnace is more than few days task as the refractory needs to dry very thoroughly. Also most blow-holes angle in from the side, not underneath because that's gonna blow your charcoals up into your face. And one more thing: look at the protective gear these guys wear.

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/archsci/depar ... evaulx.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/pub ... BLOOM4.htm

Another interesting article:
http://www.geotimes.org/apr06/trends.html

“We’re dealing with dead technologies” — tools and toolmaking skills that are no longer in use, says Jim Skibo, an archaeologist at Illinois State University in Normal. Thus, archaeologists have long experimented via trial and error to try to reinvent the tools and technologies, and determine the relationship between ancient people and their objects.

With his obsolete bloomery furnace, Jeffery is using analytical techniques that take into account physics, kinetics, thermodynamics and geochemistry to determine what combination of temperatures, air flows, types of ore and fuel might create a blend of iron and slag similar to those seen in archaeological evidence. Relatively few well-preserved furnace sites with working debris have been found in the world, Jeffery says, and though written historical accounts mention use of the furnaces for centuries, they do not give many of the important details on the furnaces’ operation.

So he and colleagues combine scientific models with archaeological evidence, such as what resources were known to have existed in a particular area at a specific time period, as well as what remnants archaeologists might have found at a site. Despite several experiments based on the modeling, Jeffery says that he is still a ways away from “successfully” reproducing the process using ancient materials. But the more he experiments, the more he can learn about the technical choices that people made — why they chose a particular raw material or a particular methodology (for example, why African cultures built larger bloomery furnaces than Europeans did, and what that might say about the exploitation of local resources and the social aspects of this technology).

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:16 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

That seems a little more reasonable.

I'm sure the Forestry Service would agree.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:16 pm

Well, damn it, Cog. You're invited too. Seriously.

Hmm ... I'll probably need to find a track meet nearby.

You two trouble-makers are invited to Calico. I'll take you to the top of a hill where you can't take a step without stepping on an artifact. Of course, you can't step on a hand-axe since they don't exist!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:20 pm

No Hand Axes!

I ain't going!

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:17 am

deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:18 am

deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:21 am

deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:30 am

deleted

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:02 am

Hell they could have had a cover on it....that would get the temperature up as well. Like a pressure cooker.

Hey, Cogs...is that the Calico that is northeast of Barstow?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:49 pm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... source=rss

A study of the oldest known sample of human DNA in the Americas suggests that humans arrived in the New World relatively recently, around 15,000 years ago.

The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996.

Charlie, it looks like the orthdoxtistas are circling the wagons. This is a very big leap for them to take regarding one sample of mDNA.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:56 pm

learn to read all the facts before jumpng to an untenable hypothesis

Comparing the DNA found in the tooth with that sampled from 3,500 Native Americans, researchers discovered that only one percent of modern tribal members have genetic patterns that matched the prehistoric sample

1% of 3500 is 35
so they in fact are making this claim based on 36 samples

what don't you trust national geographic now either

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:52 pm

Hey, Cogs...is that the Calico that is northeast of Barstow?

Yes, it is ... just on the other side of Yermo which means "desert wasteland" in Spanish. It's about 60 miles from my home ... or about a 35 minute drive!

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:09 pm

Hey, Beags!

Back on board. Thanks.

That's not too far from me, Cogs....other side of the Mojave is friggin' Kingman, AZ.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:29 pm

Beagle wrote:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... source=rss

A study of the oldest known sample of human DNA in the Americas suggests that humans arrived in the New World relatively recently, around 15,000 years ago.

The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996.
Charlie, it looks like the orthdoxtistas are circling the wagons. This is a very big leap for them to take regarding one sample of mDNA.

Never mind this Charlie. I see that you've already been discussing it.

One mDNA sample from a tooth, and finding west coast descendants, does not remotely make a case for declaring them the first americans. Quite a leap. Good discussion about it.

Archaeologica.org

Deleted

Field Trips

Calico