Archaeologica.org

Stupid question.

I often see "the club" referenced in the forum. Who or what is "the club"?

It's my whimsical way of referring to members of the Archaeological Establishment who are so locked into their doctrine that they refuse to consider evidence, or at least anomalous evidence, which conflicts with those doctrines.

Particular examples of the phenomena are those Clovis-first types who scream that there are no hand axes in the Americas....one of these days Cogs or Charlie is going to hit one of them in the head with a hand axe they have found in California or Texas.

A second example is the Great Sphinx which Egyptologists still swear was built by Khafre of the 4th Dynasty even though Robert Schoch's evidence for rain water erosion on the site is compelling and there was not enough rain in the 4th Dynasty time period to accomplish the trick.

No. The Great Auk was of the same group as the modern day Puffin. It's latin name implies that it was a penguin but as I understand it it was not a Peguin the latin name being coincidental.
But it was edible.

Minimalist wrote:
A second example is the Great Sphinx which Egyptologists still swear was built by Khafre of the 4th Dynasty even though Robert Schoch's evidence for rain water erosion on the site is compelling and there was not enough rain in the 4th Dynasty time period to accomplish the trick.

Afaic that's a past station. The logical consequence is that the Sphinx is millennia older than the Great Pyramids behind it. Deal with it. Are you saying the 'archaeological establishment' still doesn't accept the facts in front of their eyes?

Digit wrote:
No. The Great Auk was of the same group as the modern day Puffin. It's latin name implies that it was a penguin but as I understand it it was not a Peguin the latin name being coincidental.
But it was edible.

Semantics. It was the penguin of the north. It filled exactly the same environmental niche in the northern hemisphere that the [other] penguins did/do in the south. It couldn't fly away, nor defend itself successfully, which fed the human sea ice skirters of the glacial max on their – UNintentional! – trek to America, and eventually did in the species. Catching them was like shooting fish in a barrel... Much easier prey than the fast and dangerous seals, walruses, whales and sharks!
Which would you rather hunt and rely on for a steady food supply?

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Minimalist wrote:
A second example is the Great Sphinx which Egyptologists still swear was built by Khafre of the 4th Dynasty even though Robert Schoch's evidence for rain water erosion on the site is compelling and there was not enough rain in the 4th Dynasty time period to accomplish the trick.

Afaic that's a past station. The logical consequence is that the Sphinx is millennia older than the Great Pyramids behind it. Deal with it. Are you saying the 'archaeological establishment' still doesn't accept the facts in front of their eyes?

Uh, yes.

http://guardians.net/hawass//khafre.htm

Next to the valley temple, the Great sphinx lies inside its own enclosure. Its position next to Khafre’s causeway and certain architectural details indicate that it was an integral part of the pyramid area; that colossal lion statue with the head of the King, carved out of a sandstone outcrop, represents Khafre as the god Horus presenting offerings to the sun god. From the eighteenth dynasty forward, the Sphinx was a symbol of Kingship and place of pilgrimage; and a small chapel was erected between its paws.

What you say is correct RS but semantics are important in some things. We fill the same niche as Homo Erectus, doesn't make Erectus though my friend.

What you say is correct RS but semantics are important in some things. We fill the same niche as Homo Erectus, doesn't make Erectus though my friend.

So much for your opinion, Digit, but Homo erectus is my wife's favorite hominid!

Lovely chap Cog!

If this link is already in here I soundly appologize as I have not read the entire thread (it probably is you guys are pretty sharp).

Just thought it was an interesting take on more land bridge issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

And what about Kennewick Man?
Is there still no report of the research? Wasn't it last August that the judge handed down a verdict ordering the native Americans to hand over the remains for formal, scientific analysis?
Or was that appealed again?

Preliminary reports were issued on Kennewick man in February 2006. I haven't noted any follow ups.

I imagine these things take time.

Minimalist wrote:
I imagine these things take time.

Especially as that could be an effective function of another attempt at burying the subject? That would fit if the findings are deemed too explosive for public consumption. Because they could cause great civil unrest?
America's own Da Vinci Code?

You think?

The American people don't seem terribly concerned about a war which has cost us 25,000 casualties. I doubt that an old skeleton would cause rioting in the streets.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:And what about Kennewick Man?
Is there still no report of the research? Wasn't it last August that the judge handed down a verdict ordering the native Americans to hand over the remains for formal, scientific analysis?
Or was that appealed again?

Here is a NOVA link...personally I think he looks like Patrick Stewart
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/kennewick.html





The NA people in the area have a lot invested in their theory "we were here first" finding a caucasoid in their territory LONG before they were here is a real threat to them.