Archaeologica.org

Frank, I can't speak for Bob, but let me give you my idea of the Club.
Schoch and other people use the term - it wasn't invented here.

Archaeologists are great people. They're out there sweating and grunting and doing painstakingly slow work that would drive me crazy. They are my heros and the reason that we know as much as we do.

You've also just seen Marduks obvious anger toward Hancock at not being able to get his ideas a fair shake on Hancocks' web site.

You've read a rant from another fellow toward Doug Wellar about his posting restrictions.

These things make people angry. Many web sites will not allow any views that disagree with the owner of the website.

That is a small scale "Club". Many people, including Schoch, feel that the peer review process is not what it seems. People can speak - but they will not be heard.

So - I know that it is a devisive issue. But many people feel that if a person (lay person) undertakes scholarly research and puts together a well prepared scientific paper that is not quite mainstream - it will never make it into a Scientific Journal. Closed circle.

This has nothing to do with those hardworking and brilliant archaeologists that I think so highly of.

Guess that makes me objective..........or wishy washy. Or stuck in the middle.

try diplomatic

if there is a club
then it must be the most secretive and effective cover up the world has ever known
its way better than the c.i.a. the f.b.i and the n.s.a. put together isn't it
occhams razor is something you need to look up Min
or perhaps and i'm dying to know the answer to this one
what secrets do you think the club are hiding ?
give us all a list
please

I am an archaeologist. I'm not a pro. I don't have a degree. I am an avocational archaeologist and yet I can get published. There are journals which will publish me if I get up enough gumption to actually write something. Now if I write some off the wall baloney about some far out theory with no research or evidence to back it up I may still get published, but I will lose the respect of my peers. That in a nutshell is why lots of people don't go public with their unusual theories. I like my peers and I want and deserve their respect. If I write something which goes against what they all believe it's like a betrayal. They will avoid me at the conferences. They won't call me to help with local jobs. That goes for any line of work. You can apply this to anything. It's human nature to avoid the weirdos. There are some who want to be the weirdo. Some do it because of "the imp of the perverse". Some do it for a strange sort of notoriety. Some do it for money....so they can sell more books. If it's controversial it sells. I see what you guys are saying, but I think "the club" is the wrong way to label it. "The club" is an anti-auto-theft device.

It's just human nature to resist change.

its his inability to print the facts that should concern you

But only you or fellow Club members get to decide which facts are relevant, huh?

Are you sure you aren't a Republican?

Frank Harrist wrote:It's just human nature to resist change.

Then they shouldn't call themselves scientists.

Resistance to change is "religious."

so is believing something exists without any evidence
Arch has faith that god exists
and you have faith that the club exists
two peas in a pod

Ok Bob. Look at it like this. I'm sure you've been told all your life that George Washington was our first president. Suppose someone comes along and says that there was a shortlived govt. before the end of the war which elected someone else to serve during the war as president. They have very sketchy evidence but make a convincing case nonetheless. You are going to resist this revision of history unless you have incontrovertible proof of it. That's what this "club" amounts to. It makes these mavericks prove what they are contending. It should be hard to change what is written. It shouldn't be impossible, but it won't happen overnight.

Frank - you are an archaeologist. You are a hero of mine. (seriously)

Now, imagine this. You are out digging around, looking for artifacts from the Caddo culture. Then - you find a flat stone about 9" below the surface of the dirt. It has unmistakable ancient Phoenician inscription on it.

What do you do? You know. Nothing. You can take it home and set it on the mantle. If you try to bring this finding to light you will never get published again, nor will you be asked to join any excavations in the future.

If you persevere, people will delve into your private life and find ways to make you seem crazy. Every time the issue of your find comes up, people will attack you without mercy. That is the truth of it.

That in a nutshell is why lots of people don't go public with their unusual theories. I like my peers and I want and deserve their respect. If I write something which goes against what they all believe it's like a betrayal

vbut isn't that the point being made? archaeologists need to be a bit more open-minded when it comes to the evidence and interpretation and not so vindictive when disagreed with?

i agree we need stringent rules so that all researchers bring forth credible proof but i don't think those rules need to be handled in a manner that stifles constructive and contradicting thinking. nor should the be used to ostracize someone who is, a. learning, b. interpretating, c. thinking . ostracization is the last thing we need unless they hang onto such incredible and unrealistic viewpoints suchs as von deniken, among others.

i do not think schoch should be ostracize as he brings a valid point concerning the age of the sphynx. nor others like him who raise credible arguments which need to be explored.

one problem in which i found in that letter concerning doug weller's position on posting, was the comment that all source material must come from'accepted journals' (thatis a direct quote) I'm sorry but accepted journals do not cover all aspects of a site or evidence and the list of 'accepted' books can be manipulated to allow one certain viewpoint to see the light of day.

so a problem does exist and makes it more difficult for people to present their findings for consideration.

Frank Harrist wrote:Ok Bob. Look at it like this. I'm sure you've been told all your life that George Washington was our first president. Suppose someone comes along and says that there was a shortlived govt. before the end of the war which elected someone else to serve during the war as president. They have very sketchy evidence but make a convincing case nonetheless. You are going to resist this revision of history unless you have incontrovertible proof of it. That's what this "club" amounts to. It makes these mavericks prove what they are contending. It should be hard to change what is written. It shouldn't be impossible, but it won't happen overnight.

However, do they apply the same standard of "evidence" to their pet theories, Frank? They set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner.

You might be surprised by the tenuous nature of some of the attributions in Egyptian history.

Thank you, arch.


You may have explained it better than I ever did.

What is this, a love feast?

I always followed the principle when raising my kids of "trying to catch them doing something right" and praising them for it.


(Some days it was a stretch......)

What is this, a love feast

no, i guess i just earned my credibility status. (chuckle! chuckle!)