Archaeologica.org

kbs2244 wrote:There is a reason they are all on big rivers.
Big rivers make good ports.

kbs - this point is well taken. This makes me want to raise a question that will probably make me sound even more naive.......

When a settlement is found....let's say on a river in S. America a few thousand years bce....is the focus on the site or is the surrounding area analyzed as well. This may be related to research funding.

If a settlement site is located on a river, do they investigate the river path at the time of existence. Do they chart the area within a day's walking distance of the riverfront land of that time? Is the coastline of that time accounted for in their analysis?

The answer is most likely yes but just wanted to ask to sound more obtuse.

Minimalist wrote:That is the $64k question I/O. On the surface, it is hard to see any sort of relationship between Caral in Peru, China and Egypt. More of a case can be made for Harappa and Sumeria.

But perhaps Graham Hancock is right and there is a remote common ancestor?

Is there no semblance b/n Caral, China and Egypt?

Other than that they developed a degree of urbanization?

Different times, different continents, no apparent knowledge of each other.

Assuming that towns grow up after agriculture begins which leads to a stratified society they would have that in common but that is more a comment about the process of urbanization rather than any linkage.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Interested Onlooker wrote:Just high level, it would seem that who we are today is more than evolution can account for. Evolution's 'laws' are very scientific...all based on survival.

We have traits that are not in-line with evolution. Agreed?

Would you agree?

Interested Onlooker:

We have talked about river mouth civilizations before, but I don’t remember the thread.
Big river mouths are natural transferal locations.
They are used to bring upland resources like timber, grain, ores, etc to a point where sea going traders can be reached.
On the return trip the river traders would take imported manufactured and luxury goods. Pottery, fabrics, worked metals, etc.

As far as a looking at a large area around a site is concerned, this has become more common lately.
The question of “Why is this place here?” is being asked more often than in the past.
In my opinion that is a good thing.
Back when I did a lot of traveling in my job, I used to read the little books the local Chamber of Commence would have in a the hotel room. They almost always had a chapter on the history of the town that explained why people congregated there. I considered it good reading.
I was always confused about Atlanta. It is not a port. Not at a mountain pass. Not on a fall line for water power. It just seems to sit there in the middle of nowhere.
It was some trips before I learned it is at the crossing of a North/South and an East/West railroad. Like a river mouth, it became a transfer point.

The technology used in archaeology has become more and more refined, from the treasure hunters with pick axes to the white coated lab worker, but the most profound change to have taken place in my lifetime has been in the archaeologist's approach to his discipline.
Out has gone the gatherer of artifacts, to be replaced by those who want to know who our ancestors were, how they thought, how they lived their lives.
To me, vastly more interesting than a glass fronted case full of stone points.

Digit - I'm in the same line of thinking that perspectives can be gained from the 'non-professionals' to a field.

Most professionals, in all fields, are lead down a road of having a very high degree of knowledge on a specific subject matter. Eventually, they're lead to a narrowing path that forces them to look down and forward vs. up and around.

The information that springs out from this trend has been expanding exponentially and can only be appreciated with gratitude.

kbs - Your “Why is this place here?” question could not have been said better. That is the first question I think of when scanning the archaeologica.org/news articles!

Thanks for your input, your objectivity is encouraging. Bottom line, it all probably boils down to the funding to research a site. Big picture can not be afforded.

Cognito - In a scenerio that a small group of people, over a relatively short amount of time, blending their genome thinly on a global basis created confusion with regards to genetic analysis? Maybe not and that it is not being investigated as a possibility over the past ~10 thousand years.

Could the similarities (that cannot be explained by evolution), as to who we are a tribute to the effectiveness of this unknown blending, with our diversity tributing the traits that are native to our area of origin?

Interested Onlooker wrote:If a settlement site is located on a river, do they investigate the river path at the time of existence. Do they chart the area within a day's walking distance of the riverfront land of that time? Is the coastline of that time accounted for in their analysis?

The answer is most likely yes but just wanted to ask to sound more obtuse.

It seems a bit obvious to me if a site reveals evidence of "water" life with a river or coastline several miles away, they will investigate the possibilities of shifting rivers or moving coastlines. Its quite common that rivers shift course or dry-up completely and settlements collapse as a result.

I/O wrote:Digit - I'm in the same line of thinking that perspectives can be gained from the 'non-professionals' to a field.

Most professionals, in all fields, are lead down a road of having a very high degree of knowledge on a specific subject matter. Eventually, they're lead to a narrowing path that forces them to look down and forward vs. up and around.

This is not always the case. A professional analysis of evidence is typically more valuable and thorough than most amateurs could hope to develop, often based on a body of knowledge not easily accessible by the amateur. Some fields are wide open to amateur contributions, as there simply are not enough professionals doing the research, but I think in many cases, amateurs do more harm than good in the field of archaeology. Looking at artifacts and evidence after that fact is one thing (I think amateurs may be able to contribute something) but ripping into the earth with trowels and shovels is another matter best left to the pros. Such is my opinion.

Forum Monk - point well taken!

However, if there is any credence to a global connection that I and others suggest, is it being considered by that same professional on a site? Statistically, my guess would be no but dunno....

I don't intend to cast stereotypes and I cannot see the harm in asking the question.

What is the harm that you refer to? If anything, I see it casting interest which translates to money. Any worthy topic sparks controversy.

I guess I should clarify my thoughts a bit. I am not suggesting amateurs have nothing to contribute to archaeology nor am I suggesting that all professional investigations are an open-minded, "big picture" analysis. Archaeology is a science, not an amateur's arrowhead and fossil hunt.

Regardless of the scope of any initial reports which come from any professional investigation of a site, it is important to understand that reports, and analysis becomes part of a collective body of data which can be examined for all its worth over years by all manner of experts and non-professionals alike. Rarely is this case when an amateur stumbles across a find and begins collecting artifacts, digging into strata, etc. The results of such investigations are almost never published, cataloged, or made available to the academic community at large.

Certainly, once the data is in, cataloged, photographed, published, etc. it is open to interpretation and there is no shortage of opportunists as well as sincere individuals who are contributing their ideas, often in the form of popular books.

I think, though, if you were in university preparing an advanced degree thesis in archaeology you would never consider putting Hamlett's Mill or Fingerprints of the Gods (or worse yet, Chariots of the Gods ) in your bibliography. Why is that? Is it because the conventional scientists want to suppress real truth? Many people believe it's so. I don't.

Am I off track, or is this on topic for your thread???

Most professionals, in all fields, are lead down a road of having a very high degree of knowledge on a specific subject matter.

I happen to agree with you about the ultimate effect of intense specialization, I/O. I was recently amused when my wife had elbow surgery and found that the medical group had separate surgeons for elbows, knees, and shoulders! What's next? Left and Right Kidney doctors?

Forum monk - you are right, those books should not be classified as archeological references.

They are not completely worthless in value either. I think that Hancock makes interesting assumptions that are fun to think about and some may have slight elements of truth to them.

"Regardless of the scope of any initial reports which come from any professional investigation of a site, it is important to understand that reports, and analysis becomes part of a collective body of data which can be examined for all its worth over years by all manner of experts and non-professionals alike. Rarely is this case when an amateur stumbles across a find and begins collecting artifacts, digging into strata, etc. The results of such investigations are almost never published, cataloged, or made available to the academic community at large."

Agreed, leave the digging up to the professionals. If not, I can see the harm that I beleive you were referring to.

Min - hiliarious, that would be the day. Imagine a surgeon not able to operate because their speciality was the opposite kidney!