Archaeologica.org

The Allendale Expedition in South Carolina has found small charcoal deposits that tentatively date to c.50,000ya. Being disputed of course. They begin their 2006 dig in a couple of weeks.

Interesting! Please keep us posted.

Beagle wrote:The Allendale Expedition in South Carolina has found small charcoal deposits that tentatively date to c.50,000ya. Being disputed of course. They begin their 2006 dig in a couple of weeks.

Is that near Topper? Al Goodyear's bunch?

Yeah that's it. Their was a PBS program about it a year ago. I got one of their applications to sign up to work (it's online) but decided I couldn't make it. Sounds exciting though.

Any photos of artifacts Goodyear found at the 50K level?

I know some people who worked there a couple years ago. I think there were pics from then. Here's some now!

http://travel.moonstart.com/sc_allendale.html

There are some links you can follow from there for more info. Google "Topper" and you'll find a lot too.

The trouble with charcoal is that it forms naturally. All you need is a tree and a fire.

Now, if they found some fossilized marshmallows on little sticks....

Beagle, thanks for the update. Please keep us posted. I'm just over the Smokies and am interested in the finds of this area.

Small blades are nice, however, every chert working area seen has broken or unfinished bifaces. Wish them all the luck, but show me something more substantial.

over the years i have made a study of human skeletal remains and compared them with the skeletal structures of living humans, i have done this informally, and my conclusion is that there are no neanderthals, no hom erectus, sapiens etc. they were all human if the bones were from human.

evidence: you can see the same structures as neanderthals in people alive today. it is but wishfull thinking and a limited application of the facts that lead people to the false conclusion that man had such a variety of spiceis as his ancestors.

if you want further proof--carl ewing, formerly of the n.y. knicks, does not look like me at all and if his tissue were removed to the bone, you would think that that was close to the neanderthal as you could get. the ancient human skeletons are no different from what we have today.

the researchers also fail to apply modern diseases that would alter the bone and facial structure of the human body, shall we say elephant man here, to the ancient world thus again their conclusions are based upon faulty data.

but given the nature of the scientific world, it is not hard to see that happening. of course they base their conclusions on such fragmentary evidence, as is so wonderfully depicted in the other topic concerning the scant amount of bones found in that so-called transitory human.

they jump up and downfor joy because a few bones and a declatory statement says they have filled the gap and all they really have is a few bones from another human (if it really is human)

over the years i have made a study of human skeletal remains and compared them with the skeletal structures of living humans, i have done this informally, and my conclusion is that there are no neanderthals, no hom erectus, sapiens etc. they were all human if the bones were from human.

I'm going to let others handle this one. You deserve it.

still had to get your two cents in. i wonder if there is a post that you haven't graced with your lack of scholarly comments? must be lonely up there on that perch of yours feeling that you must contribute to everything as if your were the last word on any topic.

what does it feel like to be king?

i don't care who handles it, as a trained professional, i am putting forth a theory based upon OBSERVABLE evidence which i am allowed to do. plus it is scientific especially under the hypothetical deductivism method, so you really can't complain.

"over the years i have made a study of human skeletal remains and compared them with the skeletal structures of living humans, i have done this informally, and my conclusion is that there are no neanderthals, no hom erectus, sapiens etc. they were all human if the bones were from human."

Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthal, and Homo Sapiens are all considered human, hence the name "Homo" in the genus name before the species epithet in the full scientific binomial. That they are all human does not mean they are all the same species, therefore they have unique epithets to sort them out. The assignment of species is determined by shared sets of physical features unique to that species (this is in truth the definition of a species).

"the researchers also fail to apply modern diseases that would alter the bone and facial structure of the human body, shall we say elephant man here, to the ancient world thus again their conclusions are based upon faulty data. "

This is incorrect. Researchers always examine the possibility of pathology in any remains found. A prime example of this is the case of Homo Floresiensis. Initial arguments against Homo Floresiensis being a unique species went along those lines, detractors arguing that the remains represented an individual afflicted with microcephlia more commonly called 'pin head' disease. This was ruled out with the discovery of the remains of several more individuals dating a span of many thousands of years all with the same general physical features. Homo Floresiensis is not a case of a single diseased individual but of a sustained population of physically similar individuals, ie a new human species.

"if you want further proof--carl ewing, formerly of the n.y. knicks, does not look like me at all and if his tissue were removed to the bone, you would think that that was close to the neanderthal as you could get. the ancient human skeletons are no different from what we have today."

OK, first off, to the best of my knowledge nobody named Carl Ewing ever played for the NY Knicks. I am sure you must be refering to Patrick Ewing. I can assure you he is not a Neanderthal. He lacks the heavy brow characteristic of Neanderthals as well as the low dome of the cranium that is also the mark of a Neanderthal. He clearly has the minimal brow and high forehead of a modern sapiens. Other modern fetures of his skull include the shallowness of the gap between his brow and nose and a strong forwards chin. Here is a montage I put together to illustrate the point:

"but given the nature of the scientific world, it is not hard to see that happening. of course they base their conclusions on such fragmentary evidence, as is so wonderfully depicted in the other topic concerning the scant amount of bones found in that so-called transitory human."

Your whole take on science is that it is full of disreputable hoaxers with an axe to grind against the bible. You have made this abundantly clear in your many posts. This is simply false. Without the rigorous system replicatable experimentation and peer review none of the advances of science would have been possible. Indeed, the very system we are communicating with, the internet, would have been impossible without modern science. To contend that science is nothing but the posturing of frauds and hoaxers is simply foolish.

Your whole take on science is that it is full of disreputable hoaxers with an axe to grind against the bible.

He learned that from his bible hoaxers....all of whom are phonies!

There is a place on the coast of Texas called McFaddin Beach. Clovis points wash in on the surf. A beachcomber brought his collection to the attention of the state archys and they were astonded. With the Clovis were smaller unknown bifaces. The Gulf Of Mexico is very shallow near the continental shelf. Ice age shore may be 50 miles offshore. No river entered the Gulf at this position. What was the attraction? Who made the small points? Planning a beachcomber trip right after our next hurricane.