Uh-Oh

[Tiompan]

Hi George,
This might not be the right place for that, but briefly, it is the application of Classical geometry principles to Native American architecture and symbology. "Classical" refers to pre-Euclidean geometry developed by the Classic Greeks. It is exactly the same as Sacred Geometry. It reveals the natural phenomenon of geometry that erupts from a circle. It is non-random, multi-cultural, holistic and eminently integrated with an endless series of phenomena because it is a property of Space itself, something that was around before Creation. Culture and language do not seem to be barriers to understanding and working with it -- something Algebra is accused of. What is incredible is that you can teach the basics to all children (9years+) in a connect-the-dot format and introduced as a skill to make geometric art. It is amazing educational institutions have not seized on it because everything you have to know by the end of the 8th/9th grade you could teach in the 6th grade. Of course that would mean teachers have to be re-taught and who wants to do that! Better stop.

Thanks and sorry Chris , I meant would you mind if I made a couple of comments .it was actually in relation to the archaeoastronomy .


George

[E.P. Grondine]

The First American
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Su ... 1564149420

Purchased the Kindle edition for my iPad. You're up next after I finish Sarah Nelson's archaeological history of Denver this weekend.

Hi Johnny -

You need to spend some time with a better book - may I suggest "Man and Impact in the Americas"?

It handles questions like "How did those two human populations differentiate?" Bet you "First Americans..." did not handle that one.

It also covers archaeo astronomy, with more to come in the second edition.

I have not done Kindle, and now the iPad has come along.

All kidding aside, let us take a few minutes to remember Frank Hibben, pioneering archaeologist, brain injured war vet, who then endured vicious academic attack.

[E.P. Grondine]

Its funny no one here noted that the skull data appears to have come from Brazil and Chile.

If the one population was from Pedra Furada, then their assertion of no descendants would be broadly correct.

[Minimalist]

Chris' point is that no one is talking about it at all. Its as if the club simply wants it to go away.

[kbs2244]

I think you are right Min.

Note that in the news release the term used is “Paleo Americans”
That tells you it was not released in the US by a US sponsored discover.

In the U S they are “Paleo-Indian.“

That is a sop to the political dollars of the current “Native Americans.”

That term has the prefix “paleo“ in it as a key to the professional but also the word “Indian” in it because it is assumed that 98 percent of the readers don’t know what “paleo” means.
So everybody can continue to assume that the current tribes were indeed the “first.”

This is a refreshingly outside the US sphere of influence news release.

[hardaker]

"Thanks and sorry Chris , I meant would you mind if I made a couple of comments .it was actually in relation to the archaeoastronomy .
George"

shoot.

[hardaker]

Paleo-Indian vs. Paleo-American.
In professional circles, the latter is being more accepted that the former. Chiefly because of the Kennewick and subsequent discoveries that identified a non-Native American racial identity among some of the earliest skulls. This was the view of Robson Bonnichsen back in 2000 when I was writing a paper for Mammoth Trumpet, “Towards Clovis Origins” (2001).

[hardaker]

“You need to spend some time with a better book - may I suggest "Man and Impact in the Americas"?
It handles questions like "How did those two human populations differentiate?" Bet you "First Americans..." did not handle that one.
It also covers archaeo astronomy, with more to come in the second edition.
I have not done Kindle, and now the iPad has come along.
All kidding aside, let us take a few minutes to remember Frank Hibben, pioneering archaeologist, brain injured war vet, who then endured vicious academic attack.”


Yo EC,

My goodness. So I guess that means you have not yet read, or even looked at my book, or else you would not have to bet; you would know directly if I did indeed “handle that one.” First of all, the populations I was talking about were probably a hell of a lot older than the ones you talked about. Btw, Neves has been very busy with Lagoa Santa and other populations for decades. Great search terms.
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/ ... he_peopli/

Had you just whizzed through the last part of the book, or looked at the very end of the index, a couple very strange foreign words would have jumped out at you: Diring Yuriakh. To answer the question -- or rather, to respond to a cluster of rather snide sentences designed to instill doubt that are based on your self-admitted ignorance of my book -- Mike Waters established a viable population in Siberia, around the 61 latitude, 400,000 years ago, minimum. (emphasis) Or even if you saw the final chapter of the book, Dancing with [Asian] Bison: these critters crossed somewhere before 250,000 years ago. For me, it’s a great geoarchaeological starting point based on the fact that a successful bison and other critter-crossing obviously occurred. This means Beringia ecology could support such a crossing (enough grass, etc). Good paleo target to shoot for. That’s essentially it. Question: what’s going on in Siberia, biologically, at that time? Donno. Let’s pump some bucks into it and find out! Waters and Gobble didn’t even note it in their last paper. Like I said, social science is not science, it is consensus.

Ps. Thanks terribly so much for the tie in to Fibbin Hibben.
FYI – I am not brain injured, at least not by war; I am not a vet; and I have not had to endure any vicious academic attacks, only silence – cf. Struthio deniabilitus (image above) -- except for the excellent feedback I have received from geologists like Shlemon, Bischoff, and of course, Chuck Naeser – again, good search terms. Everyone else is too chicken to take me on. (intentionally provocative … i’m so lonely! Nobody will even yell at me.)

Salud

[Minimalist]

when I was writing a paper for Mammoth Trumpet, “Towards Clovis Origins” (2001).

Would that happen to be available on the web anywhere?

[E.P. Grondine]

You need to spend some time with a better book - may I suggest "Man and Impact in the Americas?
It handles questions like "How did those two human populations differentiate?" Bet you "First Americans..." did not handle that one.
It also covers archaeo astronomy, with more to come in the second edition.
I have not done Kindle, and now the iPad has come along.
All kidding aside, let us take a few minutes to remember Frank Hibben, pioneering archaeologist, brain injured war vet, who then endured vicious academic attack.”

Yo EC,

Hi Chris - It's E.P., and let me warn you, I was born with this strange sense of humor, which has only become worse over the last several decades.

My goodness. So I guess that means you have not yet read, or even looked at my book, or else you would not have to bet; you would know directly if I did indeed “handle that one.”

If you'd handled impact events and human evolution, I would have already known it, before your book was published.

First of all, the populations I was talking about were probably a hell of a lot older than the ones you talked about.

If you'd handled impact events and human evolution, I would have already known it, before your book was published.

Had you just whizzed through the last part of the book, or looked at the very end of the index, a couple very strange foreign words would have jumped out at you: Diring Yuriakh. To answer the question -- or rather, to respond to a cluster of rather snide sentences designed to instill doubt that are based on your self-admitted ignorance of my book -- Mike Waters established a viable population in Siberia, around the 61 latitude, 400,000 years ago, minimum. (emphasis)

That's actually late for the dates in "Man and Impact in the Americas". You would not believe the amount of crap I took for writing about early man in Asia. And now we have these nice tools buried in impact debris in Malaysia 1.8 million years ago.

Or even if you saw the final chapter of the book, Dancing with [Asian] Bison: these critters crossed somewhere before 250,000 years ago. For me, it’s a great geoarchaeological starting point based on the fact that a successful bison and other critter-crossing obviously occurred. This means Beringia ecology could support such a crossing (enough grass, etc). Good paleo target to shoot for. That’s essentially it. Question: what’s going on in Siberia, biologically, at that time? Donno. Let’s pump some bucks into it and find out! Waters and Gobble didn’t even note it in their last paper. Like I said, social science is not science, it is consensus.

Thanks for that info on bison, and that is very relevant. So relevant I may actually read your book, but you will NEED to read mine, and so will Johnny, sooner or later. There's a special on it over at http://cosmitusk.com.

Beautiful thing about impacts. They leave these big holes in the ground, tsunami deposits, impactite layers. The realization that impacts occurred is changing anthropology in a very fundamental way.

Ps. Thanks terribly so much for the tie in to Fibbin Hibben.
FYI – I am not brain injured, at least not by war; I am not a vet; and I have not had to endure any vicious academic attacks, only silence – cf. Struthio deniabilitus (image above) -- except for the excellent feedback I have received from geologists like Shlemon, Bischoff, and of course, Chuck Naeser – again, good search terms. Everyone else is too chicken to take me on. (intentionally provocative … i’m so lonely! Nobody will even yell at me.)
Salud

I hope you're with me in trying to restore Hibbin's reputation, Chris. It was my pleasure to defend him by myself, with my own brain damage, but it will be nice to have some company.

[Tiompan]

Cheers Chris , At the latitude of Chaco Canyon the solstices are 60 degrees apart but only if the horizon is flat , of course that is not the actual situation at Chetro Ketl where the canyon hills although not high are close enough to the site to change the azimuth ,resulting in the summer solstices being much closer to 66 and 293 degrees .

George

[hardaker]

The way I understand you is that the azimuths would appear different if viewed in the canyons rather than up on the mesas. If so:
At that latitude, the azimuth works, and if the ruins are on the valley floor and cannot precisely 'see" the correct sunset point on the horizon, so be it. there are plenty of other sites up on the mesas and adjacent to pb, chetro, and other mega-kivas -- and up on the mesas, you do see those sun-rises/sets. The Anasazi had that place covered top to bottom.

[Tiompan]

If the sites at the latitude of Chaco Canyon have a clear horizon then there will be the some occurrences of 60 degrees between solstices but
considering many/the majority ? of the important sites do not , i.e. Chetro Ketl , and still have hexagonal designs , it would seem that the relationship
between design and astronomy is not intentional but more than likely based on the optimum use of space ,efficiency and and ease of build of hexagonal architecture .

George

[hardaker]

George -- could be absolutely nothing. sure. I wasn't there. I am working with what we have, which ain't much since nobody's talkin because nobody's still alive from Chaco. But, given they were amazing engineers, and given everyone back then knew about solstices (horizon calender systems), I think they made the connection between the azimuth and the matching central angles of the hexagon -- they did not have 360-degree system to our knowledge, and probably didn't look at things that way. But they still seemed to know about squaring circles. About archaeoastronomy on with larger great kivas, check what happens to Chetro Ketl and the Aztec great kiva when you set them up oriented symmetrically vs. directions. pretty far out. I talked about it in my "The Hexagon, The Solstice and the Kiva."
You can always call things coincidence and that is one of the challenges of archaeology. But sometimes you just got to try and do something with patterns when they repeat. It is all we have for the most part and I gave it a shot.

[Tiompan]

Chris , The Aztec Ruins kiva ,unlike Chetro Ketl is very close to the 60 degree difference in orientation and indicated in the architecture (the line across the vaults ) although there is no indication for the other two solstice lines within the architecture .
Looking at the local guide for Chetro Ketl the northing looks way out so I had to rely on Google Earth for the axis which seems to differ from Aztec Ruins by about 10 degrees but it doesn't seem have an entrance at the south which Morris had used as a point in the axis like AZ . There are decent plans of AZ from Morris (1921) and contemporary architect Dennis Holloway which almost agree and also seem close to what can be calculated from GE. This area and period is mostly new stuff (with the exception of Fajada Butte ) to me but my guess is that orientation seems more important than solstice alignments although it is more than likely the builders would have understood solar and lunar cycles . The question is ,is it a one off ? It seems intentional but another one would be good .

George