Archaeologica.org

I suppose I am simply not handsome enough.

Nah. There must be another reason!

Not much fun.
Too weird.
Very tired.
Not credentialed.

Not credentialed.

That doesn't stop any body from running Simcha Jacobovici's "documentaries." Or, as Jonathan Reid called them....."archaeoporn."

Obviously, min, for commercial success I should have written on Judaeo-Christian themes, instead of Native American proto-history.

Now, there's a good point.

I was reading this thread and got pretty intrigued so I ordered the Barry Fell book, America BC. I'm a third of the way into it finding it fascinating. There is no way for me to evaluate his assertions though. What do people think? What do *you* think? Do any mainstream people buy into this? I see quotes here and there about much of it being questionable but that at least some of the inscriptions are for real. If that's so how can archaeologists not be all over it? It's important! What about the evidence in Paraguay and Brazil? Is any of that accepted? Also, can anyone point me to good sites on the internet for further reading? Thx in advance.

“Do any mainstream people buy into this?”

Short answer… No.

Berry and Gloria simply stepped on too many toes and accepting their discoveries would have upset too many apple carts.

What they discovered flew in the face of the “facts” that too many careers were based on.
When you have written a bunch of books and spent years teaching something it is real hard to accept that you have been wrong all those years.

As we get into a new generation with a less of a tie to the old ideas some of the newer stuff starts to become accepted.
But to be peer reviewed you have to walk a fine line when presenting new evidence that would discredit the reviewers.

You can fall into a real rabbit hole looking into these things on the internet.
It is a realm full of hucksters and worse.
This is one of E.P.s pet peeves.

Some internet sites with some credit to get started at:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

http://www.gloriafarley.com/

http://www.midwesternepigraphic.org/

And my favorite “if we ignore it maybe it ill go away” site

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

Kbs, I'm really enjoying these links. Thanks so much.

About the "Calendar" rings of standing stones in Fell's book - and the calendar-oriented structures - is there any controversy about those? I mean, I'm always hearing that about structures and rings all over the place - Europe, the whole world, being oriented such and such a way but I don't know if that could be coincidence or if it's over-reading into it. I mean, it can't be that hard to find a spot to stand in order to see a sunrise or sunset over a stone or through a hole, can it? Are some structures, like Stonehenge, for *sure* oriented that way and others open to interpretation or are they all kinda open to interpretation? I'm never sure how solid those types of analysis are.

The rings are there and they are what they are.

But they are “open to interpretation.”

Personally, it seems like a whole lot of coincidence going on.

Check out this one.
It is older than Stonehenge.
But at the same latitude.

http://www.shrinesandsacredsites.com/mmw.htm

Be very careful if you start researching “medicine wheels.”
They are a classic husker subject.

JSteen wrote:Kbs, I'm really enjoying these links. Thanks so much.

About the "Calendar" rings of standing stones in Fell's book - and the calendar-oriented structures - is there any controversy about those? I mean, I'm always hearing that about structures and rings all over the place - Europe, the whole world, being oriented such and such a way but I don't know if that could be coincidence or if it's over-reading into it. I mean, it can't be that hard to find a spot to stand in order to see a sunrise or sunset over a stone or through a hole, can it? Are some structures, like Stonehenge, for *sure* oriented that way and others open to interpretation or are they all kinda open to interpretation? I'm never sure how solid those types of analysis are.

There are some sites that look good re. astronomical intentionality in Britain but many of the monuments have none that can be considered provable and many clearly have none . i.e. taking alignmnets acrross stones in a 12 stone circle is bound to come to up with something that fits any bill , the vast majority of passages in passage graves and other similar monumnets throughout Europe are not aligned on the the typical Thom paradigm events .Having said that Stonehnege's axis and avenue solstitial alignment although inaccurate (probably making even more likely ) looks like it was intentional similarly the Newgrange winter solstice alignment and recumbent stone circles of NE Scotland which have compelling evidence of a major lunar standstill orienation .

George

kbs2244 wrote: When you have written a bunch of books and spent years teaching something it is real hard to accept that you have been wrong all those years.

As we get into a new generation with a less of a tie to the old ideas some of the newer stuff starts to become accepted.

But to be peer reviewed you have to walk a fine line when presenting new evidence that would discredit the reviewers.

Try working on comet and asteroid impacts sometime.

kbs2244 wrote: You can fall into a real rabbit hole looking into these things on the internet.
It is a realm full of hucksters and worse.
This is one of E.P.s pet peeves.

I don't have any problem with trans-oceanic contact, as several of the First Peoples remembered their visitors.

Its when a few visitors remains are transformed into a vast empire; or when Native American remains are claimed as being those of others; or when the mysteries of the past are used to commit spiritual theft - that's when I get peeved.

Its all a whole lot of fun - until the bodies start piling up.

You don't understand this now; I can only hope that some day you will.

kbs2244 wrote:“
When you have written a bunch of books and spent years teaching something it is real hard to accept that you have been wrong all those years.

In the mainstream of the past there have been numerous writers who have written seminal ground breaking works that stand up today .
How many of the alternative types from the same period with non falsifiable claims can you say that about ? . They tend to get quietly forgotten about ,usually because evidence does finally turn up to refute their claims or the general public look realise that their ideas are actually quaint and unlikely although they may find something equally unlikely but at least with a contemporary appeal . UFO 's and Atlantis are all a bit passe these days , pyramids and codes are getting that way but there are still a few years life left in them yet .

George

Tiompan wrote: In the mainstream of the past there have been numerous writers who have written seminal ground breaking works that stand up today .

Name them. What are their annual sales?

Tiompan wrote: How many of the alternative types from the same period with non falsifiable claims can you say that about ?

Leave out the non-falsifiable qualification, as it does not matter.

Plato.

But more to the issues of today, Johannes Radloff's, Velikovsky's, and the LePLongeon's confusion keep getting recycled, again and again.

Tiompan wrote: They tend to get quietly forgotten about, usually because evidence does finally turn up to refute their claims or the general public look realise that their ideas are actually quaint and unlikely

Obviously, not true.

Tiompan wrote: although they may find something equally unlikely but at least with a contemporary appeal.

What happens is that once the refutation is forgotten, the confusion is brought up again, usually dressed in new clothes.

Tiompan wrote: UFO 's and Atlantis are all a bit passe these days ,

Ahhh, but History Channel's recent show "Ancient Astronauts" was their highest rated show, ever. It's now a series.

"Atlantis" constantly continues to be popular.

Tiompan wrote: pyramids and codes are getting that way but there are still a few years life left in them yet .
George

People want entertainment, a diversion from life's worries.
Or seek some kind of fulfillment in thinking about their concept of an ancient past.
Aside from religion and nationalism, Identification is a real problem in the anthropological community.

People also believe what they want to believe,
and hard evidence will seldom interfere with those beliefs.
Many people are not spiritually fulfilled by traditional Christianity.
This leads to the production of much nonsense to substantiate their beliefs.

E.P. Grondine
Amazing Stories
- how the computer was adopted by the cult archaeology business

PS - BTW, Re: Fells.
It is possible that as Europe was deforested people crossed the Atlantic to get large trees for dugouts.

But from there...

E.P. Grondine wrote:

Tiompan wrote: In the mainstream of the past there have been numerous writers who have written seminal ground breaking works that stand up today .

Name them. What are their annual sales?

.

A quick choice , all informative well written ,readable ,no bullshit , ground breaking and standing up today . I didn't mention sales or am comcerned .
John Aubrey "Monumenta Brittanica (late 17 th C)
William Stukeley :Stonehenge 1740
Sir james Simpson 1864 "Archaic sculpturings "
Early christain monuments of Scotland 1903 Romilly Allen
Aubrey Burl Stone circles of the British isles 1976
V.G. Childe "The bronze Age " 1930
BINFORD 1968 "new perspectives in Arcaheology "
ME Cunnington 1929 Woodhenge
Stuart Piggot :The neolithic cultures of the British Isles 1954
Flanders Petrie : 70 years in archaeology 1932 .
name some alternative stuff from the same periods , I have kept it generally early that will do likelwiase .

George

You and I have a different definition of "ground breaking".
I am thinking in terms of paradigm shift.

For all his faults, Colin Renfrew qualifies in that category.
Styart Piggott also did ground breaking work in "The Druids".

James Churchward (Mu) and Ignatius Donelly (Atlantis) outsell all of those you mentioned.

Like I told you before, people believe what they want to believe, often times after hard reality has slapped them in the face.

Many people want to believe that "shtuff" from space has not hit the Earth and killed people.

Take a look at the YD nanodiamonds "debates".
The resistance has been immense and well funded.

Me, I'm tying to locate and confirm larger geoblemes from the YD impacts.