Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:29 am**

E.P. What's this about?
"By the way, Vine's last book is setting in pieces, which need to be put together for publication."
What do you know about that? He was a professor and friend of mine.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:48 am**

hardaker wrote:
E.P. What's this about?
"By the way, Vine's last book is setting in pieces, which need to be put together for publication."
What do you know about that? He was a professor and friend of mine.

pretty much exactly what I wrote, Chris. I'll PM you.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:01 pm**

kbs2244 wrote:http://www.examiner.com/article/are-sec ... ts_article

Tribal warfare in the 21st century.

And the beat goes on.

This article explains very well my compliant about the whole “First Peoples” concept.
It is all about money. Lots of money. Tax free money. Non-audited money.

I have no racial complaint about “red men.”
(“Some of my best friends.” Etc, etc, etc.)
I know they were here before the European invasion.
But I also have no problem with the idea that they came from somewhere and inhabited N A.
And in doing so they wiped out their predecessors.
It was ands is the way of the world.
History is full of such things.

But that is not the story line.
If you do any kind of probing into the history of the Indian Casino industry it becomes apparent that the idea laying a huge “white guilt trip” on the American population was a way to get around the various anti-gamboling laws. Both Federal and State.

In brief:

It wasn’t even an Indian idea.
It was the brainstorm of two New York City Jews!
(My apologies to any who are of Hebrew decent.)

They were trying to figure out how to build a casino close to New York City, and came up with 2 ideas to say those laws didn’t apply to any Indian tribe owned land.

The first idea was that since the Government had so often violated the terms of the various treaties, the Indians were legally owed “payback.” It was a law based argument. They were owed compensation for the property the white man stole while breaking their own treaties and laws.

But, in a twist of fate, this was right at the time Jesse Jackson was trying to push the idea that all black Americans were owed “compensation” just for being here since they were not here of their own free will.
That idea was a colossal failure.
So our two fell back to Plan B.

When they went to the Rhode Island reservation to talk to the elders they pushed the “We were here first and you stole everything you have from us” theme.
They promised almost unlimited amounts of tribal income to be used for reservation schools, roads, etc. They would be “managing partners” of course.

With nothing to lose, the elders bought into the plan. They had to put up nothing but read some prepared statements and pose for some photo ops.
And the publicity campaign began.

It wasn’t long before some of the do good, social groups fell in line. And soon we all began to say “You know, they have a point. We do owe them something. And what is a casino going to cost us? Let them build one. If you don’t like gamboling just don’t go to it.”

And now we have the Indian Casino Industry. It is a billion (with a B) dollar a year industry.
It is outside all federal, state and local gamboling and auditing laws.
It is a corruption cancer in every local it is in.
(Have you checked the condition of any reservation schools lately?)

And it is all built on the “We were here first" fantasy.

Which brings us back to archeology.
The whole house of cards falls down if it can be shown that the current, favored, tribes were not actually the “first.”
The money tree is chopped down.

Archeology needs funding. Making a profit from it is frowned upon.
If you control the purse strings by threatening to withhold contributions to schools, foundations, politicians, whatever, that do not hold to that “we were here first” concept you then control the whole consensus.

Maintaining that money tree has set back North American archeology in the US and Canada at least 100 years.

I'm not exactly sure what or who your referring to since its like you are referring to one group of people when you are probably aware there are many distinct groups. So, just focusing on the situation with treaty Indians in Canada I don't know why it would matter if their we're people that preceded them. They were here and negotiated treaties for rights, nothing is going to void that.

I don't understand how casinos plays into anything, not sure what u were getting at with that.

Just curious when you think people first inhabited the America's.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:40 pm**

"Just curious when you think people first inhabited the America's."

Well.....
That is the big question isn't it.

One thing the evidence becoming public in increasing amounts is that was long before, and by people not related to, the current "First Peoples"

(Who lump themselves into one group for legal/political strength.)

"I don't understand how casinos plays into anything, not sure what u were getting at with that. "

Money,money,money.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:04 pm**

kbs2244 wrote:"
One thing the evidence becoming public in increasing amounts is that was long before, and by people not related to, the current "First Peoples"

Really, kb? Do tell us...

kbs2244 wrote:"
(Who lump themselves into one group for legal/political strength.)

Well...., that will leave anyone who is remotely aware of the disorganization, in other words anyone barely familiar with the situation in the real world, rolling on the floor laughing, kb.

kbs2244 wrote: "I don't understand how casinos plays into anything, not sure what u were getting at with that. "
Money,money,money.

Kb, here's the deal: just return the land, and you can have the casinos and the cigarettes.

Thanks for your input, kb. A century of progress indeed.
The same old same old, all dressed up in brand new 21st century psuedo scientific clothes.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:35 pm**

kbs2244 wrote:"Just curious when you think people first inhabited the America's."

Well.....
That is the big question isn't it.

One thing the evidence becoming public in increasing amounts is that was long before, and by people not related to, the current "First Peoples"

(Who lump themselves into one group for legal/political strength.)

"I don't understand how casinos plays into anything, not sure what u were getting at with that. "

Money,money,money.

Ya, i think you have very little actual knowledge of the situation. Natives are seperated in many ways. tribes, languages, bands, treaties, geography, etc. Now of course there are groupings as well, the point is the situation is infinitely more complex that you are suggesting.

But casinos are businesses, what does it have to do with archaeology or who was here first or anything like that.

You also didn't answer the question. When do you believe people first came to the americas? And from where? You hinted at things, I asked you and you just hinted again. I know it's always changing and so what you say now might change, that's fine. But to this point you have made big statements without actually saying anything or providing any reasoning.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:41 pm**

http://www.indianz.com/IndianGaming/

Posted: **Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:26 pm**

A good demonstration of what I mentioned, kb.

Notice that no one is going to the Ho Chunk for help, and all of the non NDN blood suckers looking to cash in.

There is no national group for everybody to compare notes on this.

And by the way, if the NDNs make too much, then the local officials just set up their own casinos.

Now WTF does this have to do with the other claims you were making, kb?

Do tell us about those non-NDN first settlers.

Who were they, Joseph Smith's Nephites, or the Nephilim, or refugees from Atlantis or Lemuria or Mu?

Were they under the control of the cats from outer space?

(Brad & Dick, if you ever stumble by here, this is what I am talking about. You start with the "Hopewell", the "Adena", and the "Moundbuilders", all of the other nonsense just follows. Its a slippery slope.)

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:06 pm**

E.P.
I know you can read better than that.

I have said I don’t know who were the first to the Western Hemisphere.
But I would like to be allowed to know.
There is just too much evidence that it was not any of the currently advertised “First.”

They were not the first.
They were just the ones that came before the current, historic, Europeans came.

And I really don’t care about the casinos.
Or the corruption they bring.
As far as I am concerned, that is Other Peoples Money.

My complaint is much narrower.
By trying to shore up this “First” house of cards they, and their bought politicians, are slapping down any evidence that there were pre “Indian” inhabitants.
Now that white guilt casino money is being used to stop, or at least slow, knowledge.

The most famous and classic example was/is the Kennewick Man.
It turns out he wasn’t white, but he wasn’t red either.
If anything he was yellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

Note on page 13
“Diversity in America Eight Thousand Years Ago”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 4-8#page-1

This is supporting evidence of the whole Pacific circular migration theory.
We would not have that evidence if the Kennewick Man was rotting underground.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/pathrou ... oast_m.htm

Can anybody spell Galileo?

BTW
As an example of “coming together.”
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/

You do have to start young to ingrain an “us against them,” common enemy, belief.
Ask the Palestinians.

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:15 pm**

kb -

Why on Earth do you think that there are no Ainu descendants among the First Nations?

Just to correct you on your "grand casino conspiracy" theory, I met several cultural preservation officers with the Grand Ronde a couple of years ago, and I don't think they will mind if I share with you that there were initially differences of opinion as to what should be done, and that only after discussion was their course of action decided.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:49 am**

You do have to start young to ingrain an “us against them,” common enemy, belief.
Ask the Palestinians.

Good Liberal Doctrine. Politically very correct. But exceedingly poor as an interpretation of reality, IMO.

Different peoples have their own versions of "normal behavior" is. In the long run, this, in and of itself, predictably elicits responses from those around them, prejudice afforethought (positive or negative) notwithstanding.

One of the more traumatic culture shocks my sister experienced in her first semester at Smith was that the Jewish women she encountered there for the first time in her life (and who she had naively regarded beforehend as an unfairly persecuted minority, as she'd been taught to) could be not unfairly characterised (with respect to her own value system) as obnoxious and vulgar. A similar attitudinal re-computation happened to a female grad student I knew living in Center City Philadelphia, eight or ten blocks from an "inner-city, disadvantaged neighborhood" from which issued nocturnal wolf packs of minority youths roaming in search of White women to gang-rape.

On the flip side, 23 years of working in a prison have allowed me to get to know and enjoy casually interacting with some of these same "disadvantaged minority" guys. Not a few of whom, had I been in their neighborhoods instead of them in mine, would have robbed & killed me without a second thought.

Schemes that reduce human beings to abstractions are fraudulent attempts at evading having to acknowledge that all the old cliches are true.

That's why they're cliches.

If there's going to be authentic "progress" in human relations, it will have to start from there.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:46 pm**

And I thought EP was going to introduce evidence of a comet strike in Ohio.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:34 pm**

kbs2244 wrote:E.P.
I know you can read better than that.

I have said I don’t know who were the first to the Western Hemisphere.
But I would like to be allowed to know.
There is just too much evidence that it was not any of the currently advertised “First.”

They were not the first.
They were just the ones that came before the current, historic, Europeans came.

And I really don’t care about the casinos.
Or the corruption they bring.
As far as I am concerned, that is Other Peoples Money.

My complaint is much narrower.
By trying to shore up this “First” house of cards they, and their bought politicians, are slapping down any evidence that there were pre “Indian” inhabitants.
Now that white guilt casino money is being used to stop, or at least slow, knowledge.

The most famous and classic example was/is the Kennewick Man.
It turns out he wasn’t white, but he wasn’t red either.
If anything he was yellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

Note on page 13
“Diversity in America Eight Thousand Years Ago”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 4-8#page-1

This is supporting evidence of the whole Pacific circular migration theory.
We would not have that evidence if the Kennewick Man was rotting underground.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/pathrou ... oast_m.htm

Can anybody spell Galileo?

BTW
As an example of “coming together.”
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/

You do have to start young to ingrain an “us against them,” common enemy, belief.
Ask the Palestinians.

You're talking 8-10kya. There are a number of fairly continuous FN assemblages that go back to 14-20 kya. You are suggesting pre FN people, so please provide evidence pre 20kya and define how that evidence is of a different group resulting in a lineage that didn't carry on to some group that still exists as FN people in the Americas. you keep hinting at this but u still haven't provided any basis and further you are going against a wealth of actual evidence.

In southern alberta for example, fluted points can be found flooding in behind the retreating glaciation from the south. The points can be mapped chronilogically and associated with groups genetically linked to modern FN populations. They came from the south. There were likely later migrations after deglaciation from the bering land bridge and these populations likely present evidence for other groups of FN people that co-existed for thousands of years. Whether the earlier populations came earlier from the same route, or from a coastal or southern route is debatable and very interesting. But you haven't provided anything to suggest that the established science on their connection to modern day populations should be rewritten.

You are obviously aware that there were probably more than one migration and/or source populations that led to current populations as evidenced by DNA and assemblage patterns etc. So Kennewick man and vikings and others may have found themselves in the americas at various times through various routes. But to suggest that they are remnants of some 20kya+ population that was overtaken by another group is unfounded.

Saying what ifs is fun. Its interesting. But you should frame it as such as you otherwise come off as someone willing to make unsubstantiated claims. And if that's the case why post here as opposed to the farout forums or something along those lines?

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:13 pm**

Farpoint wrote:And I thought EP was going to introduce evidence of a comet strike in Ohio.

Hi Farpoint -

The Shawnee memory of the Holocene Start Impact Event is given in a pamphlet I wrote with Fletcher Wilson. Fortunately, no fragments hit near Ohio, so they survived.

The next edition of that pamphlet will have an accurate paleo-botanical sequence; in the first edition I relied on Dr. Lepper's summary of it.

Aside from that, with regard to the HSIE in Ohio, I've been invited to view some undocumented petroglyphs on private property... if they are as described, they'll be included in the third edition...

I am pretty swamped, but perhaps a large amount of money might speed things along a little bit...

Archaeologica.org

A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress

Re: A Century of Progress