Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:You do know what is going to happen when The Club hears about this, don't you?

What do we mean by "The Club"?

they mean the global conspiracy by all qualified archaeologists to hide the real truth about our past from the general public
you know thats why Archaeologists study for three years to become qualified because secretly they don't want to uncover anything they just want to hide things
on university application forms for archaeology courses the first question is
1) do you want to hide any significant evidence you find from the public
if they answer yes then they are accepted if they answer no then they are kicked out of university
allegedly

apparently it recently moved up a notch to cover education in schools as well in order to raise a generation of dumb kids who don't ask too many questions
It was a concept popularised by Graham Hancock and a few other dumb as dogshit pseudo authors because all their theories fall flat without it
a good example is David Hatcher Childress' claim that orthodoxy hid the fact that radioactive skeletons were uncovered in the nuked ruins of harappa in the 1890s.
the fact that the geiger counter wasn't actually invented until the 1930s is neither here nor there because no report of radioactive skeletons appears in any orthodox reports of the excavation
thats proof you see

Luckily Min and Beagle provide light entertainment with their personal belief in this matter
and of course if you disagree with them you suddenly become a card carrying member of the club

this concept of personal belief ring any bells with you OAS
wasn't there another poster who used to submit here who had the same ideals only in a more biblical vein

of course then there are rational people

Well I guess I’m a member of the club then because if Charlie is right, and he may well be, it’s an important site and should be excavated by a team of experts. You need a whole raft of specialists to work a site properly. One guy with a Marshaltown, however well intentioned and honestly passionate he may be, isn’t a good treatment of the site. Again, I’m not entirely clear on how this site is being excavated but if that’s the case then I can guarantee a lot of evidence is getting lost. As a firm pre-Clovis proponent that distresses me a great deal.

As for “the club”, within the scope of properly qualified archaeologists there is widespread and raging debate on pre-Clovis. Some against, most now, I believe, for it. So there’s no support to the idea that the only way a pre-clovis site will be investigated is for someone to maverick it.

Three years to qualify? In Canada it takes 4 to get the honours BA, and you really need an MA at minimum to take charge of a site. You’re looking at more like 6 years here. Also, the laws covering excavation are very strict and there are no avocational archaeologist clubs as there are in the USA. Too bad because I’d be all over it. At the very least, if Charlie can’t get connected with a University to run the dig, he should contact an Archaeological Conservancy club in his area, as they often have ties to qualified archaeologists that can direct the site properly.

Charlie, if I’ve got you all wrong and you are fully qualified and part of a proper team then I apologize. If you are not, please consider the possible damage you might be doing. I want you to be right about this and I want pre-Clovis in the history books as a proven fact. We need ALL of the available evidence to be examined to make that happen. If you are working alone, I would be concerned about that.

(I have grave doubts about iron smelting some 7,000 years before the Greeks got it, but that’s another discussion).

Cheers

Jim

(I have grave doubts about iron smelting some 7,000 years before the Greeks got it, but that’s another discussion).

yes it is
and it would probably involve the hittites
http://www.periclespress.com/Hittites_iron.html

oldarchystudent wrote:

Minimalist wrote:You do know what is going to happen when The Club hears about this, don't you?

What do we mean by "The Club"?

A fair question, OAS. There are some people on this board who are naive enough to believe that science is pure and not contaminated by human emotions and failings. I've posted several essays on the subject; here is one more and the author goes straight to the heart of the problem. He concentrates on archaeology but any power structure operates in the same manner, be it law, medicine or religion.

http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4hutson.html

The term 'oligarchic' is accurate because prestige is unevenly distributed. A small number of archaeologists, namely those who review grant applications and serve as referees for journals, help constrain the production of archaeological knowledge by deciding who gets money to do archaeology and who is allowed to publish. Unlike some fields, there is no absolute standard for judging which archaeology is 'correct'. Archaeological knowledge is therefore inseparably intertwined with power (Foucault 1977: 27) and embedded in what Wobst and Keene (1983) call a 'political economy'. This intersection of knowledge and power guides the system of rewards and constrains the discourse.

The system of rewards, however, is never a given. It must constantly be produced and reproduced. Those at the top have a vested interest in reproducing the structure of rewards, because the current structure recognises their work as the most prestigous, thus perpetuating their power. In his book Homo Academicus, Pierre Bourdieu concludes that

the university field is, like any other field, the locus of a struggle to determine the conditions and the criteria of legitimate membership and legitimate hierarchy -- to determine which properties are pertinent, effective, and liable to function as capital so as to generate specific profits ... (1988: 11).

Oas, you've heard from Marduk and now Min on the subject. I'll let Robert Schoch do my talking for me - but I've only got a certain amount of "mouse" clicks before my connection is lost.

I'll post it - you consider the answers - you decide.

This is Dr. Schoch talking about the "Bosnian Pyramids", which he later examined and put an end to a global argument:

This is Robert Schoch writing. I have been following the controversy over the “Bosnian Pyramids.” So far, all I have seen are miscellaneous articles in the popular media and various analyses that have been released thus far. In my opinion, the controversy that the alleged pyramids have engendered is fascinating unto itself in terms of the sociology of science and popular culture, how arguments between “experts” and “amateurs” are framed, and the tactics both sides utilize (especially certain “experts” as they attempt to outright dismiss the work of people who do not belong to their “club”). But, beyond that, I would like to know what exactly is going on with the Bosnian Pyramids in terms of potential ancient occupation and usage of the site.

This is how Schoch refers to the "club" and I read of him using the term several years ago. It is the manner that I use the term in. It was not invented in this forum Oas. You can see, that in the manner that Schoch uses the term, it is not a paranoid global conspiracy or whatever the crazy explanation you've heard before.

notably only Pseudo Authors have ever used that term
Schoch although being a qualified geologist and has written several pseudo history books about archaeology and history of which he knows next to nothing
having a club is neccesary to suspend disbelief in their readership.
People who otherwise would use their common sense and not their naivity when weighing up the evidence

S Hutson wrote in his paper "A small number of archaeologists, namely those who review grant applications and serve as referees for journals, help constrain the production of archaeological knowledge by deciding who gets money to do archaeology".

He may be right about what he says about archaeological positions in the US, but please do note he is only writing about the US. He is certainly wrong about the money.

For instance, in 2002 over half the money for archaeology came from the private sector and most of the decisions as to who got that money were made by the market. Hutson seems to be concentrating only on academic archaeology (and in the US at that), not public sector or private archaeology (a lot, probably most practical archaeologists, do not work for Universities or get their funds directly from sources that have nothing to do with 'grants').

While on vacation, I thought about the potential implications of Charlies OP. It's much too premature to do that - but just imagine. It would change current accepted thinking about early man 180 degrees.

It's hard not to think about it.

That report has been out for a while. Good thing Charlie brought it to us.

I'm going to stay on top of it as much as I can and get the fresh info.

It was sittin' right there on VSM website and I missed it. This is potentially the hottest news of the decade - maybe more.

I still have a lot to do with my RV tomorrow. Gettin' ready for winter and stowing everything after the trip. But I'll get in here tomorrow some time.

Without directly addressing the notion of 'The Club' an intriguing and sometimes fascinating study of some the struggles around Pre Clovis can be found in the book Bones by Elaine Dewar

http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/displ ... 0679311546

Ahhhhhhhh..........

"This is an important book, because it debunks a scientific orthodoxy that has determined not only how those in the western hemisphere approach their history but also the place aboriginal people occupy within that history. Dewar is a sharp-minded questioner [with] a novelist's eye for describing people and places…Bones is a delightful read." —Quill & Quire

Seems well worth perusing.

While on vacation, I thought about the potential implications of Charlies OP. It's much too premature to do that - but just imagine. It would change current accepted thinking about early man 180 degrees.

Well guys, I got to view the new DVD, only privately released at this point, concerning Valsequillo: "Valsequillo. An Archaeological Enigma". Sure enough, Mike Waters, from Texas A&M, tries to cast doubt on Cynthia Irwin-Williams work.


Sam VanLandingham's diatom dating confirms her work was solid:

VanLandingham, S.L., 2006, Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP). J. Paleolimnol, 36, 101-116.

Journal of Paleolimnology
Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP))
Journal Journal of Paleolimnology
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Subject Earth and Environmental Science
Issue Volume 36, Number 1 / July, 2006
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s10933-006-0008-4
Pages 101-116
Online Date Saturday, July 29, 2006

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m13 ... %20evidenc e%20for%20autochthonous%20artifact%20deposition%20in%20the%20Valsequillo%20region%2C%20Puebla%2C%20Mexico%20during%20the%20Sangamonian%20(sensu%20lato%20%3D%2080%2C000%20to%20ca.%20220%2C000%20yr%20BP%20and%20Illinoian%20(220%2C000%20to%20430%2C000%20yr%20BP))%22

VanLandingham's dates are concordant with USGS dates: greater than 250,000 B.P. for the bifacial tools and greater than 280,000 B.P. for the unifacial tools.

A&M and Berkeley came up with dates of greater than 1,000,000 B.P. for the Hueyatlaco Ash, and attempt to demonstrate an uncomformity existing between the ash and beds containing the artifacts. USGS (Hal Malde) disputes A&M's interpretations, and pulls out several sample cores, preserved since the 70's, to demonstrtae a lack of uncomformity. VanLandingham's research confirms their is no uncomformity.

Remember A&M's statements prior to their dating coming in:

We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site.

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/res ... t_projects

Why did they change their stance when the dates came in, and move the uncomformity down to Bed I, also? One can only ponder the motive...

Mike ends with an argument from incredulity:

It's impossible for humans, capable of making bifacial and unifacial tools, to have existed in Mexico during the period indicated" (paraphrased), confirmed concordantly on several dimensions by the USGS and Sam's diatom research, because nowhere in the world does this exist (i.e.-Africa). The Acheulian Industry, present in Africa at the same time as the the unifacial and bifacial tools in Mexico, is used to cap the argument from incredulity: "If, in Africa, where we "all know" man originated, the lithic industry was much cruder, it's not possible for a more advanced lithic technology to exist in Mexico.

In all other sciences, this circular reasoning would be laughed out of the room.


There's plans for both teams to go back down to the site next year, and supposedly resolve the issue for good...

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs ... cine_chart

Just got off the mountain with my first bull elk.

Min,

the 300 win mag dropped him at 450 yards.

Charlie,

that's the longest 3 backbacking trips i've ever made!

Marduk,

wish you were there

Beagle,

looks like their starting to work 100,000 of years. these guys fit my 7mil.

OAS,

We need to monitor all the burb's before we start worrying about some guy collecting stuff out in the desert.

Back to fill my cow tag. Check in on the 30th.