Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

The use of Levallois technique in Europe or Asia encompasses half a million years ,and possibly much later , (simply because a technique or technology is superceded. elsewhere doesn’t mean it stops being used , think bow and arrow after the introduction of firearms or windows xp today )That means attempting to date an example without context /stratigraphy from Europe or Asia could be out by as much as half a million years .
Attempting to date the same technique in relation to Americas particularly with no context/stratigraphy /debitage is fatuous .
Similarly , the Aurignacian was a European/Asian culture , it makes no sense to apply the term to north American prehistory which had a completely different trajectory .

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

My point about Homo Erectus and Neandertals was not that North American archaeologists were ignorant of them, but rather were not taught to even consider their presence in the Americas or to recognize their tools and art. Now would be a good time to rethink that.

As Uniface stated, Pleistocene Coalition's disclaimer was simply "boilerplate" protocol for the scientific process. No specific dating claims have been made because that would be pre mature.

Obvious or unlikely claims both need context. Homo Erectus was perfectly capable of following fauna to North America from eastern Asia. As evidenced at Crete, they also had maritime abilities that could explain their presence in the Americas via Africa or other routes. Neandertals also had maritime capabilities which could explain their presence in the Americas. These speculations may not be frivolous in light of how little is known about both groups relative to the Americas. Valsequillo dating with secure context was 250,000 ybp and Calico dating was 200,000 ybp. If those dates are anywhere near accurate, would this not have to be HE unless there is another totally undiscovered ancient hominid?

Your stated time span for the levallois technology, taken at its latest date, 35,000 ybp, suggests, through the presence of that technology in North America, a date that would revolutionize understandings of the peopling of this continent and South America. Certainly the 30,000 ybp dates in Chile are causing consternation. As to the levallois technology being utilized in more modern times (Holocene), the evidence has not surfaced. Rick's statement about the early complexity of his levallois finds, combined with their patina indicating great age, points in the direction of non linear progression of North American peoples. Could this be explained by the extra terrestrial body visit to North America 12,900 years ago? Perhaps ancient hominids here post date those in Europe who apparently disappeared around 30,000 - 40,000 ybp. Maybe there were hybrid populations in NA via Solutrean presence or other groups interacting with aboriginal hominids.

I know these speculations, and there are many more, are far flung and without context, but the limited thinking about people in the Americas by many fences in what humans exhibit with their curious nature. Curious to understand and curious to explore the unknown, both past and present.

[Tiompan]

“My point about Homo Erectus and Neandertals was not that North American archaeologists were ignorant of them, but rather were not taught to even consider their presence in the Americas or to recognize their tools and art. Now would be a good time to rethink that.”
Springhead ,
When anyone finds evidence for the presence of Home Erectus or Neanderthals in the Americas then archaeologists will rethink their presence .Now is not a good time as no evidence as has been found .

How would you recognise Homo Erectus or Neanderthal art ,anywhere ?


“As Uniface stated, Pleistocene Coalition's disclaimer was simply "boilerplate" protocol for the scientific process. No specific dating claims have been made because that would be pre mature. “
No it wasn’t a boilerplate disclaimer , it’s the first one I have seen in the those that I have read i.e. most if not all .

“Obvious or unlikely claims both need context. Homo Erectus was perfectly capable of following fauna to North America from eastern Asia. As evidenced at Crete, they also had maritime abilities that could explain their presence in the Americas via Africa or other routes. Neandertals also had maritime capabilities which could explain their presence in the Americas. “
As I keep saying there is no evidence for either in the Americas .


“Your stated time span for the levallois technology, taken at its latest date, 35,000 ybp, “ As I mentioned earlier the use of techniques /technologies don’t stop just because they have been superceded elsewhere . See ournal.lithics.org/index.php/lithics/article/viewFile/406/387 For British examples of similar technology from 10,000BP or nearer to home (for you) and even later i.e. 4000 BP on the Columbia plateau see Muto, Guy Roger 1976 “The Cascade Technique: An Examination of a Levallois-like Reduction System in Early Snake River Prehistory. “ Later still look at the Mayan techniques


“ As to the levallois technology being utilized in more modern times (Holocene), the evidence has not surfaced. “ See above . It is only technique , as Marcel Otte says in “ Levallois in China “ ,” “The Chinese Levallois thus does not belong to a diffusion mode (moreover which?), but to several emergences, pierced by the human mind in the constraints introduced between the mechanical laws of stone and entirely universal human intentions, that lead humans to seek effectiveness and freedom.”
“ Like all use of technologies things are not quite so black and white and easily compartmentalised .

“Could this be explained by the extra terrestrial body visit to North America 12,900 years ago? “ No , mainly due to there having been no extra terrestrial body .

[circumspice]

@springhead: Your rocks lack context & provenance.

You haven't given a single shred of evidence showing that your rocks are human made.

You obviously think that stating that your rocks are surface finds excuses this lack of context & provenance.

Until you or someone else provides that info, your claims are spurious. Saying that you are protecting the site(s) from looting or exploitation is rather convenient.

Don't expect to be taken seriously without proof of context/provenance. Do you honestly believe you can show a box of rocks & have people falling at your feet singing hosannas?

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

Thanks for your post. I will need to respond to you later as I am mired in tax work and want to reference your various studies or papers. I appreciate your efforts.

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

I fully agree that my rocks lack context and provenance. They do have the context of the locations of the finds, however, which in all total seven sites, not simply the mountain location.

Having an archaeologist who has written forty books on tools and material culture designating many of these finds as Pleistocene artifacts is not exactly lacking a "shred" of evidence. This could hold more weight than your armchair analysis.

As I am an absentee owner of the main mountain site, I am unwilling to divulge the exact location as the tool and art assemblage is prolifically displayed on the ground's surface. "Convenient" would imply that I expect blanket approval of my ideas without providing proof. This is not the case. Also, any surface find on the planet with reference to artifacts leaves them with poor to no context. Please inform me how to avoid this problem short of professionally supervised excavation and following tight horizonal dating with various high tech and costly carbon or TL dating, etc.

Expecting folks to fall at my feet "singing hosannas" implies an egoistic agenda on my part that is really more characterized by your own comments. If you do not take me seriously, why stoop to bath yourself in these polluted waters?

I do appreciate your having responded to me on this thread.

[circumspice]

@springhead: Why then are you posting on this board?

Most people who approach boards such as this one & archaeological conferences are seeking verification and/or approval of their 'rocks' & their theories concerning said rocks. It's a common phenomenon.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Skepticism is a natural byproduct of your coy responses concerning the context & provenance of the rocks. How can you expect anything else? The archaeologist you continually mention hasn't stated publicly that he has examined the materials you have presented & concurs with your theories. We have only your word on the subject.

So... Are we supposed to blindly accept everything you post?

[circumspice]

 Please inform me how to avoid this problem short of professionally supervised excavation and following tight horizonal dating with various high tech and costly carbon or TL dating, etc.

That would be a step in the right direction & is considered to be the normal progression of events leading up to having your discovery verified...

Why not invite your archeologist & some of his colleagues to conduct a site survey & maybe even dig a test trench at the site that you own? That would lay to rest any uncertainty.

[Springhead]

Hello Circumspice,

Thanks for your comments. I am posting on the board as a learning process as I am a layman in archaeological matters. This process, I hope, will enable me to more intelligently approach the subject at hand with more awareness of what exact prerequisites exist to win credence with folks who either are professionals or deal with this type of subject matter every day or over long periods of time. Armed with a better understanding of the salient features of archaeological investigation, I may be able, once I can tie down some context, to move forward to legitimize this assemblage with a sequence of actions that I have guided to by the kind or unkind comments of the thread participants.

My "coy" comments regarding context and provenance are simply clarifications of my situation with the finds. Jack Hranichy is in no way obligated to publically state anything concerning my work. His work with me is preliminary with his busy agenda and conference work, i.e. the recent SAA conference in Florida where he made a presentation about Pleistocene tools and art. Reference to my site has been made in the appendix of one of his recent publications.

My theories are my own tempered with what I can discern about the nearly unlimited sub topics in the field of archaeology. Jack has identified fifteen or so identifiable and provable Pleistocene artifacts from the mountain site. He has also stated that he thinks the site is a sacred one to the culture of the assemblage. Further work and study by Jack and me is planned as time and circumstance allow. Meanwhile I do what I can to gain perspective.

Unfortunately, funding is, as usual, a stumbling block akin to looking for work that requires experience to get experience to find work. Credibility is hard earned with the finances needed build it. I have contacted a geomorphologist who was on the interdisciplinary team that discovered Homo Erectus on Crete and who has expressed interest in seeing the site and perhaps organizing a horizon study through the excavation of a trench. He works in NC and lives about four hours from the site. This may take some time to put together with his extremely busy schedule, and Jack has expressed interest in participating in that work.

[circumspice]

 Jack Hranichy is in no way obligated to publically state anything concerning my work.

While Mr. Hranicky is not obligated to support your contentions concerning your rocks, it is not really advisable for you to continue to toss his name about as a means of lending credence to your theories if he hasn't publicly acknowledged & concurred with your theories about your rocks.

[circumspice]

Further work and study by Jack and me is planned as time and circumstance allow. Meanwhile I do what I can to gain perspective.

Unfortunately, funding is, as usual, a stumbling block akin to looking for work that requires experience to get experience to find work. Credibility is hard earned with the finances needed build it. I have contacted a geomorphologist who was on the interdisciplinary team that discovered Homo Erectus on Crete and who has expressed interest in seeing the site and perhaps organizing a horizon study through the excavation of a trench. He works in NC and lives about four hours from the site. This may take some time to put together with his extremely busy schedule, and Jack has expressed interest in participating in that work.

Springhead 93 19 Jan 2016, 06:50

This sounds like the best way to go about getting the verification that you want. Please keep us updated.

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

Prior to the first mention of Jack on this thread, I called him to see if he minded me including his name with reference to the site and provable identified artifacts. He had no problem with that. In the first reference to Jack I stated that the ideas about the finds were my own and not Jack's, as I suspect there could be divergence between us over some things I have expressed. I do not believe I have misrepresented our repective positions on the assemblage.

I will certainly update the board with progress in the investigation.

Thanks again for your comments.

[uniface]

Attempting to date the same technique in relation to Americas particularly with no context/stratigraphy /debitage is fatuous .

The fatuosity is yours.

Although elements of the Levallois technology were incorporated into later procedures (they "work"), it persisted nowhere after having been supplanted. Finding an extensive assemblage of it is as close to a no-brainer indication of either great antiquity or a curious late survival. If the latter, the first is the case by inference.

I've laughed at the (literal) "American Exceptionalism" you've hung your argument on before, and I take this opportunity to do so again.

Logical systems, such as those to which scientists are tightly wed, depend on assumptions and undefined primitives. Their conclusions cannot go beyond results derivable from their assumptions.

And that is the situation you find yourself in. Having posited the assumption (and that is what it is -- a shot in the dark guess without a substantive basis) that there was nobody here during the Levallois era, you are addressing a problem that exists outside the parameters of your assumption set. With the result that any conclusion you can attempt to come to can only be a restatement of what you believe about it.

An extensive artifact assemblage which is -- everywhere in the world -- of great antiquity is hard data. You have nothing to put against it but your personal disbelief that "that cannot be so because it cannot be so." The rest is trying to distract attention from that bottom line, by suggestion.

I am usually content to let you "have the last word," seeing as that's what you're clearly after -- imagining in getting it indicates that you've "won the discussion." With this, I resume that policy.

Small amusements for small minds.

[Tiompan]

“ Although elements of the Levallois technology were incorporated into later procedures (they "work"), it persisted nowhere after having been supplanted.”
That is further nonsense . It’s simply a technique ,the only useful dating it provides ,like many other technologies that have a long useful life discovered by different cultures in different epochs , is a terminus post quem . They don’t stop simply because of more sophisticated technologies are used elsewhere , as mentioned in a previous post and ignored , for obvious examples directly related to the twechnique. See ournal.lithics.org/index.php/lithics/article/viewFile/406/387 For British examples of similar technology from 10,000BP or nearer to home (for you) and even later i.e. 4000 BP on the Columbia plateau see Muto, Guy Roger 1976 “The Cascade Technique: An Examination of a Levallois-like Reduction System in Early Snake River Prehistory. “ Later still look at the Mayan techniques .

Think contemporary use of bow and arrows ,windows xp , horse drawn wagons ,abacus etc , "they work " and are still in still in use alongside what “supplanted “ them .

“ the Levallois era, “ 500,000 years plus is not an era .

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

I am no expert on levellois technology, however, the fact that its use has been noted over a 500,000 year time span would suggest it served many occupations of people quite well. The persistence of its use into more "modern" times has been noted. This use does not preclude levallois technology having been used in deep antiquity, as evidenced in the great time span referenced, but rather confirms it as a precursor. The fact that Rick's discoveries have been identified as levallois by expert analysis and the deep time patina found on these pieces together strongly mandate the idea of an American occupation using the technique many thousands or tens of thousands of years prior to accepted occupation dates on the continent. Just because this is implausible to you does not make it incorrect or even far fetched.

If a statistician were asked to crunch the numbers of probability concerning such an occupation based on worldwide statistical evidence of occupational use of the levellois technique, I would think the chances of the existence of an early American cultural use would be quite high with the lack of impediments to the population of the continent over glacial and interglacial time spans. That many folks can't handle this idea is irrelevant. Relevant is the existence of an assemblage that sorely needs investigation. Are powers that be and their funding apparatus afraid to look at this because they are over committed to more limited theories about America? There is only one thing on this planet we can absolutely count on, and that is change, to include the need for change of approach when confronted by uncomfortable realities.

Thanks again for your comments. One thought: Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?