Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
my own experience is of individuals who believe that there reputation is more important than than advancing the discipline they represent.
When I began my archeology schooling during the 1970's, the price for claims of 14-40000y sites was academic hellfire. Indeed, one of my first instructors threatened us with expulsion from the anthropology program if we expressed interest in such crazy things. To find out that such opinions were quite openly expressed just a decade before mystified me. What happened between the early '60's and early '70's to forbid the very act of engaging in questions about pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas? Why were students never told of the Valsequillo findings?
Nice snag, Beag.Beagle wrote:http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HardakerC1.php
An article by Chris Hardaker is posted on the Graham Hancock site. Link from the Daily Grail. Very good. Also a link to buy his new book.The modern period starts with the Old World Upper Paleolithic period, around 30-40,000 years ago. This was the beginning of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, "man who thinks he thinks." The blade-to-biface revolution happened over there also. And now for the first time in the New World, this critical phase of technological evolution turns up in the New World, in Central Mexico. This was huge in itself. The theoretical potentials of such discoveries would be shattering.
If Berkeley is correct, then biface projectile point production occured about 800,000 B.P. earlier... in Mexico. Biface projectile production started happening in Africa (as far as we know to date) perhaps as early as 300,000 B.P. (Lupemban technology- Congo forest belt).The modern period starts with the Old World Upper Paleolithic period, around 30-40,000 years ago. This was the beginning of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, "man who thinks he thinks." The blade-to-biface revolution happened over there also. And now for the first time in the New World, this critical phase of technological evolution turns up in the New World, in Central Mexico. This was huge in itself. The theoretical potentials of such discoveries would be shattering.
And we've been "fighting" the Clovis-first paradigm for close to 40 years. That's enough to piss off any honest scientist. Here, at Valsequillo, 40 years ago, we had damn good evidence of man being in North America 40,000 B.P. 40 years later we're struggling to get the majority of "scientists" past 25-30,000 B.P.The artifacts, the art and the sandy-silt matrix immediately challenged the Clovis Firsters. Dr. Wormington even conceded that Valsequillo could be 40,000 years. Everyone agreed however, that it could not be earlier than 40,000 years because only modern man was intelligent enough to manage the trip from Siberia to the New World. It was common knowledge.
Minimalist wrote:Well....right off the bat he describes how the Club heard the geologic evidence for the date and packed up its tents and went home rather than subject themselves to ridicule.
Nothing like an unbiased view of the evidence.
Minimalist wrote:Here's a quote from Hardaker's book (pg 55).
When I began my archeology schooling during the 1970's, the price for claims of 14-40000y sites was academic hellfire. Indeed, one of my first instructors threatened us with expulsion from the anthropology program if we expressed interest in such crazy things. To find out that such opinions were quite openly expressed just a decade before mystified me. What happened between the early '60's and early '70's to forbid the very act of engaging in questions about pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas? Why were students never told of the Valsequillo findings?
I share your frustration, Digit.Digit wrote:The one thing I have never been able to understand is WHY some people are so unwilling to accept the idea that man was capable of doing all these things earlier than last week! What the Hell is the problem?
If Chimps can fashion tools, if Crows can use tools, if hunting dogs and Chimps can learn to operate as a team, why are we supposed to be so bloody stupid?
Frankly, I find it insulting.
The bone dates from the Tetela sites were 250,000 years old! And so opened up one of the craziest archaeological wormholes in history. That's a quarter million years old! Modern man didn't live back then, and all the artifacts from Valsequillo were fancy spearheads and blades - things we Mods didn't know how to make until 30-40,000 years ago. And there was art! And Valsequillo was 250,000 years old? That's Homo erectus Time!! And there's art?
In the end the archaeologists won through silence. Irwin-Williams never published an official volume; not even site reports. And the curiousity that raged through the professional community was calmly checked at the door of credibility.
Hey Pat.Cognito wrote:LIVE FROM LA QUINTA INN, Salida, CA:
Charlie, I am up on Modesto at the US Club Nationals semis with my 13yo daughter's club team. My copy of the book came in during the week and I am about half way through it. Chris has done a great job of putting Valsequillo back into the forefront. I enjoy reading about Virginia and he did a nice job on Calico and Fred Budinger.
Your site stands geographically between Calico/Texas Street and Valsequillo. Have you received any dates back yet? With renewed interest and research for these sites your site becomes very important.
Patrick
Digit wrote:You're one Hell of a lucky man Charley. You and some of your people are in a position to help widen our knowledge of our past, to help answer the BIG questions, who are we? Where did we come from?
Give it a bit longer and some of the big names on your side of the pond will be wanting to take control and tell us they agreed with you all along really.
They just hid it well!
As Art Buchwald said, "criticize the establishment long enough and they will make you part of it."Give it a bit longer and some of the big names on your side of the pond will be wanting to take control and tell us they agreed with you all along really