Archaeologica.org

It's dead as far as I'm concerned. I think that most archaeologists feel that way. There will, however always be the old hardline codgers who refuse to accept change. Clovis first is dead! It should be proclaimed to the world. DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!!!!!!! (There! You think they heard that?)

re: "Seems as if Cynthia Irwin-Williams is emerging as the real villain of this piece." etc

Hi Folks,
This kind of blame is not appropriate, though I must admit, I had been thinking along these lines when I first got into the research.

How could they just let it go??!!

But you must remember that after Lorenzo's planting allegations in 1967, Cynthia's days at Valsequillo were Over! She had no access to her artifacts, and no access to her sites. And just to get back to do a geological trench, Hal Malde (USGS) had to wait until 1973, and this without Cynthia.

Instead, I have come to regard the scandal as a perfect storm of sorts. It was a year after the hoax allegations that the U Series dates came back with 250,000 years. I think all of this together blew a gasket in the world view of all New World archaeologists; a psychotic break of sorts. The ancient dates and the modern tech gave the entire community a terminal wedgy from beyond the stars.

This is no excuse for the pan-academic denial of the discoveries, but I fear it inappropriate to focus on Cynthia. And also do not forget, she was totally backed by the Soc. for Amer Arch, who elected her president in 1977. So it was very much a group "forgetting" on both sides of the border for very different reasons.

Had it not been for the lame hoax allegations by Lorenzo, there is at least a chance that if not Cynthia, then others may have worked the region. We can only guess. Let's not condemn just yet. There is still a lot of info locked up in various archives out there. The most important hope for me is that maybe the artifacts and the art have survived in a Mexican museum somewhere. And perhaps some of those lost 3000 photos as well.

What would really be a shame is if, during all this time, the Valsequillo sites were destroyed by construction or building or something. They have only been covered by water, and the shifting levels do not really have a negative impact on the very hard sediments of the site, so it is like the entire basin has been in an academic deep freeze, but still fairly unharmed. All that is lacking now is "will," which will hopefully be awakened by our mutual curiosity.

Thanks for the interest.

But you must remember that after Lorenzo's planting allegations in 1967, Cynthia's days at Valsequillo were Over! She had no access to her artifacts, and no access to her sites. And just to get back to do a geological trench, Hal Malde (USGS) had to wait until 1973, and this without Cynthia.

Never thought of it that way, Chris. She got royally screwed by Lorenzo.
No access to the site...artifacts gone (thank God for her mom!)...allegations of planting...then USGS comes in with unbelievable dates....

As I understood it she was put in a very difficult position. Between an artifact and a hard place. Who has convictions strong enough to risk your career and livelihood when you can just drop it and move on to something else. I'm sure it nagged at her, but her hands were tied. I don't think she should be condemned for walking away. She was actually driven away. Publishing would have been suicidal for her at that time. I would have done the same, I'm afraid, if I had been in her position. A person has to make a living.

Nice to "Meet" you Chris. I stick my head in when I can and always find something new here. Welcome to our world. I'm looking forward to reading your book as soon as I can get a copy of it.

Maybe I'm just a hard-ass but it looks to me like she sold out, not that she was alone in that.

But, I'll finish the book over the weekend. I'm forcing myself to read it slowly and absorb what is written.

Yes, Bob, you are indeed a hard-ass, but my knowledge on this particular subject is a bit sketchy so i can't really argue with you. I'm calling it a night anyway. You people take care of yourselves. I'll see you when I can. Later! Thanks for the smiley, Bob.

Good talking to you again, Frank.

I've just aquired a book published in 1987 detailing the ideas at that time on the ascent of man.
The early part of the book details such discoveries as the first findings of HSS and HSN.
But the fascinating bit is the fight going on within the establishment at that time to have accepted that which is current dogma, and the manner in which researchers were being treated by the 'Club' at that time.
Change the names and the finds and move forward 20 years and the current situation looks like a re-run!
Great stuff!

Minimalist wrote:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass but it looks to me like she sold out, not that she was alone in that.

But, I'll finish the book over the weekend. I'm forcing myself to read it slowly and absorb what is written.

I've chewed on this for a bit and have come up with my conclusion: I agree, Min. She sold out, along with her colleagues. She owed us a site report!! Mass denial, in a very religious sort of way. Dereliction of Duty. During my time in the military I learned you were held criminally liable for this type of intentional negligence. Fraud, basically. Except, how do you put a dollar value on this intentional negligence...Dereliction of Duty.

Hardaker makes the point of mentioning several people who did not sell out and who were ostracized by The Club. Everyone makes choices in life.

People who make the easy ones are not heroes.

Minimalist wrote:Hardaker makes the point of mentioning several people who did not sell out and who were ostracized by The Club. Everyone makes choices in life.

People who make the easy ones are not heroes.

Agreed.

But fancy having to live with that choice Min. Not for me I'm afaraid.
I ducked once with a difficult decision at age 18 when my elder brother died and swore I'd never do it again because I was so damned ashamed of myself.
Maybe it's upbringing, and perhaps it's even stupid to have principles, there's a saying here that 'principles don't buy bread', which is true, but without them look what sort of politicians we get.

I didn't say it was easy. In fact, easy decisions are just that: "Easy" because there is no downside to them.

But, as Charlie notes, Irwin-Williams just walked away from the whole thing.

Maybe it's upbringing, and perhaps it's even stupid to have principles, there's a saying here that 'principles don't buy bread', which is true, but without them look what sort of politicians we get.

Digit, as you know, it isn't stupid to have principles or demand the truth. The alternative never ever provides happiness. Not having character or principles might bring money, but never happiness since that is something that resides internally. Sorry for overdoing it, but I just hung up the phone with an associate and we are going to upset many people by doing the right thing to correct a problem which is long overdue for a solution ... and Min is correct, doing the right thing is rarely the easy way out.

Everyone here knows this so I apologize for standing on my soapbox.

Don't apologise Cog, just make room for the rest of us. Honesty in acedemia is everything, without it we are no better than those who seek to re-write history to their own agenda.