Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
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 so
I remember my grandfather repeating to us cousins: "Money can't buy a clear conscience, a good name, and a good night's sleep."Cognito wrote: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.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.
Everyone here knows this so I apologize for standing on my soapbox.
Malde and Steen-McIntyre come to mind right off the bat.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.
"Money can't buy a clear conscience, a good name, and a good night's sleep."
What I get out of the "story" is there are those that have a deep need for acceptance, no matter the facts, and then you have those old "cantankerous farts" that don't give a damn what anyone thinks, they know what they've seen.Minimalist wrote:Finished.
Can't wait to see the Club eat some crow.
And the religion that goes along with most large organizations.Minimalist wrote:True of all of academia, I fear.
So if scientific dating does not fit your pre-conceived notions they must be wrong!Hueyatlaco was discovered and first excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1960, with further excavations from 1962 to 1966. Controversy followed the publications of her discoveries and the dating of the site to 1,000,000 years. Yes, you read right. One Million Years. Work briefly resumed with a new team in 2004 and it was hoped that new finds together with new and more reliable dating technologies would sort things out. It did not. True, the new dating reduced the claimed age to a milder but still massive 250,000 years. Unfortunately, the new datingwas still way too early to fit into any halfway realistic scenario - and it is begging the question what the earlier 1,000,000 date had been all about.
