Archaeologica.org

Maybe many clubs but not just one which holds back progress

what about the Jesuits ?

I agree. There is no "Club", and so far there is no decent evidence. Until bones are found in situ, H. erectus in America simply remains a speculation. Sites currently being worked by reputable archaeologists are slowly and steadily impacting the Clovis first paradigm. I am sure many archaeologists would love to dig into an American H. erectus site if it existed.

Reputation?

Exactly.

Minimalist wrote:

Reputation?

Exactly.

I don't see it. Maybe there are a few assholes who worry more about their reputation than about advancing science, but most are only interested in the facts. In fact I'd bet that there are more of them who want to find something new and groundbreaking than there are ones who want everything to stagnate and accept that they already know it all. There are always exceptions, but they're just ornery old farts.........like you, Bob. Why aren't you with them? You're in the young maverick's camp. Ornery old farts are suppose to stick together. J/K Bob don't get pissed.

Cognito, There are other reasons that proof might be a very, very long time in coming. Perhaps the population was so small that they left very little physical evidence, and therefore finding any evidence will take a long time, or maybe not ever happen.

The chances of any physical evidence surviving for so long is so small, and the chances of us ever finding it are even smaller.

I think the guiding truth of archeology must be that absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

Frustrating, but true

In fact I'd bet that there are more of them who want to find something new and groundbreaking

I agree, Frank. I seem to recall a young archaeologist lamenting the fact that the field was not interested in examining the anomalies at La Venta in the Olmec centers.

But there are different standards of "evidence" applied to the Old Guard and the Young Turks. So, Zahi Hawass can state that the sphinx was made by Khafre because 'his' pyramid is nearby and everyone stands at attention and salutes. But I don't think someone without that kind of reputation would get away with making that kind of claim. I wonder how the archaeological establishment (or the "Club" as I like like to call them to keep it short) would react to someone who uses geology, archaeo-astronomy, or climatology to prove a thesis? I don't think it would be pretty. Ask Schoch.

I think the guiding truth of archeology must be that absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

thats no good
thats already the motto of psuedoarchaeology
you know whenever you hear it that someone is once again talking out of their ass

btw you got the quote wrong
it should be

absense of evidence is not evidence of absense

it s actually exactly that
when theres no evidence then there shouldn't be any theory based on it
because what are you basing it on ?
your assumption that something happened because you have a personal belief in the matter not supported by any evidence whatsoever
and thats not science buddy
its just crap

when theres no evidence then there shouldn't be any theory based on it

I do not completely agree with that, marduk, but it depends on the circumstances.

What do you do in a situation where there should be evidence but is not?

In another thread, Arch mentioned the Canaanite settlement of Ai. Archaeology has found that it was a flourishing town throughout the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. It was then apparently unoccupied for just over 1,000 years until an Iron Age settlement begins around 1200 BC.

In that case the evident break in habitation is attested to by the lack of evidence that the site was occupied. No garbage. No pottery. No burials. No nothing. The classic definition of "no evidence."

thats not what we're talking about
Clearly in that case the lack of evidence tells its own story
but would you claim that during those two hundred years the town incorporated a system of trash disposal and renovation that left no refuse anywhere in the city
Barracuda was saying that speculation where there is no evidence is acceptable scientific practice
it isn't

Let me carry the anaolgy one step further.

If there was no garbage but there was some broken pottery from a time consistent with the time lacking garbage and there were tombs from that period, would not the idea that they had found a better way to dispose of garbage (rather than throwing it over the side of the Tell...which must have been unhealthy) seem likely?

Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits. And all the evidence needs to be considered.

If there was no garbage but there was some broken pottery from a time consistent with the time lacking garbage and there were tombs from that period, would not the idea that they had found a better way to dispose of garbage (rather than throwing it over the side of the Tell...which must have been unhealthy) seem likely?

no
theres lots of reasons the same evidence might be presented
and how are you dating the pottery ?

and how are you dating the pottery ?

I'm assuming that it was wrapped up in newspapers from the time.

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?acti ... s&id=11007

Washington, Aug 23 : A recent study by a researcher from the University of Southern California has revealed that individuals of European descent could be up to five percent Neanderthal, while West Africans could be related to an archaic human population

Here we go again.

Bosnian piramid ofthe sun 7myr old
rocky mtns 7myr old
andes 7myr old

What event 7 million years ago made these mtns?
ask your favorite geologist

Wow Bruce, I'm just....lost on that one.