Archaeologica.org

I've heard of the Indian pillar, Dig.

In any event, even if Europeans could do it, they didn't do it in a tiny pit furnace chipped out of a creek bed in Eastern Texas.

Very interesting post Bruce. But I think the answer to this question is the Wooley Mammoth.

Wooly Mamoths with gold? More likely mastodons, There's legend's of mastodons burring in the earth, maybe they were mining gold.
btw If I had some one after me that clovis point would be put to good use!
Are we going to call these people pre-clovis or give them a name?

How large is this 'Bird' Min?

Bruce wrote:

Very interesting post Bruce. But I think the answer to this question is the Wooley Mammoth.

Wooly Mamoths with gold? More likely mastodons, There's legend's of mastodons burring in the earth, maybe they were mining gold.
btw If I had some one after me that clovis point would be put to good use!
Are we going to call these people pre-clovis or give them a name?

I guess that until the Club acknowledges that they existed, they will just be called pre-Clovis.

Min can describe it best, but from the picture, it seems to be about 2.5 in. tall and about 2 in. wide.

I still think it's a mammoth. Turn it sideways with the beak pointing down.

Digit wrote:How large is this 'Bird' Min?

It pretty much fits in the palm of your hand.

Beagle wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Very interesting post Bruce. But I think the answer to this question is the Wooley Mammoth.

Wooly Mamoths with gold? More likely mastodons, There's legend's of mastodons burring in the earth, maybe they were mining gold.
btw If I had some one after me that clovis point would be put to good use!
Are we going to call these people pre-clovis or give them a name?

I guess that until the Club acknowledges that they existed, they will just be called pre-Clovis.

I suggest calling them "The Club-busters."

I picked up on this thread a bit late so when I heard 'Cast Iron' I assumed that it was Iron plus carbon as opposed to Iron that had been cast.
Traditionally it is assumed that iron work came about via pottery firing, copper smelting etc, and my personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that if there is any evidence of any of these other heat working processes then the artifact could have been cast quite easily. To remove any Sulphur requires air to pass through the mix, not simply blow on it.

I just read the original post again, and it does seem to be a redux of Hueyatlaco. Seems amazing that the same tactics would be used again, given that this is the Information Age. There is no way to keep a lid on new ideas or discoveries. This is not 1970.

There is no way to keep a lid on new ideas or discoveries. This is not 1970.

The Club would not be The Club if they didn't resist all change, mon ami!

I agree with that Min, but their tactics need to be updated. Putting an informational blackout on something like this is imposssible now. I'm not saying that I agree that this is strong evidence of humans in America 100K yrs. ago. But it will have it's day in the light, as it should.

No, that kind of control is a thing of the past, Beags.

The "Ignore It and It Will Go Away" thing is gone forever.

I read a very informative post by Chris Hardaker in another forum about the use wear analysis of these artifacts. Tomorrow I'll see if I can post it here.

If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
At the moment i could set up for his work to be seen by two people who are respected in the field but both work out side the university heres money do it our way area in other words both fund themselves if he interested let me know.