Page 4 of 7
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:02 pm
by john
marduk wrote:zae šag dab zae urun
alam
all right, guys, have your fun. but i'm the one who has walked there, and looked there, and held that handaxe in my hand. and i doubt you had the faintest fucking idea that yermo existed before i posted. knowledge is not a competitive sport in my book, it is sharing. 'course i may be old fashioned here. maybe there's a new ethic about (not) sharing knowledge. please advise.
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:58 pm
by marduk
who said anything to you John
paranoid or something
this is a private conversation and it isn't about you
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:55 pm
by Beagle
http://www.valsequilloclassic.net/
Cognito
The above url is to a site that has a calico dig section. If you get the chance I know they would love to see your pics there. Actually the section is called Calico and Lake Mannix, I think.
I know that Charlie Hatchett would like them, I'm surprised he hasn't been here.
I'm a member there.
Yermo
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:03 pm
by Cognito
Sí Marduk, y como se dice Yermo en inglés? Ahora ... tomamos la penúltima y puede quédate con el cambio.
John, the above translates to "Yes, Marduk, how do you say Yermo in English? Then let's have one for the road and you keep the change."
It's a joke ... Yermo is Spanish for "desert wasteland", which is exactly what the Calico area is now. 18,000 years ago it was lush and green. Today, it is dry, dusty and inhospitable.
No offense intended. Just bad humor. Comes from being a really crappy alter boy when I was in parochial school, I'm sure.
Regards,
Cognito
Re: Yermo
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:06 pm
by Beagle
Cognito wrote:Sí Marduk, y como se dice Yermo en inglés? Ahora ... tomamos la penúltima y puede quédate con el cambio.
John, the above translates to "Yes, Marduk, how do you say Yermo in English? Then let's have one for the road and you keep the change."
It's a joke ... Yermo is Spanish for "desert wasteland", which is exactly what the Calico area is now. 18,000 years ago it was lush and green. Today, it is dry, dusty and inhospitable.
No offense intended. Just bad humor. Comes from being a really crappy alter boy when I was in parochial school, I'm sure.
Regards,
Cognito
Cognito , you were not the one being rude.
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:28 pm
by Leona Conner
Cognito, thanks for the explanation. (Been away so am kinda late here). After I posted that question, I went to the local university and talked to an Anthropology prof who does some dabbling in flint knapping. He gave me a quick lesson and showed me how to recognize the tell-tale signs.
I visited Calico back in the 50's when the Leakey's were there. Went back to college and changed my major.
One point I find interesting is the date of the area. Doesn't 18,000 years ago kinda put a damper on the "people arrived in North America in 12,500 bce" idea?
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:07 pm
by Beagle
Leona, I never knew you had been to Calico - with the Leakeys. You've been holding out on us.
Clovis First
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:21 pm
by Cognito
Leona wrote:
One point I find interesting is the date of the area. Doesn't 18,000 years ago kinda put a damper on the "people arrived in North America in 12,500 bce" idea?
It is apparent to me that there were people in the Americas prior to Clovis and many archaeologists are coming to that viewpoint. I see Clovis as a new wave of immigrants with better technology. However, until reputable archaeological digs are performed on the Lake Manix shorelines, the finds must remain "unorthodox".
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:45 pm
by Minimalist
In spite of all the apparent evidence found ( and much of it has been discussed on this board) it seems to take an Act of Congress to get the establishment to stop repeating the Bering Land Bridge story.
Oh, damn. I forgot. Congress damn near made the Bering Land Bridge theory a law.
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:20 am
by Leona Conner
Beagle, I wish I had been with the Leakeys. Back in the mid-50's UCLA used Calico as a sorta classroom for the anthropology classes. My best friends boyfriend was up there and she wanted to visit because he told here the Leakeys were planning to stop by while on their lecture tour. I only got to see him (Louis) from a distance, but his enthusiasm infected me. I returned to school and changed my major. I know the articles say he "first" visisted in 1963, but maybe that was a different part of the area.
Even though I didn't manage to graduate, the fever is incurable.
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:06 am
by Essan
Minimalist wrote:In spite of all the apparent evidence found ( and much of it has been discussed on this board) it seems to take an Act of Congress to get the establishment to stop repeating the Bering Land Bridge story.
Oh, damn. I forgot. Congress damn near made the Bering Land Bridge theory a law.
Any reason why the majority of immigrants into the Americas didn't come that way?
A handful may have sailed in but I reckon 99% crossed Beringia. Obviously some did so
before the LGM is all
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:00 am
by Minimalist
I seem to recall reading that one argument against the Land Bridge theory is that they have never found any indication on the Siberian side that there was any migration.
Secondly... it means that during the Ice Age people deliberately moved towards the glaciers.
That idea needs a little mulling over.
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:55 pm
by john
Minimalist wrote:I seem to recall reading that one argument against the Land Bridge theory is that they have never found any indication on the Siberian side that there was any migration.
Secondly... it means that during the Ice Age people deliberately moved towards the glaciers.
That idea needs a little mulling over.
first of all, my apologies. didn't realize that there were private conversations tucked into the general internet riff. second, forget land bridge and think sea bridge. there is no proven arugment for the land bridge. or if you think there is, prove it. next argument is more difficult......the apparently random occurence of various peoples in n and s america, top to bottom, is not land migration related but sea migration related. which means people just show up out of nowhere, with no previous cultural or stratrigraphic record. get used to it.
john
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:23 pm
by Minimalist
private conversations tucked into the general internet riff
Private conversations should be done by PM.....everything else is fair game.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:11 pm
by Beagle
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3249840
Calico project director Fred Budinger Jr. said a soil sample, taken at a depth of 17 1/2 feet in one of three master pits at the archaeological dig near Yermo, verifies that the deposit dates to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch - the ice age.
"This new date confirms earlier estimates that humans were in the Manix Basin, near the base of the Calico Mountains, as early as 125,000 to 200,000 years ago," Budinger explained.
The dating system, known as thermo-luminescence, reflects the amount of time that has elapsed since a layer of sediment was exposed to sunlight.
Another system, called uranium-thorium dating, pushed the age of sedimentary layers at the digging site to about 200,000 years ago.
News from the Calico site. New dating technology is pretty exciting.