Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 9:44 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 9:45 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 9:48 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 9:54 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 6:08 am**

Until one has performed much experimental bipolar reduction and analyzed the results, they're not, in my opinion, qualified to criticize

Does that mean that there are hand axes in North America?

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 7:44 am**

deleted

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 9:53 am**

Notice how easily the author slips this line into a story about flint.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatc ... 6RAPM.html

Some say Upper Mercer flint was easier to work with and favored by some of the early cultures, including the Paleo, possibly the earliest people to inhabit this land 15,000 years ago or more

The Club is falling down on the job!

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 5:24 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 5:36 pm**

You start losing many when you get into the 30,000 B.P. plus range.

One merely has to batter down one door at a time.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 5:38 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 6:15 pm**

It would be a victory, Charlie, if the next group does not assert that it's answer is the ONLY answer.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 6:17 pm**

The next door will be "slightly older" than 50,000 B.P., imo. That's a big leap, because it rivals Hss' appearance in Europe and Australia. At that point you have to start thinking about Neanderthal or Erectus, though an argument could be made for Hss occupying North America prior to Europe and Australia.

Goodyear was smart to stop at 50,000bp, essentially the limit of radiocarbon dating. From there on out it's thermoluminescence, Argon, Potassium, etc. Accurate dating becomes far more demanding and time consuming. We need in situ bones.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 6:43 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 6:52 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 7:34 pm**

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
Minimalist wrote:It would be a victory, Charlie, if the next group does not assert that it's answer is the ONLY answer.
A lot of archeologists, including Goodyear himself, were taught that Clovis was first. Adavosio, McAvoy, and Dillehay started producing evidence of preClovis, so Goodyear gave it a shot, and dug deeper...We all know the rest of the story, to date. Hopefully THIS group is the beginning of groups that won't "assert that its answer is the ONLY answer". In the last couple of years we have had the opportunity to witness an amazing transformation in North American archeology. Imo, it's only going to get more interesting.

We can hope.....but I am always reminded of this comment by the late Art Buchwald.

If you attack the establishment long enough and hard enough, they will make you a member of it.

These fellows need to return their complimentary membership cards when The Club finally concedes and tries to absorb them.

Archaeologica.org

Deleted

Re: Timlin Site