Archaeologica.org

It's an expression used over here that equates with what I believe has an equivalent with you people, 'blonde moment'. In other words, a stupid remark that is not necessarily aimed at any individual, gender, class etc.
At least, that is how I understand it.
And hers is still a stupid remark!

Roy.

You know, I was reviewing the beginning of this discussion and I want to stress that in spite of that one remark, which I agree is unfortunate, as Chris says it was Virginia who kept pushing the archaeological establishment with geological evidence that it did not want to hear on Valsequillo. Along with Cynthia Irwin-Williams her name is sprinkled throughout his book "The First American." As hinted earlier, I'm willing to overlook this one comment in tribute to past service in making The Club uncomfortable.

I hope Chris won't mind a shameless plug for his book but anyone who wants to learn the story of Valsequillo needs to get a copy and study it. Not only does it explain the geologic evidence for the site but it provides any number of examples of what happens when archaeology starts to act like a religion. Scientific theories are not religious dogmas to be worshiped. What they should be is targets for people to try to knock down. I realize I'm being idealistic but, there it is.

If I had to quibble with anything in Chris' post it is the idea that the Clovis Firsters focused on the Darwin statement to denigrate the entire Valsequillo project. She could have sacrificed a goat to Darwin and they would have found some other reason to deny what their prejudices told them could not possibly exist. "Geologists! Pish-tush...what do they know about pottery!" Anyone who doubts that should examine the reaction of the Egyptological community when Robert Schoch told them that their precious sphinx was older than the 4th dynasty based on geology.

Ok. Rant over.

I feel better.

Minimalist wrote:Anyone who doubts that should examine the reaction of the Egyptological community when Robert Schoch told them that their precious sphinx was older than the 4th dynasty based on geology.

I saw yet another rerun tonight about the sphinx's origins. It started with the conventional wisdoms, delivered prominently by (a.o.) Zahi of course. But the second half of the documentary (NatGeo?) cautiously explored alternative theories, which age the sphinx by a few millenia as we know. The water erosion theory was illustrated with computer graphics, etc. etc., and Zahi was nowhere in sight to contest it. The documentary maker's cowardly conclusion was that "opinions among archeologists differ, and the debate is on-going", while it was clear of course where he thought the evidence led.

In any case: that 'club' is losing ground too.

oooh, got a good link for the sphinx thing?

Sorry, JSteen, it was on TV, at my mother's place. Don't know what channel. I'm not even sure it was a National Geographic production.

The documentary maker's cowardly conclusion was that "opinions among archeologists differ,

That would actually be correct, though. It is the geologists who are telling them that they are full of shit.

Thanks for the plug, Min.
Shamelessness is a good thing.
With respect to:
"If I had to quibble with anything in Chris' post it is the idea that the Clovis Firsters focused on the Darwin statement to denigrate the entire Valsequillo project."
-- hopefully this is not what I implied. They've been anti-Valsequillo since the 22k dates (14C) dates came in 1967. Statements like this just help fuel their arguments. A rotten tomato comment like that can indeed spoil the entire legacy if left unattended. I love Virginia a lot, and grateful for her persistence and professional expertise. I try and stay just with the science and the lithics, the material evidence, because it can speak for itself. At this point, the CFers/Club will attack to most vulnerable. So far, that has not included me. Instead, I simply don't exist.

Chris, we're probably close to the same age, do you remember this scene from the Charlton Heston version of Planet of the Apes?

Zaius watches as Taylor's horse moves farther away along the beach.
Then he turns to an ape called MARCUS.

ZAIUS
(quietly)
Fetch your explosives. We're going
to seal the cave.

MARCUS
Yes, sir.

He remounts his horse and rides o.s.

CORNELIUS
(aghast)
Seal the cave?

ZAIUS
That's correct. And you will both stand
trial for heresy.

ZIRA
But the proof? The doll?

ZAIUS
In a few minutes there will be no doll.
There can't be.
(honest regret)
I'm sorry.

Seeing the establishment trying to stifle inquiry always reminds me of Dr. Zaius.

Damn. Anybody who kills a doll deserves to be an ape.

This topic has been split. Discussions other than Calico and now in Anthropology and Primitive Societies.

Thanks, boss.

Minimalist wrote: "Geologists! Pish-tush...what do they know about pottery!" Anyone who doubts that should examine the reaction of the Egyptological community when Robert Schoch told them that their precious sphinx was older than the 4th dynasty based on geology.

Ok. Rant over.

I feel better.

I don't feel better. This way too early date for the Sphinx is at the core of a lot of cult archaeology.

I wrote a piece on this some years back:
"On the Effects of Pissing on the Sphinx"
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc012600.html

While the Sphinx may be earlier, I'd suggest Temple's new book on it:
http://www.sphinxmystery.info

Failing to go where the evidence leads is "religion" not science.

A lot (at least) of what's being imagined as "ancient" Egyptian architecture is firmly dated to the Medieval era by simply computing the horoscopes commemorating building completion dates they provided.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/egyptian-horo.htm

uniface wrote:A lot (at least) of what's being imagined as "ancient" Egyptian architecture is firmly dated to the Medieval era by simply computing the horoscopes commemorating building completion dates they provided.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/egyptian-horo.htm

I would tend to think that either:
A) the decipherment of the Egyptian horoscope is wrong
b) the computer program has a major bug

I don't know if the use of ancient Egyptian astrology (naked eye astronomy) continued into the Moslem era. My guess would be that Moslem astrology (naked eye astronomy) was Greek based.

What does this or the Sphinx have to do with the Calico site?

What is interesting here is that each person's definition of "the club" depends on what they are trying to prove.

Now if you want to talk about a "club", try many trying to deny that major impact events occurred recently. That club includes not only the mainstream, but the cult archaeology fringe as well, who propose "crustal shifts" and "wandering planets", both of which have been shown not to have occurred.

Oh well.