Archaeologica.org

Jason Jarrell and his wife Sarah Farmer have published a new book which contains the original excavation reports for the "mounds" of Charleston, W VA:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jason-jarrell- ... 36373.html

Note very carefully what Jason and Sarah write,
and be sure to differentiate that from what others claim about that data.

E.P. Grondine wrote:Jason Jarrell and his wife Sarah Farmer have published a new book which contains the original excavation reports for the "mounds" of Charleston, W VA:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jason-jarrell- ... 36373.html

Note very carefully what Jason and Sarah write,
and be sure to differentiate that from what others claim about that data.

Whats are the new fantasies that differ from those in the earlier (2015) nonsense ?

Tiompan wrote:

E.P. Grondine wrote:Jason Jarrell and his wife Sarah Farmer have published a new book which contains the original excavation reports for the "mounds" of Charleston, W VA:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jason-jarrell- ... 36373.html

Note very carefully what Jason and Sarah write,
and be sure to differentiate that from what others claim about that data.

Whats are the new fantasies that differ from those in the earlier (2015) nonsense ?

"fantasies"
light slander is always an easy way of dismissing data you are too stupid to handle.

https://youtu.be/aBFlFRLnzk8

The stupidity is found in anyone who buys into these fantasies .

The link was yet another cheap plug for one your unwatchable vids , another fantasy .

Tiompan wrote:The stupidity is found in anyone who buys into these fantasies .

The link was yet another cheap plug for one your unwatchable vids , another fantasy .

The data is what it is.

Speaking about fantasies, what do we have to do, retrieve a monolith and drop it on your pinhead,
before you acknowledge that they exist?

What data ?
That is the problem .
You were asked if there was anything new ,apart from the earlier rubbish in the new book .
You didn't /couldn't respond .

Falling over a rock does not make it an Adena monolith .

Tiompan wrote:What data ?
That is the problem .
You were asked if there was anything new ,apart from the earlier rubbish in the new book .
You didn't /couldn't respond .

Falling over a rock does not make it an Adena monolith .

Thew book contains the original field excavation notes, pinhead.
And follows Hrdlcka's handling of the finds from the site.
Essential and required reading for those working on Adena sites.

As far as the monoliths go, they are worked and transported,
and if we find one in its original setting with an astronomical alignment,
we'll start calling them "henges".

So nothing has changed ,as expected it's still the same old fantasies with a total lack of actual evidence .

Similarly , where is the evidence that connects your rocks with the Adena ?

Lol . "henges " , the quotes are telling , even in the hugely unlikely event that the rocks were were shown to be set ,regardless of period , and even unlikelier ,
shown to be intentionally astronomically aligned , it still wouldn't make them a henge . But that kind of detail never stops the dreamers .

Tiompan wrote: So nothing has changed ,as expected it's still the same old fantasies with a total lack of actual evidence .

tiompan, your behavior is not doing improving your image.

It turns out the the original excavation report differs very very significantly from that publicly published in the 12th Report of the Smithsonian,
making this book and its publication of the original notes essential reading for those working with Adena sites.

Tiompan wrote: Similarly , where is the evidence that connects your rocks with the Adena ?

Our "rocks" are both worked and transported. and large, making them "monoliths" and megaliths.
They have consistently been found near the remains of Adena structures, and so far no where else.
Essentially, they are a previously unknown feature that identifies "Adena" culture.

Tiompan wrote: Lol . "henges " , the quotes are telling , even in the hugely unlikely event that the rocks were were shown to be set , regardless of period, and even unlikelier,
shown to be intentionally astronomically aligned , it still wouldn't make them a henge . But that kind of detail never stops the dreamers.

I've tried and tried to explain to you the evolution of the word "henge",
and how it is now used and understood both by us colonials and most of the general public.
Some of us live in the 2000's, and not the 1800's.

If we find astronomical alignments in the Adena monoliths,
then we will call them "henges",
and try to get some of those henge tourist dollars.

Still no evidence of giants .

Your rocks regardless of size , whether worked or not , do not become Adena monoliths simply because they happen to be have been come across them in the immense area associated with the culture .

You have continually ignored multiple definitions of the term henge from reputable sources . You even managed to come up differing definitions of your own making .
Do you really need to be shown to be shown the evidence yet again as to your obstinacy in refusing to accept what is clear is to all . I was boring the first time ,let's not have a third time .
A further pointer to your ignorance is that the term and it's proper definition was not in use in 1800's ,it was coined in the 1930's and is used in it's correct sense today by countless numbers across the world including the US .
What a waste of time and space your ignorance and obstinacy has proved in relation to this .

You can call things what you like , the astronomical interpretation will be just as ridiculous as your use of terminology ,

Tiompan wrote: Still no evidence of giants.

I do not know what it is with Europeans and Native people of extra-ordinary stature.
They become either Nephilim, ancient alien hybrids, are used by con men to found their own religion,
or in your case, tiompan, we have a complete failure of the senses, a rather peculiar phenomenon itself.
It would be funny to watch you at an Osage powwow.
As since some of them drink beer, it might be possible for you to bring along some beer to anesthetize yourself;
it would be for medical purposes.

Tiompan wrote: Your rocks, regardless of size , whether worked or not, do not become Adena monoliths simply because they happen to be have been come across them in the immense area associated with the culture .

This is accompanied by a failure of your ability to read, tiompan.
The monoliths have been/are found immediate to the ruins of Adena structures.

Tiompan wrote: You have continually ignored multiple definitions of the term henge from reputable sources .
You even managed to come up differing definitions of your own making .
Do you really need to be shown to be shown the evidence yet again as to your obstinacy in refusing to accept what is clear is to all . I was boring the first time ,let's not have a third time .
A further pointer to your ignorance is that the term and it's proper definition was not in use in 1800's ,it was coined in the 1930's and is used in it's correct sense today by countless numbers across the world including the US .
What a waste of time and space your ignorance and obstinacy has proved in relation to this .

Well EXCUSE ME.
I do not use the word "aether" either.

Tiompan wrote: You can call things what you like, the astronomical interpretation will be just as ridiculous as your use of terminology ,

Not only do I work with what you call "giants",
I work with craters as well.
DENIAL is not simply a river in Egypt.

Tallest man in the world is European , so what ?

The failure is the provision of evidence to support the belief in giants fantasised by the gullible in Europe and elsewhere .

None so blind as those with eyes who can not see.

Platitudes are not evidence for your fantasies .