Archaeologica.org

and the predictable reply from The Club!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ols_2.html

Crude stone "tools" found in northern Minnesota may be at least 13,000 years old, a team of archaeologists recently announced.

The discovery, if confirmed, would put the objects among the oldest human artifacts ever found in the Americas.

Meltzer, the Southern Methodist University archaeologist, said he will reserve judgment until the objects have been dated and more is known about them.

"One hates to rain on the parade," he said, "but we've been down this road before—claims of great antiquity that fizzle—and have learned the hard way to be wary."

[/quote]

We've noticed that the volume on the Clovis first theory has been cranked up recently. I'm sure there will be more to come. But it's way too little and way too late.

Call it...

The Empire Strikes Back!

And Strike Back they do!!!


http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 840053.htm

MINNEAPOLIS - The state archaeologist is casting doubt on claims that an archaeological dig in the northern Minnesota city of Walker has turned up ancient stone tools between 13,000 and 14,000 years old.

Minnesota State Archaeologist Scott Anfinson, in a report released Monday, said the materials found at the excavation site were more likely to have been produced by natural forces such as flowing water or glacial movement.

Probably waiting for his Club membership card to be approved by the committee!

Minnesota State Archaeologist Scott Anfinson, in a report released Monday, said the materials found at the excavation site were more likely to have been produced by natural forces such as flowing water or glacial movement.

Alright, Scotty ... let Charlie or I look at them and we'll tell you within a few seconds whether natural forces made them or not. What a frikken jerk-off! If he's going to make statements like that, then back them up with some pictures and analysis, otherwise he's talking out of his ass.


(Scott on-site)

MINNEAPOLIS - The state archaeologist is casting doubt on claims that an archaeological dig in the northern Minnesota city of Walker has turned up ancient stone tools between 13,000 and 14,000 years old.

Minnesota State Archaeologist Scott Anfinson, in a report released Monday, said the materials found at the excavation site were more likely to have been produced by natural forces such as flowing water or glacial movement.

...idiot!

Here's the tools again:






Matt needs to get some microwear analyses performed to shut Scott up.

...idiot!

Succinctly put Charlie. Right on.

Wait...wait....the round part in the center looks like it was shaped by river water.


The edge? Um...not so much.

One significant arguement: Why is ever bit of cortex removed from both pieces?

Here's how chert cobbles look naturally:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... tu%202.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... tu%206.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... u%2016.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... u%2018.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... u%2021.jpg

Note: I'm talking about the white covered ones, not the artifacts in some of the images.

Succinctly put Charlie. Right on.

Shoot the guy an e-mail, and ask him how he came to his conclusion.
Tell him we're very "impressed" with how quickly he came to that conclusion. Should make for interesting reading and conversation.

Alright, Scotty ... let Charlie or I look at them and we'll tell you within a few seconds whether natural forces made them or not. What a frikken jerk-off! If he's going to make statements like that, then back them up with some pictures and analysis, otherwise he's talking out of his ass.

I second that!

http://www.walkermn.com/placed/index.ph ... _id=230705

In a Feb. 20 report posted on the website of the Office of the Minnesota State Archaeologist, Archaeologist Scott Anfinson and others conclude that the "stone tools" found at the Walker Hill site were made by natural processes, not by early humans.
However Thor Olmanson, director of the Leech Lake Heritage Sites Program (LLHSP), disputes that conclusion. LLHSP is the archaeological consulting firm that discovered the artifacts while conducting a survey at the site of the new Walker Area Community Center.
In a March 1 e-mail to The Pilot-Independent, Olmanson declared it is far too early to draw any definitive conclusions about the site and defended LLHSP's methodology and ongoing analysis.
"We remain comfortable with our earlier impressions and with the ongoing analysis and study of the materials. In our opinion, the site is becoming ever more difficult to ignore from a strictly scientific perspective," Olmanson stated.

I haven't found an email address on this fellow yet. But it looks like the debate will be pretty public.

From the News Section.

He also recommended that a similar setting nearby also be examined — one distant enough to assure independence, to see if the same sediment horizons produce similar lithics — since, he explained, it would be unlikely that both would be rare, early prehistoric sites.

How about due south, 1100 nm, Scotty?

In our opinion, the site is becoming ever more difficult to ignore from a strictly scientific perspective," Olmanson stated.

I like that statement. Political...yes...but also forcing the issue to scientific analyses versus knee-jerk opinions.

Looks like this will be an important debate.
Also relates directly to your site, Charlie, because the Walker
artifacts (?) have been found in a gravel stratum very similar to yours, and the establishment group is claiming that the pieces in question were formed naturally.

I see in your case that there is big difference between the gravels and
the possible tools. It would seem to me that if they were naturally
chipped gravels that they would be surrounded by other similarly chipped ones, since all of them were subjected to similar forces.

However, Aflinson (spelling?) makes a good point that the site should be compared to another geologically similar spot to see if there is a similar distribution of "tools." He is betting there will be...and that this would prove that they are natural....because presumably a campsite or toolmaking site would have been a rarity. I'm not convinced by this argument, however.
But think about it. Would there have been thousands of these tools?

And what about the "washout" idea. Could your tools or those in Minnesota have been swept away by a glacial flood and scattered among natural gravel in this way?
I'm staying tuned.