Archaeologica.org

http://www.aikenstandard.com/FeatureColumns/612-TomMack

In 2004, Goodyear and his team dug four meters below the surface and found artifacts in a layer of burnt plant remains that were subsequently tested via radiocarbon dating. The finding that this charcoal deposit is as old as 50,000 years may lend credence to the theory that human habitation on this continent dates much, much earlier than anyone supposed. Goodyear himself asserts that "Topper is the oldest radiocarbon-dated site in North America."

The verdict is still out, however, as to whether this evidence alone contradicts the long-held belief that early humans first arrived in America from Asia 13,000 years ago.

Many scientists argue that there is still not sufficient proof - incontrovertible material evidence - to support that contention.

Keep 'em on the run, Al!

I see this whole thing as a waiting game.
As the old timers retire, and AL's students become the teachers, they will begin to teach what they have learned.
The danger, of course, is that they may stop learning themselves.
And then the whole thing starts over again.

It is the scourge of 'vested interests'.
Once people acquire material wealth and public status/recognition, they protect it. By not rocking the boat. By not upsetting the apple cart. By keeping things 'as they are'. Because 'things as they are' are the source their material wealth and public status/recognition are based on. Changing those concepts, those 'things as they are', is changing the source of their material wealth and public status/recognition. Thus jeopardising it. Their livelihood!
Material wealth and public status/recognition are strong, if acutely misguiding motivators for scientists.

Wasn't the orginal idea of "tenure" to keep this from happening?

Indeed, kb. Good point. Tenure was supposed to assure academic freedom by not allowing removal for anything other than "just cause."

I guess one could look at it as assuring "freedom" for the person with tenure...not anyone else!

HEY MIN, just a note that might interest, check out kris hirst site on her forum, dr. Corbitt has posted some levallois tools found in south georgia. Hard to not see the mousterian similarities. He has found the same technology as those here in Indiana.The discussion is titled "Levallois in the USA"....rick doninger

rick doninger wrote:HEY MIN, just a note that might interest, check out kris hirst site on her forum, dr. Corbitt has posted some levallois tools found in south georgia. Hard to not see the mousterian similarities. He has found the same technology as those here in Indiana.The discussion is titled "Levallois in the USA"....rick doninger

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.asp ... y&tid=8304

Rick, is this the thread you are referring to? i read pages 3 and 4. i did find it interesting that one of the scientists that dismissed your claim still suggested you talk to Tankersley.

Their reactions are indeed interesting, Rick.

The notes are more important than the artifacts themselves? Interesting point of view. If someone showed up with notes and diagrams but no actual artifacts they would be giddy with excitement? I don't think so.

Certainly, an actual excavation which turns up level after level needs to be photographed and diagrammed because, as noted correctly, the excavation destroys the site. I don't see how that applies to you (or Charlie Hatchett down in Texas) picking up obviously worked stones off the ground that have been exposed by erosion. What are you supposed to diagram? How far it was from a nearby piece of dog shit? Would that make it real for them? One would think that no one had ever faked a photograph.

The simple fact is that if you have located a flint outcropping which gives signs of having been worked in remote antiquity then THEY should be eager to survey the site and see what you have. Their lack of scientific curiosity troubles me more than anything else they said. They throw up a load of bullshit reasons to sit on their asses. One can only suspect that is because they do not want any of it to be true and wish you would go away.

hey min, go to the last page of posts on the Levallois in the USA thread, dr. corbett has the most diagnostically sound pieces posted there.... They are clearly identifiable. Not the usual "ambiguous tools."....There is only one technology that produces tools of this type be it blades or points and it is definitely not clovis or later. This is not a "bend break " industry as in allendale but a clearly identifiable known lithic technology found on lower and middle paleo sites abroad. If Meadowcroft and Topper have a clearly identifiable industry will we ever see it? Compared to the tools from Indiana and south georgia both are vague examples of a proposed preclovis occupation. This tool industry will speak for its self when shown.......Rick d.

It's now the next to the last page.

They do look crude in comparison to Clovis....or Solutrean (which they don't want to hear about, either.)

I suspect you are going to have to keep annoying them.