Archaeologica.org

Good stuff.

http://www.calicodig.org/text?page=2

Where the hell is Cogs? He's searching at Lake Mannix a few miles from Calico.

200K BP = HE...!

HE = the alternative form of Ha (as in Ha Ha Ha !) ?

The Calico site was dated to around 200k with Uranium Series back in the early 1980s by USGS geochemist James Bischoff. More recently, a berrylium date of 135k. Both from Master Pit 1. There should be details at the CalicoDig website.

In the meantime, we are beginning the first real expose of some of the remarkable specimens retrieved from the Master Pits. When I went through the collection, boy howdy was I hard pressed to reject them all as geofacts. Having been in the field for over thirty years, there was this realization that if any number of these "things" turned up in my screen or my unit, there's no way I would have tossed them into the backfill pile.

http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html

I have been posting these photos on a number of profession archaeology websites, and always with the plea for info regarding geofacts and/or geofactories that look like some of these "things," but so far, no takers. If there is anyone at this forum who knows anything about good examples and/or collections of geofacts, it would be great to pursue that phenomena in light of the findings at Calico.

I've been interested in the pre-Clovis sites for a while, reading around here and there. It's exciting to see new evidence that overturns old ideas because it feels we're taking a step closer to the truth when we do that.

Reading around about Calico and Valquesillo though, I keep running into near-creationist perspectives. That's got me a bit worried. In this article: http://www.soychicano.com/forums/archiv ... 31584.html, Virginia Steen-McIntyre appears to be framing the Valquesillo issue as "us against the Darwinists." Am I misreading this? I admit I'm in a hurry this afternoon and skimmed a bit. Surely the pre-Clovis debate doesn't come down to science vs. creationists. I thought it was old science vs. open minded science.

They can frame it as the Crips against the Bloods, for all I care.

It's the data that will decide it -- eventually

(Bearing in mind Lord Acton's quip that the advance of science ocurrs one funeral at a time).

Hey JSteen,

Thanks for pointing that out for me. Must have read that paper years ago, but forgot this part.
"The high priests of Darwinism have spoken."
Just let me say, yep, this is a contradiction. Boy howdy.

I had a very long thing to say about this, but it might seem like a rant and would prefer not to offend any sensitivites of readers here.

I'm peripherally central to what's going on down there, past and present, and I can assure you and everyone who reads this, that Virginia is most certainly alone in her problems with Darwin. Everyone else who is even remotely related to the goings on at Valsequillo, past and present, gringo and Mexican, is firmly on the side of Darwin. And as you can imagine, this has not helped Virginia's efforts to inspire the Science community to take another look at Valsequillo. What I can say is that without her dogged persistence in getting the 1981 Quaternary Research article published, the name Valsequillo would have remained a whisper in the wind. And she is quite correct in her analysis of the geology down there. She was taught by some of the best. Fryxell was in charge of the 1973 trenching operation at Hueyatlaco. Prior to that, he was in charge of the moonrocks when they returned, and taught the astronauts geological techniques to collect them; other than that, he was a friggin genius. The SAA have a Fryxell Award.

Virginia's apparent contradictory views about things has also negatively served as an excuse for Clovis Firsters to ignore the whole Valsequillo shebang. The CFers reached a psychotic point where they could justify in their own minds that they could "just say no" to some of the most intriguing material evidence in the New World -- the earliest New World art, and the evolution of projectile point technology, all preClovis. When they began to ignore discoveries of this magnitude, it means there is something sick going on, some kind of mass psychological pathology going on, and everyone is, or will soon be, quite embarrassed about it. The silence is deafening. Historians of science will one day find themselves asking about the Valsequillo story: who's really the crazy persons here? Damn, the whole thing has nearly made me crazy just trying to figure it out. Several of the main players of this drama ended up as alcoholics. Having danced with it for years, it is apparently easy to see why. Why? I think it is the growing pains of a social science discipline aspiring to be a science. Valsequillo is the quintessential iconic historical example of a breach between a social science and hardball science. Not being a real science, archaeologists could just say no. "Your not the boss of me."

<< snip >>
"I thought it was old science vs. open minded science."

But it is also about good science. The Clovis Firsters had a single hypothesis, which is to say an untested statement, that Clovis was first. It morphed into their prize theory over fifty years ago and for some reason they refused to honestly test it. Rather, they just rejected everything else that came along to challenge it. Science is designed to annihilate hypotheses, and especially pet hypotheses. The Clovis Firsters interpreted science another way. They took the Clovis First hypothesis, dressed it in pink clothes, paraded it around at conferences, and otherwise protected it like it was their own precious daughter/virgin. Nuff said. I feel a rant coming on.

Thanks for putting the anti-Darwinism in perspective for me - that helps a lot. I knew from reading around that good work had been done there so the anti-Darwin thing kind of through me for a loop. If it's just one quirk of one person, and it doesn't affect the work - ok. Still, I have to wonder about the contradiction - how is it possible? How can she be that good and doing that kind of work and be anti-Darwinist? And how far does she go with that - is she actually a creationist?

It's a real shame if her reputation on this point is contributing to the establishment ignoring Valsequillo.

Anyway, thanks again for explaining and putting that paper in perspective.

Maybe its just the fact that I'm fighting a cold and not thinking clearly (NyQuil knocks me for a loop) but I don't get the anti-Darwin comment, either. If man was not "created" (and he wasn't) then he evolved from earlier forms. The temptation to jump to HE in Valsequillo is obvious but we now know that there were HSS in Morocco c 160k and in Tanzania at 400k.

Someone was there. It may have been HE or it may have been HSS....or the distinction between the two may be irrelevant.

I thought it was just me Min, mind I'm dosed up as well with a dental abcess. I've currently got a debate going on Darwin with Ish, and others as well.
Poor old Darwin gets the blame for everything, mostly things he never claimed I might add.

Roy.

One would expect that from the religious whackjobs, Roy, not scientists.

Genuine science examines the unexplained. The bogus imitation of it "explains" the unexamined.

"Creationism" and "Darwinism" are both belief systems competing for the allegiance of people substituting belief for thinking.

Belief is immune to facts, logic and experience. That's why belief systems base themselves on it. Without exception, they wind up with ordination (PhDs), the clergy/laity divide (how often have you heard amateurs referred to explicitly by academics as "the laity" ?), inquisitions, and persecutions for heresy. All of this is Belief System in action, no matter what the particular belief happens to be.

Science thrives on questioning ; Belief systems regard questioning their tenants as evil to be attacked and extirpated.

If Darwin had never been born, or Huxley had found something else to amuse himself, archaeology would not be impaired in the least. Ditto the power trippers using their construal of Genesis to dictate dogmas to which others must assent.

Science : when evidence contradicts theory, back to the drawing board with the theory.

Belief System : Dogma is the truth. Nothing can question or challenge it, because the Truth can't be wrong. Anything that tries is categorically illegitimate, adequately disposed-of by merely pointing out that "This cannot be true because it cannot be true."

allegiance of people substituting belief for thinking.

So how does that apply to what Darwin wrote?

Roy.

"Creationism" and "Darwinism" are both belief systems

But Darwin, writing 150 years ago, predicted what the fossil record would show. Museums are now full of the results.

Can one say that for "Creationism?"