Yuku free message boards

uniface wrote:

---

FWIW :

http://www.independent.co...red-america-7447152.html

This is how real scientists/archaeologists excavate a square:
http://tinyurl.com/7uebog4

This is how pseudoscientists excavate a square:
http://teacheratsea.wordpress.com/tag/scallops/
"The dredge we are using to fish for ocean quahogs and surfclams is 5ft x 20ft,
weighs 2500lbs, and is pulled for ¼ nautical mile each time it is towed.
(That means it covers an area of about 9000 square feet.)  As you might
imagine it accidentally catches things besides the ocean quahogs and the
surfclams that we are fishing for."

FWIW...nothing
http://www.fishingnj.org/diascall.htm

WilliamMunny wrote:

---

Lee Olsen wrote: .... "FWIW...nothing http://www.fishingnj.org/diascall.htm"

So are you proposing the Solutrean blades were dragged all the way from Europe?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/the-solutrean-conjecture/2012/03/01/gIQAyaQQkR_blog.html?wprss=rss_linkset&Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

"The take-home quote is from a skeptical scientist, named David Meltzer:

“If Solutrean boat people washed up on our shores, they suffered cultural amnesia, genetic amnesia, dental amnesia, linguistic amnesia and skeletal amnesia. Basically, all of the signals are pointing to Asia....”

knapperbob wrote:

---

>Cute potshots are not a responsible reaction to a serious proposal.
 
Serious proposal? Where is that? Your editorializing data free, reference-free reply is doing just exactly the same thing.
The burden is completely on the person(s) making the claim, it is not for others to try and refute a negative.

>The underwater artifacts were not scientifically excavated because they were dredged by accident.

Of course, no one has suggested otherwise that I know of, that's what makes that anomaly worthless to science.

>Their location is not as uncertain as the referenced articles suggest because large, solid objects are something to be platted and avoided to minimized damage to costly equipment--some of the to-be-avoided objects were dumped by the military. In the case of the mammoth/stone knife association,

There is no demonstrated association, you just admitted that in the next sentence.


>the dredge was stopped short when it snagged a mammoth skull, not just a tooth. Yes there are concerns about precise location, but the offshore distance and depth of the finds pose logical questions that deserve better than brush-offs because they do not neatly fit current dogma.

Dogma? Please take your own advise and stop editorializing.

>As more and more "inconvenient" data is brought to light we should do what archaeologists are supposed to do-- follow our curiosity and improve the data so that hypothesis may be eventually transformed to become confirmed fact or fiction.

Wrong. The only "inconvienient" data is sloppy leading of the evidence in this case.

>I don't want to be force-fed conclusions that seem nearly as weak as the alternative.

First of all, even if the knife and the skull were found in the exact same location as  the skull it still would not date the knife.
Misconstrued, undemonstrated accuasations (read "editorializing), and false  accusations of "dogma" are not arguments, they are nothing more than propaganda.  There have been dozens of previously claimed associations between Clovis and extinct animals that have since been demonstrated to have been questionable or flat false. That is  equally applied dogma, about 90 chopped down to 12. That's with 1 meter squares, without the odds are probably one in a million that this mammoth/blade association is legit. And even then it wouldn't prove the blade is of Solutrean origin.

>Just show the data, warts and all and keep the editorializing out of the review process.

Dime novels do not deserve review. Although the book will probably draw some somewhere.
First of all, that wan't editorializing by Meltzer. It was a conclusion drawn on the published evidence and previous  papers on the matter, one of which was published in American Antiquity and numerous other peer-reviewed journals.   

For all those who think the blade on the cover of the book is Solutrean, please demonstrate with the math that it is statistically Solutrean. Stanford and Bradley don't seem to be able to do the math, or did and refused to publish the answer.

One more bit of caution. The Kenniwick Man was found in direct association with a pewter-handled steel knife and with a cut-like mark on the rib found literally beside it. Thus leading Chatters' to originally speculate dating the skeleton to a recent early 1900s settler.  So much for scrambled-beach artifact archaeology. 
  

Red Clay wrote:

---

>Is the blade spoken of here, the one that was just recently analysed as having been made from flint of French origin? 

No.

>These aren't the only artifacts that have been dredged up.  This has happened a few times on the jersey coast.  There have been several Clovis types pulled up, also in conjunction with mammoth or- mastodon remains. 
That being said, to date I know of only a handful [6-8] of Clovis points found in NJ farther inland.  It's interesting how the points that were decidedly Clovis were readily accepted, regardless of how they were found.

Numerous cultures have produced simple, non-diagnostic blades. If the Clovis points were "decidedly Clovis", then they probably weren't simple. And did someone claim there was a connection between the points and the mammoths or- mastodon remains? 

>  It's my opinion that the Clovis didn't make it this far east, but their technology did.

What technology is that?

>If anyone is interested, there is a terriffic book written entirely about the controversey of where the first Americans came from.  "Bones", Discovering the First Americans, by Elaine Dewar.  From the Baltimore Sun-  Dewar exposes the rivalries, political agendas, gossip, turf wars, threats, thefts, and outright lies among researchers that still cripple honest investigation of American antiquity".  Just the flap over the Kennewick man takes up several chapters.

Written by a non-professional.

>Someone mentioned a pewter knife found in conjunction with Kennewick man, proposing that this was a settler.

Your memory seems rather short, since that appeared in my last post.

>  They forgot to mention the 8,000 year old spearpoint found lodged in his hip. 

Your timeline is as bad as your memory. There was a considerable amount of time between  the discovery of the skeleton to the time the 14C date came back.

>And btw, I could find no mention of an 19th cent. knife in any of the info I looked at. 

Page 297:
"The handle of a pewter-inlaid knife found among the bones appeared initially to fit a depression in the distal left femur."

OK, so I had the pewter knife/dent right  and the rib-part wrong, but since it has been over 10 years since I read the article, I would say my memory is better than your research. 

>This thread is just a small sample of the muddle that's resulted of the clashing of egos and agendas.

I would suggest you  start reading the peer-reviewed literature rather than dime novels.


Reference:
James C. Chatters
The Recovery And First Analysis Of An Early Holocene Human Skeleton From Kennewick, Washington
American Antiquity, 65(2), 2000, pp.291-316