Clovis people not the first to arrive in Americas

[FIRSTVIEW]

People have reputations built on prevailing paradigms ! If memory serves me right an esteemed group of archeologists visited Monte Verde and VOTED IT authentic and pre dating Clovis ! Unusual way to conduct science by committee and vote ????????

[Mojave]

Originally Posted by FIRSTVIEW

People have reputations built on prevailing paradigms ! If memory serves me right an esteemed group of archeologists visited Monte Verde and VOTED IT authentic and pre dating Clovis ! Unusual way to conduct science by committee and vote ????????

It was Dillehay that did the Monte Verde study.....
That is the irony.


Anyway, disco is dead too.

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by Mojave

Anyway, disco is dead too.

Thank the God of your choice.

[uniface]

The Clovis First mindset in archaeology and the Those Things Aren't Artifacts one here (and elsewhere) have a lot in common.

Both involve a set of assumptions that are imposed on the evidence, with the evidence being rejected because it doesn't validate the assumptions (that were formulated before the evidence turned up).

Some of them, where pre-Clovis is concerned, are that there should be a lot of Pre-C stratified sites, and that the artifacts found at them should show the same kind of uniformity that the artifacts from other time frames do. Statistical manipulation of numbers being a big deal in archaeology (which has fads like any other field), when not enough artifacts are found (like at Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill), they can't do what they want with them, so they say that data are inconclusive (inadequate) even though the question is obviously answered as far as everybody else is concerned. Artifacts that turn up out of context aren't even considered because they're out of context (some serious circular reasoning there) : since the site geology and pollen (etc.) don't prove they're from the pre-C time frame, this makes it safe to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ditto with RokDoc's stuff. When you impose an assumption that holds true from the time frame you're familiar with (sometimes deeply and extensively familiar with) onto relics made by people who didn't do what you assume they must have done, you're setting up the same kind of procrustian bed the archaeologists do.

For the sake of example, substitute "pets" for artifacts.

All the pets here (being cats) climb trees. If somebody comes along with a dog, it's obvious to me that he can't be a pet -- he doesn't climb trees ! And that, as far as I'm concerned, settles it. His animal doesn't meet my criteria. And the more he insists, the more peeved I get at him.

Dismount soapbox.

[Mojave]

Originally Posted by uniface

Artifacts that turn up out of context aren't even considered because they're out of context (some serious circular reasoning there) : since the site geology and pollen (etc.) don't prove they're from the pre-C time frame, this makes it safe to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So artifacts that do show up out of context SHOULD be considered? How is that not circular? I've seen time after time where questionable metrics (IMO based on others smarter than me) are used to substantiate a claim from linguistics, DNA studies, patination studies, statistical wear patterns, etc.

God is Love,
Love is Blind,
Ray Charles is Blind,
Ray Charles is God!

[arrow719]

Originally Posted by uniface

The Clovis First mindset in archaeology and the Those Things Aren't Artifacts one here (and elsewhere) have a lot in common.

Both involve a set of assumptions that are imposed on the evidence, with the evidence being rejected because it doesn't validate the assumptions (that were formulated before the evidence turned up).

Some of them, where pre-Clovis is concerned, are that there should be a lot of Pre-C stratified sites, and that the artifacts found at them should show the same kind of uniformity that the artifacts from other time frames do. Statistical manipulation of numbers being a big deal in archaeology (which has fads like any other field), when not enough artifacts are found (like at Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill), they can't do what they want with them, so they say that data are inconclusive (inadequate) even though the question is obviously answered as far as everybody else is concerned. Artifacts that turn up out of context aren't even considered because they're out of context (some serious circular reasoning there) : since the site geology and pollen (etc.) don't prove they're from the pre-C time frame, this makes it safe to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ditto with RokDoc's stuff. When you impose an assumption that holds true from the time frame you're familiar with (sometimes deeply and extensively familiar with) onto relics made by people who didn't do what you assume they must have done, you're setting up the same kind of procrustian bed the archaeologists do.

For the sake of example, substitute "pets" for artifacts.

All the pets here (being cats) climb trees. If somebody comes along with a dog, it's obvious to me that he can't be a pet -- he doesn't climb trees ! And that, as far as I'm concerned, settles it. His animal doesn't meet my criteria. And the more he insists, the more peeved I get at him.

Dismount soapbox.

YouTube - ninja dog climbs trees

[uniface]

I stand corrected

[uniface]

So artifacts that do show up out of context SHOULD be considered?

Unless you've been digging, every artifact you've ever found has probably been found out of context.

Do you consider them ?

When you find a Scottsbluff point, it's a Scottsbluff point. Obvious. But in the parallel world / alternate reality, your Scottsbluff point isn't anything at all. WTF ?

[uniface]

Last licks in here -- gotta hit the road to visit Dad (birthday).

If you're a cop and find 20 pounds of pot in a car you stop, do you doubt they're drug dealers ??

Ditto a shell casing at a murder scene.

I have no problem acknowledging your Clovis point as a Clovis point. Why is it different with a Levallois point ? I know you've probably said, but what you're addressing, it seems, is the after-the-fact, bookkeeping end of it. The accounting. The how-do-we-know-that-we-know-what-we-know game. What I'm addressing is the pick it up in your hand and recognise it reality of encounter.

Edit to add : Your Clovis point in a picture on the internet is, IMH(sorta)O, more than adequate. So's RD's.

[Mojave]

Valid points Uni.
Enjoy your Dad's b-day. I promise not to say bad things about you while you are gone.