Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby uniface » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:37 pm

Tonto : "Many buffalo here yesterday, Lone Ranger. Careful not step in Kemosabe !"
That's what it's like coming into this thread.

On to business then.

But I can’t sit on my hands any longer. A few things (well more than a few actually) trouble me. Virginia Steen-McIntyre is often referred to as a “geologist”, but I’m not sure that’s correct. My understanding is that although she held a junior position as a graduate student in the US Geological Survey when she was asked to join the Hueyatlaco team in 1966, I thought she was an anthropologist with a doctorate in Tephrochronology (the study of the stratigraphy of volcanic ash) which – if correct - is not the same thing at all.

Spare me. Please. She was either right, or she was wrong. Nobody's ever proved her wrong, and an avalanche of independent evidence confirms her conclusion. Basically, from every field involved except archaeology.

And what that complaint boils down to is patently feebleminded :
1) Tools like those were not made before the advent of HSS.
2) HSS wasn't around at those dates.
3) Therefore, the whole picture can't be real.

IOW, instead of the problem being that the archaeological-evolutionary model of the past is defective, it must be the evidence that's wrong . . . somehow . . . some way . . .

I’ve also seen it stated that she’s a devout creationist.

SO F*CKING WHAT ? Her personal beliefs invalidate the evidence and her analysis of it ???????
That has to be the ultimate in "Stinky Old Poopy Head" dismissal.

Although there’s no evidence in her published work of that creating a bias, I intensely object to the emotive titles of some of her work. “Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico” published in NEXUS in 1998 for example.

Hit the road, Jack. There was (before it was confiscated and sequestered) a lot of evidence. And IT WAS SUPPRESSED. Case closed on that.

She seems to play the role of “victim” rather well

Familiarise yourself with the record. Then try to honestly maintain you implied assertion that she was not one.

and that has encouraged the “usual suspects” (all the way to Graham Hancock) to jump onto her wagon.

And he's a Stinky Old Poopy Head.
Which of course invalidates her work via "guilt by association."
uniface
 

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby uniface » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:55 pm

if true, I don't see that it challenges evolution in any way.


If you mean Evolution as an over-arching principle that runs through time, fine.

But if you mean by "Evolution" what's usually taken to be synonymous with it (Darwin's Theory of Evolution), Hueyatlaco drives a stake through its heart. Not because it's the first discovery able to do so, but because it's the one that wouldn't go away quietly.

Once it's conceded that there were people here back that long ago who were far more advanced than evolutionary dogma allows, it's game, set & match. With the "This cannot be because it cannot be" bulwark breeched, human history starts looking more and more . . . cyclical :shock:
uniface
 

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby oldarchystudent » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:47 am

uniface wrote:
if true, I don't see that it challenges evolution in any way.


If you mean Evolution as an over-arching principle that runs through time, fine.

But if you mean by "Evolution" what's usually taken to be synonymous with it (Darwin's Theory of Evolution), Hueyatlaco drives a stake through its heart. Not because it's the first discovery able to do so, but because it's the one that wouldn't go away quietly.

Once it's conceded that there were people here back that long ago who were far more advanced than evolutionary dogma allows, it's game, set & match. With the "This cannot be because it cannot be" bulwark breeched, human history starts looking more and more . . . cyclical :shock:


I agree about the specifics of dating, but the evolutionary model to my mind remains intact. The timeline gets shoved waaay back.
My karma ran over my dogma.
User avatar
oldarchystudent
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby uniface » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:31 am

It then necessarily accomodates a series of regressions and progressions in the same line of what now isn't development toward an outcome.

"Evolution" that happens in a Yo-Yo trajectory is pretty hard to reconcile with the idea of gradual, (punctuated), incremental advance from simple to complex -- with Evolution at all. It's more like oscilation around a mean. :(
uniface
 

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby Minimalist » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:43 am

Interesting articles, Cogs.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15441
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby oldarchystudent » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:08 am

uniface wrote:It then necessarily accomodates a series of regressions and progressions in the same line of what now isn't development toward an outcome.

"Evolution" that happens in a Yo-Yo trajectory is pretty hard to reconcile with the idea of gradual, (punctuated), incremental advance from simple to complex -- with Evolution at all. It's more like oscilation around a mean. :(


I'm not so sure of the reasons for that conclusion. Could it not just mean that our timelines are off by 250+ K years?

What if all dating is completely wrong?
My karma ran over my dogma.
User avatar
oldarchystudent
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby Cognito » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:18 am

And what that complaint boils down to is patently feebleminded :
1) Tools like those were not made before the advent of HSS.
2) HSS wasn't around at those dates.
3) Therefore, the whole picture can't be real.

Actually, Uniface, that was an initial argument against the great age of the lithics at Valsequillo/Hueyatlaco. Since that time, as pointed out by Chris Hardaker, similar tools and technology have been discovered in Africa dating from the same age. I don't have my finger on the references, but will provide the data should anyone really care to refute it.

Basically, this means that archaic hominids (at least in Africa) could make some really nice lithic points a quarter million years ago. Also, this tells us that archaic forms were very intelligent (1), and not that much different from us today.



(1) If you don't think archaic hominids were very intelligent, try replicating sophisticated bi-facial points in your backyard with a hammerstone. An no fair wearing gloves or protective lenses!!! :shock:
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby uniface » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:45 pm

Hammerstone only ?

I've done just enough of it to realise that the tough part is getting it from a nodule to a preform. It's not rocket science, but it does take practice visualising the optimum reduction sequence and getting it done.

It's much easier making endscrapers :lol:
uniface
 

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:20 am

shawomet wrote: My masters thesis involved Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I do very clearly understand the dynamics of paradigm shifts in science. Specifically, I examined the thesis developed by Nobel prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, one of the founders of modern psychiatry, and entitled "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle in Nature", and examined the published responses to that essay and examined the development as a case study supporting Kunh's thesis for the dynamics of paradigm shift in the history of changing ideas in Western science. (Although it really boils down to one thing: new ideas take hold when the last defenders of the old ideas pass away).


WOW. :shock:
You mean they actually give out degrees in bullshiting now? :evil:
Well, shawomet, you certainly are qualified. :twisted:
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby oldarchystudent » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:16 am

An interesting synopsis of the history of the place as an archaeological site here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdA7f0lFd6E

It would be good to know how accurate this youtube video is, because there are never any lies on youtube, right? Still, I found it helpful in summarizing the excavation history.
My karma ran over my dogma.
User avatar
oldarchystudent
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby oldarchystudent » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:33 am

I see Calico mentioned above. I hadn't heard of this site but I love the fact that they take volunteer diggers. We should all meet out there and help out!

http://www.calicodig.org/
My karma ran over my dogma.
User avatar
oldarchystudent
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby uniface » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:32 am

It's heartening to see we can do something here beside fling poo at each other :D
uniface
 

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby shawomet » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:34 am

uniface wrote:It's heartening to see we can do something here beside fling poo at each other :D


:lol: :lol: took quite a bit of scrubbing and an industrial strength shower head, but I'm clean now :roll:

The fact is, it's difficult to know how to proceed when, in the case of 3 threads, the discussion runs along these lines:

I think it's probably a good bet that the answer is white.

Reply: there you go again claiming the answer is black!! :? :?
:?

I was far too scathing I'm sure, but when one is faced repeatedly with the above disconnect, and no amount of pointing that out gets through, crap happens. This forum has intelligent and thoughtful posters willing to talk about things outside mainstream opinion, etc. I may not be able to post threads without being attacked as a "stalker" or whatever. If so, in the future, I'll try harder to ignore irrelevant observations designed to provoke. And perhaps civil discussion will result. Again, the above illustrated disconnect is difficult to work around if it isn't recognized by both parties involved.
Last edited by shawomet on Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
shawomet
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby shawomet » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:44 am

oldarchystudent wrote:I see Calico mentioned above. I hadn't heard of this site but I love the fact that they take volunteer diggers. We should all meet out there and help out!

http://www.calicodig.org/


Sounds like a fun time! Good one stop page for Calico. Leakey was pretty much raked over the coals, at least by some colleagues, for taking the site, "artifacts", and age seriously. From the page you posted:

THE PROBLEMS OF CALICO: SOME BACKGROUND THOUGHTS

by Louis S.B. Leakey (excerpted from Dr. Leakey’s keynote address at the International Conference on the Calico Mountains Excavations held in San Bernardino, California, October 22-25, 1970)

I want to give you some background thoughts and ideas in connection with the work that’s being carried out at Calico.

First, I want to elaborate briefly on the question of what qualifies as an archaeological site in a geological context. Most of the archaeological sites of the Middle and Lower Pleistocene are sites in a geological context. It is only in recent years that such archaeological sites have been found under conditions more than just in a geological context, but as a living floor. Living floors of those remote periods are few and far between, and when you get one in a geological context, you are very lucky. I would remind you that more than 90% of the archaeological sites of the Middle and Lower Paleolithic of Europe and Africa are not living floors.

Early man had to live near running water, and subsequently the artifacts and the bones that he left behind on the banks of streams and lakes were carried by water action into adjacent river gravels and other fluviatile deposits. Almost all of the early sites of France and England. We seldom have the sites where they actually lived, but you suddenly find a concentration of artifacts in the terrace gravel. The original living site was not far away on the bank, and over the years after the site was abandoned, the artifacts were carried down from the living floor on the bank into the gravels.

That, as I see it, is the position of Calico. We haven’t found where man lived on the fan. Presumably, the fan had water at different points at different times. Water comes down over one part of the fan one year and then shifts slightly to a different part of the fan. The fan was not built up by water deposition alone, but much of it was formed by massive mud flow. The fan deposits are not a great mass of stones that moved down together, but are mixed up with sands and gravels.

Man lived on the then surface of the fan as it was building up, and subsequently, these artifacts, or some of them, got washed down by water action into certain parts of the fan at limited points adjacent to the living floor. In my view, on that ground alone, the Calico excavation is every bit as much an archaeological site as the classic sites; of France and England.

Next I want to discuss briefly the questions of what nature can do and what nature cannot do in simulating human workmanship. I speak on this subject as one who has done a great deal of study on it. Back in 1923 I met Hazeldine Warren and Reid Moir who were concerned over this question of what nature can do. I personally participated in work at various places with both of them.

Nature can simulate humanly-struck flakes with widely diffused bulbs. A site with flakes of this type is found in Darmsden, England. At first I supported Reid Moir in his belief that Darmsden was a site with human culture. But when I went there myself and investigated and excavated, I found evidence which satisfied me that this was not the work of man, because again and again when a cobble was found from which one, two, or three flakes had been knocked off, nearly always you could find the flakes that came off it within a very short distance. The flakes had been knocked off, but not carried far away. Instead they were rather close to the cobbles from which they had been struck.

In the sub-crag deposits where flakes were being pushed off, in the main by earth movements, one found the lumps from which the flakes had been pushed. And there, a short distance away, sometimes even touching it, were the flakes that had come off. Those pressure flakes are very distinctive, and as Hazeldine Warren said in 1923, they cannot be mistaken for human work except by those who do not understand technology.

One gets situations on pebble beaches where, under storm conditions, stones are hurled at each other, and a certain number hit each other in such a way that a flake comes off. But the number is infinitesimal and there is a uniform scatter over a length of beach–not a concentration in a small area with nothing elsewhere.

I want you to realize that in claiming that the artifacts which we have found could not be the work of nature, I have from the beginning taken all these things into consideration. Any one single flake just possibly could be nature made. But they are in a concentration in a limited area, and since they are not found at other places in the fan where we have put down pits, then it is more convincing still.

Finally there is the point that nature is never selective. At places where you get natural flaking, the flakes have been pushed off good material and bad material. A flake from a lump of chert that is riddled with holes and full of irregularities is pushed off by earth pressure, and the resulting flake is, therefore, also full of holes and other irregularities. One of the most striking things about the Calico specimens, even with the cortex flakes, is that, almost without exception, they are not flakes struck off a piece of chert of poor quality. They are flakes struck off a selected piece of chert, or a piece of jasper. There are other materials besides chert and jasper available in that deposit, and mostly they do not have flakes removed from them, except for a few of limestone. This selectivity is something nature never does. Nature splits off flakes at random. Man knocks off flakes for a specific purpose.

The next thing I wish to consider is an important one indeed; that is the problem of age. I have consistently refused to say more about Calico than that it is over 50,000 years old, and I have consistently warned the crew that it might be a great deal more. The safe thing is to say that it is over fifty thousand years beyond the range of carbon dating. I know that there are those who believe the fan is so old that it couldn’t contain artifacts. That I don’t believe, because the artifacts are there! The possibility of a great age should not interfere with the interpretation of facts.

Supposing that this site proves to be infinitely older than 50,000 years, what does it mean? Does it mean that the site is impossible? Can you therefore write off the other evidence? Remember, it is not so long ago we thought the earliest known stone tools in the world were about 500,000 years old. Then we pushed that back and back, and now we have sites, published and accurately documented, at more than 2.6 million, with flakes and stone tools not very different from those here.

There are two questions at Calico, and the two, if they are both true, must fit each other, because truth cannot conflict with truth. The first truth is that you have a fan of very considerable age. It may possibly be of more than one age, but nevertheless, even the younger part of the true fan is not young in terms of American prehistory. One problem that we have to solve is the probable age of that part of the fan that is yielding the artifacts.

The antiquity of the deposits is one fact. The second is that it contains specimens that certainly look as though they are man-made, I don’t think that anyone who sees the total assemblage, or even the representative assemblage I put out for your examination, will not be impressed by the evidence. I suggest that you should consider all the factors and see what it says to you. And I tell you I believe it represents unquestionable evidence that man was living at the time this particular part of the fan was accumulating and being built up.

What this means in the terms of the age of man in the Americas we’ve got to resolve. There cannot be conflict between geological truth and artifact truth, and consequently we’ve got to find how to accommodate the two.

We are just at the beginning of archaeological investigation, not the end. And all I ask of you, my colleagues, is to consider the evidence with an open mind, and then, form your own judgements. But please, don’t be influenced by anything but the truth!
shawomet
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Hueyatlaco: Anomolies and Orthodoxy

Postby Cognito » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:02 am

There are two questions at Calico, and the two, if they are both true, must fit each other, because truth cannot conflict with truth. The first truth is that you have a fan of very considerable age. It may possibly be of more than one age, but nevertheless, even the younger part of the true fan is not young in terms of American prehistory. One problem that we have to solve is the probable age of that part of the fan that is yielding the artifacts.

The dating of the alluvial fan at Calico was never resolved to the satisfaction of most archaeologists. There is simply too much doubt involved with the stability of the site over time. Since there were 'flows', the fan has been likened to a big cement mixer that could have turned over a few times, compromising the dating of the dig pits. "Could have" doesn't give anyone a good feeling.

The antiquity of the deposits is one fact. The second is that it contains specimens that certainly look as though they are man-made, I don’t think that anyone who sees the total assemblage, or even the representative assemblage I put out for your examination, will not be impressed by the evidence. I suggest that you should consider all the factors and see what it says to you. And I tell you I believe it represents unquestionable evidence that man was living at the time this particular part of the fan was accumulating and being built up.

Chris Hardaker has done excellent work in demonstrating that many of the artifacts recovered from the dig pits are human-made. Further, a small portion of those tools recovered from the dig pits have been heat-treated and, as such, can be dated by TL (thermoluminescence) upon submittal to a lab (which takes money). One thing the Calico people did right from Day #1 was document the provenance of all finds within the dig pits. Therefore, the alluvial fan will be accurately dated as soon as the group running the show decides to send the heat-treated tools for dating.
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

PreviousNext

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron