Re: Proven facts (Re: Savanna hunters run down kudus (Re: AAT all washed up(WARNING: graphic photo)

On Jul 24, 12:23 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 24-07-2007 15:24, in artikel
1185283467.814162.72...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Doughboy,
Chimps, bonobos, orang, and G live near rivers and swamps. Some
occasionally wade for food in shallow water. This does not make them
"littoral" in any meaningful evolutionary sense. If being "near" seas,
lakes, and rivers = AAT, then why do chimps and gorillas exist at
all?


PAs usu.look only to the fossil & archeological evidence when they
reconstruct human evolution, but fossils are scarse & incomplete, fragmented
pieces of bone without soft parts, frequently of uncertain relation to
living species; often, species, age & sex are unknown; sometimes the
geological age & paleo-environment are uncertain.


Liar, you made that up, just like you make up coconuts, oysters, semi-
aquatic mountain beavers that don't exist, except in your delusional
imagination. What does extant G wading have to do with where PAs
look?


The fossil record can
provide important insights, but PAs (understandably) tend to overstate its
importance for reconstructing our past.

Loons overstate their imaginations.


The comparative method ­ comparing
the behaviour, anatomy, physiology, DNA etc. of living animals ­ is much
more secure, systematic & reliable.

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5

by Garrett Fagan
"There appears to be confusion in the alternative camp (among both its
proponents and supporters) as to how archaeology as a discipline
works. It is regularly described as a dogmatic orthodoxy and/or as an
exercise in unfounded conjecture based entirely on professional
practitioners' "opinions." On these bases, the speculative writers
present themselves as a valid alternative to conventional archaeology
and aggressively assert their right to their "opinions," which are no
less valid than those of conventional scholars.
In this article I wish to lay out some first principles of
archaeological research, so that all may be clear on several
fundamental points of difference that separate the conventional side
from the alternative side in this debate.
FIRST PRINCIPLE: THE REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE
Archaeology is the study of the physical remains from the past. Where
there are no physical remains, there can be no archaeology. The most
basic principle in archaeology, therefore, is that the discipline
requires evidence to function.
This is what stands at the root of scholars' constant and consistent
demand for evidence when faced with new hypotheses. It is not some
sort of pedantic cop-out as it often seems to be perceived by
alternative supporters, it is not based on a desire to crush new ideas
or enforce any imagined orthodoxy: it is the expression of the most
basic requirement of archaeology -- "Show me the evidence upon which
your hypothesis relies." Professional archaeologists ask it of
themselves constantly. If the answer comes back negative, or there are
only excuses as to why there is no evidence, archaeologists very
quickly lose interest and move on. Because without evidence,
archaeology cannot function.
A sub-principle of the basic requirement of evidence is that no amount
of excuse-making for the complete absence of supporting evidence for a
theory compensates for that absence. In the eyes of archaeologists, if
you have no evidence, you have no case. Supposition, assertion,
innuendo, and speculation do not constitute archaeological evidence
and cannot be supplanted in its stead.
These are not unreasonable positions to take as they prevent the
discipline from being overwhelmed by any number of baseless
suppositions, extreme possibilities, and unsubstantiated claims. By
definition, such assertions are devoid of evidence and so are bypassed
as archaeologists continue to focus on those matters for which
evidence does exist. People are perfectly at liberty to pursue any
claims they wish and to search for evidence to support those claims,
but until evidence actually surfaces, archaeology will pay them no
attention. And this is perfectly correct, otherwise the discipline
would be swamped by speculation and futile arguments over uncheckable
beliefs.
Thus, calls for the abandonment of the conventional reconstruction of
history (founded in evidence) in favor of an "alternative" scenario
(for which no evidence exists) are hollow and are rightly resisted.
This is not out of arrogance, nor is it based in some claim to have a
monopoly on the truth or to be in possession of the whole truth. It
stems from the principle of the requirement of evidence and the
conclusions drawn from it.
A "history" divorced from the evidence is not a history at all, but a
mythology.
SECOND PRINCIPLE: THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE
The second principle is the nature of archaeological evidence itself.
After 150 years of practice, what constitutes archaeological evidence
is clear. People are messy. Communities of people are very messy. For
the archaeologist, this is a fortunate circumstance, since people will
leave physical remains of all sorts behind them. Even people living in
wooden shacks or caves will leave heaps of animal bones, rubbish pits,
stone and wooden tools, rudimentary artwork, burials, post-holes, and
so forth. Even small bands of nomads can be traced (albeit with
difficulty) in the physical record. To date, hundreds and hundreds of
human cultures have been identified in the archaeological record at
thousands upon thousands of sites all across the planet, and even
under the sea. These range from the massively sophisticated and
impressive (ancient China, Egypt, or the Roman Empire) to the paltry
and primitive (cave-dwellers of tens of thousands of years ago).
Whatever their circumstances, however, people leave evidence and that
evidence is of a recognizable type.
So, when archaeologists encounter a "theory" for which not one
verifiable object, never mind a site or a town or a burial, is
adduced, they are rightly suspicious. In museums around the world,
artifacts from human cultures spanning tens of thousands of years fill
the display cases, from bone pins to weapons of war. Think for a
moment what a display case for the Lost Civilization (LC) would look
like. It would be empty.
To compensate for this total lack of typical archaeological evidence,
the alternative camp manufactures "evidence" of its own -- star-
alignments, geologically-based archaeological dating, number games
with proportions, superficial interpretation of complex myth cycles,
and so on. However, this is not evidence but speculation. Without
corroboration from the target culture, such material is destined
always to be speculation. In some cases (many documented in other
articles at this site) such alternative speculation actually runs
contrary to the evidence. Archaeologists and historians will always
support the evidence over speculation -- to do otherwise is to close
the door on history and open the door on myth.
Aside from manufacturing evidence, the alternative camp attempts (a)
to explain why no hard evidence for the LC exists and (b) to excise
familiar monuments (such as the Sphinx or Tiwanaku) from their
archaeological and historical contexts (as fixed by the evidence, not
by the "opinions" of experts) and to re-assign them to the LC. But
excuses do not compensate for a lack of evidence (see above) and
purloining artifacts from known cultures to compensate for a total
absence of verifiable evidence for the LC is a cheap trick that
ignores their firm archaeological context.
For the real archaeologist, context is paramount. Context tells the
archaeologist a lot about individual finds, such as where (and so
when) they appear at a site, whether they evolved from earlier forms
at the site or were imported, what their relationship was to other
finds at the site (were they in a tomb, or found in a house, or hidden
in a public building, and so on). Entire sites also have a context
within the wider culture that built them. It stands to reason, then,
that any artifact studied without context (such as those looted by
treasure hunters) can offer only very limited information. The
"alternative" propensity to excise individual artifacts from their
context (be it the Sphinx, an entire city such as Tiwanaku, or an
object or image) and draw spectacular conclusions from them
transgresses one of the most basic procedures of the real
archaeologist.
Archaeological evidence, then, is recognizable and consistent the
world over. To date, the LC hypothesis can offer not a single scrap of
such evidence in support of its contentions. Its attempts to
manufacture evidence on the basis of the writers' uncorroborated
speculations or to appropriate sites or artifacts from familiar
cultures should be recognized for what they are: desperate attempts to
find something, anything, to support the initial hypothesis, even if
that means ignoring huge swathes of countervailing material and the
fixed historical contexts in which artifacts stand.
On the basis of this behavior alone, the LC hypothesis is rightly
rejected.
THIRD PRINCIPLE: INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE

Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research

The interpretation of archaeological evidence, especially for cultures
which have left us no written record, is a difficult business. The
data are often open to multiple interpretations, and methodological
debates rage within archaeological circles as to how the data should
even be approached. It is beyond the scope of this article to detail
such debates, but one example will suffice: does the application of
interpretative models drawn from anthropology or sociology explain the
evidence or impose a predetermined explanation on it? It is hard to
say. Often two or more competing hypotheses will be equally
convincing, resulting in camps of supporters forming around them. Only
the continued testing of each and further investigation can resolve
such conflicts.
So, while interpretative uncertainty and debate certainly prevail
among archaeologists, there is one respect in which they are all
united. Their hypotheses, to be convincing, must take all pertinent
data into account. This is the third principle of archaeology:
Hypotheses must respect the evidence. Any hypothesis that runs
demonstrably against the evidence will be instantly rejected. Any
hypothesis that is based on a selective presentation of the evidence
will also be rejected, and for a very obvious reason. Who is to say
that the hypothesis is not disproven by the evidence not taken into
account?
The reason archaeologists insist that hypotheses take all pertinent
data into account is that they are interested first and foremost in
getting as close as possible to the truth about what happened in the
past, even if that truth often evades us or if our understanding is
necessarily incomplete. Given this motivation, it is clear that a
hypothesis founded in a selective presentation of evidence is
unreliable and therefore not a good guide to the truth.
Archaeological hypotheses, to get even a preliminary hearing, must
therefore do a good job of explaining all the evidence pertinent to
the phenomenon the hypothesis seeks to explain. If it does not, it
will be rejected.
Against this background, the alternative focus on supposed "anomalies"
takes on a new aspect. Given our patchy and scattered physical
database from the ancient past, it is only to be expected that there
will be gaps in our knowledge or bits of evidence that remain outside
hypotheses that otherwise do an excellent job of making sense of the
data. By focusing on these "anomalies" (many of which evaporate when
investigated) and amassing examples of them, the alternative camp
seeks to divert attention away from the rule and direct it at the
exception. Their own hypotheses, formulated to "explain" these
anomalies, are therefore founded in a collection of exceptional cases
and are entirely deficient in explaining the mass of evidence left us
by the target culture. This, it seems to me, is one reason why their
propositions so often run contrary to the evidence and end up leading
us nowhere -- the alternative writers are working off the wrong data
set, and the one least likely to produce reliable results.
Professional archaeologists, by the way, look at anomalies as just
that. They reserve judgment about them until such a time as new
evidence or more sophisticated modes of analysis can throw light on
them and explain both the anomalies AND the rest of the pertinent data
together. Until then, they consider an obsessive focus on anomalies as
an unproductive waste of time."


The main drawback of the comparative
approach is probably the insufficient data available for so many species.

The main drawback is loons that make up mythical creatures like semi-
aquatic mountain beavers.



<snip ridicullous rubbish

.

Loading