Re: the figurine of Calixtahuaca, and the Prof. of Anthropology

On May 23, 10:45 am, "johansson" <1732johans...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
benlizross <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:46537080.1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> johansson wrote:

<benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i

diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:1179867245.719711.224...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



ps.com...
On May 22, 6:36 pm, "johansson" <1732johans...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Some here still say they haven't seen the url:s which I sent to the
group
re. the Roman figurine found in Calixtahuaca. No doubt they never
looked
into all the url:s I sent. One of them led to Prof. Dr Michael E Smith
who
is by far the most respected ones of those who tries hard to speak
against
the figurine being of Roman origin.

I guess it's fair to give Prof Smith's background before I start to
discuss
his articles in this question.
here is his own homepage:http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/
I don't know why 'our' own excellent 'Hu' haven't refered to Prof
Smith in
the article on Hu's page where the figurine is discussed. I can't say
that
I
am surprised since most of the articles presented by Prof Smith are
rather
late.

Anyhow here is one of the url:s which anyone reading the first article
of
mine should have hard missing:http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/

This is the same as the one above.

While I don't go into the details regarding the thermoluminescence
dates
which Prof Smith tries to make so much of, he as many naysayers missed
the
full report and many scholarly articles strengthen the opinion
presented
by
Romeo H Hristov, I can't help finding Prof Smith's views presented
here
and
inhttp://www.famsi.org/reports/01024/section02.htm(alsoin other famsi
reports) a bit odd....
for example from the url above: "The only surviving illustration of
the
burials is an engraving shown here in Figure 9, taken from García
Payón's
(1941b) brief article."
BUT
that's not true:
It's very very easy to find at least the faksimil edition from 1974 of
the
work edited in 1936.....

the title of the first work
García Payón, ZONA ARQUEOLOGICA DE TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA Y LOS
MATLATZINCAS.
edited 1936

(the faksimile copy):
García Payón, ZONA ARQUEOLOGICA DE TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA Y LOS
MATLATZINCAS.
Primera Parte. Edición facsimilar de la de 1936 preparada por M
Edited by México, Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México (No.
29),
1974

Quote from the URL you just gave us:

"José García Payón failed to adequately publish the results of his
fieldwork at Calixtlahuaca. The most important of his publications are
brief articles on ceramics and burials (García Payón 1941a, b). He
published the first volume of a planned multi-volume report (García
Payón 1936), but this book consists of ethnohistory and general
information about the Toluca Valley, with next to nothing on the
excavations."

Thus, your suggestion that Smith either ignored or was unaware of the
1936 publication is refuted by the very text you refer us to! Who do
you expect to deceive? Or are you deceiving yourself?

Ross Clark

IEJ: if you followed the url mentioned above to the other pages you
would
have known that Smith tries to make believe he and his students tried
very
hard to find the documents and/or reports from 1930's digging. That
seems
very unlikely that he spent so many hours, days and weeks as he tells in
one
of the other pages in the url lacking knowledge of the report which been
out
since 1936 and also without finding the faksimile edited in 70's. Such
poor
research I can't say I can call excellent.
/Inger E

Apparently you don't read my posts any more than you read your own
alleged sources or URLs. This is not about "other pages", or about what
seems to you "unlikely", or about your personal opinion of Smith's
research skills. You claimed that Smith did not mention the 1936 report
and 1974 reprint. I pointed out that on the very page you pointed us to,
he did in fact mention both publications. You were wrong.

In the broader perspective, you made a false statement about Smith in an
attempt to discredit his scholarship, since he does not support the
Roman or Viking or whatever ancient origin you favour for this figurine.
It's just another example of your standard method of claiming access to
realms of evidence unknown to those who disagree with you. The only
unusual aspect of this is that you apparently unwittingly posted a URL
to a document which plainly shows your statement to be false.

Ross Clark

NO Ross,
either you can't read what I written, or at least you are trying your best
pretending you can't.
Smith stated one thing - the photos taken at the excavation presented in the
1936 edition as well as in the faksimile show Smith's statement to be a
false one.
So my statement as written after I been informed by one Mexican from the
area who immigrated to Sweden living now in my neithborhood stands.

I take it that neither you nor Prof Smith have been taught in photo-analyse.
That's sad because even if you o n l y had had your photo-analyse education
during your military service you would have had at least the basic skill of
how to read, interpret including date season, month time during day and how
to compare photos with diagrams to get a more complete picture of in this
case an excavation then Prof Smith seems to believe or at least try to make
believed was the case.

Inger E

Inger E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, Inger, this is not about "photo-analyse" either.
Here is the quote from you:

QUOTE FROM INGER:

It's sad that so many including American (hmmm) Journals dealing with
archaeology and/or anthropology as well as some of the naysayers, no
matter
if they are Ph.D or Professors,
tried to make believe that there aren't any correctly published
documentation or report from the excavation. Some even tried to make
believe
that García Payón didn't publish anything before 1961....
As so many times before when non-English scholarly works and/or
articles
been published the very fact that they haven't been translated and
edited in
America seems to cause more than one distingueshed Professor and Ph.D
problem......
Anyhow García Payón published a work dealing with excavation in
question in
1936 contrary to what Prof Michael E Smith tries to make believe the
work is
easy to find at least in a faksimile copy.... next time he discussed
the
finding was in an article 1941.... but of course that was during
WWII.....
anyhow here comes the title of the first work
García Payón, ZONA ARQUEOLOGICA DE TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA Y LOS
MATLATZINCAS.
edited 1936

(the faksimile copy):
García Payón, ZONA ARQUEOLOGICA DE TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA Y LOS
MATLATZINCAS.
Primera Parte. Edición facsimilar de la de 1936 preparada por M
Edited by México, Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México (No.
29),
1974

So the distingueshed Prof Smith and his students seems to have missed
that
one as well as the article of 1941 and some later ones up to 1961
which was
the only they seem to have been able locating a copy of. How is it
possible
for them to have missed???????

END OF QUOTE FROM INGER

Now what I have just pointed out is that Smith did not "miss" these
publications -- in fact the very URL you pointed to shows that he is
well aware of them. That's all. You were wrong. Now be a big girl and
admit it.

Ross Clark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Line Counter in report
    ... I have follow your previous suggestion in Point one where I created a report ... for Surname to have Smith, Mason and Victor on the Surname Header. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • Re: SV: the figurine of Calixtahuaca, and the Prof. of Anthropology
    ... re. the Roman figurine found in Calixtahuaca. ... One of them led to Prof. Dr Michael E Smith who ... full report and many scholarly articles strengthen the opinion presented ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • SV: the figurine of Calixtahuaca, and the Prof. of Anthropology
    ... re. the Roman figurine found in Calixtahuaca. ... One of them led to Prof. Dr Michael E Smith who ... full report and many scholarly articles strengthen the opinion presented ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Macro to respond to Empty Field or Control
    ... But I would say the On Format event property of the Report Section where these controls are located would be the applicable place. ... Mind you, you said that "Mary B Smith is a control concatenated", which I'm not sure what that means... ... As an aside, 'and' is a Reserved Word, and as such should not be used as the name of a field or control. ... John A Smith And Mary B Smith ...
    (microsoft.public.access.macros)
  • Re: Line Counter in report
    ... possible to work entirely from what your Report output is. ... Do you have "Smith", ... On the head of each column is the surname, Smith in Column1, Mason in ... At the moment, the running sum, show line 1 under Smith where there is ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)