Re: Bad Archaeology

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:27:46 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

On Sep 1, 5:58 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well why don't you guys question why man stayed the same for 180,000
years and then all of a sudden "got smart" a mere 10,600 years ago?

We did. We found that the question was based on false premises, and
therefore had to be re-thought, and new work done based on the new,
better questions.

Can i get a link to that?


If you think folks got suddenly smart 10,600 ypb (which, btw, appears
to me to be suspiciously specific, and possibly based on some
authority that suggested some great change in human intellect at that
time--which didn't happen), you have not been reading mainstream
archaeology.

OK what's the date you guys are giving now?

I was going to say what Tom has said. Your statement had me pretty
confused as I've not heard anyone say that. I don't know what you suggest
as smart. We do know that during the history of our ancestors that was
were periods of hundreds of thousands of years with virtually no change in
lithic technology. But we also know of very ancient well made spears.

Anytime a person presents evidence that a stone structure or species
domestication or agricultural technology might have been around before
that date, the tenure holders seem to scramble like busy ants to
disprove it with every ounce of energy they can muster.

Links?



It
wasn't the first time in the life of Hss that the glaciers had allowed
travel and communication.

So?

So if agriculture wasn't practical or needed until the glaciers
melted, why don't we find agriculture at 27,000 ybp?
Mainstreamers have it at 8000 BC.
But right before 8000 BC, thousands upon thousands of coastlines
disappeared and even a whole continent. Is it so hard to believe that
agriculture started earlier on the coasts and was erased, hence the
"seeming" emergence right after the inland move of culture?

Do you know the areas where agriculture was supposed to have started? Or
the reasons given for it?



Look, if we are going to wind up knowing anything useful about
Sundaland or any other place of human habitation, it will come as the
result of good archaeologists doing good archaeology. It will most
assuredly not happen as a result of 'bad archaeology' done by
archaeologists of any descriptor.

I guess I'm just frustrated at not being able to find good, solid
debunking of so-called "ooparts."

Which ones?
The ones that actually seem to have some merit are just ignored by the
mainstream archeologists because they don't fit in with the 'tried and
true" findings.



If you feel your own ox gored by the writers of the 'Bad Archaeology'
site, it might behoove you to back up a tic and see whether something
in their site might have hit too close to home for your comfort.

The site is just too vague and sweeping to do that to me at present.

It's brand new, wait a while.



And then, perhaps, you might spare another tic or twelve thinking
about why that is, and what it says about your preferred way of
knowing. No one says that science is the only path to knowledge. To
the chagrin of some here and elsewhere, I as a Christian see at least
a couple of other really fine ways to know.

But I don't demand that my spiritual path provide answers to things
like the age of the universe, or what humans did with their big brains
before the malls opened.


I know why I am passionate about these things. I see closed minded
skeptics as being just as bad as fruitcakes and sensationalists like
Sitchen and Han***. Why do these unbelievers want to take all of the
magic and mystery out of life so badly, when magic and mystery are
obviously a big part of life that will never go away?

By definition you cannot be a close-minded skeptic.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Quantcast