Re: Jomon References

On Sep 13, 11:25 am, "Digger" <p.du...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189693810.030403.37480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So why not take the extra effort and market to the Discovery Channel
too, and therefore make some cashola?

Some do. See how people like Mike Pitts have managed to popularise the work
he has done at Stonehenge, (not that he is actually engaged in the latest
research!).

I think Han*** gets away with alot of stuff because of the use of
"kept" terms in archeology and the slow process by which the
information filters down to the common public. Alot of those articles
that are available in the library (where does the 2.5 kid 9 to 5er
get the time to visit libraries, anyway?) or in a subscription service
(costs money and the layman only wants this one article), ...>

Would these be the same people who manage to subscribe to pay TV services?
It's a matter of priorities.

OK but it's not all their fault. They are led to believe that consumer
publications and news programs are authorities on news and research.


To many of us, the sheer fact that what is presented to us as fact
doesn't make sense, is evidence enough that the timeline is skewed. We
know that something is missing because things just don't add up with
the textbook timeline.

When things really don't add up you will find just as many "real" archies
asking questions as you will "fringers".

For instance, when a text book says that agriculture started
independently and seperately in Korea at 15,000 and Turkey in 10,000
and mesopotamia in 8,000 then we think "How can that be?"

Why shouldn't it be? Why shouldn't people of similar intellect presented
with similar problems in what are often similar environments come up with
similar solutions?

Well for one because they didn't. Rice cultivation in Korea happened
before the end of the last ice age.
And because they were presented with the same problems 20,000 years
earlier when they had the same intellect and supposedly didn't come up
with the same solutions then (until the islands around new guinea
which isn't common knowledge: no one seems to have gotten the memo.)


Wouldn't it be better to say that "The first evidence of SUSTAINED
agriculture was in Korea at 15,000?"

That is exactly the sort of thing that most responsible archaeologists WOULD
say. In fact, they would probably say something along the lines of..."At
present, the earliest evidence we know of for sustained agriculture beyond
the realm of small-scale garden plots appears to be in the regions of Korea
and the 'fertile crescent', perhaps as long ago as 15,000 BP. However, we
continue to investigate this question and accept that new information is
coming to light frequently."

Can you give me some links to the evidence of small-scale garden plots
before 15,000 please?
Would be very valuable in my research.



Part of the problem here lies with what you choose to define as agriculture.

Here I am, seeing a sunken fertile land in the the Indonesian
archipelego, with rice agriculture spreading north from it and tuber
agriculture spreading south from it and pottery and sedentary fishing
villages spreading south-east from it and someone like Doug is telling
me that 130 meters plus Java's current elevation is not a mountain
(well it's a pretty damn big foothill then)

One man's mountain is another man's molehill!

At least Han*** recognizes things like that and points it out, though
he admittedly takes his derivitave speculations too far in the pursuit
of an agenda or a fat wallet.

Which therefore undermines any claims he might make to credibility

Why? Surely you are not saying that there is not one single verifiable
fact in any of Han***'s work. Why throw the baby out with the bath
water?



However, alot of that speculation might be curbed if someone would say
"Sure, it came from pre-existent knowledge. It would be very hard for
man to gather plants for 180,000 years without realizing that when you
dig them up and through them somewhere, that they sometimes tend to
grow in the place you threw them as well as the place you got them
from.

But that is exactly what many archaeologists think people were doing
throughout the Mesolithic and, possibly, through the Paleolithic too. Why
does it take a "fringer" to point that out? You will find these sorts of
issues discussed quite openly and sensibly within the huge body of
literature that is widely available for anyone to read. If you want to read
some serious research that is written in a fairly accessible way, try
looking at the work of Professor Steven Mithen for starters. Here are four
links covering various aspects of human origins for you to get started
with...

http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Evolution-Prehistory-Theoretical-Arc...

http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Neanderthals-Steven-Mithen/dp/075382051...

http://www.amazon.com/Prehistory-Mind-Cognitive-Origins-Religion/dp/0...

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ice-Global-History-000-5000/dp/0674019997...

Thanks a bunch!



You could also have a look for work by Chris Stringer and Milford Wolpoff
just to give you a taste of some of the debates that continue to rage within
"archie" circles.

Then maybe when someone finds a 400,000 year old stone base hut in
Libya we aren't looking at the archeologists and saying "Told you so."

But the most likely people to find such a thing would BE the very
archaeologists you so criticise and I can assure you that if they did they
would be just as excited as anyone else!

Well, admittedly, they did find it, and they were excited. But for
some reason you haven't heard about it yet.





.

Quantcast