Re: Why are the sites in North and South America with claims for great age all on the East side?

Eric Stevens wrote, 24/05/2008 11:33:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 11:12:26 +0200, Peter Alaca
<p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lee Olsen wrote, 24/05/2008 04:08:
On May 23, 7:00Â pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On May 22, 10:00 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On May 21, 5:45 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On May 20, 11:14�pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On May 20, 6:43 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
� � � � And as I predict, now that it is acceptable to find sites that old people
will start finding them. This one was sort of a crap shoot digging as deep as
possible and then finding something. When one digs down to the right age why
waste time digging deeper instead of spreading out from first site? You "know"
there is nothing to find at a deeper level.
Genetic mutations are increasingly favoring a later, rather than earlier date for
occupation south of the ice sheets.
�Archaeologists do not find as much initial evidence �as erosion,
which is not depth specific.
� � � � Yes but a guy finding an arrowhead finds an arrowhead. Unless a pro sees it
that is all it is. And before now simply dismissing it was the only thing to do.
I'm referring to every major find made in this state and in this
country, USA. After  sites are found initially by lay people, it is
only then the archys get involved. Do I need to shout to get this
across to you?  Archaeologists find nearly nothing  of importance on
their own.
    That is a statement contrary to reality.
"initially"
 "major"
Got it? I'm not talking about anything but the major finds.
    I said contrary to reality. Live with it.
Who's reality, your lip service?
    Nor is there a point in going any further as a rational response would be
been to show I was wrong rather than retreating to a word game.
Guess you missed the evidence:

Major archaeological finds made in Washington:
[...]
And you wrote: "Archaeologists find nearly nothing
of importance on their own."

Please explain why you see a contradiction.

The statement is wrong because archaeologists
/do/ find important things all the time on their own.



Of course early archaeologists were nothing more than looters
paid by museums, so we can't count those.

Does this also apply to Washington archaeologists?

Possibly, as long as they were early.


I meant: 'also pply only ...



Eric Stevens

.

Quantcast