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

On May 25, 6:23 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug Weller wrote, 25/05/2008 14:25:





On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:07:37 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald
wrote:

Peter Alaca wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote, 25/05/2008 00:54:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 11:59:39 +0200, Peter Alaca
<p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

   --- snip ----

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.
The operative word is 'nearly'. Lee Olsen was trying to make the point
that the majority of finds are not made by archaeologist but by people
digging for other purposes. Presumably archaeologists are later called
in to investigate the finds.

It makes sense that the set of all archaeological finds is larger than
the set of archaeological finds made by archaeologists.

But most important things are found by archaeologists.
This is the key observation. It may be true (though I won't
concede that point just yet*) in most cases of important
archaeological finds, that non-archaeologists saw *something* first.

In the UK, most archaeology I believe is 'rescue archaeology', done in
advance of new developments, roads, etc. and has little to do with
non-archaeologists finding anything.

Exactly. And the land is not scattered
with arrow heads.
But what are major archaeological finds?

In the context of this thread topic and digging past Clovis levels,
there aren't any.

Hoards of gold or settlements?




--
p.a.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages