 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / October 2004Return of the 13 Headless Melanesians
Found this on Google Groups, but it never turned up on my server for some reason.... Qiwi wrote: >The recent excavation of 13 headless skeletons at Teouma, near Port >Vila in Vanuatu seems to have passed without comment..... Remiss of me not to comment. I visited the site in July, before the skeletons came to light, but it had already produced the finest Lapita sherd yet found in Vanuatu. >As the NZ Herald article pointed out: >"Fifty years of research have so far uncovered about 200 recorded >Lapita sites, but often the predominantly coastal sites were in poor >condition.....of those, only two...had anything more than one or two >burials or parts of skeletons.... the Teouma site also contained >obsidian flakes from New Guinea and the remains of food, pigs, >chicken, shellfish, fish, and fruit bats." >"The skeletons were probably buried intact and the skulls removed >after decomposition, as a few teeth were found where the heads would >have been. The skulls would have been displayed elsewhere, as was >common practice in much of the Melanesian region until the arrival of >Christianity..." >Well, this certainly sounds promising eh Ross?? Fascinating stuff. >Hold on.... I see the "DNA analysis" will be carried out by "the >Anthropology Department at Auckland University." >Mmmm...maybe not so promising after all.... :( Chewy, you have to talk to us about this. It sounds like somebody did something bad to you a long time ago in the Anthropology Department at Auckland University. It won't get any better unless you can talk about it. You can trust me -- I don't work there any more. Was it something to do with rats? When we were talking about the rat bones, you said "they were recovered from deeply stratified sites and there is no reason to reject them, unless of course you happen to work in the anthropolgy department at Auckland University..." At the time I wondered what you meant by that. Did some rats scare you at Auckland University? Or was it that crazy woman? Don't worry, she can't hurt you now. You said you saw her on TV, at the Kaimanawa wall. Did you really see her on TV, Chewy, or are you just making up stories? You said "It was unbelievable.... I cant remember who they were exactly but they were supposedly archaeologists, probably from Auckland University." What made you think that? Are you sure it wasn't that American woman, the one that that other crazy American, David Hatcher Childress, brought with him? She was picking up psychic vibrations, or power vortices, or something, from the wall. She was pretty scary. Are you sure it wasn't her? And now the DNA...oh my god, Chewy, did they do something to your DNA?? Ross Clark > Found this on Google Groups, but it never turned up on my server for > some reason.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > skeletons came to light, but it had already produced the finest Lapita > sherd yet found in Vanuatu. Not fair Ross. You cannot use evidence as a point in here. Next thing you know we'll be discussing the latest http://www.nzarchaeology.org/netsubnews.htm > >As the NZ Herald article pointed out: > >"Fifty years of research have so far uncovered about 200 recorded [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > wondered what you meant by that. Did some rats scare you at Auckland > University? The deeply stratified claims for 'rat bones' has been proven incorrect by later and more thorough excavations.. > Or was it that crazy woman? Don't worry, she can't hurt you now. You > said you saw her on TV, at the Kaimanawa wall. Did you really see her on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And now the DNA...oh my god, Chewy, did they do something to your DNA?? Had I not just finished my cup of tea Ross you would now owe me for a new keyboard.:-)) A strange thing about that "Kaimanawa Wall dig" it happened at night, no-one officially knows how many and who. They were confronted with the hole that disproved their crazy beliefs about the 'wall; :-) Oh and no cameras ! Did some rats scare you at Auckland > University? > > Or was it that crazy woman? Don't worry, she can't hurt you now. You > said you saw her on TV, at the Kaimanawa wall. Did you really see her on > TV, Chewy, or are you just making up stories? > Ross Clark 2000 year old rats dont scare me Ross.... Only orthodox theorists have nightmares about 2000 year-old rats... As for the crazy woman...It shouldn't take long to track the footage down in the News refence library here at work... :>... : Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> said you saw her on TV, at the Kaimanawa wall. Did you really see her on :> TV, Chewy, or are you just making up stories? :> Ross Clark : 2000 year old rats dont scare me Ross.... : Only orthodox theorists have nightmares about 2000 year-old rats... LOL! : As for the crazy woman...It shouldn't take long to track the footage : down in the News refence library here at work... Sounds like a good idea! :) Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick > :>... > Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Reality is that which, when you stop believing > in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick I reviewed the footage today...the excavation was clearly staged for the cameras. The item I saw must have been on Channel 3 but the woman was still featured. It was obviously the same incident as she used the same "China here we come" line from the TV1 item. One of the ones carrying a spade was Neville Ritchie from the Department of Conservation. There was quite a gathering including amongst the observers Barry Brailsford and Hatcher-Childress. The dig certainly wasn't stratigraphic, more along the lines of the 'Keystone Cops'. > > :>... > > Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The dig certainly wasn't stratigraphic, more along the lines of the > 'Keystone Cops'. In other words, a media stunt. What date was this? Any known associates of the Dept of A*********** of A******* University involved? Ross Clark > > > :>... > Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Ross Clark Definately a media stunt in my opinion. There were a lot of observers in the item I saw but no-one from the Anthropology department of Auckland University was identified. I can only remember Brailsford, Childress and Ritchie. Although the "look out China" woman was apparently Department of Conservation as well. I could get a copy get a copy and transcribe the entire item if you like Ross... > > > > :>... > > Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > I could get a copy get a copy and transcribe the entire item if you > like Ross... Hi, Kiwi, Please do so if this isn't too much trouble. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith > > :>... > > Did some rats scare you at Auckland [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The dig certainly wasn't stratigraphic, more along the lines of the > 'Keystone Cops'. All this is quite fascinating, Qiwi... So Barry Brailsford was there as well? I wonder if he ever commented upon these proceedings? Please provide us with some more details. In particular, did the camera ever show anything of the part of the wall that was uncovered? Also, has anyone seen a photo of how the wall looks at this time -- after this strange excavation that you're describing? And what was the date of this event? Best, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith ...the excavation was clearly staged for > > the cameras. The item I saw must have been on Channel 3 but the woman > > was still featured. It was obviously the same incident as she used the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yuri. The Item I viewed went to air on the 8th of May 1996 on TVI. The following is from an article I found by Neville Ritchie of the Department of Conservation.. "I first examined the 'wall' on 7 May 1996, accompanied by Owen Wilkes (now with DoC Historic Resources in Hamilton), several Tongariro Conservancy field staff, and the TV1 news crew. Anticipating meeting only with Barry Brailsford, David Childress, and the NZ Archaeological Association's Taupo filekeeper, Perry Fletcher, at the site, we were surprised to find about 30 people gathered there.....at times it was difficult to see the rock for the people milling in front of it." Why anybody would even attempt an excavation under those conditions only confirms the totally amateur approach of all concerned. Yuri... I know the reporter, Jim Mora, who filmed the item so I can easily get a copy. > ...the excavation was clearly staged for > > > the cameras. The item I saw must have been on Channel 3 but the woman [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Why anybody would even attempt an excavation under those conditions > only confirms the totally amateur approach of all concerned. Apart from (once again) your irresistible impulse to sneer at archaeologists, what makes you think that anyone "attempted an excavation" on this occasion? Ross Clark > Yuri... > I know the reporter, Jim Mora, who filmed the item so I can easily get > a copy. > > ... what was the date of this event? > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ross Clark It depends what you mean by excavation.... Neville Ritchie and the "Look out China, here we come" woman were armed with what appeared to be your normal 'garden variety' spades. From the item I saw they excavated a hole to about waist deep in the middle and at the base of the 'wall'. There was nothing scientific about it, dirt was flung out of the hole in all directions...while the woman turns to the camera and delivers her witty comment, "Look out China here we come". I must say, as a New Zealander, I found the whole thing extremely embarrassing.. > > > ... what was the date of this event? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I must say, as a New Zealander, I found the whole thing extremely > embarrassing.. I don't blame you -- NZ TV certainly can be embarrassing. Was Paul Holmes there? I seem to remember him flying down there for some such occasion. But as for you trying to use this as another stick to beat archaeologists with - forget it. Nobody at any time ever pretended this was an excavation. Ritchie and his companion, you say, dug a hole -- presumably to give the camera crew something to film. Maybe a bit undignified for your taste, but who cares? It's just TV. What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little excavation on their own. It shouldn't be hard. It's on a public road, and I very much doubt that they've got the place under 24-hour guard. Even if you got caught, there wouldn't be much they could do to you. An unauthorized excavation like that, if it turned up something interesting, could open up the whole issue again and maybe embarrass the authorities into taking a more serious look at it. But in fact the whole place is conspicuously lacking in plausible attributes. From the descriptions, the location does not sound like a particularly natural site for a major human structure -- not on the lake or a river, or a natural height for fortification. What do people imagine it was? And as far as I've heard there has not been even a single surface find from the vicinity to suggest that it was a place where people lived and worked and built in times past. Ross Clark >What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the >believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >interesting, could open up the whole issue again and maybe embarrass the >authorities into taking a more serious look at it. I think that's pretty much what Yuri has been saying. >But in fact the whole place is conspicuously lacking in plausible >attributes. From the descriptions, the location does not sound like a >particularly natural site for a major human structure -- not on the lake >or a river, or a natural height for fortification. What do people >imagine it was? Doesn't that sort of sound like the description of the Stonehenge site? > >What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the > >believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think that's pretty much what Yuri has been saying. Maybe he has. My impression was that he was dismissing the whole of NZ as a pack of incompetents because nobody had mounted a major excavation. Personally I think we ought not to exclude the possibility that the wall-believers _have_ been in there and dug, but found nothing but more rock, and decided not to mention it.;-) > >But in fact the whole place is conspicuously lacking in plausible > >attributes. From the descriptions, the location does not sound like a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doesn't that sort of sound like the description of the Stonehenge site? In negative terms, I suppose so. Now if somebody could find more than one short stretch of "wall", and explain why they couldn't get north right... Ross Clark >> >What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the >> >believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >wall-believers _have_ been in there and dug, but found nothing but more >rock, and decided not to mention it.;-) Here's another way to go at this - char a couple of sweet potatoes on a barbie and bury them discreetly in front of the wall. On your way out, report to the park ranger that you found a Lapita stone fishhook in that same spot. Since no one in Polynesia is capable of carbon-dating accurately, that entire wall will end up being uncovered in a few days. > >> >What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the > >> >believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is capable of carbon-dating accurately, that entire wall will end up being uncovered in > a few days. Make sure that you do NOT send the sample to Waikato otherwise it won't work :-) > >What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the > >believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think that's pretty much what Yuri has been saying. This must be a first when he agreed with me on anything... :) Perhaps I should now push my luck a bit, and get out some of that material again about the Austronesian connections in the Native languages of Canada's West Coast? Well, on the second thought, better not... Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian >>What really strikes me is that in the ensuing eight years, none of the >>believers in the wall (so it seems) has gone in there to do a little [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Doesn't that sort of sound like the description of the Stonehenge site? By comparison Stonehenge is open and highly accessible. Eric Stevens > ...the excavation was clearly staged for > > > the cameras. The item I saw must have been on Channel 3 but the woman [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I know the reporter, Jim Mora, who filmed the item so I can easily get > a copy. All this is quite interesting, Qiwi... So the whole thing took place in 1996, eight years ago! But what about those photos on the Net, that we've all seen? Do you suppose they were taken before 1996? Or if they were taken after 1996, how come no evidence of that "excavation" is visible? Why wasn't that hole left as it was, if it was showing evidence advantageous to the official authorities? This is quite a puzzler... Anyone can clarify any of this, or perhaps someone has more recent photos? All these pictures of K-wall available on the Net are really quite puzzling, I must say... They are really quite ambiguous as they are, and cannot fail but create all sorts of confusion and speculation, since they allow a variety of interpretations. To all intents and purposes, the only thing they do is create unnecessary speculation and mistrust of the government. To whose advantage is this, I wonder? Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian > > > > The dig certainly wasn't stratigraphic, more along the lines of the > > > > 'Keystone Cops'. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Yuri. From the photos I have seen there is a good chance that most of them were taken from footage shot on the day of the of the News items, but before 'excavations 'began! From what Neville Ritchie said during the item was that the purpose of the 'excavation' was to determine if the 'wall' was part of a stepped stone structure as Brailsford had suggested in several items in the print media. As a result of the 'hole' Ritchie apparently, was able to determine, that this was not the case. I dont remember any clear shots of the base of the wall below ground level.... I can see I'll have to get a copy of it and post it over... > Was it something to do with rats? When we were talking about the rat bones, you said "they were recovered from deeply stratified sites and > there is no reason to reject them, unless of course you happen to work > in the anthropolgy department at Auckland University..." > ( by George, of course) The deeply stratified claims for 'rat bones' has been proven incorrect by later and more thorough excavations.. SIGH As an editor, I really take exception when anyone mis-cites an article. It does the original author no favours, and, it demonstrates either the ignorance, or the duplicity, of the person making the reference. For the record, the sites mentioned in Anderson and Higham on the Earthquakes rat bone & etc were [i:9d9a2cdb4f]never[/i:9d9a2cdb4f] "re-excavated". What Anderson/Higham do in the NZ Journal of Archaeology is : 1)Go over the [i:9d9a2cdb4f]original[/i:9d9a2cdb4f] excavation data supplied by Holdaway and Worthy. Worthy first excavated the site, then went back with Holdaway. 2) Use [i:9d9a2cdb4f]archived[/i:9d9a2cdb4f], paired samples of rat bone and Keruru bone to get new dates on two levels 0-300mm and 250 - 600mm The very interesting thing about their results on the new dates were 1) the rat dates were [b:9d9a2cdb4f][i:9d9a2cdb4f]younger[/i:9d9a2cdb4f][/b:9d9a2cdb4f] than the bird bone, and 2) all the dates were obviously screwed because, oddly enough, the researcher did not do a background test on the molecular weight filters he used for "ultrafiltration." That is, [i:9d9a2cdb4f]their[/i:9d9a2cdb4f] filters had contamination. So on page 143, these authors attempt to make a case for the lab "mistake" by guessing which dates in their series may be the most screwed up. "Two of the samples in Table 1 ([i:9d9a2cdb4f] Note: they actually mean table 2, as they are referring to the Oxford samples[/i:9d9a2cdb4f]) are both likely to be old by between one and four centuries...." Really, they were only able to make a broad guess, because of that terrible failure in the dating proceedure. Very unfortunate, in terms of time spent and precious samples. > > Was it something to do with rats? When we were talking about the rat > bones, you said "they were recovered from deeply stratified sites and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > demonstrates either the ignorance, or the duplicity, of the person > making the reference. I quoted the parts relavent to the claims made in the original notes that were not found when the site was re-examined. > For the record, the sites mentioned in Anderson and Higham on the > Earthquakes rat bone & etc were [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > terrible failure in the dating proceedure. Very unfortunate, in terms > of time spent and precious samples. My position on this was, at the beginning, one of slight sceptisism. After a straw poll of friends involved in archaeology I became somewhat highly doubtful of the claimed 2000 year old rat. The inability of an interested party to send me the database of sites and dates when asked made me go get the data myself. So I did. The -only- 'old rat' dates come from one source. After enquiries with the only other Radiocarbon Lab in New Zealand they state that they have had NO New Zealand 'old rat' dates! The 'old rat' claims stopped in 1997. Why? It's my opinion that they found something in their system and rectified it.. There is also the same extinction horizon of flora and fauna claimed at both 2000 ybp and 800 ybp as result of the predations of Rattus exulans :-)) > The -only- 'old rat' dates come from one source. > After enquiries with the only other Radiocarbon Lab in New Zealand > they state that they have had NO New Zealand 'old rat' dates! For those of you not in NZ, you may not appreciate how amusing this is: Waikato is a conventional counting 14C lab- large samples only. They can't analyse small samples, such as rat bone are. For small samples, you need AMS. While the processing to graphite can be done in the very excellent Waikato lab, the graphite is sent onto Oxford, Arizona, or...Rafter lab. And any rat bone that has gone thru the Waikato lab is from *archaeological * sites - necessarily, they would not be older than 800 Bp. As for the rest of the previous, well, archived answers will continue to suffice. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.