 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / October 2007How are large hewn stones dated ?
Hi all, I am new here, I would like to know how old hewn stones, especially megaliths, such as at Baalbek, Malta, Tihuanaco etc are dated. I understand that there exist megaliths that are a bit of a problem to lift even for todays equipment. I am interested in how these things are dated. Usually it's smooth hewn Granite or Basalt. Very hard rock that is also very old (billions of years) so dating the material proper won't work. Also dating by strata etc does not work because these things got reused. They are currently incorporated in new/old buildings from a much more recent era. So, how would one go about finding out how old really old and really big things are ? Example object: http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5.htm the huge horizontal stone in the Jupiter temple wall. Yes, I know the site has nothng to do with archeology, still I'd like to know what methods could be used to find out how old that object is (and not the wall of which it is a part). Then there is stonework like this: http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/stonetec.htm Anybody who ever tried to shape a stone, even limestone with power tools, will tell you that making those things is *hard*. What is the official take on these technologies ? thanks, pmpo >Hi all, > >I am new here, I would like to know how old hewn stones, especially >megaliths, such as at Baalbek, Malta, Tihuanaco etc are dated. I >understand that there exist megaliths that are a bit of a problem to >lift even for todays equipment. This is completely wrong. There is nothing that couldn't be lifted easily with today's equipment. I am interested in how these things >are dated. Usually it's smooth hewn Granite or Basalt. Very hard rock >that is also very old (billions of years) so dating the material [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/stonetec.htm A dreadful site. John West, Cotterell, etc. are hardly good references. Too many mistakes to even start. >Anybody who ever tried to shape a stone, even limestone with power >tools, will tell you that making those things is *hard*. What is the >official take on these technologies ? Yep, it's hard. Not impossible, just hard work. Our ancestors did it all the time. You've got to go by context when you are dating this sort of thing. Thus the stones at Baalbek are within a context of Roman architecture. You can't ignore that and pretend it isn't vitally important. As for moving large stones, I repost the following regularly: From: "Bu Hao" <B...@Hao.com> Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, alt.archaeology Date: 5 Mar 1999 07:58:09 GMT Mystery of mysteries, It's a wonder to relate- The Mussolini monolith Moved in nineteen twenty eight 'Twas a team of sixty oxen That had moved the mighty weight Just like Henry's massive statue Set in place eighteen-o-eight Then there was the Empress Catherine With a stone twelve hundred tons Dragged for miles on a sledge But we've only just begun... Tools were found at several sites High-tech tools of stone and horn Which cut out massive blocks of stone 'ere the first Pharaoh was born The megaliths still bear the marks Of these humble, fragile tools Fifty thousand sites in Europe Still marveled at by fools... Better yet, they've found the rope Under several stones that fell The very ropes that dragged the stones Have been dated pretty well Obelisks were raised in France In the sixteenth century The details are on record At the Pontiff's library Those records are detailed enough- So clear for all to see That they were used as reference Back in eighteen thirty three When Luxor's obelisk was set By France's Louis ten Egyptians set it up at first Louis set it up again Megaliths of massive size Have been found the world round In Korea, China, Micronesia, Many megaliths were found The Greeks and Romans moved huge stones As in Borneo and France Belgium, England, and the Yucatan And Eurasia's vast expanse All saw megalithic work Done with ropes and human sweat Is the mystery any clearer now? Or don't you get it yet? The Bougon stone was dragged and set By a team of willing men On wooden rollers, wooden rails And they'd do it all again But that was nineteen seventy nine In a dim and distant age That technology must be long lost Beyond the ken of any sage Perhaps the stone of eighty-five Could offer up some hints To a person that would take them To a person with some sense Perhaps the extant records Of the stones set in Japan Would give a tiny little clue To a reasonable man First-hand accounts from Borneo Dated nineteen fifty-nine Might make some small impression Even on a clueless mind Madagascar's mighty stones Are of very recent date Europeans there took photos And it pains me to relate That all these facts are widely known And they have been known for years It's really not a secret, bud Despite the tripe one hears Are the castles throughout Europe All a source of wonder too? Check the sizes of the stones And perhaps you'll get a clue... Lots of men and lots of rope Back in Neolithic times Set up a stone, three hundred tons But I'm wasting all my rhymes... Buy a "mystery" in the grocery store For a dollar ninety-eight And by all means, enjoy it, But don't give it any weight Selling "mysteries" is too lucrative For those jerks to tell the truth Do a half an hour's research And I think you'll find the proof Kindly send your hate by e-mail 'Cause I'm finished with this thread It's a waste of time to argue With the hopelessly brain-dead... \..\ /../ \..\ (o o) \. ./ \ ^ We PREFER to be called "Intellectually Challenged."  SignatureDoug 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/ Doug, I'm sorry but I wish the world was as simple for me as it is for you. Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important but the context of a 80 ton menhir at an altitude that makes most modern people faint is not. Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, but they aren't common and the real point is that we've only had them for a few decades. And we are not in the habit of driving them up the sides of mountains. Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic revolution, which is every day becoming a more problem-ridden theory anyway. They were wrong about agriculture, hence 27,000 year old domestic tubers on grinding tools off the coast of new zealand. They were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it too. They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed back to 18000 BC. They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back to 400,000 ybp. Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in order to try and hide the truth when it doesn't match their agenda. They really want mankind to have been the most advanced hominid, and they really want him to have stayed child-stupid until around 10,000 years ago. In a decade we might find that the only reason that our particular strain of HS is still around while the others are not is because of a higher libido and the mutation that enabled us to not have to go through "heat" cycles like all the other animals in order to reproduce. We're smaller brained and weaker than our extinct cousins, and some of them lasted alot longer than we have so far. >Doug, >I'm sorry but I wish the world was as simple for me as it is for you. Nice for you that you think you can read my mind, but you've failed. I admit that the world is particularly complex for people who like to see conspiracies. >Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important YHep but the >context of a 80 ton menhir at an altitude that makes most modern >people faint is not. People adapt to altitude, you are making assumptions to make your world simpler. Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, >but they aren't common and the real point is that we've only had them >for a few decades. And we are not in the habit of driving them up the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >anyway. They were wrong about agriculture, hence 27,000 year old >domestic tubers on grinding tools off the coast of new zealand. Indeed. So why can't I search on "domestic tubers" and "new zealand" and find anything? What's your reference? What's the proof for 'domestic' tubers? They >were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it >too. Probably but we don't know that. They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed back >to 18000 BC. Ah, you are making a big assumption here about the intelligence of dogs. Did humans domesticate dogs? Or did the ancestors of dogs adapt themselves? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1121_021121_DogEvolution.html They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >to 400,000 ybp. Maybe, we don't know that. There's a claim still to be examined. >Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested >in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in >order to try and hide the truth when it doesn't match their agenda. >They really want mankind to have been the most advanced hominid, and >they really want him to have stayed child-stupid until around 10,000 >years ago. No archaeologist I know of would agree. >In a decade we might find that the only reason that our particular >strain of HS is still around while the others are not is because of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and some of them lasted alot longer than we have so far. > SignatureDoug 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/ On Oct 21, 2:02 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: > >Doug, > >I'm sorry but I wish the world was as simple for me as it is for you. > > Nice for you that you think you can read my mind, but you've failed. I > admit that the world is particularly complex for people who like to see > conspiracies. I don't like to see conspiracies. But to think that man went 180,000 years with a child-like brain and then BAM 10,000 years ago he suddenly invented everything and instantaneously "just got civilized" is ridiculous. The reason you don't find as much stuff before 10,000 is not because of some mystical universal mind reaction to the end of the ice age. Rather the further you go back in time the less likely an artifact has of surviving until the present day, and before 10,000 the most hospitable places for human habitation, namely all of the coasts of the world, were still above water. If we don't find an earlier version of Jericho, it's only because Jerichos were built nearer the coast 10,000 years ago. But we probably will find an earlier Jericho, and then have to argue with people like you who don't want it to be so for an entire decade before it's accepted at its proper date. > >Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > People adapt to altitude, you are making assumptions to make your world > simpler. No you are making the world complex in order that you don't have to face the truth. You want to keep the Tihuanacan indians stupid, so you say that adapted to the altitude and created a work-force that would have to be supported by a city of farmers and would take a millenia to complete. Never mind that there wasn't a known population large enough to do that at the time Tihuanaco was supposedly built, or that the place was not supposed to have been heavily populated itself. What I think you're afraid of is alien conspiracies and Atlantis myths. But why jump to those? Is it so hard to conceive that they may have figured out some little technology that made the job a little easier for them that we have not figured out yet? Or are you sop sure that we are smart and they were stupid that the idea is inconceivable? > Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > find anything? What's your reference? What's the proof for 'domestic' > tubers? ' Doug, I've posted the article three times already on these forums and posted it on my blog as well. You haven't been reading my posts, and you haven't been keeping up to date. And yet you act like you know everything. > They > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Did humans domesticate dogs? Or did the ancestors of dogs adapt > themselves?http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1121_021121_DogEvolut... Who cares? They were still wrong. Idiot archeologists thought man could have lived alongside animals without ever having taken a stray animal in for 500,000 years. To me that is just stupid. Somebody was taking cute little stranded fuzzies in and giving them some nibbles for the last half million years I am sure. Did they ever think to actually BREED those taken-in animals? Maybe not. Or maybe if they did, the line eventually died out or got reintroduced to the wild and their wild kin. But acting as if it was "poof domestication" at 10,000 ybp is just dumb. > They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back > > >to 400,000 ybp. > > Maybe, we don't know that. There's a claim still to be examined. Well, I know that. My 9 year old can stack rocks on top of each other and throw a couple branches over it. It will just take the archeologists a little more time to catch up with common sense, but they have already discovered the evidence. > >Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested > >in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No archaeologist I know of would agree. Then why all the ridiculousness? Why the poem above which acts like their isn't any mystery to prehistoy? Why the adverse reaction to the finding of things such as the 400,000 year old stone huts? Your own reaction was something like "I am not happy with these claims either." I knew something like that would be found sooner or later, by way of common sense. Right now I'm waiting very impatiently for them to unearth the first undisputed 27000 year old Jericho-like urban center. I'd bet my favorite guitar that Dolni Vestonice is not an anomoly but a common center of 27,000 BC, and that is was not even one of the most impressive ones being visited at that time. There were probably centers on the coast that would make Dolni Vestonice look small,isignificant, and technologically behind the times. > >In a decade we might find that the only reason that our particular > >strain of HS is still around while the others are not is because of a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk > Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >On Oct 21, 2:02 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >suddenly invented everything and instantaneously "just got civilized" >is ridiculous. Good. Then you agree with almost every archaeologist I know personally or have read. What's your problem then? >The reason you don't find as much stuff before 10,000 is not because >of some mystical universal mind reaction to the end of the ice age. No one thinks it is. >Rather the further you go back in time the less likely an artifact has >of surviving until the present day, and before 10,000 the most >hospitable places for human habitation, namely all of the coasts of >the world, were still above water. If we don't find an earlier version >of Jericho, it's only because Jerichos were built nearer the coast >10,000 years ago. Why? River plains are as good at the very least. You've made an arbitrary decision here about where things can be found. And presumably a decision that underwater archaeology hasn't worked because, well, I'm sure you have a reason. But we probably will find an earlier Jericho, and >then have to argue with people like you who don't want it to be so for >an entire decade before it's accepted at its proper date. Not with people like me, all I need is evidence. >> >Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >No you are making the world complex in order that you don't have to >face the truth. First I make the world too simple, then too complex. I wish you'd make up your mind. >You want to keep the Tihuanacan indians stupid, I'm tempted to say piss off you f**ing liar, but I won't. But childish insults aren't going to make you any more credible. >so you say that >adapted to the altitude and created a work-force that would have to be >supported by a city of farmers and would take a millenia to complete. >Never mind that there wasn't a known population large enough to do >that at the time Tihuanaco was supposedly built, or that the place was >not supposed to have been heavily populated itself. I gather you don't really know much about this particular subject. Or have you good references to support these claims? >What I think you're afraid of is alien conspiracies and Atlantis >myths. Another childish insult. >But why jump to those? Is it so hard to conceive that they may >have figured out some little technology that made the job a little >easier for them that we have not figured out yet? Or are you sop sure >that we are smart and they were stupid that the idea is inconceivable? You've got this backwards. I'm convinced they were smart enough to do it, you are the one who needs something more than that.> >> Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >you haven't been keeping up to date. And yet you act like you know >everything. Now you are sounding like Inger. Why didn't Google show anything up? I've tried again, searching sci.archaeology for any posts with your email address as author and New Zealand, and it doesn't show up. No surprise, as what you have posted about once is "low and behold after months of searching we find evidence of agriculture or at least proto-agriculture of tubers on an island off the coast of New Guinea at 29,000! " I think you mean the Solomon Islands. What we have at Kilu Cave is starch grains on stone tools. What that means is uncertain. Use of taro, yes, but agriculture? >> They >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Who cares? They were still wrong. Idiot archeologists Then why bother even talking about them? Why cite them to prove something you like and slight them when you don't like what they say? thought man >could have lived alongside animals without ever having taken a stray >animal in for 500,000 years. To me that is just stupid. Somebody was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >reintroduced to the wild and their wild kin. But acting as if it was >"poof domestication" at 10,000 ybp is just dumb. Acting as though domestication couldn't have happened at a particular time is even dumber. >> They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >archeologists a little more time to catch up with common sense, but >they have already discovered the evidence. Great, you don't need evidence, you just need your 9 year old to show us what HSS's ancestors did 400,000 years ago. So why post here? >> >Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested >> >in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ > SignatureDoug 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/ (snip) > Now you are sounding like Inger. Why didn't Google show anything up? I've > tried again, searching sci.archaeology for any posts with your email [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What we have at Kilu Cave is starch grains on stone tools. What that means > is uncertain. Use of taro, yes, but agriculture? Yeah isn't Solomon off the coast of New Zealand? I couldn't remember the exact island off the top of my head. I have posted the link below. The starch grains show divergence indicitave of domestication. It's uncertain because it's an anomoly and lots of people don't want to believe it. To me, it's obvious why only one site has been found. It's 27000 years old! sh.t decays! Things rot! The truly amazing thing is that any evidence at all has been found! > >> They > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Then why bother even talking about them? Why cite them to prove something > you like and slight them when you don't like what they say? Because I can't say that I just channeled all this crap and still call my work a prehistoric fiction. > thought man > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Acting as though domestication couldn't have happened at a particular time > is even dumber. What I am saying is that there is no way to know when it happened. It would have been too isolated and 27,000-50,000 years later their would be no trace left of it. > >> They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Great, you don't need evidence, you just need your 9 year old to show us > what HSS's ancestors did 400,000 years ago. So why post here? Because I think archeology needs to grow some common sense. We have no artefacts of boats 60,000 years ago, but we know they were in use because of populated places. Why can't we use the same type of reasoning for urban centers? > >> >Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested > >> >in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >(snip) >> Now you are sounding like Inger. Why didn't Google show anything up? I've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yeah isn't Solomon off the coast of New Zealand? Nope. NE of Australia, New Zealand is SE of Australia. Near Papua New Guinea. >I couldn't remember the exact island off the top of my head. I have >posted the link below. The starch grains show divergence indicitave of >domestication. It's uncertain because it's an anomoly and lots of >people don't want to believe it. Nonsense. It's uncertain because taro grains on stone tools don't prove domestication. They show use of taro, but you can't say they prove anything. Some archaeologists do indeed think it shows domestication. >To me, it's obvious why only one site has been found. It's 27000 years >old! sh.t decays! Things rot! The truly amazing thing is that any >evidence at all has been found! Not just one site. There's a paper in Progress in Physical Geography 23,1 (1999) pp. 3756 which mentions another in Egypt. http://tinyurl.com/3cg4qk That doesn't mean there was agriculture 10000 years ago in Egypt, or in the Solomon Islands. >> >> They >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >would have been too isolated and 27,000-50,000 years later their would >be no trace left of it. I agree. Whether there was any agriculture that early, something happened around 14000 years ago that meant that agriculture occurred in a number of places in the world and took off from there. >> >> They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >because of populated places. Why can't we use the same type of >reasoning for urban centers? We know that people got places over water. Whether it was boats, rafts or vegetable rafts is still debated. Urban centers however leave a lot of evidence, unmissable evidence. (And I'm not sure what you mean by urban). >> >> >Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested >> >> >in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >Then why all the ridiculousness? Why the poem above which acts like >> >their isn't any mystery to prehistoy? No, it acts as though people are trying to suggest mysterious things where there were only normal intelligent human beings. [SNIP] Doug SignatureDoug 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/ > (snip) >> Now you are sounding like Inger. Why didn't Google show anything up? I've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yeah isn't Solomon off the coast of New Zealand? In the same sense that Venezuela is off the coast of Florida. And you have been writing a lot about places that have been recently submerged, so I took your mention of 'off the coast of New Zealand' to be of that type. > I couldn't remember the exact island off the top of my head. I have > posted the link below. The starch grains show divergence indicitave of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > old! sh.t decays! Things rot! The truly amazing thing is that any > evidence at all has been found! Please note that the dating is not direct, but from context. You have complained about this wrt dating of stone constructions via context as being somehow deficient. Yet here, you accept the dating without apparent question. This inconsistency is something I find troublesome in your writing. Especially when you make such sweeping negative comments about folks who, in their professional writings, are almost always consistent in their thinking and usage. And when they are not, they are taken to task for it by their peers. >>>> They >>>>> were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Because I can't say that I just channeled all this crap and still call > my work a prehistoric fiction. You are not writing fiction here. You are interacting with folks in a sci.* group about archaeology. Here, you can let your hair down and be collegial. :-) <snip> >>>> They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >>>>> to 400,000 ybp. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because I think archeology needs to grow some common sense. Common sense is fine. But in science, one has to test common sense by hypothesis-testing, etc. > We have no > artefacts of boats 60,000 years ago, but we know they were in use > because of populated places. Why can't we use the same type of > reasoning for urban centers? In this analogy, to what do you contend the putative 'urban centers' are analogous? The watercraft (not necessarily boats), or the populated places? Assuming the former, what do you present as an analog to the 'populated places' in your analogy? IOW, what hard, indisputable evidence do you have that there must have been urban centers earlier than those of which we now know? >>>>> Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so invested >>>>> in their preconceived notions that they will actually steal fossils in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> centers on the coast that would make Dolni Vestonice look >>> small,isignificant, and technologically behind the times. You may be right. But the evidence is just not there; and the site you mention is, to me, not anything close to being an 'urban center'. Unless you are using another definition of 'urban' than the ones used in archaeology. If the latter is the case, then we may be talking past each other in some matters. However, since this is an archaeology ng in the sci.* hierarchy, any anomalous or idiosyncratic usage needs to be defined (and perhaps defended) by the proposer. In this case, you. You should know that s.a.'s history of terminological revisionism is long and troubled. Perhaps you can buck the trend with a clear, concise and useful definition that can help us speak more clearly to each other. <snip> > > Yeah isn't Solomon off the coast of New Zealand? > > In the same sense that Venezuela is off the coast of Florida. > :-) The world is off the coast of New Zealand. Taken that the Australian aboriginal has been in Australia for something like 40-50,000 years the possibility of finding (in the archaeological strata) 10,000 year old domesticated plant crops throughout Melanesia shouldn't come as a surprise > Assuming the former, what do you present as an analog to the > 'populated places' in your analogy? IOW, what hard, indisputable > evidence do you have that there must have been urban centers > earlier than those of which we now know? Well the evidence for watercraft is not undisputable- some crazies think it could have happened by people stranded on kelp beds. Nevermind that they'd have to wait hundreds of years until the same thing happened to a mate...and australia is a huge place to be waiting on the coasts for Poseidon to toss up a chick or two for ya. The evidence I have for urban centers is that HS, archaic or modern, is not stupid and human nature dictates that we team up to share resources and team up to meet adversary. And also Dolni Vestonice and the 400,000 year old stacked rocks and pearl beds. And the ancient texts that tried to record hystory for us but have been rejected by archeologist as having any significance whatsoever. snip ,isignificant, and technologically behind the times. > You may be right. But the evidence is just not there; and the > site you mention is, to me, not anything close to being an 'urban [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sci.* hierarchy, any anomalous or idiosyncratic usage needs to be > defined (and perhaps defended) by the proposer. In this case, you. I'm not sure of the definition. I thought it meant "not quite a proper city but more city-like than a village" and I just got that def from context clues. > You should know that s.a.'s history of terminological revisionism > is long and troubled. Perhaps you can buck the trend with a > clear, concise and useful definition that can help us speak more > clearly to each other. I will try especially if you continue to help me w/ it! > <snip>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > Assuming the former, what do you present as an analog to the > > 'populated places' in your analogy? IOW, what hard, indisputable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is not stupid and human nature dictates that we team up to share > resources and team up to meet adversary. We have always done so. It is a trait we share with both flavors of chimps and most species of primates. This characteristic in and of itself is clearly not adequate to explain the population concentrations suggested by the term 'urban centers'. (More on the terminology below.) One issue is how many folks need to be on the team to face a given adversary. If the adversary is hunger, then too many teammates are just as bad as too few, in an environment of limited food resources. If the issue is security from harm from other humans, then the first question to be asked is, 'Why are those other guys a threat to us?' And the second is, 'Can we do something to avoid conflict with those other guys?' In the typical Paleolithic case, the answer to the first question is generally, 'They are not a threat.' If they are a threat, it is likely to be because 'they are horning in on a resource we are using.' When the possibility of moving to a different, un-occupied territory exists, then one or the other group could do that and conflict would be avoided. Paleolithic populations were typically low, and well within the carrying capacity of the available land and water. In fact, that is more than likely the way that migrations, such as the various waves Out of Africa, took place. Getting crowded? Move on. Always more elbow room. Until there wasn't. At that point, intensification of production of food, along with conservation of other limited resources, became an issue. And this really didn't happen on a wide-spread basis until the waning millennia of the latest ice advance. When the need to sit in one place to watch a significant part of your diet grow arose, then the need to defend territory increased. Then the need for a larger team began to make sense. The issue of team size and composition was vastly different for folks say 20,000 years ago and earlier than it was in the following millennia. People are smart; and those who succeeded (by leaving descendants) did so by matching the solutions to the problems they faced to the scale of their needs and technology. > And also Dolni Vestonice and the 400,000 year old stacked rocks Not indicative of *urban* anything. Indicative of folks solving problems on a scale that made sense to them at the time. > and > pearl beds. You'll have to help me with this one. > And the ancient texts that tried to record hystory for us > but have been rejected by archeologist as having any significance > whatsoever. Any texts you care to mention come from folks who lived in, or knew about, urban centers, their requirements and sequalia. To those folks, the past was probably a lot like the present, only better or worse, depending on their POV and the various points the writers were making. Plus, of course, it is difficult to read old texts with the eyes of their original readers. When a person today reads, say, Sumerian literature, it is seldom (probably never) without the corruption of that person's own culture, as well as the high probability that the person knows something of the history of what followed the text in question. In the case of much of what passes for analysis of ancient texts, at least what analysis is available and understandable by modern lay readers, too much of it by far is dictated by what sells, rather than by what is academically supportable. Even some folks who do have a background that ought to have given them some authority, like Sitchen, have either gone off the rails, or have figured out how to make a better buck than by just telling what they know. One thing I always look at when I read, or read about, the TRVTH contained in ancient texts is the list of references, especially to assertions that seem to me to be far-fetched. If the references for a particular assertion all go back to the same one or small group of 'researchers' (especially if the references wind up being circular, with some secondary sources becoming referenced as primary sources), then I find myself thinking of what *my* experience has been in similar situations. Most of the time, what this means is that someone wrote something sometime that others found useful, whether or not the original guy or gal knew crap about what they were writing. In the case of scientific investigations, you can almost always dig back to the original author of an idea or fact or theory. In scientific investigations, there will almost always be a trail back to that origin; but unlike the trail in the woo-woo literature, the trail of the scientific literature will almost certainly include further work by later writers that refines the original work, or replaces it, or demolishes it. Science does not stand still; woo-woo stuff almost never advances from the original. <snip> > > You may be right. But the evidence is just not there; and the > > site you mention is, to me, not anything close to being an 'urban [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > city but more city-like than a village" and I just got that def from > context clues. 'Urban' *is* 'city'. More than that, it implies a hierarchy of settlements, from small, generally extractive sites (e.g. mining, fishing, agricultural), through areal centers (villages or small towns) that both serve and are served by the small sites; to an 'urban center', which serves and is served by the villages/small towns at the next lower level in the hierarchy. Look at a modern map of, say, Georgia. You don't find major cities cheek-by-jowl; at least not often. What you see is a pattern of many small towns, with a relatively central larger town to which the smaller towns look for goods, services and governmental services they themselves don't have; and a scattering of central larger towns around a city, which again provides goods, services and government that the mid-size towns don't themselves have; and so on. This sort of patterning on the landscape is only typical of a culture that has developed 'urban centers'; and this only happens when a culture *needs* urban centers. This level of culture, in anthropology and archaeology, is called 'civilization'. You will note the word's origin in the Latin 'civitas' for 'city'. (Please, however, don't confuse the technical term 'civilization' for the commonly used term 'civilized'. Archaeologists are not making a value judgment when they say such and such is a 'civilization'. They are applying a technical term to a set of observed facts, not trying to imply something better than, say, band or tribe.) 'Urban' also implied a social/economic hierarchy of at least three or four levels. Cahokia was an 'urban center'. Catal Houyuk was not. > > You should know that s.a.'s history of terminological revisionism > > is long and troubled. Perhaps you can buck the trend with a > > clear, concise and useful definition that can help us speak more > > clearly to each other. > > I will try especially if you continue to help me w/ it! I have tried to give something more than a definition of 'urban' and 'urban center'. I am open to both discussion and correction. >> > Assuming the former, what do you present as an analog to the >> > 'populated places' in your analogy? IOW, what hard, indisputable [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] >I have tried to give something more than a definition of 'urban' and >'urban center'. I am open to both discussion and correction. I was going to reply, but this is excellent. You've covered everything I would have and more. I will just emphasise again that there is no evidence at Dolni Vestonice for anything anyone would call urban. The site with the kiln had I think 5 huts, one containing the kiln. The largest hut was about 50 feet long and had 5 hearths. One estimate of population I've seen is about 100 people. This is not urban. This is in UK terms a hamlet. A very busy one, yes. But far from urban. Doug SignatureDoug 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/ Doug Weller schrieb: > snip > >> 'Urban' also implied a social/economic hierarchy of at least three or >> four levels. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But far from urban. > Doug Defintions for 'urban' or 'city' in an archaeologic context rest on economic and social indicators, with trade and professionel crafts making up a major part of the economy. There are also political and social indicators, which I won't try to transfer to a palaeolithic level. have fun Uwe Mueller On Oct 22, 3:21 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: > >> > Assuming the former, what do you present as an analog to the > >> > 'populated places' in your analogy? IOW, what hard, indisputable [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I like that word hamlet. It's not as common as village so people won't attach undue meaning to it. I think that Dolni Vestonice was a trading center, possibly populated by priests who traded the ceramics or magical rites. I read something about their being evidence of trade to and from it from far abroad, and that there is evidence that indicates that the poulation did not hunt for itself. It also had a fence of brush and wood around it, which might mean that it had a sort of barricade. As for Tom's explanations...how do we really know that they are right about the population reaching critical mass at the end of the last Ice Age all over the world? It seems to me that the demise of the megafauna would decrease population, not increase it. Great land masses were drying up; how do we know that the seeming population boom wasn't just a gradual mass exodus from the lowlands, where fertile ground had already caused an overpopulation, and hence, the need for agriculture and really big "hamlets?" >On Oct 22, 3:21 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 191 lines] >I like that word hamlet. It's not as common as village so people won't >attach undue meaning to it. I agree. I'm glad you like the word. I think that Dolni Vestonice was a trading >center, possibly populated by priests who traded the ceramics or >magical rites. I read something about their being evidence of trade to >and from it from far abroad, and that there is evidence that indicates >that the poulation did not hunt for itself. It also had a fence of >brush and wood around it, which might mean that it had a sort of >barricade. Trade is very likely. I have read that hunters lived there but I don't know the evidence for that. >As for Tom's explanations...how do we really know that they are right >about the population reaching critical mass at the end of the last Ice [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ground had already caused an overpopulation, and hence, the need for >agriculture and really big "hamlets?" No idea but I'm not sure how important megafauna were as a food source. Doug SignatureDoug 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/ On Oct 23, 1:00 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: <snip> > >As for Tom's explanations...how do we really know that they are right > >about the population reaching critical mass at the end of the last Ice > >Age all over the world? That's what the archaeology suggests. By the end of the last ice advance, all the continents were inhabited (something that had never happened before). > It seems to me that the demise of the > >megafauna would decrease population, not increase it. Why? There were plenty of other food resources available other than the big stuff; and our ancestors were quite capable of using them, whether or not they had an elephant or a giant sloth to supplement their diets now and then. > Great land > >masses were drying up; how do we know that the seeming population boom > >wasn't just a gradual mass exodus from the lowlands, where fertile > >ground had already caused an overpopulation, and hence, the need for > >agriculture and really big "hamlets?" I suspect that was part of it. In fact, that is exactly what I would expect from the kind of mechanisms I wrote about. Once the carrying capacity of a particular location was reached, the only options for humans would be to limit their population (hard to do for a species that loves sex and hates to die); move; or intensify their production of food and other necessities. But there were many places away from the lowlands that were also quite fertile, in the sense of naturally-occurring plant food and faunal resources. Catal Houyuk, for instance, appears to have begun life before agriculture, based on its location at the nexus of several resource-rich biomes. Its nearness to a large source of good obsidian allowed its people to flourish through trade; but the richness of their natural environment is what allowed their initial population concentration to happen. > No idea but I'm not sure how important megafauna were as a food source. IIRC, not important enough that their loss would trigger a population crash. As I noted, a wide range of other food resources were used even when megafauna were available. It used to be thought that, post-big- animal, folks greatly diversified their use of plant and animal resources. However, IIRC, it has been found that even, for instance, Paleo-Indians, who were once thought to be almost exclusively meat- eaters, used a wider variety of foods than previously thought. <snip> > By the end of the last ice advance, > all the continents were inhabited > (something that had never happened before). <snip> Tom, didn't year-round human habitation on all the continents require an advance in diesel-engine-powered icebreaker technology? I believe that Antarctica was not inhabited until the end of the last millennium, which would be, yes, shortly after the end of the last ice advance on Antarctica, but I don't think that that is what you meant. Or is that what you meant? Or do you think that the Piri Reis map is the result of pre-Holocene habitation of Antarctica? And if so, who or what was doing the habitation? And what about Naomi? - Daryl Krupa > <snip>> By the end of the last ice advance, > > all the continents were inhabited [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or do you think that the Piri Reis map is > the result of pre-Holocene habitation of Antarctica? Of course it is! Why would you think otherwise? Even Einstein thought well of Hapgood. Are you smarter than Einstein? No? Then get a grip; then get an educmacation. I'm told that there is a Scandahoovian scholaress who knows about these things. If you ask her nicely, she may let you into her circle of initiates, who support her in e-mail. They know about the maps on rocks and everything that proves Admiral Piri had the Map of the Ancient Antarctic Atlanteans to work from. Thought you knew? Sad case. > And if so, who or what was doing the habitation? Why the Ancient Antarctic Atlanteans, silly. > And what about Naomi? She was there, too! But everyone knew her as 'Nancy'. <snipsh)hic]- > > And if so, who or what was doing the habitation? > > Why the Ancient Antarctic Atlanteans, silly. I found "AAA" in the telephone directory. Apparently they have maps. Who knew? > > And what about Naomi? > > She was there, too! But everyone knew her as 'Nancy' Brilliant! Still chortling and humming, hours later, Daryl Krupa > <snipsh)hic]- > > > And if so, who or what was doing the habitation? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apparently they have maps. > Who knew? :-) > > > And what about Naomi? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Still chortling and humming, hours later, I am, as always, at your cervix. >... > Even Einstein thought well of Hapgood. Are you smarter than Einstein? > No? Brain Longevity and Rebuilding http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/brain_longevity.html "Einstein had only a measurable excess of 'housekeeping' cells, and not a measurable excess of 'thinking' cells. To Dr. Diamond, this meant Einstein's 'thinking' cells in Area 39 needed a great deal of metabolic support. Why would they need so much support? Because they were doing a tremendous amount of work: a lot of hard thinking." (snip) > That's what the archaeology suggests. By the end of the last ice > advance, all the continents were inhabited (something that had never > happened before). Well the end of the last Ice Age is a long period of time... They are digging up 30,000 year old tools on the Savannah River in the southest US. So why Catal Huyuk and Jericho at 10,000 and not at 30,000? Why domestication at 14,000 after a million years of none? Also, the continents could have been populated because of access to them and not merely because of population growth. > > It seems to me that the demise of the > > >megafauna would decrease population, not increase it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whether or not they had an elephant or a giant sloth to supplement > their diets now and then. Well something killed them off at a rate unprecedented in human history, and it had no effect on the population of man whatever? Keep in mind that I cannot conceive of the over-kill hypothesis, because if man had been that good of a hunter with flint then there would be no animals left on the planet by the 18th century, after the population had more than doubled and all kinds of more devastating hunting implements had been devised. I really don't see how they could have died solely from the end of the ice age either, as they had survived many ends of ice ages before that. This comet thing over north america might provide some clues, and it could have been the combination of these things of course. I guess a question that would hone in my point a little better, is...how long does mud brick last? I simply find it inconceivable that there was nothing as advanced as Catal Huyuk on the planet at 27,000 years ago, as I don't see any good reason why there wouldn't have been. Is it totally impossible that any such settlements were lost when the coastlines receded or have simply eroded away? > > Great land > > >masses were drying up; how do we know that the seeming population boom [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > No idea but I'm not sure how important megafauna were as a food source. Well that pretty much nods your agreement with me that the "overkill" hypothesis is a fallacy. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Well that pretty much nods your agreement with me that the "overkill" > hypothesis is a fallacy. Please re-read my earlier, quite long, post on population pressures, and why humans (the ones who succeeded in leaving our genes, at least) solved problems they faced on a scale, and with technology, that made sense to them at the time. Then we can talk. > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:01:49 -0000, in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden > wrote: > >> Doug, >> I'm sorry but I wish the world was as simple for me as it is for you. > Nice for you that you think you can read my mind, but you've failed. I > admit that the world is particularly complex for people who like to see > conspiracies. I'm not sure about this. ISTM that a certain type of conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theories actually functions to *reduce* the complexity of their world. If everything about the world that requires analysis of some sort defaults to "the reptilians (or the Trilateralists or the Catholics or the Jews, or the ____________ [fill in blank with pet evil bunch]) did it", then life is dead simple. :-) BTW, I don't think that Joe is your average conspiracist nut. He seems to be perfectly willing to be shown wrong on most things. He does, however, seem to default to conspiricism when certain issues of science come up. This is unfortunate. You and I both know, and know of, many scientists, especially archies; and we have the advantage of knowing how independent and lacking in the 'follower' and the 'play-it-safe-for-tenure' gene most of them are. Joe doesn't seem to have that advantage. >> Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > People adapt to altitude, Yep. Andean folks, in common with high-altitude dwelling humans everywhere, have larger lungs (and hearts, too, I think), and more efficient cardio-vascular function than us flatlanders. And the Andeans have the added advantage of coca leaves to chew. :-) > you are making assumptions to make your world > simpler. This may be one of those things that Joe will be able to process in such a way that he can correct his view. Certainly it takes little effort to find the straight dope. The Summary, from the third search result from GoodSearch*: "Despite the initial discomfort often experienced by visitors to high altitude, humans have occupied the Andean altiplano for more than 10 000 years, and millions of people, indigenous and otherwise, currently live on these plains, high in the mountains of South America, at altitudes exceeding 3000 m. While, to some extent, acclimatisation can accommodate the one-third decrease in oxygen availability, having been born and raised at altitude appears to confer a substantial advantage in high-altitude performance compared with having been born and raised at sea level. A number of characteristics have been postulated to contribute to a high-altitude Andean phenotype; however, the relative contributions of developmental adaptation (within the individual) and genetic adaptation (within the population of which the individual is part) to the acquisition of this phenotype have yet to be resolved. "A complex trait is influenced by multiple genetic and environmental factors and, in humans, it is inherently very difficult to determine what proportion of the trait is dictated by an individual’s genetic heritage and what proportion develops in response to the environment in which the person is born and raised. Looking for changes in putative adaptations in vertically migrant populations, determining the heritability of putative adaptive traits and genetic association analyses have all been used to evaluate the relative contributions of nurture and nature to the Andean phenotype. As the evidence for a genetic contribution to high-altitude adaptation in humans has been the subject of several recent reviews, this article instead focuses on the methodology that has been employed to isolate the effects of ‘nature’ from those of ‘nurture’ on the acquisition of the high-altitude phenotype in Andean natives (Quechua and Aymara). The principles and assumptions underlying the various approaches, as well as some of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each, are briefly discussed." "Key words: altitude, Quechua, Aymara, human, evolution." http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/204/18/3151.pdf Or: http://tinyurl.com/3yt4xc > Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, >> but they aren't common and the real point is that we've only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> more problem-ridden theory anyway. They were wrong about >> agriculture, hence 27,000 year old domestic tubers on grinding >> tools off the coast of new zealand. > Indeed. So why can't I search on "domestic tubers" and "new zealand" and > find anything? What's your reference? What's the proof for 'domestic' > tubers? I'm curious, too. > They >> were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- >> neanderthals had it >> too. > > Probably but we don't know that. I was pretty convinced that Hsn had language with the discovery of a Neandertal hyoid bone. With the recent discovery of the FOXP2 gene in the Hsn genome, I am as certain as possible in the circumstances that Neandertals had the capacity for language. The question is then what part Neandertal language, and language usage, played in their lives; and whether any potential difference might have played in differential reproductive success. > They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed >> back to 18000 BC. > > Ah, you are making a big assumption here about the intelligence >> of dogs. Did humans domesticate dogs? Or did the ancestors of >> dogs adapt themselves? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1121_021121_DogEvolution.html > They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >> to 400,000 ybp. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists are so >> invested in their preconceived notions that they will actually >> steal fossils in >> order to try and hide the truth when it doesn't match their >> agenda. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No archaeologist I know of would agree. That characterization is as far off the mark as any I've ever seen Joe make. And the issue of stealing Flores bones. IIRC, that can only refer to one guy who is worried about what might be found. It is not characteristic of archies; and I'm not certain the fellow referred to is an archaeologist. >> In a decade we might find that the only reason that our >> particular strain of HS is still around while the others are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> cousins, and some of them lasted alot longer than we have so >> far. <appeal> * GoodSearch is basically the Yahoo search engine, but with a twist: every single search (except for images) on GoodSearch raises one American penny for the charity of your choice! (I work for the United Way of Dunn County in Wisconsin, and that's my charity of choice. In the last year or so, my searches have raised more than $20 for my local United Way.) If anyone here wants to, they can use the GoodSearch engine for some of their searches, and donate the proceeds to their charity of choice. If some of you want to donate to the United Way of Dunn County, for which I toil, that would be sweet! BTW, GoodSearch, being the Yahoo search engine, does not always return the best results. What I normally do is use GoodSearch for the initial search (thereby giving a cent to UWDC); and then going to Google, or Google Scholar, if the results are not adequate. </appeal> > Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were > then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic > revolution, which is every day becoming a more problem-ridden theory > anyway. If you must be critical of theory, at least try to be critical of current ones. The "Neolithic Revolution" that hasn't really been seriously promoted since the days of V.Gordon Childe. >> Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were >> then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ones. The "Neolithic Revolution" that hasn't really been seriously promoted >since the days of V.Gordon Childe. And what do you mean by pre-conceived? Childe coined the term in the 1920s, on the assumption, now shown to be wrong, that the world was a warmer, drier place after the Younger Dryas. But I'm not sure what is preconceived about it. I'm curious about your comment though -- it still seems valid that whatever may have happened earlier, there was a massive change at this time (the time being around 14000 years ago or so) involving agriculture and a more sedentary life style with stone houses. This doesn't mean that there was absolutely no agriculture, no settlement, no stone building at all before then, just that this period marks at the very least a major change of lifestyle in several areas of the world. I'd like his proof about 27000 year old agriculture, but I'm cool with the idea that things were discovered and lost over the history of our ancestors (I'm not just talking about HSS) here. But even if these things existed before, this time they took hold and because of that we are here. Doug Doug SignatureDoug 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/ On Oct 21, 9:14 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: > >> Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were > >> then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > all before then, just that this period marks at the very least a major > change of lifestyle in several areas of the world. Yes I agree. I think that at the end of the last "ice age" people employed pre-existent knowledge on a much larger scale in order to adapt to a changing environment. > I'd like his proof about 27000 year old agriculture, but I'm cool with the > idea that things were discovered and lost over the history of our > ancestors (I'm not just talking about HSS) here. But even if these things > existed before, Granted. >they took hold and because of that we are here. Why wouldn't we be here if they hadn't taken hold? I think we might be here anyway, and we might even be alot happier. > Doug > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk > Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ J.LyonLayden schrieb: > Doug, > I'm sorry but I wish the world was as simple for me as it is for you. I', sorry, but the whole concept of archaeology as science seems to have escaped you. > Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important but the > context of a 80 ton menhir at an altitude that makes most modern > people faint is not. Sure we have cranes that can lift 80 ton menhirs, > but they aren't common and the real point is that we've only had them > for a few decades. And we are not in the habit of driving them up the > sides of mountains. So what? There is evidence for the use of the stone in roman times. There is no evidence for an earlier use of it. It is a laymans mistake to assume, this would mean, the stone was not used before that. But there is simply no evidence for that. Lots of people assume it had been in use before and got incorporated into the building to connect it to earlier structures. But there is no scientific way yet, to provide evidence for or against that notion. > Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were > then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic > revolution, which is every day becoming a more problem-ridden theory > anyway. It has more or less been dropped, and it is not a preconceived idea, but a theory, that explained the data very good when it was created. Decades later much more data has been assembled, and it doesn't fit the data any more, or not as good as in the early 20th c. There seems to be a lack of knowledge on your part of how megalithic structures are dated. Your comments might be mre appreciated if you knew more about what you are talking. > They were wrong about agriculture, hence 27,000 year old > domestic tubers on grinding tools off the coast of new zealand. I am very sceptical about food production starting with the Neolithic, but I have up to now not found any evidence for earlier cultivation. Again, as far as speculation goes, there is little to point to a start of agriculture with the early neolithic. But science has to consider the evidence, and there are no solid facts yet to support an earlier start. > They > were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it > too. AFAIK the question never was wether neanderthals could speak, but what evidence we have, that points toward speech. There has been some physical evidence for N's throat and larynx to be comparable enough, to enable him to speak. But the evidence was never clear enough and solid enough (consider the number of Neanderthal individuals known from finds, and the small percentage of those, that are known from more than just massive thigh bones or jaws). These remains are old, if the evidence we would want has not been preserved, speculation can not take its place in science. > They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed back > to 18000 BC. Canines have accompanied man, if that means domestication, is quite another kettle of fish. I wish my world was as simple as yours. > They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back > to 400,000 ybp. We have got circular stone structures from Ziegert. I am not convinced on his dating of these structure, and I have a hard time imagining, that those structure would have been at the surface and unchanged for 400.000 years. Comparable structure have long been known and interpreted as a ring of stones for weighing down a tent. > Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists Who is 'these archaeologists'? Big conspirational group secretly ruling the world? Where could I join, they must pay more than I currently earn? > are so invested > in their preconceived notions Preconceived notions are what the amateur has, a scientist has theories supported by evidence. If there is no direct evidence, there might still be hypothesis. and there is speculation, among archaeologists as well as among amateurs. Attend some archaeological conference, or rather the social gatherings in the evenings, and you will hear a lot more specualtions, intelligent speculations, than you could care for. But no archaeologist will call these speculations The Truth, if there is no evidence. Wake up. There was no dating by radioactive isotopes, no genetic sampling when the theory of the Neolithic Revolution originated. > that they will actually steal fossils in > order to try and hide the truth when it doesn't match their agenda. That's about as true as saying, that since cartoon authors regularly depict prehistoric man and dinosaurs as contemporaries, all fiction authors must surely be completely out of their minds. > They really want mankind to have been the most advanced hominid, and > they really want him to have stayed child-stupid until around 10,000 > years ago. I take it you have no children? I presume you have never try to duplicate the technical feats we know the Neanderthals worked? Way back in the 19th c. it was assumed, for lack of evidence for different behaviour, that there was little room for culture beyond survival. And the big question was, if evolution during a very long time or creation within the last couple of millenia was the best way to explain what we can find. A lot has changed since that. If you have some references for some 21st c. archaeologists supporting these views, please post them. > In a decade we might find that the only reason that our particular > strain of HS is still around while the others are not is because of a > higher libido and the mutation that enabled us to not have to go > through "heat" cycles like all the other animals in order to > reproduce. We're smaller brained and weaker than our extinct cousins, > and some of them lasted alot longer than we have so far. Boring and conventional. I'm sure we will come up with something more spectacular. And seeing intelligence, whatever that is beyond survival, as the defining factor of HSS and his supposed success, is deep 19th c. Some possibilities: Men might be a survivor because his immune system is able to handle outside micro organisms on a scale not duplicated in the animal world. Men might be a survivor for his abilty to make use of very diverse genetic material. Men might be a survivor because while diffusing through very different habitats we kept from specialising and subdividing into different species. There is some in-build preference for difference in man. Man might be a survivor, because he always fails to act up to his own rules. Being a failure has kept man on his toes, forced him to employ every trick and cheat he can imagine. have fun Uwe Mueller On Oct 21, 10:20 am, Uwe M?ller <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote: > J.LyonLayden schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I', sorry, but the whole concept of archaeology as science seems to have > escaped you. I don't care about archeology more than I care about the truth. And in lieu of the truth, the most probable approximation of the truth is what I would prefer. > > Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important but the > > context of a 80 ton menhir at an altitude that makes most modern [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > earlier structures. But there is no scientific way yet, to provide > evidence for or against that notion. Well, I was speaking in general. The Roman stones are not something I am up on. Rome is much to recent to be of much interest to me. > > Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were > > then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > structures are dated. Your comments might be mre appreciated if you knew > more about what you are talking. Granted. Since you and Doug know more about that than I, why couldn't you answer the creator of this thread with those facts instead of changing the subject to world mysteries and conspiracy theories? What I have been exposed to, for the most part, is archeologists dating stomne structures by context (pottery found at the same site, architectural trends associated to other sites with firmir datings, etc.) Circumstancial evidence does not relieve the burden of proof, for me at least. > > They were wrong about agriculture, hence 27,000 year old > > domestic tubers on grinding tools off the coast of new zealand. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of agriculture with the early neolithic. But science has to consider the > evidence, and there are no solid facts yet to support an earlier start. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618512.700-science-pacific-islanders-wer e-worlds-first-farmers-.html > > They > > were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would want has not been preserved, speculation can not take its place in > science. Then why did scientist speculate that the reason why HSS supposedly got the upper hand over other archaic HS was because they learned to talk and therefore to organize? It's been a very popular notion over the last few years, and I always thought it was complete and utter hogwash. Man has probably been using some sort of language for at least 2 million years. > > They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed back > > to 18000 BC. > > Canines have accompanied man, if that means domestication, is quite > another kettle of fish. I wish my world was as simple as yours. How long do you think they have "accompanied" man? And what's the difference in the way they accompanied man 20,000 years ago and how my dog "accompanies" me now (i.e.when he wants to and when he can be distracted from hunting sqirrels in the woods)? > > They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back > > to 400,000 ybp. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > years. Comparable structure have long been known and interpreted as a > ring of stones for weighing down a tent. Well I can stack stones and put some branches over it with incredible ease, but sometimes I have trouble pitching a basic army regulation tent, that's supposed to be superior to the ones you have to actually create out of raw materials like the ancients did. > > Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists > > Who is 'these archaeologists'? Big conspirational group secretly ruling > the world? Where could I join, they must pay more than I currently earn? Who said anything about a conspiracy or a group? In Flores it was just one jack-a.s, who didn't want his life-work on homo erectus to be overturned. So he stole the damn bones and then, ridiculous, started MEASURING the heights of people currently living on Flores, and ranting about the idiotic microlepsy theory, as if either of those activities would make any difference to the truth. I'm sure he's not the only tenured jack-a.s in the world, operating independently. > > are so invested > > in their preconceived notions [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > archaeologist will call these speculations The Truth, if there is no > evidence. But the things I'm talking about do have evidence. > Wake up. There was no dating by radioactive isotopes, no genetic > sampling when the theory of the Neolithic Revolution originated. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > A lot has changed since that. If you have some references for some 21st > c. archaeologists supporting these views, please post them. If these views are completely a thing of the past, then why do people freak out and cry fowl about something as trivial as the idea that the original sphinx, that was later built upon, MAY have been created around 10,000 BC? My point is that if no stone structure can be dated to before 10,000 BC then it is only because we lack the technology or simply haven't found the site yet. Jericho and Catal Huyuk or whatever it's called were NOT the first urban centers, not by a long shot. SOMEBODY figured out that if you build a village near a particularly fertile orchard and a good water source, then you better damn well build a wall around it or the other hoiminids are going to come and take it from you, long before 10,000 years ago. Most likely such places were near the coast where oyster beds were readily available, and hence they are now underwater. But since we can't see what was happening on the coasts 14,000 years ago, should we all just pretend that they didn't exist? I guess that's the scientific way, and so I find it utterly lacking. We need to find a way to incorporate some damn common sense into our methods. > > In a decade we might find that the only reason that our particular > > strain of HS is still around while the others are not is because of a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Uwe Mueller >> J.LyonLayden schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in lieu of the truth, the most probable approximation of the truth is > what I would prefer. In that case it would be better for you to leave sciarchaeology and start posting in alt.truth Signaturep.a J.LyonLayden schrieb: >> J.LyonLayden schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in lieu of the truth, the most probable approximation of the truth is > what I would prefer. Than why don't you prefer to find aboutz the truth about archaeology before writing about it? >>> Where the context of Roman architecture is vitally important but the >>> context of a 80 ton menhir at an altitude that makes most modern [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, I was speaking in general. The Roman stones are not something I > am up on. Rome is much to recent to be of much interest to me. You were giving 'examples' for archaeology to fail to meet standards. If those examples do not interest you, and you do not care wether they are wrong or not, why bring them up? >>> Stone structures are never dated before 10,000 BC because if they were >>> then it would upset the preconceived idea of the so - called Neolithic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > etc.) Circumstancial evidence does not relieve the burden of proof, > for me at least. So if there is no secure dating, you prefer to invent one that fits your preconceived ideas. If there is one, you elect to neglect it. How dopes that compare to the rant about TRUTH you gave above? >>> They were wrong about agriculture, hence 27,000 year old >>> domestic tubers on grinding tools off the coast of new zealand. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618512.700-science-pacific-islanders-wer e-worlds-first-farmers-.html From that page " Loy, Spriggs and Wickler acknowledge that this is not conclusive proof that they [the tubers in question, UM] were cultivated" Also note the dating, which is worse than those you criticised above, as there is no cdirect connection to the tools "Using radiocarbon dating of organic material found nearby, Spriggs and Wickler fixed the age of the tools at 28 000 years. So neither the dating nor the evidence in itself stands up to close scrutiny. >>> They >>> were wrong about language giving HSS an advantage- neanderthals had it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > got the upper hand over other archaic HS was because they learned to > talk and therefore to organize? Because those scientists were not archaeologists, they were not arguing from archaeological finds. Archaeologists would have told you that using lances for hunting means that you are able to plan and to communicate with your co-hunters. > It's been a very popular notion over the last few years, and I always > thought it was complete and utter hogwash. Man has probably been using > some sort of language for at least 2 million years. Just about every animal uses language to communicate. >>> They were wrong about animal domestication- dogs got pushed back >>> to 18000 BC. >> Canines have accompanied man, if that means domestication, is quite >> another kettle of fish. I wish my world was as simple as yours. > > How long do you think they have "accompanied" man? That is no question that can be answered by archaeology. You can ask how old the evidence is for a co-habitation of canines and man. > And what's the > difference in the way they accompanied man 20,000 years ago and how my > dog "accompanies" me now (i.e.when he wants to and when he can be > distracted from hunting sqirrels in the woods)? Did you take it out of a wolf den? Do you know the difference between a dog bred as a human companion and a wolf brought up by humans? >>> They were wrong about stone huts- those got pushed back >>> to 400,000 ybp. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tent, that's supposed to be superior to the ones you have to actually > create out of raw materials like the ancients did. Which goes to show how intelligent they were. >>> Just look what happened in Flores. These archeologists >> Who is 'these archaeologists'? Big conspirational group secretly ruling >> the world? Where could I join, they must pay more than I currently earn? > > Who said anything about a conspiracy or a group? In Flores it was just > one jack-a.s, You were talking about 'these archaeologists' above. And it turns about to be one guy. Who was the guy going on about the truth? > who didn't want his life-work on homo erectus to be > overturned. So he stole the damn bones and then, ridiculous, started [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm sure he's not the only tenured jack-a.s in the world, operating > independently. Quite possible. And possibly archaeologists are not the only group of people to spot members with a behaviour such as this. You were talking generally about 'these archaeologists' and there is not the slightest bit of truth about that. >>> are so invested >>> in their preconceived notions [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But the things I'm talking about do have evidence. Only it's secret, or has been stolen by 'these archaeologists' again, or is off with the dog chasing squirrels in the woods. If you have evidence, why didn't you present it instead of dumping badly researched opinions, to put it lightly? >> Wake up. There was no dating by radioactive isotopes, no genetic >> sampling when the theory of the Neolithic Revolution originated. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > original sphinx, that was later built upon, MAY have been created > around 10,000 BC? Nobody cries out anything when such views are aired. But there is always someone to point out the bullshit, when these phantasmagorias are sold as the TRUTH with supposedly rockhard evidence. Why is it, that people are contend to be fed the greatest bullshit as long as it is acompanied by a big dose of 'official archaeology conspires to hide our truths'? > My point is that if no stone structure can be dated to before 10,000 > BC then it is only because we lack the technology or simply haven't > found the site yet. Well fine, we are through with that then. There are of course stone structures dated to before 10,000 BC, and reliable at that. Since your basic assumption is wrong, let's see the elaborate icing you have put on the cake. Jericho and Catal Huyuk or whatever it's called > were NOT the first urban centers, not by a long shot. Agreed. They were quite a bit removed from being urban by any definition I know of. > SOMEBODY figured > out that if you build a village near a particularly fertile orchard > and a good water source, then you better damn well build a wall around > it or the other hoiminids are going to come and take it from you, long > before 10,000 years ago. Any evidence for that? Or ist it one of your truths? Have you ever considered population density figures for the times? and had a look for the environmental background of the sites? If there is waterholes and date palms every 5 miles, and human bands every 40 miles, why would you want to defend any one waterhole plus date palm site? It would be easier to move to a fresh site than try to defend one you have already plunderd. A typical laymans mistake, again, to consider prehistoric interaction before a modern background. Is that still the truth, as you mentioned above? > Most likely such places were near the coast > where oyster beds were readily available, and hence they are now [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need to find a way to incorporate some damn common sense into our > methods. You might want to find out about mesolithic sites and the ongoing archaeologic research on submerged sites. The scientific way would have been to get going and search for those sites, get a funding and excavate. Instead you are just echoing moans of other people about some half-understood (I was just talking generally) claims about the shortcomings of archaeologists. Very helpfull, thank you, and of course so full of truth. > snip > have fun Uwe Mueller > So what? There is evidence for the use of the stone in roman times. > There is no evidence for an earlier use of it. Er - have you ever heard of something called "The Great Pyramid"? It's a fairly insignificant little monument stuck way out in the Egyptian desert, but it does offer just a smidgeon of evidence that the use of stone pre-dated the Romans. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >> So what? There is evidence for the use of the stone in roman times. >> There is no evidence for an earlier use of it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >but it does offer just a smidgeon of evidence that the use of stone >pre-dated the Romans. Ken, 'it' is not stone in general, it is 'a' stone, a very big one. Doug SignatureDoug 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/ > >> So what? There is evidence for the use of the stone in roman times. > >> There is no evidence for an earlier use of it. > >Er - have you ever heard of something called "The Great Pyramid"? It's a > >fairly insignificant little monument stuck way out in the Egyptian desert, > >but it does offer just a smidgeon of evidence that the use of stone > >pre-dated the Romans. > Ken, 'it' is not stone in general, it is 'a' stone, a very big one. Er - which particular one? Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== Kendall K. Down schrieb: >> So what? There is evidence for the use of the stone in roman times. >> There is no evidence for an earlier use of it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ken Down Just read: " ... use of the stone ...", not stone in general any time any place, but one very large stone incorporated into roman walls at Baalbek. That was what the argument was about. And it would have been clearer if you had read to the end of the paragraph: "It is a laymans mistake to assume, this would mean, the stone was not used before that. But there is simply no evidence for that. Lots of people assume it had been in use before and got incorporated into the building to connect it to earlier structures. But there is no scientific way yet, to provide evidence for or against that notion." If you have evidence for the pre-roman use of that stone, please say so. have fun Uwe Mueller > Just read: " ... use of the stone ...", not stone in general any time > any place, but one very large stone incorporated into roman walls at > Baalbek. That was what the argument was about. Ah. Thank you. I missed that. Ken Down |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message