Originally posted by undo i was researching radio-metric dating, including carbon-dating, when i stumbled upon a site which explained the entire process. they noted that a dig site is dated once, and thereafter, everything that comes out of the dated strata in that site, must be consistent with the pre-determined dates of the strata or the item is thrown out as contamination. i had to read that a few times because i couldn't believe my eyes.

this also means that they can and do throw away items found in a strata, based on nothing but visual confirmation, which is itself fueled and filtered by a theory.

The base belief is what's called "the Law of Stratigraphic Superposition", which says that all things being equal, the deeper you go, the earlier it was laid down. So...there are also processes that challenge that law...cryroturbation, for instance. That is the same process by which fields 'grow' rocks. Or groundhogs! They can place an intrusive item into a context that will make your head spin.

Another law is "One date is no date", so nobody is going to do a carbon-14 test on a piece of charcoal and throw out everything that doesn't correspond. Also...stuff doesn't get thrown out. It is catalogued and ends up in a box on a shelf. Trust me...I've processed nails by the pound.

Also, since you often have students working as shovel monkeys...their finds are bagged and processed later on by those with more skills.

Most importantly...lots of excavations end up being multi-componant sites. A friend of mine capsulised it by saying 'A nice place to camp is a nice place to camp'. You need to expect the unexpected.

Don't forget, nobody goes to school or academia in order to confirm the status quo. Everybody is looking to be Howard Carter, or Indiana Jones, or a great theorist. They're looking for the unusual!

You know what? You have an obvious interest in the subject. Join a society, or take a course. Get in on a dig and talk to pros. It will open your eyes.

Take this from somebody who was talking about Graham Hancock to a Prof...who explained to me patiently that he knew exactly how the Pyramid's blocks were cut, as he had excavated sites where the tools had been dropped beside the partially processed stone.

Find somebody who'll let you dig. Pick their brains. Happy trails!

Here's a self edit to include the fact that just because you're an academic...that certainly doesn't mean you can't be some kind of arse, too...

[edit on 29-3-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by poet1b
Sp in other words, you smart guys have figured it all out, and anybody who questions you, or the other higher ups in the status quo of the fraternity, must be wrong.
They are all theories, and that you need to knock them down without ever presenting a decent, logical argument for doing so, really blows your credibility, no matter what school you went to, or what sites you have dug on.
How did those artifacts get down under a mountain where people mine for gold? What might happen out in a sandy desert or muddy plain is one thing, but under a mountain?

Forgive me for saying, but I think you're blowing your credibility by arguing with me based upon what some guy with an obvious agenda has told you. You don't know that stuff is there, came from there, looks like that. You're taking buddy's word for it.

I'm not in a fraternity. I'm a tradesman. I'm some schmuck that decided when he was forty that he enjoyed the subject so much he'd go for a degree in anthro.

I just don't take 'some guy's' word as sacrosanct. And if I want to know about a subject, ultimately I'll track down the science, so that I can see what somebody has endeavored to prove to his peers. Who all put their academic asses on the line. Who, if they fake science, are tossed out and everything they've ever published is discounted forever.

You want me to comment about some goodie found under a mountain, show me how the excavation went. Show me the logs. Was it a sealed context, or did somebody drop a sparkplug into a coal mine and go "Well, lookey there!"

Originally posted by undo well that was the problem. the site i found the data on was part of the community you refer to. and they clearly said out of place artifacts were thrown away.

gimme the link...then I can comment further.

another thing. margaret murray was a female egyptian archaeologist. you know of her?

Frankly, I focus on the archaeology of Southern Ontario, so that I can always make a phonecall, then walk onto a site and pick up a trowel. I don't see myself getting to Egypt so I didn't stay on top of the work.

You, I have hope for. Get involved locally. You can, it's fun.

People are still using the fact that a person is religious to invalidate their professional work?
Even when the videos in question here never mentioned religion even once?

This is silly.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
People are still using the fact that a person is religious to invalidate their professional work?
Even when the videos in question here never mentioned religion even once? This is silly.

No, 'silly' is not looking up the writer and asking how such beliefs factor into their...perception.

And I suppose the fact that coca and tobacco have been found in Egyptian mummies is just another coincidence in this equation.
Give me a break.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Instead, you discredit him because he is religious. Your bias is glaring.

I am biased against stoopid. I am biased against ignorance.

As to the nicotine/cocaine question? It's a doozy, and personally, I can hardly wait til that one gets figured out.

I'm just not going to buy into Cremo because he can ask a question. It's the answers that interest me. And that's where the proof has to materialise.

And you can believe what you want to, but I think assuming that people couldn't come up with impressive architectural and engineering accomplishments...on both sides of the pond, shows some bias as well.

Look at the journal articles. Make JSTOR your friend. If you're gonna be an armchair expert, may as well do it right.

I'd like to interject something here.

Originally, the reasons given for not considering the ancient texts were based on things like:

1) it's not scientifically possible for-
--a) people to fly in the sky, therefore, references to gods and/or people flying in the sky are myth
--b) create new life from anything other than a womb, therefore, references to people being created outside a womb, are myth
--c) create hybrid species, therefore, references to cross breeding and animorphs are myth
--d) destroy two cities at once, destroy entire planets, or make large amounts of water move, therefore, references to such things are myth

2) this was followed up shortly by-

--a) the greek texts are fabrications because the ancient greeks couldn't write, therefore anything they say is a falsehood
--b) the hindu texts are fabrications
--c) the roman texts are fabrications
--d) the babylonian, assyrian, chinese, japanese, egyptian, mayan, inca, aztec, texts are fabrications
--e) the torah, hebrew pseudopigraphia, dead sea scrolls and the bible, are fabrications

3) which gave rise to-

--a) the even more ancient cities mentioned in these texts, such as Troy, never existed.

AND ALL OF THIS WAS DETERMINED BY ACADEMIA BEFORE THE ADVENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY.

Today, we are lead to believe all those ancient texts are mythological fabrications because some pre-enlightenment professors decided the ancient world was one big lie, AND they did this before they had any evidence to support their conclusions.

40 years later, it was determined that the ancient greeks could write. The professors who wrote on the subject and trashed ancient greece, never recanted. When confronted, their excuse was -- "well you don't actually believe the stories in their epics, do you?" It didn't matter whether or not the initial hypothesis was right, as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence "and besides, TROY NEVER EXISTED"....that is, till it was found 1000 years later.

This goes on and on. Did you know Gilgamesh never existed? That is, till they discovered his city in the desert, along with a monument dedicated to his burial spot.

Just ignore the rest of the information, call our ancestors what you will. But do so at your own intellectual peril.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by undo]