If you want to make it in archaeology, you clearly have to lack an objective mind open to the truth. If you open your mind to anything that seems out there, but is clearly a reality, such as the Yonaguni ruins, you'll be ridiculed. If the ruins were above the water and located on Yonaguni Island, there would be no question and archaeologists would accept it. But because it is underwater, because it ties into the whole "lost sunken civilization" thing, they bash it, they ridicule it, they ignore it, and they push the idea (with their geologist cohorts) that it is a "natural rock formation". This is their tactic with any similar discovery.

Kinda curious as to why my post was blocked considering the OP quotes it later on and admits that I nailed it on the head.....

Which by the way schmidt1989 that impresses me beyond belief. I still would refrain from calling people whackos, especially since you still believe it.

Originally posted by itsatrap
Kinda curious as to why my post was blocked considering the OP quotes it later on and admits that I nailed it on the head.....

Which by the way schmidt1989 that impresses me beyond belief. I still would refrain from calling people whackos, especially since you still believe it.

It makes you think, don't it?

second line: why was his post blocked?

I personally never believed there was ever any kind of secret cabal or archeologists conspiring to keep any kind of ancient secret. To be honest, I think it would go against their very nature to do so. (not to mention, there's no chance of one of them sitting on something that could be a career maker)....

Of course though, just as with any scientists, there are commonly held ideas, and when someone steps up and challenges those ideas, he or she may face "mainstream" viewpoints...but I certainly don't think there's any conspiracy to "silence" such views...no, instead they'll just try and refute them, or in failing to do so, applaud the new discovery.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I personally never believed there was ever any kind of secret cabal or archeologists conspiring to keep any kind of ancient secret. To be honest, I think it would go against their very nature to do so. (not to mention, there's no chance of one of them sitting on something that could be a career maker)....

Of course though, just as with any scientists, there are commonly held ideas, and when someone steps up and challenges those ideas, he or she may face "mainstream" viewpoints...but I certainly don't think there's any conspiracy to "silence" such views...no, instead they'll just try and refute them, or in failing to do so, applaud the new discovery.

SPOT ON!!!

Originally posted by Gazrok
I personally never believed there was ever any kind of secret cabal or archeologists conspiring to keep any kind of ancient secret. To be honest, I think it would go against their very nature to do so. (not to mention, there's no chance of one of them sitting on something that could be a career maker)....

Exactly so.

Of course though, just as with any scientists, there are commonly held ideas, and when someone steps up and challenges those ideas, he or she may face "mainstream" viewpoints...but I certainly don't think there's any conspiracy to "silence" such views...no, instead they'll just try and refute them, or in failing to do so, applaud the new discovery.

Yes... and you should mention that in attempting to refute them, they go over the same grounds (look at the new/odd evidence, ask for context, look at materials (if appropriate), look for other finds in the same area) and attempt to refute based on the evidence the originator has given as well as material that this person apparently did not consider.

Originally posted by Byrd
Yes... and you should mention that in attempting to refute them, they go over the same grounds (look at the new/odd evidence, ask for context, look at materials (if appropriate), look for other finds in the same area) and attempt to refute based on the evidence the originator has given as well as material that this person apparently did not consider.

And that's exactly what has been going on with David Lewis-Williams. Plenty of refutation all over the community.

But, damn, I enjoy reading his books and still think The Mind in the Cave was the easiest of the lot to read as well as being the most controversial.

Among the many hundreds of thousands of threads on this website, choosing one to comment/post on for the first time was certainly a difficult decision! Much like the OP discussed originally in this thread describing their own experiences, it was a lengthy process of individuation…

Nonetheless, as Anthropology, specifically cross-disciplinary application (fancy way of saying academic synthesis), is a field(s) that is near and dear to my heart I felt compelled to post.

Much respect to the OP for expressing a common lack of understanding in the way social or “soft,” sciences (in this case, specifically, archeology and physical anthropology) may operate, especially in the conspiracy-oriented society modern man finds himself frequently in. I applaud you in defending the very rational and self-regulating posture of the profession of archaeology (and indirectly, the broader social sciences).

To respond and elaborate on a comment that was said in this thread that I believe is a remnant of a previous time’s frame of thinking; indeed, although anthropology, archaeology and a host of other fields that comprise “soft sciences” can be said to be interpretive, it should not mean that insights gained from such fields are any less valid simply because they are not “hard sciences.” This very question, which in many ways turns itself into a methodological debate, came to a head most recently through the 1960s and 70s among social scientists who touted themselves to be either “qualitative” or “quantitative,” most any upper level course in social science research methods and history will bear this out. From colleagues of mine who were very much a part of this debate when it was really raging, I have learned that it was quite ugly… people backstabbing people because they felt numbers were more tellingly accurate than stories, or vice versa. I will not say for a moment that the debate is over; it is not, and until we discover Pandora, probably never will be. However, a compromise was met that practically every student interested in social science research today is now familiar with: the mixed method approach. For instance, with respect to archaeology, perhaps consulting both chemical dating and physical data and local (or non-local, depending) accounts, myths, histories and stories of the site(s) in question and under excavation/research. Of course, as with all “scientifically rigorous” research, complemented with the requisite understanding and knowledge needed to approach the desired topic or area of enquiry.

But all of this to say, I do not think Anthropology has ever been a convergent sort of discipline. Unlike the clear and somewhat prioritized contours of a field like Physics or Chemistry, Anthropology, in the most general sense (and as compared with Physics or Chemistry, two “hard” sciences), does not attempt to provide sweeping all-or-nothing sorts of claims about the universe and everything in it. When studied, the corpus of literature illuminates a messy, loud, and in many cases divergent network of ideas, concepts, notions, tropes, theories, stories and more, all of which cannot be readily tested in a “controlled” setting like the pulse of a laser or dimple on X-ray film, this is so because Anthropology is the study of the story of us, told by us. And any psych major will tell you that you must never self-diagnose, for the very philosophical fact that you will never see your own physical butt hole without a lens (or some serious surgery).

And herein also lies the beauty of a discipline like Anthropology. Since it does not make itself behave like what may be understood as “more serious sciences” it is freer to explore into the fringe areas of human understanding. Fringe of course being a very tough term to pin down in a field that itself is considered pretty out there when compared with the classical stability of a discipline like Law or History. I will not pretend that there aren’t accepted standards in Anthropology, of course there are, but the direction that the research questions can point towards, in my opinion, brings us closer to understanding who we are as a very peculiar species on this planet.

It needs to also be said that with the growth of better tools and understandings of how our complex world works, comes also ever larger (and at the same time smaller) levels and scales of analysis. This means more and more opportunity for different fields to reach across disciplinary lines and synergize lines of effort.

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
In my 6 years here at ATS, I hadn't seen the term "mainstream archaeology" used until probably 2010, 2009 at earliest. And you know what? It drives me EFFING BANANAS. There's no such thing as mainstream archaeology... What you see in the news is what they've found! There are no biological anthropologists who hide information on past advance cultures. When they find stuff, it is reported to their sponsor, university, etc., studied, then reported to the world. It's not shared with the government that hides the data and hushes all the anthropologists who have worked on the program.

Sure there is such a thing. "Mainstream Archaeology" refers to the accepted doctrines of viewing what we know of the past, and what we find out about the past, through a narrow filter dictated by whoever creates and perpetuates the current dogmas.

When Joe Shmoe finds a screw in a piece of coal, or dinosaur prints embedded with human-ancestor prints, it is filtered by "mainstream archaeology." Maybe, as you say, the evidence of the coal and of the prints are made available to the public. Nevertheless, all of the media and all of the peer-reviewed journals must conform to the conclusions of "mainstream archaeology." Any and all attempts will be made to hold and support the status quo theories until such time as they become untenable.

We've come so far. In the modern era, we no longer need entities like the roman catholic church to dull our wits and hold back our discoveries. In the modern era, science happily holds itself back with its very own leash of ignorance.