Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where should new archaeological research be directed

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoseeker26754
Really its quite simple, the small guy who might have found something top dogs don't care about! Seems to me if they did not find it it is of no value. Most get blown off and become forgotten, thrown away as nothing but sediment, or another plain explaination.
Really there should be a open place to bring things to to be looked at really. Not some school/collage that wants braging points. People outside the mainstream who want to look, explore and see things for what they are!
I don't understand what you are saying. Universities, government, private archaeologists and archaeological societies, to my experience, are very good about responding to the public and offering information as to what they may have found. I have just seen that personally as a top guy in his field gave a very good explanation for an item that someone had found, photographed, and emailed him a query about. It's also something I do. You are either talking to, or listening to, the wrong people.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Thanks to all for the replies



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Sorry, JohnnyCanuck. Infoseeker is also correct. I know archaeologists who have had what he described happen to them. They make a find, report to the appropriate academics, who then dismiss the find only to lead an excavation at the site where the find was discovered by the archaeologist that reported the discovery. Infoseeker is describeing the jealousies between amatuer and academic archaeologists. Especially, if the discovery is controversial political or historical.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'd go more a long with the shore lines, but more specifically the island nations.... carribean, galapagos, farow islands, falkands, maldives etc (forgive my spelling lol)..... i think there is a lot to be found just off coast in a lot of these places. Most of these island chains were at one time 1 large island... it'd be neat to see what's really hidden there..


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If you do a bit of reasearch into inner earth theory, underground tunnels ancient libraries you'll soon come to personal accounts of people who have been to either. The interest lies with a piece where an entrance was found underneath the bank of a river in Southern America. If yo search carefully youll find an old photo of it. Its on a U-shaped bend of a river in the nearby mentioned area. There's a slight hill directy on the outside of the bend.

And if you go to google earth and follow the river, sure enough, its there. I've always wanted to get a plane ticket and a good gps and just go there. Perhaps you can.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PGTWEED
 


'Site jumping' does occur mainly more senior people taking over the work of grad students but then that is justified by the hierarchical systems and in Universities where 'lower level' people do reconnaissance and survey work.


Depends on the people involved and how the publications are done. My own work in the Middle-East was incorporated into the work of more senior people and published by them.
edit on 3/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PGTWEED
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Sorry, JohnnyCanuck. Infoseeker is also correct. I know archaeologists who have had what he described happen to them. They make a find, report to the appropriate academics, who then dismiss the find only to lead an excavation at the site where the find was discovered by the archaeologist that reported the discovery. Infoseeker is describeing the jealousies between amatuer and academic archaeologists. Especially, if the discovery is controversial political or historical.
My comments here are going to reflect a local context.

You know, much of your discussion has to do with what one wants out of a site. Many amateurs are fueled by a lust for 'goodies' and conduct their investigations accordingly. Here in Ontario, it is illegal to conduct archaeological activities without a licence issued by the government. There are a whole series of hoops to jump through to qualify...then you need to register your project and report on the results. Since archaeology destroys its database in the process, it needs to be conducted to a particular set of standards...mapping, recordkeeping, all of that. I have an 'avocational' licence which only permits me to do Stages 1 & 2...up to and including shovel test pitting, all on my lonesome. I can do further work alongside a higher grade...ie with someone who has a professional licence.

Which all goes to say that just because there is a site known, it should not follow that it should be excavated unless it is in danger of destruction. Outside of that, excavation should only be done to assist in a particular line of research. Otherwise...just leave it where it is. Burials, of course, should be left alone except under the most exceptional circumstances and in full consultation with the cultural descendants.

So what may look like jealousy and site jumping more reasonably reflects the fact that archaeological resources are fragile and generally only provide one opportunity to tell their tale. Too often, that tale is lost due to well-meaning amateur excavation.

And to address the central discussion, I'd like to see more investigation regarding the peopling of the Americas...First Nations and pre-Columbian European.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Yes not being associated with a Western University limited my ability to do work at sites in the ME. I always had to attach myself to some other dudes, usually Brandeis University
edit on 4/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 
reply to post by Epsillion70
 


Actually these mummies have now been proven to be defacto european Celts. This was verified using DNA profiling, textile examination by ancient textile experts, and tool analysis.
So there you have it: europeans brought technology and civilzation to the Chinese thousands of years before the first chinese dynasty. I bet the chinese communist party hates these mummies!! Lol!



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jujumonster
 


Not really a general view on that subject

en.wikipedia.org...Summary





2007 the Chinese government allowed a National Geographic Society team headed by Spencer Wells to examine the mummies' DNA. Wells was able to extract undegraded DNA from the internal tissues. The scientists extracted enough material to suggest the Tarim Basin was continually inhabited from 2000 BCE to 300 BCE and preliminary results indicate the people, rather than having a single origin, originated from Europe, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley and other regions yet to be determined.






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join