reply to post by Klassified
Okay... I confess that when I went looking for the episode, I picked it up off of YouTube instead of clicking on your link. I shoulda clicked the
link... what I got was NOT what you posted.
I just listened to about 10 minutes of the program you linked, and realized that it was not what I had found -- the originally titled show with
Charlton Heston (and Steen-Macintyre.) I'd tried to watch the Heston show before and he does touch on the Hueyatlaco find in what seemed a
sensationalized way. I found a more convenient discussion of the whole matter on Wikipedia.
A couple of observations (realize that I'm not as famous or as well studied as some of these people... nor do I work in these fields. I'm just an
opinionated scholar with some knowledge here): First, the bone is problematic to me. I agree that there appear to be cut marks on it, but the art
isn't presented like any other primitive art that I've seen. This isn't good or bad, it's just... very different and so no connection can be made
with anything. The jumbled mess of lines makes me suspicious of pareidolia (again, nothing I can confirm here, only that the lines can be assembled
in a number of ways.)
Second, I think that "suppressed" is a strong word here. The professionals mentioned do have a vested interest in the dig -- HOWEVER -- there is no
supporting evidence. You may not be aware of it, but the evidence for pre-Clovis occupation was long in coming and although it's accepted now, it
takes a lot of proof to get a consensus on something like the the Gault site
remember the arguments over this one -- it also was an anomaly, but when other material showed up in the same age range, the site became more
250,000 years is problematic for a number of reasons, most of which boil down to "no real evidence of humans outside of Africa at that date." A
30,000 year date (which they seem to have settled on in at least one publication)
would be somewhat supported by other evidence
-- yes, we've seen humans on
this continent in that date range... then as sites of equivalent ages crop up closer to Hueyatlaco, proof emerges that yes it's a valid date for that
Anyway, I've been aware of this one (marginally) for a number of years. I can see why they're feeling offended, but nobody's going to leap all
over an anomalous result and declare it to be The Truth. Further, it hasn't been suppressed as much as it simply hasn't been accepted.
Anyway, a few thoughts from this end. Bear in mind that I'm not an expert and none of this is actually a field that I have a degree in. I have some
Master's level courses in these fields, but no degree.