16,000-year-old Pa. rock shelter dwelling still divides archaeologists after 40 years

science seems to be in a conundrum with the dating process of carbon 14 as it can throw up some stupid results the ash from a eruption in 1980s america gave a date of 20.000 years and the hole model assumes that the universe sprang into life with the sun and planets exactley like they are now .

so it would be hard to date anything to 200.000 + years accuratley and has scientist scratching their heads about having to re age everything

nice find OP. Was not aware of this site. will have to make a trip as it is only half a days drive from me.

Originally posted by geobro
science seems to be in a conundrum with the dating process of carbon 14 as it can throw up some stupid results the ash from a eruption in 1980s america gave a date of 20.000 years and the hole model assumes that the universe sprang into life with the sun and planets exactley like they are now .

so it would be hard to date anything to 200.000 + years accuratley and has scientist scratching their heads about having to re age everything

Er no they didn't use C-14 dating it cannot date beyond 60,000 years back, try again, lol

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Hanslune

 

No, science is not based on beliefs yet beliefs in one knowledge plague science. Science is a learning adventure. Once you close your mind to new possibilities you are done.

...and you know everyone's else's minds are closed how? I see constant change in science while you complain of static non-movment? How odd.

No, you do not change the knowledge base just because evidence is found but you do not deny the possibility either just because it is not what you believe. Science is about evidence and hypothesis, it is not about beliefs anyway. To put a date of when humans came to this continent based on the earliest evidence found is wrong, all that evidence means is that they were here already before that time.. It does not mean that humans were not here five thousand years before just because you do not have evidence to prove it...it just means there is no evidence yet.

Yep, no evidence and guess what people are looking for right now - yep that evidence, right now as we speak. So I don't quite understand your constantly harking on everyone minds being closed......has science advanced and change he world (of archaeology) in the last 200 years? Yep.

I think what you mean is that certain specific thing you personally want to be real are not being accepted by consensus and no evidence is being found to support these particular ideas - is that it?

It is as bad as everyone thinking the earth was only six thousand years old maximum because Genesis said so. Genesis was written to try to satisfy people's curiosity on how the earth was formed, and the problems in the early times of mankind.

You overstate, religions are not about evidence they are about belief.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Why does new evidence have to challenge the old. I think the system is set up wrong. sure evidence is needed to introduce it into the theory, but I think people are preferably allowing things in that reinforce consensus of the time. Stuff that challenges consensus has to be proven at great costs with little return on money invested.

I am not even interested in getting in that game. I'll just dig up my rocks and hope one has some chicken scratches on it that I can try to decipher.

That system you don't like seems to work very well. What would you like to replace it with? Give an example.

reply to post by Hanslune


Actually, everything I have personally found here has been accepted as real buy some people in the field but to officially verify them is kind of expensive and requires more digging to find more information as to when they were made and who made them. By the time I'd get done verifying them officially, I would have to sell them to get my investment back and make nothing for all my work. I'll just keep the rocks and leave them to the kids when I die. They are good conversation pieces. At first I approached people who were said to be experienced at archeology and was told they were nothing. I guess going to the right people is beneficial, you have to go to a real archeologist, not a geologist.

I have zero gripes about that. It seems like the gripes I have stem from studying the problems of discoveries by archeologists being ridiculed and then ten years later their discoveries miraculously become real because someone who had more prestige discovered a similar thing. I tend to stick up for the underdog.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Why does new evidence have to challenge the old. I think the system is set up wrong. sure evidence is needed to introduce it into the theory, but I think people are preferably allowing things in that reinforce consensus of the time. Stuff that challenges consensus has to be proven at great costs with little return on money invested.

I am not even interested in getting in that game. I'll just dig up my rocks and hope one has some chicken scratches on it that I can try to decipher.

That system you don't like seems to work very well. What would you like to replace it with? Give an example.

I can give an example of a problem but the solution has to be discussed with the society governing Archeology.

An Archeologist spends ten years digging a site and because of costs has to produce something that is impressive so the people funding it will have something to show for it. He fits together the puzzle and creates a theory that is easily accepted.

Along comes someone else digging at another site and it contradicts the findings of the first guy. The first guys reputation is in jeopardy so a little war of words erupts and the backers of the first guy crush the findings of the second guy, saying it is not real. Both these people are archeologists.

Now the first guy is protecting his ten years of research and the second guy stumbled on a find and only has six months and a hundred grand into it, yet his truth is suppressed because his status is not as good as the first guys is.

Why can't these two finds be considered as synergetic, why does the first guy have to feel threatened, his finds are real but to make his find alluring it was blown up a bit to make it a little more interesting. That happens, he should not have to worry about his work being discarded as wrong. It is possible that there were two different technologically different people that could have been living close by at the same time, people who came from places far apart originally. When I say technology, I am talking about Iron tool workers and stone tool workers.

We have people using old school tools in one town and in a town ten miles away, they are using top notch tools. People do not want to change many times.

I can't see people trying to protect their work when they do not have to, an explanation as to why things are different should be looked at, both of the two Archeologists in my fictional example could be right.

reply to post by rickymouse


Welcome to the human race

reply to post by Hanslune


Ah, Hanslune

I thought I would do a little research on your website you place so much emphasis on. Ha Ha, its Heiser, who loathed and was jealous of Sitchin's success as an author.

Sitchin has sold million books, been reprinted some 45 times and his books are in over 25 different languages, so clearly its you, who not only can't manage to get his name right, but is working a troll campaign backing a would-be author who couldn't get people to believe in his form of creationism and are clearly a religious troll to anyone who dares think differently.

Wasn't Heiser pulled off the tv channels because of some particular reason - you clearly know and wasn't he trying to prove his own theory that contradicted Sitchin and simply people preferred to read and enjoy Sitchin's ideas.

With all ancient scripts that have no verifiable means, guess work and assumption have to be involved - Sitchin wasn't a fanatic he gave his interpretation which some agreed and some disagreed with, however we still wait to see if he and others are right in their assumptions, nothing although initially cast in stone can't be corrected if necessary, without the sarcastic, pompous trolling. You and I will have to disagree but perhaps you might like to read what people actually put in their threads. I shall leave you to your feeding.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Agreed.

Human nature being what it is, it's not a stretch in the slightest to acknowledge that powerful people throughout history have usurped history and tailored or completely altered it for their own ends.

In fact, i'd be more amazed if it had not happened frankly.

Your alternative translations ( O' Briens) for Genesis are interesting...the first thought i got when i read about the 'shining ones' is that ancient Humans actually knew how the Universe worked back then.

No mysticism, no prehistoric ignorance (as they are often presented to us as being).

They were correct. Think about it, today our science is pretty sure the matter for creation of planets comes from where?

STARS! We are all born of Stars, ourselves, our planets, everything came from...the Shining ones above..from the Stars themselves.

Ancient Humanity knew how the Universe worked, they somehow knew we are all star dust.

But, as seems to be typical in our societies, the powerful, wealthy, positioned people throughout history get to hijack history and either claim it for themselves or change it for their own preferred version...accurate ancient theories on origin, that everything originated in the cores of Stars and was distributed around the Universe, or as they put it, created by 'the shining ones above', was easily hijacked and changed into 'God' created everything.

Enforce the teaching of this simple change for a few generations or so, and the truth is dead, and instead 'God' or the misconception of origin is born in it's place..it would have been a fairly simple thing for an all-powerful ruler to do really.

reply to post by MysterX


Hey, the people of long ago used to sit out and watch the stars for entertainment with little distractions. It is no wonder that they figured out so much about the universe. Many people today never even see the stars, they look at the sky and do not even notice them because their mind is occupied by other things. They have conditioned themselves to ignore or filter them as unimportant.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Why does new evidence have to challenge the old. I think the system is set up wrong. sure evidence is needed to introduce it into the theory, but I think people are preferably allowing things in that reinforce consensus of the time. Stuff that challenges consensus has to be proven at great costs with little return on money invested.

Two points...first, that one needs to have a solid baseline of that which is known to be true. Secondly, the world of academe continually generates a slew of bright young sparks whose mission is to increase the current sphere of knowledge. That is their role. The bar is set high for a purpose...to build and accept a line of thought based purely upon conjecture and wish is to create an idiocracy.

One more thing...if you are not getting adequate responses on the specimens you are asking about, keep looking. Sooner or later you'll find (non-gender specific) "That Guy" who can answer your questions. But I gotta say, sometimes a rock is just a rock.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I have already found professionals that saw my rocks, they are low quality ancient tools, probably made by the Indians that live here, that is not even an issue. It is whether it pays to have them verified so their value increases. To have them verified it takes hiring an Archeologist to verify the site and have him put his name on them. To me that is not necessary, as the cost will exceed their value.

Most people who see my Avatar in person can see it is an old hammer head, and same with a few of the other tools I have found. The only discrepancy is what the carving is meant to represent. Maybe to someone who wishes to own something of value it would pay to have them verified but to me, just owning a part of history is fine.

If I found something real nice and valuable and had it verified, my wife would tell me to sell it and put a down payment on a new Caddy. She already mentioned that when I found some of this stuff Funny how getting money can put you farther in debt. Is your wife like that

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I have already found professionals that saw my rocks, they are low quality ancient tools, probably made by the Indians that live here, that is not even an issue. It is whether it pays to have them verified so their value increases. To have them verified it takes hiring an Archeologist to verify the site and have him put his name on them. To me that is not necessary, as the cost will exceed their value.
If I found something real nice and valuable and had it verified, my wife would tell me to sell it and put a down payment on a new Caddy. She already mentioned that when I found some of this stuff

Funny how getting money can put you farther in debt. Is your wife like that

I must confess that I have no problem acquiring debt if I take the brakes off. As to the artifacts, here in Ontario archaeological resources belong to the Crown. While selling your finds might not get you jailed, there could be a degree of public shaming invoked. Wholesale looting of sites can and has generated some hefty fines.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I go by what one of the local Indian elders told me. It is not good to sell something found from an old ceremonial site, but it is alright to give it as a gift. Also some things need to stay there on the land, they were offerings to the land. I also have to give a gift to the land to replace what I take off of the land to give away.

reply to post by Shiloh7


thank you, i am checking these out!

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Ah, Hanslune

I thought I would do a little research on your website you place so much emphasis on. Ha Ha, its Heiser

Sorry dude I made no such link. False charge - care to link to this Hesier link you said I provided? lol

Oh and do apologise for mispelling his name

reply to post by smurfzilla

It is near the Village of Avella in Washington County Pa near the WVA Border. Been there many times. Beautiful area!

reply to post by MysterX


Looking at the Huffington Post's link, and what I see is alot of politics and little science. The scientists even state:

"Based on the evidence they've sited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.

And everyone suddenly starts speaking of "humanity's 400k yr journey in the lands of Judea" when in fact the news are flipping it from to humans instead of neanderthals through the cunning use of rhetorics.

Face it, the Neanderthals weren't even precursors to us. Neanderthals were a parallell hominid species.

This is all a populistic ploy dressing as archeology to put Israel in the spotlight.
My two cents.

reply to post by InSolace


One correction, a certain percentage of modern man has a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, so technically we are their descendants, in part.....