donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Centuries. Yet the truth of the matter was
> correct from the beginning. You pointed out that
> lanse was an oops item at the time. it was and if
> it wasn't for the broach it still would be. And
> that broach was smaller than the head.
Truths are relative. And even if the broach had never been found, the viking site and their illfated construction & fields would eventually have been found. Your position here, as written, does constitute a logical fallacy. (No offense, just stating a perception)
>
> 2. I agree totally that reasonable skepticism is
> certainly warranted; especially when oops items
> are involved. I have a problem when that
> skepticism becomes dogma and controls the
> research. When the end is to protect a particular
> story rather than go where the evidence leads.
This is human nature - don't rail at the hoary grey-haired academics defending the body of work they have dedicated their entire life to... this is purely human nature and is *not* restricted to the academics when regarding oops - which, compared to many other examples of this basic human reaction, is actually extremely reasonable. And it gets even more reasonable when those same academics evaluate new evidence that overturns their lifes work... and accept it. Which *does* happen rather often, as in the Vikings Meadows, but only after a lengthy process of the evaluation of properly provenanced evidence. Would you be suggesting it should be otherwise??
Legends of mammoth hunts by natives in N. America were also once considered pure myth, and even the stories of the hunts had mostly dropped from the oral traditions... yet it was finally proven and accepted that such did happen - it just took a while.
>
> 3. I agree with your point about legends and
> myths only being partly understood. That is what
> makes them difficult. Trying to determine wheat
> from chaff.
Legends and myths are well understood as written - at least generally speaking. The issue is in determining the basis of the myth that was rooted in truth or realistically perceived elements that are buried amongst hyperbole and dramatic storytelling.
a quick paraphrase:
"A giant bird whose wings fill the sky, from which comes mighty rumbles as he flaps them. His head raises on high and unleashes mighty streaks of light from cloud to cloud whenever he opens it"
The reference is fairly obvious, the elements of thunder and lightning are plain.
However, the reference to anvil shaped thunderheads isn't... you can see that only after some considerable imaginative analysis.
>
> 4. I used embarrassing because I wished to be
> kind.
Well,l I guess I'm glad you're a kind person??
However, this type of exchange isn't truly appropriate to a serious analytical discussion, is it?
>
> 5. Your post did call into question Smith's
> conclusions about Payon.
Really? All I did was cite quotes from references without any analysis. Any questions raised would be raised by the original authors of the quotes, not by my posting. I did quote two apparently counter-indicatory quotations though, so I suppose I may have revealed some of the contention on the part of others who had weighed in on the discussion point?
And yes it did ask for
> additional sources as well. The head still
> exists. it has not disappeared. We have tools
> today that just did not exist even 5 years ago. A
> small drilll sample of the head can certainly
> determine its origin. If it is mexico end of
> story. if it is Europe. A lot has been made
> about the dating effort of the head. While the
> range is much too wide nowhere does the range
> reach into post Columbus.
Hmm actually I called for the older references, not for new experimental testing.
I also pointed out somewhere that the mexican fire was rather convenient and wondered why the original site notes would be lost there as opposed to copies, etc.
We see the same date
> ranges for Valsequillo. from 80k to 250k. But
> NONE of the dating techniques done multiple times
> and in multiple ways show anything closer than
> 80k. Now in May one prominent archaeologist willl
> return to the site to determine if an alleged
> inset he found actually exists. That obviously
> could bring the date to Clovis times. End of
> story. if no inset 40 years of early entry now
> is real.
I am watching that story unfold as I can - I find it fascinating. I refuse to render any judgement until we see what happens as far as accepting it. I do note that the earliest age of the western migrations has been steadily being pushed back the past decade, so I know change comes (if grudgingly) to the field. The reluctance to change merely gives me more comfort in trusting what we do change... it's a lot more secure than if they were to change their minds every other day after all!
