<HTML>
I agree you on the pottery. What Avry
overlooks is that the pottery styles have
been dated at many other sites and
they repeated fall within the same date
ranges again and again. Given that none
of these sites have yielded pottery dated
by associated radiocarbon dates back as
far as 10,000 to 12,000 BP and are
associated with the same time range of
dates as dates associated with the pottery
at Tiwanaku. This readily refutes his
complaints and show that they like the
complaints made by YE creationists about
radiocarbon dating in general exist because
the data refutes people's pet ideas about
how old the item of study is.
If the pottery sequence was as subjective
and useless as Arvy claimed it to be, why
does a person not only find the same
sequence of pottery types at site after
site outside of Tiwanaku but also find the
same types of pottery associated with the
same range of radiocarbon dates at each
site as at Tiwanaku?
Another the Garret needs to emphasize is
that Hancock's dating is based also to
some extent on the existence of wharves
and a shoreline at Tiwanaku and the history
of Lake Titicaca that he recites from older
sources in Fingerprints of the Gods. Given
that both the shoreline and wharves exist
only in the imagination of Hancock and his
outdated sources (Posnansky) and the lake
level history that he rehashes from Posnansky has been completely refuted and totally
demolished by recent, ongoing research, then
Hancock has nothing left with which to date
Tiwanaku except his feelings. In this case,
the dating is not even based upon "best
guesses" but onup ideas and theories long
since proved false.
Yours,
Keith
It is interesting that Sean Hancock claims
that there exists no reliable calibration
of radiocarbon dates past 8,000 BP when at
the time the calibration curve went at to
21,000 to 24,000 BP. Now that the
calibration curve has been extended to
over 45,000 BP was Sean Hancock stupid
enough to leave that claim in his essay
on radiocarbon dating as it was printed
in the book?</HTML>
