Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome! Arrowheadology.com is the #1 arrowhead and Indian artifact community on the web. Join us now!

Likes Likes:  19
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    8,115
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike,

    You made a very direct & concise statement, and a couple of people responded to your post. I don't think anyone who replied was offended, but I don't think you should be offended that people responded or disagreed with your statement.

    If I open an existing thread on deer hunting and write "ok... problem is hunting is wrong and cruel." I need to be willing to accept that people won't share my opinion, and will certainly have equally strong opinions about it. It comes with the forums. (FWIW, I support hunting.) If I don't want to hear responses to a comment like that, then I probably shouldn't write it.

    Joshua

    Quote Originally Posted by swataramike View Post
    i agree with all of you...i was just stating what i think about the article..just like everyone else is entitled to on this site...i mean that is why we post stuff on here because we want other peoples opinions....i just responded...i do not care what you believe nor am i trying to say believe what i believe..i dont understand what the problem is here..am i the only one who feels like everybody gets offened over somones response to a post.....i think i will just stick to the knapping side of the forum..unless i have artifacts to post

  2. Likes justonemore liked this post
  3. #12
    ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lebanon county, pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    yea...guess you didnt read and reply to cmds post..but your right josh
    ⊙⊙⊙

  4. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    8,115
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by swataramike View Post
    yea...guess you didnt read and reply to cmds post..but your right josh
    I don't always follow good advice.

  5. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Scioto County, Ohio
    Posts
    13,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess I best stay away from this one.

    Great article though that really raises some new questions.
    "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside."

  6. #15
    Relic Hunter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by joshuaream View Post
    If Clovis First was difficult to discuss, debate, review, and ultimately substitute among a relatively small group of Archaeologists from the US (who are by & large are a pretty homogeneous group), I can only imagine the crapola that comes with something like the origin of our species across a global network of researchers. Of course China and India would love to be the cradle of civilization or the cradle of a unique civilization, but Russia & Australia probably don't want some of their native minority populations to be seen as anything other than Homo sapiens sapiens (out of a concern that people might say they are less than human or a different species or subspecies or because it challenges their historical claims to an area.)
    That's what irks me about paleoanthropology and archaeology in current times. New discoveries have been, and will continue to be hindered by the current hot topics of "political correctness" and "racial sensitivity". There's no better example of this than Australian archaeology...which has been pretty much paralyzed by a movement to admit guilt for past actions and to repatriate scientifically valuable remains and artifacts back to Aboriginal communities. We've had a taste of that here in North America with NAGPRA and Kennewick. I've always been a fan of Solutrean Theory...but I now recognize that, even if the genetic and archaeological proof is obtained...try getting the mostly Leftist, Liberal academic community to accept that the very First Americans came from Europe. Tis why I never went back to get my PhD....I can't stomach the politics. That said, as for the OP's article, I cannot think of a better place than China for this skull to be analyzed. So far, they are not burdened by the identity politics that have taken over many Western countries.

  7. Likes uniface liked this post
  8. #16
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cincyguy513 View Post
    That's what irks me about paleoanthropology and archaeology in current times. New discoveries have been, and will continue to be hindered by the current hot topics of "political correctness" and "racial sensitivity". There's no better example of this than Australian archaeology...which has been pretty much paralyzed by a movement to admit guilt for past actions and to repatriate scientifically valuable remains and artifacts back to Aboriginal communities. We've had a taste of that here in North America with NAGPRA and Kennewick. I've always been a fan of Solutrean Theory...but I now recognize that, even if the genetic and archaeological proof is obtained...try getting the mostly Leftist, Liberal academic community to accept that the very First Americans came from Europe. Tis why I never went back to get my PhD....I can't stomach the politics. That said, as for the OP's article, I cannot think of a better place than China for this skull to be analyzed. So far, they are not burdened by the identity politics that have taken over many Western countries.
    One of the "problems" with the Solutrean hypothesis was not the idea itself, but rather its appropriation by white supremisists who embraced it as proof that the first Americans were white. I've browsed websites that used the hypothesis to promote that angle. I'm sure such sites still exist. Those sites did not actually seem interested in the evidence for the hypothesis as much as simply promoting the belief that "white people were the first to settle America". But, as it turns out, they would be mistaken anyway, as recent research indicates white pigmentation in Europeans developed about 8000 years ago, well after the period of Solutrean technology. As well, even if the Solutrean hypothesis was correct, that would not address when humans might have entered via the Pacific coast kelp highway route, which has emerged as the successor to the overland ice free corridor paradigm that dominated for so long.

  9. #17
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have not gone back through the entirety of this thread, but, just for the record, I take no offense to anyone's beliefs where the origins of humanity are concerned.

  10. #18
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cincyguy513 View Post
    That's what irks me about paleoanthropology and archaeology in current times. New discoveries have been, and will continue to be hindered by the current hot topics of "political correctness" and "racial sensitivity". There's no better example of this than Australian archaeology...which has been pretty much paralyzed by a movement to admit guilt for past actions and to repatriate scientifically valuable remains and artifacts back to Aboriginal communities. We've had a taste of that here in North America with NAGPRA and Kennewick. I've always been a fan of Solutrean Theory...but I now recognize that, even if the genetic and archaeological proof is obtained...try getting the mostly Leftist, Liberal academic community to accept that the very First Americans came from Europe. Tis why I never went back to get my PhD....I can't stomach the politics. That said, as for the OP's article, I cannot think of a better place than China for this skull to be analyzed. So far, they are not burdened by the identity politics that have taken over many Western countries.
    Somewhat as an aside to your point regarding political correctness and the Solutrean Hypothesis, that will likely turn out to be "much ado about nada" in comparison to the firestorm set off by the recent study of the Cerutti Mastodon Site in California, with dates of 130,000 years ago, and the possibility that if it indeed is evidence of humans, they may have been humans other then Homo sapiens, since several species of humans existed at that time. Having spent a day recently with the lead author of that letter in Nature, I did come away actually impressed by the evidence they presented. It's a long, long, long way from gaining even traction, but I am not going to be surprised if more such older sites are found.

    How much further back will they find early inhabitants in the Americas?

    And here's the thing about science and accepted paradigms anyway: science advances one funeral at a time. Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" brought forth this common sense perspective decades ago, and, human egos being egos, it is so true: new ideas take hold in science when the last proponents of the old established paradigms finally die off. It's unfortunate that oftimes careers and reputations are first destroyed, sacrificed on the altar of what is acceptable in a particular era. Pioneers are often not recognized until they've long been in the grave, and science advances one funeral at a time....

  11. Likes uniface, Cincyguy513 liked this post
  12. #19
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the "problems" with the Solutrean hypothesis was not the idea itself, but rather its appropriation by white supremisists who embraced it as proof that the first Americans were white. I've browsed websites that used the hypothesis to promote that angle.
    I've been pondering this for hours, trying to decide whether the supposedly self-evident "evil" of "White supremacism" is an appeal to a religious conviction (in which facts are irrelevant if they contradict beliefs), or politics (in this country, pretty much the same thing). On balance, there's not much difference either way : when any belief reaches critical mass, it expresses itself in the natural world as politics. And vice versa.

    E.g., Israel.

    Or Japan. Or China (Han), Iran, or Saudi Arabia -- all of which are, within their own realms, unashamedly "ethno-supremacist." Yet nobody regards this as morally OR politically objectionable. (Well, OK -- the Palestinians do).

    Is this because the impulse to actualize "supremacism" as a practical fact is essentially hardwired into human nature (as in the current campaign to destroy Confederate monuments by people determined to restrict their otherwise mandatory "inclusion" to those they don't disagree with) ? It looks that way from here. As I think it would to anyone who would stop chasing unicorns into such embarrassingly untenable positions.

    Like what ? Like that insisting that White Americans should, uniquely, of all people everywhere (even of all other people here) renounce pride in their ancestors would not be -- at the same time -- unintentionally, a perverse example of the same "American exceptionalism" so widely (and properly) denounced in other contexts. Or is it only hypocrisy when other people do it ?

    Looks like

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Kelly
    We has met the enemy, and he is us.
    As usual.
    Premature certainty is the enemy of understanding.

  13. Likes Cincyguy513 liked this post
  14. #20
    Relic Hunter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like
    One other thing that irks me...I'm having one of those days BTW...is that the majority of the academic community has apparently put the Solutrean hypothesis out to pasture already. That's an old saying meaning the same thing as discarded it, or "swept it under the rug". Apparently they are convinced it is a dead end because an ever increasing database of mtDNA does not support an Iberian ancestry, but continues to suggest a strong connection with NE Asia and Siberia. The thing that irks me is that Bradley and Stanford never suggested that Solutreans populated the continent in early times...they only said that they brought their technology here. It's the freaking technology, the toolkit that came here and spread...not Solutrean genes.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •