(Monkey) Business As Usual

[uniface]

A little while back, I opined that there would not be a big media splash + "peer reviewed" (archaeological Village Soviet OK'd) paper on Gar's Sloth Slayers, even though these literally force a re-write of early North American history, and the relevant pooh-bahs have had them to play with for YEARS now. Why ? Because credit for finding them would go to some damned LOOTER, and his excavation was un-controlled (by them). So no Smithsonian/National Geographic/Time Magazine (do they even still publish that ?) etc. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.


Well, just when you thought dishonesty-with-a-straight-face couldn't get any more flagrant, along comes a new article claiming that the Village Soviet has discovered the Optically Stimulated Laser (or Infrared Stimulated Laser) dating method that Brian Williard has been using for years now, and Bill Breckinridge used before him.


You can't make this stuff up. Before "they" discovered it, it was junk science with no validity (as several people, here and elsewhere, never tired of claiming). Now it will be gold standard methodology.


You probably thought my saying that only if they could take credit for stuff is it allowed to officially enter the record (like the Shifting Sands Folsom-Midland blade technology can't be and is not) was overkill. They just re-made my case.

Maybe the know-it-all posse will even stop being the poodle on Brian's ankle now ? One could hope so. I know I do.


www.theconversation.com/amp/world-first-artefact-dating-method-shows-humans-have-lived-in-the-shadow-of-the-himalayas-for-the-last-5-000-years-161822

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Relicgrubber]

This still doesn't explain all the Insight COA's on Blatantly Fake/Reproduction artifacts...

 

[uniface]

No picnic without flies, I guess.

 

[Charl]

I don’t know much about its use to date artifacts. I understand there’s a debate as to how reliable it is. I can’t judge that, I have no idea or experience. But I do know it’s been used recently by the New England Antiquities Research Association, with the help of accredited scientists, principle among them James Feathers, director of the Luminescence Dating Lab at the University of Washington.


https://neara.org/pdf/user_guide_fo...in_archaeological_and_geological_contexts.pdf


https://www.neara.org/pdf/Dating_stone_alignments_by_luminescence-Feathers.pdf


Cairn and wall site in Pa:


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0197693120920492




The Upton, Ma. stone chamber:


https://www.uptonma.gov/sites/g/fil...pton_stone_chamber_-_preliminary_findings.pdf




Maybe it is considered “junk science” by many/most archaeologists. Have not followed its usage that closely to have an informed opinion. I just know it’s being used in the Northeast to address the “problem” of the stone constructs there, and used at other NA sites, as described in the above articles.

 

[uniface]

Charl : If the ASAA website were still up, with its cached reports, I'd find it for you. But WAY back when, Doc G had a guy who pioneered the technology doing Cumberland artifacts of (as I recall), Ft. Payne chert from a specific, known location They consistently tested way older than Clovis, and later artifacts of that same material dated in line with stratgraphic position.

IOW, the results validated the utility of the technology (which is all that can be asked of any dating technique). And that was the problem. The piled-higher-and-deeper establishment was in love with the theory (based on no evidence) that Cumberland "evolved" from Clovis, and the OSL results monkey wrenched their beautiful theory (which is still dogma). That's why it was derided as bogus.

Then the original guy died and, as I understand it, Brian stepped in and finished the Phil Stratton material -- duplicating the original findings. (It was Brian, by the way, who ID'd the Lamb Site lithics nice and for all). Which brings us up to the present.

FWIW

 

[Charl]

“Although optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) has commonly been used at other pre-European contact archeological sites throughout the United States (e.g. Topper (Waters et al., 2009), Buttermilk Creek (Waters et al., 2011), Cactus Hill (Feathers et al., 2006), etc.), within the Northeastern area of the United States (i.e. the New England area) it has not been routinely applied”. I was just checking to see if it was really regarded as “junk science”. I’m just not that much into what I might call “grievance archaeology”. I still have a long ways to go if I want to learn more. And I do, since my colleagues are using it to date stone constructions here. But the grievances I could care less. Doesn’t interest me, but enjoyed the read, uni. Thanks....

 

[uniface]

FWIW, although you could view it as a "grievance" issue (focus on the soap opera aspect any controversy has), at root it's a matter of basic honesty -- of academic integrity.

When people are (as they claim to be) using the scientific method to evaluate information, one replicable finding overturns a previous theory, no matter how long established and deeply entrenched. And a veritable avalanche of it, as with the "thermonuclear event" that brought the Pleistocene to an abrupt conclusion, necessitates a back-to-the-drawing-board conceptual effort.

Unfortunately, what we see, and see consistently in NA archaeology, is denial, evasion, ignoring evidence and moving the goalpost. Because archaeology has been hijacked and used in service of creating/maintaining "public opinion" -- imposing the view of the world, it's history and, ultimately, of human nature itself desired by a coalition able to use its vast resources to accomplish this. To replace authentic history with woke-flavor fairy tales.

US archaeology is only one tiny arena where this contest is going on. But it's the one we're concerned with.

Civilization is choking to death on the lies it allows those who control public discourse to tell (and base its actions on). Why this does not seem to concern people is, on this end, one of life's mysteries.

 

[Charl]

“Unfortunately, what we see, and see consistently in NA archaeology, is denial, evasion, ignoring evidence and moving the goalpost. Because archaeology has been hijacked and used in service of creating/maintaining "public opinion" -- imposing the view of the world, it's history and, ultimately, of human nature itself desired by a coalition able to use its vast resources to accomplish this. To replace authentic history with woke-flavor fairy tales”.


The thing is, I have been involved, for about 40 years, with amateurs who lack discipline, every stone pile they see is automatically a new CSL(Ceremonial Sacred Landscapes), and in general are not adverse to fairy tail history. There are Facebook groups, to which I belong, in which the “grievance archaeology” is unabated. And much of it will indeed involve insisting on pet theories and notions long since disproven. There is a tendency to use sarcasm and outright anger toward any archaeologist who dares to support a more mundane explanation. None of this really helps, but since I discovered some of the sites now touted as ancient, I still keep abreast. And on friendly terms. And in complete agreement when the evidence is strong.


A few years ago a man who was our state archaeologist, spoke at our Fall Neara meeting. Telling us that amateurs societies such as ours were in fact great, since we were likely to be far more free wheeling in our thinking, and thus perhaps more likely to discover something new that would not have been contemplated otherwise, within professional circles. That’s true I think. The trick is knowing how to balance one’s excitable imagination with a disciplined approach to developing evidence.


So, that is one area in which I run into a specie of “grievance archaeology”, amateurs whining and crying and shaking fists at the big bad archaeologists that, for instance to cite one well known saga, refuse to believe the ridiculous fake artifacts, of Old World cultures such as ancient Egypt, that emerged from Burrows Cave, Illinois, a cave that does not even exist. Virtually any experienced artifact collector on TNet would laugh like hell at the Burrows Cave artifacts(well, it helps to have some decent knowledge of Old World civilization’s artistic styles), but Scott Wolter did not at first, and he promoted “grievance archaeology” on his television show, over stuff like that. There’s a whole cottage industry of these poorly researched alternative archaeology approaches.


Now, the above is a whole different specie of “grievance archaeology” than those, like yourself uni, who are so angry at the mainstream professionals that will not enthusiastically support your particular sites among pre-Clovis possibilities, or dates that you want accepted, or dating methods for which you want 100% acceptance. But, I’m sorry, that’s life. And the way science advances, sometimes one funeral at a time, sorry, but that’s life too, my friend.


I will say this: none of us, not you, not me, none of us, are going to live to see the complete truth about prehistory in the Americas. Sure, there are attitudes among professionals that leave a lot to be desired. I have still learned a whole lot more about American prehistory, and indeed about the peopling of the Americas, then I ever knew when I started my deep dive into the subject as a preteen in the late 50’s. A hell of a lot more. I’m not whining and crying about the big bad archaeologists. I’m following the new discoveries, and the various disciplines that are only recently contributing to our understanding. All the while knowing I am of an age, and all of us are even if we were still teens, that will not see the puzzle finally settled.

So, between amateurs rewriting history with zero knowledge of the already well known prehistory of my region(and Facebook shows me these folks exist by the score), and others whining about the too slow pace of research, or whining about conspiracies to hide the truth, like the Smithsonian hiding the truth about you name it, or people insisting that human nature not generate petty rivalries, well, sometimes I tire of these various species of grievance archaeology.


I’m enjoying all the new discoveries and theories pertaining to the peopling of the Americas. I see plenty of things to criticize among professionals, in many disciplines, not just archaeology. Thomas Kuhn’s seminal “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” outlined all of them. And I recognize justifiable criticisms. But I do believe if things are ever going to proceed the way you insist they proceed, well, we’re going to have to find a way to alter human nature.


One more quasi-prediction. If we ever arrive at that complete and true picture of the peopling of the Americas, it will be as far removed from what we know today, as today is from our belief a mere 100+ years ago, when it was believed man had been in the Americas only since about the time of Christ.

 

[Charl]

Haha at all apostrophes and quotation marks posting as question marks on TNet! I was able to correct that glitch in edit mode....

 

[joshuaream]

Interesting stuff.

You know I can't just agree and move on.

The article isn't terribly rich in details, but it sounds like the sites have lots of samples in relatively undisturbed context. They also have quarry material there, potentially raw material with original cortex, and the ability to break a relic or flake some raw material. And presumably some quantity of scientific equipment vetted by one of the leading research universities in the world.

I don't think the COA providers have that same degree of data, rigor, or funding. Simply put a single isolated relic from unknown context and unknown exposure likely can't generate the same level of certainty as what the article describes.

And RelicGrubber isn't wrong, there are a lot of "potentially questionable" relics out there with that Insight paper. (On eBay I see a spectacular Crystal Quartz plummet that would be thousands of dollars if it were authentic, and a neat pop eyed porphyry birdstone that sold for a couple hundred dollars instead of the $10,000+ that you could probably get by calling a couple of well known dealers.)

 

[uniface]

Charl: In brief:
1) lumping solid data in with buckets full of craziness, then generalizing it all until throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems like a reasonable thing to do is no way to get at the truth of anything. As, I suspect, you know.

2) You might care to note that your observation that avocationals are the windows that admit fresh air into "the profession" makes my point for me. Dogma is inflexible by nature. Since "A" is the truth, then "B," "C," and the rest of them must be categorically false. The same as with any religious denomination. And venturing to suggest otherwise is, again by definition, heresy. Crimethink. Treason against the obligation to defend the faith (all faith is, at root, belief). Grounds for persecution. At least relegation to nonperson status (like Doc. Gramly). Only those with no skin in the game, who can be safely attacked and dismissed, can venture alternative possibilities.

Josh: moving the goalpost is inadmissible procedure. As I suspect you know. If one thermometer yields accurate measurements, repeatedly, for different doctors, the accuracy (validity) of thermometers as measuring devices (technology) is a done deal. It doesn't take three hundred of them to establish "certainty." Any more than it took ten additional pre-clovis sites with identical artifacts to establish that Clovis wasn't first.

People always want to play "How do we know that we know what we know?" with everything. It's a form of virtue signaling ("I'm more rigorous than thou). And the more they dissect something into ever smaller pieces that don't rejoin once they're out of context, the more they approach Mark Twain's "The researches of many eminent specialists have cast considerable darkness on the subject, and it is likely that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it." (Quotation from memory).