Bad Archaeology?

[tashirosgt]

I think this site is intended to be serious archaeology but I've always found it to be rather comical:
http://www.daysknob.com/
Could this be where Chuck Shults and Hoagland got their ideas? Maybe Ed Grimsley too.

[Swift]

Oh boy. Pareidolia in 3D rock form

[Veeger]

I've met Alan Day and sat in his living room examining his artifacts. He was kind enough to take me to his site to have a look around. Though sceptical, I did see things which appeared to me, to be carved marks in stone. I saw some with distinct 'V' grooves and some with semi-circular grooves which appeared deliberate and man-made. Now, I am no expert and some of the cases still look pareidolia to me, but I think there is enough there which bears serious consideration.

See this link: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34

[captain swoop]

He should team up with Ed Conrad and Jiri Mruzek

I had man ya run in with Ed and Jiri back in the day on talk.origins sci.skeptic

[kleindoofy]

I... I saw some with distinct 'V' grooves and some with semi-circular grooves ...

I can show you lots of clouds that look like bunny rabbits. It doesn't prove anything.

That's not how archaeologists work.

[sarongsong]

I think this site is intended to be serious archaeology...

...wherein the hypothesis is

...that North America was well populated before the advent of the diagnostically "Clovis" implements...

The Clovis culture...is a prehistoric Paleoindian culture that first appears in the archaeological record of North America around 11,500 radiocarbon years ago...thought to have lasted between 200 and 800 years, depending on the source consulted...
wiki

There, was that so difficult?

[Veeger]

I can show you lots of clouds that look like bunny rabbits. It doesn't prove anything.

That's not how archaeologists work.

I know quite well what pareidolia is. I didn't claim to be an archaeologist, nor does Alan Day. I know very well how they work. He has submitted several of his pieces to more rigorous examination by accredited researchers and they did not give him the same brush off as some of the posters on this board.

I am not inclined to be his defender and he does not seem to be around to speak for himself. I know several archaeologists, and a large group of amateur archaeologists as I have been a frequent contributor to several archaeological discussion boards. I have seen over the last five years or so, some maligned amateurs gain respect as their finds have been examined by professionals. However, often that examination costs time and money and doesn't come easy. Many amateurs are on the forefront of breaking the preclovis paradigm as they are among the few willing to work sites where there is no money nor mainstream belief that any humans occupied North America prior to about 13ky BP.

[kleindoofy]

... some maligned amateurs gain respect as their finds have been examined by professionals. ...

Sure, Schliemann found Troy and amateurs found the Nebra sky disk (they turned out to be antiques plunderers and were prosecuted).

The problems start when one man finds all the artifacts, does all the theory, all the collecting, all the publishing, etc., especially when it's something borderline.

One man shows usually turn out to be puffs of woo smoke.

[kleindoofy]

In addition, presenting lots of figures is like having raisin bread without the bread.

Where's the rest? What about the discovery sites?

Artsy artifacts don't exist in thin air. Where are the settlement remains? Rubbish places, fire places etc. Even nomads leave tell-tale trails behind them, even after >15,000 years.

[Veeger]

Like I said Klein. I've been to the site. There's a whole lot you don't see in the pix. I said already, not everything I saw looked like a carving to my untrained and sceptical eye, but there were certain pieces that were clearly altered. As for the site, it was not exactly pristine. It had been disturbed by people in the recent past. Alan himself had done no excavation but found his pieces on the surface. You are right about one thing, though. I don't recall seeing a lot of contextual information about how or where the artifacts were found, but I was there for a different purpose, not to critique his methods. My colleague and I had interest in one particular class of artifacts. He had much information and detail I never saw.

[HenrikOlsen]

Sure, Schliemann found Troy and amateurs found the Nebra sky disk (they turned out to be antiques plunderers and were prosecuted).

And Schliemann proceeded to destroy what he found of the historical Troy in his search for gold but is still considered a hero of archaeology by some, rather that the ignorant destroyer of priceless knowledge that he was.

[kleindoofy]

And Schliemann proceeded to destroy what he found of the historical Troy in his search for gold but is still considered a hero of archaeology by some, rather that the ignorant destroyer of priceless knowledge that he was.

I agree totally.

The complete site is usually more important than any individual artifact.

And, individual chance findings of surface(!) artifacts that in turn are instrumented to help prove some theory of a primordial globe spanning human culture are far from being above suspicion.

[Veeger]

Are you implying that Alan Day is a plunderer; or destroyer of priceless knowledge as Henrik charged Schliemann?

[captain swoop]

Back in Schliemanns day wasn't the whole thing about Artifacts and 'treasure' though?

[Perikles]

Back in Schliemanns day wasn't the whole thing about Artifacts and 'treasure' though?

Yes, he was a product of his time, as was Arthur Evans, who was able to buy the whole of the site of Knossos and proceed in much the same way as Schliemann. Perhaps their intentions were good, and they gave impetus to the science of archaeology. They probably had no idea of the irreparable damage they were causing. Thank goodness (or Apollo) that Delphi escaped their attentions.

[sarongsong]

...Many amateurs are on the forefront of breaking the preclovis paradigm as they are among the few willing to work sites where there is no money nor mainstream belief that any humans occupied North America prior to about 13ky BP.

Much less what went on 47 million years ago...

May 19, 2009
...A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt...the inexperienced archeologists didn't realize the value of their find..."This specimen [Darwinius masillae] is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists, it is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail..."...
nydailynews.com

[hhEb09'1]

And the reason they were inexperienced archeologists? were they anthropologists? or paleontologists?

I think the writer got confused by the quote: ""This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists," lead scientist Jorn Hurum said at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History. " Or, maybe they were archeologists, and weren't looking for mammalian fossils.

[Perikles]

And the reason they were inexperienced archeologists? were they anthropologists? or paleontologists?

They were probably just hobby archaeologists with no professional experience. This amazing site in Messel, just outside Frankfurt, has been excavated by amateurs for decades, but I think their activity has been restricted now. I used to live near there (whilst working for ESA in Darmstadt) and I bought a fossil from one such hunter. It now hangs on the wall in front of me as I type. Odd to think that 30 years ago it was 47,000,000 years old, and it still is!

[hhEb09'1]

Sorry, I was just riffing on the term "archeologist". I found the wiki page for the Messel Pit (interesting!), but it looks like it wouldn't hold much interest for the usual archeologist, who would be interested in "the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, esp. those that have been excavated" (dictionary.com). Just a small nit.

[Perikles]

Sorry, I was just riffing on the term "archeologist"..... Just a small nit.

I should be the one to apologize - it went right over my head, and it's the kind of thing I would have said.

As I understand it, the site in Messel was the edge of a huge lake 47 million years ago, where conditons were ideal for the survival of fossils. When the Rhine finally managed to carve its way through a mountain range at Bingen, creating the Lorelei, the lake suddenly emptied itself, leaving the Messel site high and dry. So yes, an archaeologist would have no business there, and they should know that. BTW, I've never heard the word riffing before, but obvious in the context.

[Alan Day]

Greetings...

Veeger, whom I have met and know to be a very bright and open-minded fellow well grounded in the physical sciences, recently informed me that I was being roasted in absentia here, so I had a look. Initially I thought "Why bother?", but upon looking again yesterday I saw in subsequent postings that there are clearly some intelligent and well informed participants in this discussion thread. So, although I currently don't have much time for extended debate, I thought I should clear up some apparent misconceptions.

For an introduction of myself, please see http://www.daysknob.com/About_the_Author.htm

First, the archaeological site presented at the admittedly disjointed http://www.daysknob.com is a recognized and registered prehistoric habitation site (33GU218) at which the upper artifact layer seems, from temporally diagnostic artifact material including a large earthwork and a ceramic sherd, to date from the Early or Middle Woodland Period, or very roughly 2000 years BP.

Addressing the matter of pareidolia: Of course this is an inherent part of the human condition. Our brains instinctively try to find order in chaos ("images in clouds" cliché/mantra, etc.). The other side of the coin is the well-known phenomenon of "psychological set" - for the most part we see only what we have been taught to see. In the context of what early aboriginal Americans left behind in the form of simple iconography in stone, I won't, at this point, go into pontification mode on all this, but rather refer you to a couple pages on my website on which I have already done this. Take a look at http://www.daysknob.com/Face_Recognition.htm. And for another fun instance of archaeological preconceptions banging up against physical science, see http://www.daysknob.com/DM.htm.

And now to a couple of the other comments/observations posted here:

Artsy artifacts don't exist in thin air. Where are the settlement remains? Rubbish places, fire places etc.

"Artsy"? Is that a technical term that has escaped me? For "setlement remains" see, for example, http://www.daysknob.com/#Earthwork.

...individual chance findings of surface(!) artifacts that in turn are instrumented to help prove some theory of a primordial globe spanning human culture are far from being above suspicion.

"...to help prove some theory of a primordial globe spanning human culture..." What? Where did that come from? And "surface" is relative. Few apparent artifacts appear at the current terrain surface here other than some large ones (usually partially buried) and quite a few others that have eroded from steep sloping surfaces or have appeared along the progressively graded access road up the hill at a depth of between 20 and 60 cm. I'm an amateur archaeologist, but with enough academic and fieldwork experience to know my limitations and the destructive nature of digging, so I do very little of this.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions, please ask, but preferably after trying to read through my ravings on the website. Just looking at the pictures doesn't quite get it... (And yes, I know very well that I need to restructure the website and add a concise and cogent statement of hypotheses with arguments pro and con. Right now, along with other commitments the time-consuming and expensive process of scientific verification of the material takes precedence.)

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards, Alan

[hhEb09'1]

Thanks for stopping by, Alan! Always a pleasure to engage the OP in these threads. I hope you don't mind that we leave this in OTB (Off Topic Babbling)? The classification is less a knock on your work (although clearly some of that was meant) than just that we don't have a much better place for it, other than possibly ATM if your claims go against mainstream archeology, because this is primarily an astronomical topics website.

[Veeger]

Hi Alan. Welcome to the forum.

[Alan Day]

Hi hhEb09'1 (and now Veeger)...

Thank you very much for the welcome. No problem with leaving my posting here - as good a place as any...

Yes, I saw that this is an astronomy forum. It's a fascinating field of study, of course, but one in which I'm woefully under-informed. Life is a bit too short to delve deeply into everything. But astronomy and archaeology are quite often intertwined, as you well know. This is particularly the case here in Ohio with its many spectacular earthworks so elaborately but precisely oriented to solar and often lunar events. One of my side projects is exploring my hypothesis that the gates in the stone walls at Spruce Hill and Glenford (Hopewell sites, apparently) are so positioned. Looks good on paper and from GPS coordinates so far, and even the pros haven't given me a hard time on this one. Never a dull moment...

Thanks again!

Alan

[Veeger]

I haven't looked into the sites you mentioned but there is evidence that some paleo-indian constructions may be aligned with the maximum northern and southern rising and setting of the moon. James Q. Jacobs has accumulated an excellent collection of data at his website jqjacobs.net where he discusses the Ohio earthworks and other presumed astronomical sites around the world.

[Gillianren]

From what I've read, there are indeed a lot of sites that line up with the solstices or what have you. There are just not as many as people think. Unfortunately, I think my friend the archaeologist has too limited time and internet access to join, but she's very firm on the fact that the artifact means nothing when removed from the site unless the site has been documented, too.

[Alan Day]

Hi Veeger and Gillianren...

Veeger, thanks for that reference to Jacobs' website. It's an excellent overview of the earthworks for anyone interested. And William F. Romain's book Mysteries of the Hopewell is a comprehensive and detailed presentation of their geometries and astronomical orientation. I highly recommend it.

Gillianren, your friend is quite right - an artifact not accompanied by knowledge of its provenience and context is of rather little archaeological value. This is a compelling argument for summarily executing random diggers and collectors.

Alan

[DonM435]

I saw a VHS of the 1960 giant-monster film Dinosaurus!. The cover blurb read:

"BEFORE DNA! / REAL DINOSAURS TERRORIZE THE EARTH!"