The Fremont People

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/24/ancient.find.ap/index.html

I cant wait to see the pictures!!

[Emp edit: That link is dead but I ofund a cached version:

Ancient Indian settlement found

'It's a national treasure'

Thursday, June 24, 2004 Posted: 4:22 PM EDT (2022 GMT)



SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- For more than 50 years, rancher Waldo Wilcox kept most outsiders off his land and the secret under wraps: a string of ancient Indian settlements so remarkably well-preserved that arrowheads and beads are still lying out in the open.

Archaeologists are calling it one of the most spectacular finds in the West.

Hidden deep inside Utah's nearly inaccessible Book Cliffs region, 130 miles from Salt Lake City, the prehistoric villages run for 12 miles and include hundreds of rock art panels, cliffside granaries, stone houses built halfway underground, rock shelters, and the mummified remains of long-ago inhabitants.

The site was occupied for at least 3,000 years until it abandoned more than 1,000 years ago, when the Fremont people mysteriously vanished.

What sets this ancient site apart from other, better-known ones in Utah, Arizona or Colorado is that it has been left virtually untouched by looters, with the ground still littered with arrowheads, arrow shafts, beads and pottery shards in places.

"It was just like walking into a different world," said Utah state archaeologist Kevin Jones, who was overcome on his first visit in 2002.

Wilcox, 74, said: "It's like being the first white man in there, the way I kept it. There's no place like it left."

The secret is only now coming to light, after the federal and state governments paid Wilcox $2.5 million for the 4,200-acre ranch, which is surrounded by wilderness study lands. The state took ownership earlier this year but has not decided yet how to control public access.

"It's a national treasure. There may not be another place like it in the continental 48 states," Duncan Metcalfe, a curator with the Utah Museum of Natural History, said Thursday by satellite phone from the site.

Metcalfe said a team of researchers has documented about 200 pristine sites occupied as many as 4,500 years ago, "and we've only looked in a few places."

Wilcox said some skeletons have been exposed by shifting winds under dry ledges. "They were little people, the ones I've seen dug up. They were wrapped like Egyptians, in strips of beaver skin and cedar board, preserved as perfect," he said.

The Fremont, a collection of hunter-gatherers and farmers, preceded more modern American Indian tribes on the Colorado Plateau.

Archaeologists believe the sites may have been first occupied as much as 7,000 years ago; they could shed light on the earliest inhabitants of North America, who are believed to have arrived by way of the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago.

The settlements are along the Range Creek, which sustained ancient people in the canyon until it possibly dried up in a drought, Wilcox said.

These days, the creek runs year-round, abundant with trout and shaded by cottonwood and box elder trees. Douglas fir covers the canyon sides. The canyon would have been rich in wildlife: elk, deer, bighorn sheep, bear, mountain lions, wild turkeys -- all animals that Wilcox said are still around, but in lesser numbers because of hunters.

"I didn't let people go in there to destroy it," said Wilcox, whose parents bought the ranch in 1951 and threw up a gate to the rugged canyon. "The less people know about this, the better."

Over the years, Wilcox occasionally welcomed archaeologists to inspect part of the canyon, "but we'd watch 'em." When one Kent State researcher used a pick ax to take a pigment sample from a pictograph, Wilcox "took the pick from him and took him out of the gate."

Although the University of Utah hired a seasonal caretaker and students from three Utah schools are working the sites this summer, Wilcox worries about looting.

He said he gave up the land on a promise of protection from the San Francisco-based Trust for Public Land, which transferred the ranch to public ownership.

The promise barely assured Wilcox, but he said he knew one thing: "I'm getting old and couldn't take care of it." He said he asked $4 million for the ranch but settled for $2.5 million, moved to Green River and retired.

It was not until 2002 that archaeologists realized the full significance of Range Creek.

While many structures are still standing or visible, others could be buried. Archaeologists have not done any excavations yet, simply because "we have too big a task just to document" sites in plain view, Jones said.

After The Associated Press started inquiring, Metcalfe decided to hasten an announcement.

Next week, he plans to take news organizations to the ranch, which is 30 miles off the nearest paved highway over rough, mountainous terrain. A gate inside Range Creek canyon blocks access; from there a dirt road continues about 14 miles down the canyon to a ranch house, now a hub of archaeological activity.

------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.

 

[oll_lewis]

The above link is a report about an intact native american vilage found 'unlooted' in utah.

Sounds interesting.

 

[Melf]

thats it. its all down hill for the site now, theres no way youll be able to protect a site that big for long

unless you throw a fence up around it and use the army as security

 

[TheVectian]

The Army wouldn't get involved unless adavanced alien technology was found. Stone axes and pottery doesn't count.

 

[staticgirl]

hmmm

Tell them there's oil in them thar hills...

 

[Philo_T]

I'd say call out the National Guard to protect the site, but

Oh, never mind...
:devil:

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Sound slike the looting has already started but it should provide some fascinating information )first article has photos):

Site Could Yield Clues to Indian Mystery

Kept secret for years, an important archeological find in Utah is opened for its first public tour.



By David Kelly, Times Staff Writer


RANGE CREEK CANYON, Utah — For more than 50 years, Waldo Wilcox never told the secret of Range Creek. He shooed away the curious and allowed just a handful of scientists to explore his 4,000-acre ranch, deep in the narrow sandstone canyons of eastern Utah.

But on Wednesday, the secret was out.

The 74-year-old cowboy, who recently sold his ranch to the federal government, had been sitting on one of the most extensive ancient Indian sites in North America. He offered the first public tour of it Wednesday to a group of reporters.

The land's archeological value, scientists say, rivals that of Mesa Verde in Colorado and New Mexico's Chaco Canyon. Granaries, stone houses, rock art and thousands of arrowheads from the Fremont culture lay on lush canyon floors, atop cliffs and chiseled on stone walls.

Researchers say the sheer quantity of the material and its pristine condition may help answer one of the most enduring questions in North American archeology — why did the Fremont, who lived between roughly AD 600 and 1300, disappear?

"The opportunities this site offers are unbelievable," said Kevin Jones, a Utah state archeologist. "It's one of the most significant sites in America today; it's truly a national treasure."

In just the last few weeks, the site has offered up intriguing clues about the fate of the Fremont. Archeologists have found dozens of granaries, or food storage areas, high on the cliff sides. "The fact that they would go to these lengths to build hidden granaries indicates that others might [have been] trying to get to them," Jones said.

One major theory is that invaders displaced the Fremont. Another is that drought forced them to move. Both those ideas have also been explored by archeologists trying to explain the sudden disappearance of the Anasazi — contemporaries of the Fremont who lived in what today is Arizona, New Mexico and southern Colorado.

At Range Creek, the Fremont farmed corn, squash and beans and built hundreds of semi-submerged homes called pit houses. The foundations of the houses are evident up and down the canyons. Many overlook open meadows, with cottonwoods swaying along slow moving streams. The earth nearby is littered with translucent arrowheads, bits of pottery and grinding stones.

Archeologists say the absence of ancient trash heaps shows that the Fremont who settled here left quickly, maybe in less than a year. And they left around AD 1300 — about the same time the culture vanished.

"There was this radical shift in life ways, and maybe this place can answer what that shift was," said Duncan Metcalfe, curator of archeology at the University of Utah Natural History Museum.

Humans have inhabited Utah for 11,000 years. The Fremont, hunter-gatherers who also farmed, lived in areas that are now Idaho and northwestern Colorado. But present-day Utah was their heartland. Fremont sites are abundant throughout the state, and in some places home builders routinely encounter artifacts when digging foundations.

What makes Range Creek so special, archeologists say, is its near-flawless condition. That's because of Wilcox, a blunt-talking cattle rancher with a penchant for Wrangler jeans and a passion for history.

He bought the ranch in 1951. For years, he quietly enjoyed the Fremont sites while jealously guarding them.

When an archeologist would ask to explore the ranch, Wilcox agreed only if he could watch. He once evicted a scientist for hammering a petroglyph.

"I just thought it was something to be protected," said Wilcox, wearing a cowboy hat with a bit of horsehair sticking out the top. "I figured if I died, I wouldn't want some hippie digging up my dead body."

Wilcox once found the mummified remains of a Fremont man, woman and child. The man was wrapped in strips of beaver skin, and the woman and child were encased in cedar bark. He said the bodies were taken to an Arizona museum — he wouldn't say by whom — and he never heard of them again.

As he got older, Wilcox said, he was approached by the nonprofit Trust for Public Land, the federal Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah, asking if he would sell his ranch so the ruins could be preserved.

"I didn't really want to, but I figured if I died, I'd have no say in what happened to the land," Wilcox said, noting that he didn't want developers to get it.

About a year ago, he sold for about .5 million and moved to Green River, about 60 miles south. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources now oversees his old land.

All along, Wilcox worried that public attention could doom the site. It now appears his fears may have been warranted.

In the last week, three Fremont knife blades, an arrowhead and a pot have been taken from the site, said Joel Boomgarden, a University of Utah graduate student who is working at the ranch.

"Some places are already being looted," he said, standing among dozens of tiny flags used to mark artifacts lying among the sagebrush and juniper trees. "Some people are coming thinking it's like Chaco Canyon. They are digging for stuff that's not there. The Fremont built these structures as if they'd be here for a thousand years, and then [they] just disappeared."

Shells from the Pacific Ocean have been found at the site, along with the finest examples of Fremont figurines anywhere.

Perhaps the most enigmatic relic of Fremont life is the rock art found all over the ranch. Long serpents, men with bows and arrows and pronghorn antelope are chiseled into sandstone walls. There also are the classic Fremont figures — tall, trapezoidal-shaped beings with tapered limbs and odd projections emanating from their heads.

Such art can be found throughout Utah's canyon country, and archeologists say they have no idea what it means.

Wilcox walked up to a detailed etching of a man's hand.

"All they had was a rock to make that," he said. "I couldn't do it with a hammer and chisel."

Metcalfe plans to assemble a team of scientists for a 10-year project to explore the ranch and learn more about the life and disappearance of the Fremont. In the last month, he said, he has found 225 significant archeological sites on the ranch — including small villages, granaries and plazas.

So far there have been no objections to the excavation from tribes in the area, because most don't feel much kinship with the Fremont, archeologists say.

The big question is how to let the public visit the ranch without harming the thousands of artifacts scattered throughout. People now can enter the area only on foot or horseback. It's a 12-mile trip from a gated road to the Fremont sites.

"We want to share the information with the public. But if everyone in Utah came here this weekend, the place would be loved to death," Jones said. "There is a management working group trying to develop a policy to protect the sites and let people see it."

Wilcox was skeptical.

"I don't see any way they can protect it now," he said, looking over a field of golden flowers. "But what do I know? I'm just an old hillbilly."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...s1jul01,1,753497.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Ancient Indian settlement found in remote Utah

Originally published Friday, June 25, 2004
The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY -- For more than 50 years, rancher Waldo Wilcox kept most outsiders off his land and the secret under wraps: a string of ancient Indian settlements so remarkably well-preserved that arrowheads and beads are still lying out in the open.

Archaeologists are calling it one of the most spectacular finds in the West.

Hidden deep inside Utah's nearly inaccessible Book Cliffs region, 130 miles from Salt Lake City, the prehistoric villages run for 12 miles and include hundreds of rock art panels, cliffside granaries, stone houses built halfway underground, rock shelters, and the mummified remains of long-ago inhabitants.

The site was occupied for at least 3,000 years until it abandoned more than 1,000 years ago, when the Fremont people mysteriously vanished.

What sets this ancient site apart from other, better-known ones in Utah, Arizona or Colorado is that it has been left virtually untouched by looters, with the ground still littered with arrowheads, arrow shafts, beads and pottery shards in places.

"It was just like walking into a different world," said Utah state archaeologist Kevin Jones, who was overcome on his first visit in 2002.

Wilcox, 74, said: "It's like being the first white man in there, the way I kept it. There's no place like it left."

The secret is only now coming to light, after the federal and state governments paid Wilcox .5 million for the 4,200-acre ranch, which is surrounded by wilderness study lands. The state took ownership earlier this year but has not decided yet how to control public access.

"It's a national treasure. There may not be another place like it in the continental 48 states," Duncan Metcalfe, a curator with the Utah Museum of Natural History, said Thursday by satellite phone from the site.

Metcalfe said a team of researchers has documented about 200 pristine sites occupied as many as 4,500 years ago, "and we've only looked in a few places."

Wilcox said some skeletons have been exposed by shifting winds under dry ledges. "They were little people, the ones I've seen dug up. They were wrapped like Egyptians, in strips of beaver skin and cedar board, preserved as perfect," he said.

The Fremont, a collection of hunter-gatherers and farmers, preceded more modern American Indian tribes on the Colorado Plateau.

Archaeologists believe the sites may have been first occupied as much as 7,000 years ago; they could shed light on the earliest inhabitants of North America, who are believed to have arrived by way of the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago.

The settlements are along the Range Creek, which sustained ancient people in the canyon until it possibly dried up in a drought, Wilcox said.

These days, the creek runs year-round, abundant with trout and shaded by cottonwood and box elder trees. Douglas fir covers the canyon sides. The canyon would have been rich in wildlife: elk, deer, bighorn sheep, bear, mountain lions, wild turkeys -- all animals that Wilcox said are still around, but in lesser numbers because of hunters.

"I didn't let people go in there to destroy it," said Wilcox, whose parents bought the ranch in 1951 and threw up a gate to the rugged canyon. "The less people know about this, the better."

Over the years, Wilcox occasionally welcomed archaeologists to inspect part of the canyon, "but we'd watch 'em." When one Kent State researcher used a pick ax to take a pigment sample from a pictograph, Wilcox "took the pick from him and took him out of the gate."

Although the University of Utah hired a seasonal caretaker and students from three Utah schools are working the sites this summer, Wilcox worries about looting.

He said he gave up the land on a promise of protection from the San Francisco-based Trust for Public Land, which transferred the ranch to public ownership.

The promise barely assured Wilcox, but he said he knew one thing: "I'm getting old and couldn't take care of it." He said he asked million for the ranch but settled for .5 million, moved to Green River and retired.

It was not until 2002 that archaeologists realized the full significance of Range Creek.

While many structures are still standing or visible, others could be buried. Archaeologists have not done any excavations yet, simply because "we have too big a task just to document" sites in plain view, Jones said.

After The Associated Press started inquiring, Metcalfe decided to hasten an announcement.

Next week, he plans to take news organizations to the ranch, which is 30 miles off the nearest paved highway over rough, mountainous terrain. A gate inside Range Creek canyon blocks access; from there a dirt road continues about 14 miles down the canyon to a ranch house, now a hub of archaeological activity.

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=9453

 

[eris1369]

You can see some pictures here:

click on the slide show of Range Canyon

http://staa.org

 

[Anonymous]

some comments on the claims in Range Creek Canyon

To all:

The claims of archeological finds in Waldo Wilcox's land near Range Creek Canyon, in Utah, deserve examination, but, apparently, more in what they seem to say, than in what they address.

Wilcox claims to have entire untouched communities, supposedly, of the disappeared Fremont people, on his land. Petroglyphs are claimed to be everywhere, as are arrowheads, granaries, and pottery, all untouched since they were left there about 1000 years ago. Accounts of the matter emphasize the fact that the communities had remained "untouched by looters", and that Wilcox had protected the land for 50 years, as well as his presumed "magnanimity" in opening it up now.

A non-whitewashed look at the matter, however, brings up some very serious points.

Among the first is the sheer claim of the sites having been unlooted for centuries.

Wilcox may have protected the sites for the last 50 years, but for more than nine centuries, they were open to anyone who would come by. And there don't seem to have been that much of a shortage of people in that area of the Southwest. For that matter, too, to be able to purchase his land, it is reasonable that Wilcox will have had to have had some kind of official description of the property, and that would require a fairly extensive examination by state officials. And what of those who owned it before Wilcox? Didn't they do any exploring of the land they owned? Apologists for "the official story" may rest their objections on descriptions of the land as being all but inaccessible. But the people who lived there seemed to find it adequate enough to suit their comings and goings! For this site to have been "undiscovered" for so long seems counter to all sense!

The questions then arise: What is there? Is there anything there? Why was it opened now? Why are they doing this, if there is nothing there?

And, for all that believers in "the official story" claim that "there are pictures", what I saw was pathetic, to say the least!

One of the first reports, for example, included only a textbook photograph of previously known pottery examples. The article, "Long Secret, Ancient Ruins Are Revealed In Utah", in The New York Times, shows a view of Wilcox and a few other people, viewed from in front of them, while they look at something, but what it is, is not shown! Another photograph shows some people sitting on a large outcropping of rock, and another shows a not necessarily entirely convincing "granary".

The South Texas Archeological Association page has a lot of pictures, but, even there, questions arise. Among other things, for all the emphasis on remnants of lives left virtually untouched, there is no real depiction, on that page, of living sites. Not even the granary shown in The New York Times. There are a lot of shots of pottery and arrowheads, which don't really say anything. Many of the pictures deal with petroglyphs - being archeologists, it is distressing that they seem to shift between the words "petroglyph" and "pictograph" with ease! - but a number are repeated, and whoever made the page didn't seem to realize they were presenting the same picture twice! In one case, the same petroglyph is shown three times, and treated as a different picture, each time! And I'm not entirely sure I didn't see some of the petroglyphs before, in National Geographic!

Questions then arise about what exactly is going on.

Given 50 years of unobserved control over the land, it is not entirely impossible that Wilcox and his family could have constructed their own collection of communities - built granaries themselves, made pottery themselves, carved petroglyphs themselves - and then opened it to the public, to try to cash in.

An alternative can be seen, perhaps, in comments by melf and Philo T. "There's no way", melf say, "you'll be able to protect a site that big for long unless you throw a fence up around it and use the army as security." Philo T says they would call out the National Guard to protect the site.

If you were setting up a secret government site to detain terrorists, insurgents or Zeta Reticuli aliens, and didn't want anyone poking around, it would serve your purpose well to let loose a claim that a valuable archeological site was in that area, and subsequently set up the military to protect it! And they even have such as melf and Philo T championing that idea!

One of the connivers' credos is: "It's so much more fun when they ask for it!"

There is another possibility.

I have mentioned the apparent plethora of large scale, enigmatic disappearances of entire populations, around the globe. Some may say that the Fremont people of the Range Creek Canyon were one of the anomalous disappearances, but that still doesn't explain how their settlements could have gone without looting. It may be that, just as whole populations disappear, without explanation, maybe remains of civilizations suddenly appear, without explanation! Suddenly appearing out of nowhere, only a few dozen years ago, could explain why the remains were never raided, before! Indeed, many of the signs of "vanished peoples" could merely be cases of archeological remains suddenly appearing out of the nothingness!

These are significant points that have to be addressed, it seems before this claim could be taken at face value!



Julian Penrod

 

[Spookdaddy]

I don’t really think it’s that much of a mystery for this site to remain relatively undisturbed.

Utah is an enormous State with a relatively small population and it’s easy to forget that, in historical terms, places like Utah were only settled by people of European stock very recently. Add to this the influx of settlers who practiced a new, unsanctioned and persecuted religion and who, for much of their early history at least, remained pretty secretive and insular. Then you’ve got the fact that landowners in the US have access to some serious ordinance - I suspect a farmer with a mean reputation and an assault rifle is a damn sight more likely to dissuade people from poking around on his property than the National Guard are.

The reports use words like “secret” and “undiscovered” but it’s fairly obvious that the site was known about - just not widely.

 

[eris1369]

Re: some comments on the claims in Range Creek Canyon

Arrowheads & pottery may not "say much" to you, but they speak volumes to archaeologists. I didn't post this link to support Watkins' story, I posted it because someone expressed an interest in seeing pictures of the site. I believe Mr. Watkins is anxious to sell his ranch, & is looking to get a better price. That doesn't undermine the validity of the archaeological site.


a number are repeated, and whoever made the page didn't seem to realize they were presenting the same picture twice! In one case, the same petroglyph is shown three times, and treated as a different picture, each time! If you are referring to 54, 55 & 56, look again, they're not the same.



And I'm not entirely sure I didn't see some of the petroglyphs before, in National Geographic!


You may well have done so. Apparently you failed to notice that the STAA expedition happened in 1999.

 

[Anonymous]

responses to reactions to my comments on the claim in Range

To all:

The questionable aspects of a patently false story can be found as much in the protestations of those who try to insist on its "truthfulness" as in the story, itself.

Both Spook and Eris counter my statements that the claimed discoveries at Range Creek Canyon do not ring entirely, or even mostly, true. Spook's "arguments" for the site remaining unknown and untouched for so long are specious, and Eris' taking issue with my taking issue with the "proofs" of the claim does not appear to hold water.

Spook, for example, says it's not "That much of a mystery for this site to remain relatively untouched". They assert that "Utah is an enormous state with a relatively small population and it's easy to forget that, in historical terms, places like Utah were only settled by people of European stock very recently." Spook also invokes the imagery of the Mormon settlers, described as practicing a "new, unsanctioned and persecuted religion" remaining, at least early on, "pretty secretive and insular". They then resort to cuteness, referring to landowners in the U.S having "access to some serious ordinance". Spook then refers to "a farmer with a mean reputation and an assault rifle" being better at dissuading people from"poking around" than the National Guard.

But, the remains are described as not "relatively untouched", but, rather, almost perfect, as if the inhabitants had just left! And the introduction of people of European descent should have nothing to do with it. The sites were, reportedly, left for a thousand years or more! And American Indian tribes, coming on the places, are not likely to have left them alone, especially if they had supplies they could use! And ten centuries or more is a lot of time without any Indian tribes or wanderers coming on the sites! Early colonists and pioneers would, in fact, have been less likely to disturb the site than natives, since they would not likely have been as inclined as today to preserve vanishing or vanished cultures. And no matter how persecuted Spook wants to depict the Mormons as being, among other things they didn't own the whole state outright, so their secretiveness would not have influenced the discovery of the sites. And it certainly couldn't have influenced their discovery in the centuries of Conquistador exploration before them! And the imagery of a farmer with "an assault rifle" is at once ludicrous and pointless. Because, among other things, during the centuries when pioneers were covering the land, no farmer had an "assault rifle"! And, for all their emphasis on the importance of their land, the exact description of what was "their land" would be crucial to them! Precise studies and records of contents of the land were maintained by state and federal land offices, for determining what was being purchased! On publicly owned land, it is unlikely that something like this would have gone so completely unnoticed! Owning the land for 50 years, the Wolcoxes must have purchased it in the 1950's. Sophisticated mapping methods already existed, by that time, and should have had, it seems, at least some idea of what was on their land, by the time they bought it!

Eris tries to find fault with my criticism of the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association web page on the subject. They critique my saying that the arrowheads and pottery shards in the pictures don't say much. "Arrowheads and pottery may not 'say much' to you", Eris asserts, apparently trying to sew the suspicion that I don't have sufficient intellectual capacity to make qualified statements, "but they speak volumes to archaeologists [sic]." Eris then talks about "Mr. Watkins" supposedly planning to sell his ranch, and trying to get a better price, by advertising the presence of the Indian sites. "That doesn't undermine the validity of the archaeological [sic] site", Eris states. Eris then takes issue with my reference to a number of photographs of petroglyphs being repeated on the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association's web page. "If you are referring to 54, 55 and 56", Eris says, "look again, they're not the same." And, as for my comment that some of the petroglyphs look familiar to me, as if I've seen them before, in National Geographic, Eris says, insolently, "You may well have done so. Apparently, you failed to notice that the STAA expedition happened in 1999."

Among other things, I have to say that I wonder why an organization from as far away as South Texas has to be the major source for this information. Don't they have more regional American Southwest archeological associations that could do the studying?

As for the comment that the arrowheads and pottery "don't tell much", that is absolutely true. It is Eris who apparently failed to realize that I was talking about establishing the veracity of the claim of a genuine Fremon People site in Range Creek Canyon. And a blanketful of pottery shards and arrowheads does not do that! Nothing says they were gathered from Range Creek Canyon! They could have been picked up anywhere! If the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association claims they found them in Range Creek Canyon, where is their proof that they weren't planted there, from elsewhere, to build up the story? And, for that matter, just looking at them spread out on the blanket, where is the proof that they weren't manufactured in the past 50 years? That's what I meant when I said they don't say much!

And I didn't say that pictures 54, 55 and 56 were the same petroglyph, but 17, 18 and 19 are! So are 15 and 16. And 20, 21 and 23. And 101 and 103.

And, as for having seen some of the petroglyphs before, as I said, I seem to remember them in the National Geographic, not in any material from the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association! And the pictures I remember were from the 1950's or 1960's!

It is interesting, Eris bringing up the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association expedition date of 1999.

There is a CNN article on the matter, "Indians complain about secrecy of ancient find". In it, "some of Utah's Indian leaders" say they are "upset" that state and federal officials did not inform them of the sites, even though they had known about them "since 2002". The tribes claim that the sites may contain items that their own ancestors may have owned. They complained that they hadn't been notified either of the site, or that work was being done. Archeologists claim that they didn't tell the tribes about it because they "haven't started digging for artifacts or human remains", whatever significance that has. The article also indicates that "archaeologists [sic] did not show reporters any burial sites or human remains", claiming that "when researchers come across such remains, they are leaving them in place, covered with dirt."

The date of 2002 was interesting, because, with the sudden rush of information, the impression is given that they were only just disclosed. This article pushed the date back to 2002. Now, supposedly, the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association claims to have known about them since 1999! And, if you look closely at the CNN article, "Ancient Indian settlement found", from June 24, you would see it mentioned that "over the years, Wilcox occasionally welcomed archaeologists [sic] to inspect part of the canyon." In one case, they say, "a Kent State researcher used a pick ax to take a pigment sample from a pictrograph". The fact that a researcher would use a pick ax to get a pigment sample is as questionable as the fact that the writer of this article seemed as in the dark about the difference between "petrolyph" and "pictograph" as the person who assembled the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association web page!

Not only is the validity of the claims of the sites apparently severely in question, the very issue of who knew what about them when seems very much up in the air, too!

If the South Texas Archaeological [sic] Association had a full expedition to the area in 1999, why are Utah and federal authorities only credited with knowing about them in 2002? And when did the Kent State reseracher come there, and why didn't they publish anything about the site?

And it would be nice if no one tried to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that I applied "[sic]" to the spelling "archaeology". In fact, I have never seen the subject spelled any other way than "archeology". If you look on the net for references to "archeology", you will find only a few alternate references to "archaeology". It wouldn't surprise me that the unscrupulous would begin a deviant version of delving into the past, for the purpose of producing doctored, fraudulent "conclusions", then presenting it under a title only slightly misspelled, so people who don't know otherwise would be fooled into thinking they had heard genuine archeological statements! The fact that the South Texas Archaeological Association prefers this evidently questionable spelling only further raises doubt about the trustworthiness of their statements!

In fact, the original claims of the discovery seem to be becoming less and less credible, as time goes on! Maybe there really is a crashed UFO there, and they want to divert the public. But it seems certain that the "official story" is far from the truth!



Julian Penrod

 

[mejane]

originally posted by Julian Penrod
And it would be nice if no one tried to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that I applied "[sic]" to the spelling "archaeology"

Sorry, but "archaeology" is the correct British English spelling

Anyway, I really can't see why the discovery of this facinating site is such a mystery. It's recently become known to the public (and reporters) due to the sale of the ranch, but was obviously an "open secret" for a long time. No-one is suggesting that it was left entirely untouched, just that many artifacts remain in situ.

As has been pointed out, North America is a big place and ranchers tend to be a pragmatic lot so it's not unreasonable to assume that the site was known about but simply listed (if at all) on the land deeds as "rough land" - but I'm not an expert on American land law so don't quote me! Native Americans are, according to popular legend, respectful of their ancestors so, again, any wandering Indians would have left the site relatively untouched.

I somehow doubt ETs are involved

Jane.

 

[stu neville]

Re: responses to reactions to my comments on the claim in Ra

And it would be nice if no one tried to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that I applied "[sic]" to the spelling "archaeology". In fact, I have never seen the subject spelled any other way than "archeology". If you look on the net for references to "archeology", you will find only a few alternate references to "archaeology".

Well, having just checked with a friend of mine who is an archaeologist, she spells it "archaeologist". As does Oxford University, that well-known source of dubious claims..

ibid
It wouldn't surprise me that the unscrupulous would begin a deviant version of delving into the past, for the purpose of producing doctored, fraudulent "conclusions", then presenting it under a title only slightly misspelled, so people who don't know otherwise would be fooled into thinking they had heard genuine archeological statements! The fact that the South Texas Archaeological Association prefers this evidently questionable spelling only further raises doubt about the trustworthiness of their statements!

Here we go again.. for anyone new to this, the "unscrupulous" are people who disagree with Julian, by and large. I proudly count myself among those devoid of scruples .

Play on..

 

[Bosbaba]

I do not have enough information to decide if this site is legitimate or not, but what I do know of the early European history in the area is that before the Mormons trekked there, the Great Salt Lake and surrounds was considered very inhospitable territory for settlers. There were a few well known trappers who worked around that area, but it never drew colonists, the Oregon trail passed by north of the territory and it was mostly left unspoilt.

When the Mormons trekked there, it was part of Mexico, not the US, and apparently the Ute Indians were not exactly friendly (not overly hostile either, but not friendly). Given the aridity of the terrain, human population would most likely have been fairly sparse, and that would have assisted in the preservation of any artefacts in the area. If the tribes that followed the Freman were nomadic they would probably have sought good hunting grounds in preference to the canyons which would not have yielded the herds that they sought.

Not as well researched and thought out as the posts previous to it but my two cents worth anyway.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Originally posted by julianpenrod
Spook's "arguments" for the site remaining unknown and untouched for so long are specious...

Not having access to the great repository of TRUTH that appears to be available to religious nuts, conspiracy buffs and the schizophrenic I'm afraid my arguments are based on opinion, a little bit of knowledge and a pinch of common sense (flawed though it may be). As to your specific criticism - well lets face it we can all indulge in the odd bit of speciousity when we feel like it can’t we? Remind me again of any non-specious evidence you have to back the suggestion that the site is in fact some sort of POW camp and not an archaeological site - I’m sure we’re all ears.

They then resort to cuteness, referring to landowners in the U.S having "access to some serious ordinance". Spook then refers to "a farmer with a mean reputation and an assault rifle" being better at dissuading people from"poking around" than the National Guard.

Not much "cute" about that. I'd say the overwhelming prevalence of firearms in the US would have a pretty strong influence on potential trespassers.

And American Indian tribes, coming on the places, are not likely to have left them alone, especially if they had supplies they could use!

It's very well attested that Native American attitudes to old sites ranged from respect (as pointed out by mejane) to superstitious horror. Further south the Navajo and Hopi were deeply suspicious of the Anasazi remains and avoided interfering with them or even going too near if it could be avoided.

And no matter how persecuted Spook wants to depict the Mormons as being, among other things they didn't own the whole state outright, so their secretiveness would not have influenced the discovery of the sites.

It’s nothing to do with my “depiction”. However you regard it the Mormon religion was a persecuted one. Mormons were attracted to the harsher landscapes of Utah because of the virtual non existence of other settlers. Until the 1850's most non-native Americans who had any experience of Utah would have encountered it only as a very dangerous section of the arduous journey by wagon-train to California. Of course they were not the only people to make their homes in Utah but to say they "would not have influenced the discovery of the sites" is making far more of an assumption than I ever did.

And it certainly couldn't have influenced their discovery in the centuries of Conquistador exploration before them!

Conquistadors? Utah? There were a couple of very early expeditions into the interior of North America and the Spaniards went on to settle areas of the South-West but I'm almost positive they never made any serious attempt to occupy or explore the badlands of Utah. I am happy to be corrected if you have any sources that claim otherwise.

And the imagery of a farmer with "an assault rifle" is at once ludicrous and pointless. Because, among other things, during the centuries when pioneers were covering the land, no farmer had an "assault rifle"!

There never were "centuries when pioneers were covering the land” - the nastier bits of Utah were virtually unknown until the 1840's. In fact technically the US didn't really own the territory until 1848. If the farm was bought in the 1950's it would have been in existence for barely a century at most and very possibly a lot less. And again I’m making a point about the way people regard private property in the US and the methods they use legally or otherwise to back up their claims which I don’t think is either “ludicrous” or “pointless”.

You seem to be of the opinion that the interior of the Western United States was a continuously occupied, thoroughly mapped and well-trodden territory for centuries before the present day. This is simply not true. Even in the modern era with satellite mapping techniques a site like this in a vast territory like Utah would not necessarily leap out at you unless you were specifically looking for it.

Maybe a little bit less of the emotive wording you pepper your criticisms with, a slight easing back on the pomposity and a little more reference to a history book might help us all to partake in the emotionally and intellectually satisfying experience of a sensible and civilised difference of opinion....pal!

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Re: responses to reactions to my comments on the claim in Ra

And it would be nice if no one tried to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that I applied "[sic]" to the spelling "archaeology". In fact, I have never seen the subject spelled any other way than "archeology". If you look on the net for references to "archeology", you will find only a few alternate references to "archaeology". It wouldn't surprise me that the unscrupulous would begin a deviant version of delving into the past, for the purpose of producing doctored, fraudulent "conclusions", then presenting it under a title only slightly misspelled, so people who don't know otherwise would be fooled into thinking they had heard genuine archeological statements! The fact that the South Texas Archaeological Association prefers this evidently questionable spelling only further raises doubt about the trustworthiness of their statements!

I'm an archaeologist (amongst other things) and I'm perfectly happy with the spelling thanks - I also use the words colour, centre, etc. It just happens to be the way we spell stuff over here and while it is the American's call if they want to change/modernise spellings forgive us for sticking with our spelling rather than adopting yours

See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=archaeology

I can't speak for the STAA but I would assume that they use that spelling as it gives things a more archaic feel to things in the States - I wouldn't be suprised if somewhere you can find someone spelling it Archæology for extra effect. I know of prcednets to this as some American palaeoanthropologists (or would you be happy with paleoanthrolopgist?) prefer the spelling Neanderthal to Neandertal for similar reasons. In no way can you consider the spelling significant of anything (for all we know the STAA was started by a Brit working there or anything).

I would have thought that Occam's Razor would suggest that the explanation might be that it is what they claim - early news reports on things like this are often confusing and contain stock photos - its the nature of such things. I can't really imagine the amount of effort that would be required to create all the finds (including human remains) and it would be difficult to fool all archaeologists all of the time.

I'm not sure what evidence you'd find satisfactory as, if one was determined, one can always pick holes in something which, while not convincing anyone else, one would find personally satisfactory. Good quality radiocarbon dates would be enough for most people (if collected and analysed by one of the big labs) - would that be OK for you?

-------------------------
Anyway more news:

Indian remains spark a debate




By Elizabeth Neff and Greg Lavine
The Salt Lake Tribune

In Waldo Wilcox's boyhood memory, the trio of mummified bodies were an intriguing wonder -- the male covered in beaver skin, a woman and child wrapped in cedar bark.

His neighbors -- who in the 1940s leased land near today's spectacular Range Creek archaeological site -- told the 11-year-old Wilcox they were donating the bodies to a college in Phoenix.

The mummies' fate is a mystery. There's no record of them at Arizona State University in Tempe, the most likely recipient, or in Utah repositories.

While the mummies may never surface, other recently discovered human remains at the site, occupied by the Fremont between A.D. 1000 and 1200, could give regional American Indian tribes a role in management there.

State and federal laws offer tribes a chance to claim remains discovered on public land. If modern-day tribes can prove a cultural affiliation with such remains, the tribes can decide whether they are reburied, studied or donated to a museum.

The Range Creek site, a 12-mile stretch of rough terrain near Price in the Book Cliffs, is a mix of federal, state and private land. Most of the site, purchased 50 years ago by Wilcox, 74, was recently acquired by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

The Paiute Indian Tribe is one of 10 that have claimed the Fremont as ancestors, in connection with remains discovered elsewhere in Utah. Tribal chairwoman Lora Tom said Thursday the Paiutes would like to work with other tribes to gain a voice in what is to be done with Range Creek remains.

"I believe any bodies should be repatriated out of respect," she said. "Once we are at a point where any remains are discovered, I think that someone from the surrounding tribes should be there."
Advertisement


Archaeologists with the state Division of History and the Utah Museum of Natural History are mapping the site and have discovered about 225 locations with cultural material. Of those, three or four hold human remains, said Duncan Metcalfe, the museum's curator of archaeology.

Researchers are being careful to avoid touching these locations, he said. In a few cases, parts of skulls and a bone thought to be a human leg have come to the surface through natural erosion, he said.

Archaeologists are noting each body and making a global positioning system, or GPS, measurement of their locations, Metcalfe said. The measurements will be used to determine whether the remains are on the former Wilcox ranch or surrounding federal and private land. Then, the landowners will be required to alert state Indian officials.

Tribes will be consulted once any excavations begin, he added.

When American Indian remains are found on federal or tribal lands, tribes can attempt to claim them under the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The law also applies to institutions, such as museums, that receive federal funding.

Utah laws allow American Indian remains and funeral objects discovered on state land to be controlled by any tribe that can prove cultural affiliation. Seven members of the state's Utah Native American Remains Review Committee (NARC) are charged with reviewing any claims for remains.

Anyone who discovers such remains on state land must notify the Division of Indian Affairs, which in turn notifies tribes. Tribes must file any claims within 60 days.

In a memo issued Thursday to members of the committee, Division Executive Director Forrest Cuch said the division "did not receive notification in advance regarding the findings of the 'Range Creek' area" and was unable to notify NARC members.

A NARC meeting has been scheduled for Aug. 24 to discuss Range Creek, the memo said. Cuch declined further comment Thursday.

For tribes such as those claiming a connection to the Fremont, establishing a direct affiliation with remains as old as those found in Range Creek can be difficult.

This spring, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said five tribes had failed to prove their connection to Kennewick Man, a 9,000-year-old skeleton found in 1996 on a bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Wash.

Kennewick Man is so old, the court concluded, that it is nearly impossible to establish a link between him and any modern-day tribe.

In Utah, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is facing a similar analysis in connection with about 30 sets of Fremont remains found in the Uinta Basin and near the Great Salt Lake. The bureau hopes to determine within the next two months which of 10 regional tribes, if any, is culturally affiliated with the Fremont, said bureau archaeologist Nancy Coulam.

Coulam explained the agency follows a process outlined by federal law, which includes examining geography, archaeology, anthropology, oral tradition, folklore, biology, linguistics and history.

At Range Creek, Patty Timbimboo-Madsen, chairwoman of the state remains committee, said tribes should be allowed to at least pray for those discovered on the site. Archaeologist Metcalfe said he, too, hopes to bring in a spiritual leader from an appropriate tribe to perform any needed ceremonies. Sites where bodies are reburied would be stabilized to prevent future erosion, he said.

"Praying for the dead is a big part of Indian beliefs," said Timbimboo-Madsen, a member of the Northwestern Band of Shoshone. "In situations like this the native people have to step forward and voice their opinion or they will never be heard, or the people will think they just don't care."

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jul/07022004/utah/180439.asp

Emps

 

[Anonymous]

more responses to reactions to my posts

To all:

In response to my point that the land would have shown more signs of intrusion, even by local Indian tribes, after centuries of being left uninhabited, mejane and Spook both depict American Indians of being respectful, to the point of being fearful, of abandoned areas. This, they suggest, would have prevented looting, disturbance and use of the items there.

But, if they were so revering of ancient sites, like this, they would have known about this already, in their legend and song, and would not be complaining about the Wilcoxes having kept it a secret! They would already have been aware of the area, and would not represent themselves as being among "the last to know"! The likelihood of this area coming into being in only the past few decades seems greater and greater!

More, if all old, abandoned areas were kept untouched by American Indian tribes, after 10,000 years of more of living here, it seems reasonable that there would be more deserted sites than there are! It seems reasonable that there would be more deserted sites than inhabited ones!

As for mejane asserting that unexamined property would be sold as "rough land", followed by the disclaimer that they aren't "an expert on American land law", you don't have to be an expert to know that the law rarely, if ever, likes to deal with something that isn't known as fully as it can be. And someone selling their land to the Wilcoxes, it seems, would have known what was there, before! It's not necessarily easier to delineate the border of an area than to determine what's inside, and few would do one without the other! Would someone sell a piece of property without knowing what there may be there, that they would be allowing someone else to buy?

Both mejane and stu neville take me to task for my point about "archeologist" and "archaeologist". It is asserted, for example, by mejane, that "'archaeology' is the correct British English spelling", while stu neville indicates that a friend, "who is an archaeologist", spells it that way, as does Oxford University. But it should be obvious, by now, that pedigree has become a poor guarantee of veracity! Just being known for a long time, or being avowed by those who call themselves smarter than everyone else, is not an assurance, anymore, of something being true! It's become just to obvious that someone telling you what to think has become all but a proof of that thing being a lie! In the end, it seems that "archeology" can be termed the "derivation of historical truth by obtaining artifacts", while "archaeology" may mean " the establishing and maintaining of a prescribed historical schema through the use of legitimate archeological techniques, along with judicious misrepresentation and misinterpretation of finds, or the outright hiding of embarrassing material"! If someone wants to trust what "archaeologists" tell them, they shouldn't blame me when misplaced trust whips back and bites them!

Bosbaba champions the isolation idea by describing the area, when the Mormons arrived, as arid, and food as "sparse". The aridity, supposedly, is what preserved the remains and artifacts so well. "If the tribes that followed the Freman [sic] were nomadic", Bosbaba goes on, "they would probably have sought good hunting grounds in preference to the canyons which would not have yielded the herds that they sought."

But, then, why did the Fremont People stay there? Why would they have come there? If the hunting and plant life were so poor, why would they have set up numerous settlements? How could they have set up numerous settlements? Tribes moving from one place to another don't just decide, as such, willy-nilly, to go clambering over all but impenetrable terrain. They usually do so because they feel that there is something where they are going. And that would indicate that there would have had to have been very significant food, when the Fremont People were there. And the environment evidently does not - and, apparently, certainly did not - change that much, between then and now!

An alternative is that the environment needn't play a part, since there never were inhabitants of that area before, anyway!

And it is, frankly, astonishing how the population of those who knew about this "secret" has exploded. It started with just Waldo Wilcox, then government researchers were mentioned, now the South Texas Archaeological [sic} Association supposedly all know, and even researchers from Kent State and, likely, many other institutions were included as knowing about it. Yet nothing was said, until now! What started as a "complete surprise", in early depictions of the situation, has become referred to as, in mejane's words, "an 'open secret'"!

And "debunkers", skeptics and naysayers have the nerve to say that the "proof" of the non-existence of chemtrails is that "you couldn't possible keep a secret that big among that many people for that long"! These individuals, apparently, never uttered a sound, and they weren't motivated by patriotism, money or fear of the FBI! So, a collection of Indian settlements in Utah is, apparently, proof that "arguments" against the existence of chemtrails are just so much blather!

And, unsurprisingly, attacks on my method of thinking, even to the point of outright attempted character assassination, are engaged in.

For example, stu neville refers to Oxford University as "that well-known source of dubious claims", as an apparent attempt to represent me as being so foolish that I can't recognize the truth for what it is. Well, let's be frank, if you do trust what the universities tell you, then watch your back! It's part of the "legend" of science, after all, that such as Newton utterly overthrew pre-existing nonsense taught in universities! But, then, apologists for present taught colleges will insist that those schools didn't know everything, but taught as if they did. Nowadays, however, they will assert, we do know everything, therefore, you must believe what you are told to believe!

Trust anything that Oxford University tells you and you have my best wishes for your safety.

Spook addresses my statements by referring to "the great repository of TRUTH that appears to be available to religious nuts, conspiracy buffs and the schizophrenic". They then go on to complain about my having termed their statements "specious". I didn't call thems specious to be insulting, however. I called them specious because they were specious! To talk about farmers having "serious ordinance" does sound like an attempt at cuteness, while saying a 19th century farmer would have "an assault rifle" does seem patently ludicrous!

Does Spook even know what an assault rifle is?

They then challenge me to provide "any non-specious evidence" that I have "to back the suggestion that the site is in fact some sort of POW camp and not an archaeological [sic] site".

But I didn't say it was a POW camp!

And I didn't say I had evidence that it was!

I didn't assert that I saw buildings going up, or truckloads of supplies going in!

I didn't provide any evidence, specious or not, that it was a POW camp!

I said that if you wanted to set up a POW camp, you could use this as a ruse to distract attention! U.S. history is rife with stories of installations for one purpose being disguised as something else! The Manhattan Project, for example, was represented, if memory serves, as something else entirely.

I said the specifics of the situation are very, very suspicious, and don't seem to jibe!

And they are, and they don't!

Did Spook even read my posts, before commenting on them?

And, in response to my commenting on unscrupulous individuals using one word, "archaeology", to con the people into thinking they were providing them valid archeological information, stu neville replied, "for anyone new to this, the 'unscrupulous' are people who disagree with Julian".

I referred to unscrupulous people trying to foist untrue and invalid assertions about the past on the public, and covering it up by using a misspelled form of "archeology” to cover them!

Since when is it not unscrupulous to try to foist untrue and invalid assertions on the public?

Where, in that post, did I say anything to the effect that those who said the Utah site was genuine were being unscrupulous?

Where, in anything that I wrote, did I say that people were unscrupulous because they did not agree with me?

I said that those who use illegitimate and invalid reasoning techniques, even after the valid and truthful were shown to them, are acting unscrupulously, and they are! And it was on the basis of using unsupportable and unjustifiable “arguments”, even after facts were brought forth, that I invoked the idea of lack of scruples!

Where is the scrupulousness in presenting an apparently calculatedly misrepresentative impression of a person?

No matter how they try to paint it, stu neville’s statement about me was invalid, unjustified and an evident attempt at character assassination, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the unwitting from accepting valid points I made.

One would hope for a better display from someone putatively devoted to deriving facts!

But overcoming the attempts at deceit, by the followers of lies, is as much a challenge seekers of truth have to overcome, as the actual deriving of facts!



Julian Penrod

 

[Spookdaddy]

Re: more responses to reactions to my posts

Originally posted by julianpenrod
Does Spook even know what an assault rifle is?

Yes he does.

Did Spook even read my posts, before commenting on them?

Yes he did - but he's better now thankyou.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Re: more responses to reactions to my posts

And while you are at it could you just point out to me exactly where I said

a 19th century farmer would have "an assault rifle"

I don't think I said that at all, did I? Are you not reading peoples posts thoroughly you naughty little "seeker of truth" you?

 

[PeniG]

I have no interest in arguing with Julian, so leave me out of that, but the spelling dispute is easily settled.

Both spellings of archeologist are considered correct by my American Heritage Dictionary, with the old-fashioned spelling preferred and listed first. Because I always prefer to use as few letters as possible when spelling (conditioned by my name, I suppose!), I spelled it without the second a when drafting the Paleoindian book, and the copyeditors at Henry Abrams turned right around and stuck the a in when they printed up the galleys. That's their style sheet and their call. It doesn't matter to me.

The Southern Texas Archaeological Association is a reasonably prestigious organization. For those of you who may be interested in acquiring basic information on the subject, one of the founders, Dr. Thomas R. Hester, a much-published anthropology professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio and co-author of the basic text *Field Methods in Archaeology,* wrote a handbook for amateurs called *Digging into South Texas Prehistory: A Guide for Amateur Archaeologists.* Avocational amateur archeologists have been of tremendous service to American archeology - it was an amateur who found the first artifacts in association with extinct animal remains, amateurs who found the Blackwater Draw Clovis type site, etc. The book was written both to recognize this, and to ensure that interested explorers would have the information necessary to act as archeologists, not as looters.

As sure as I spoke to a pro when researching the Paleoindian book, they would recommend *Digging into South Texas Prehistory* to me as a good guide for the non-professional, but I'd bought it years before. My edition is 1980, from Corona Publishing. I have seen more recent editions, but have not checked whether the recent paradigm shift in American archeology (I refer to the defeat of the "Clovis First" model in the wake of Monte Verde) has been considered reason enough to do a substantial update. I should probably look into that.

I love having references handy.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Re: more responses to reactions to my posts

Both mejane and stu neville take me to task for my point about "archeologist" and "archaeologist". It is asserted, for example, by mejane, that "'archaeology' is the correct British English spelling", while stu neville indicates that a friend, "who is an archaeologist", spells it that way, as does Oxford University. But it should be obvious, by now, that pedigree has become a poor guarantee of veracity! Just being known for a long time, or being avowed by those who call themselves smarter than everyone else, is not an assurance, anymore, of something being true! It's become just to obvious that someone telling you what to think has become all but a proof of that thing being a lie! In the end, it seems that "archeology" can be termed the "derivation of historical truth by obtaining artifacts", while "archaeology" may mean " the establishing and maintaining of a prescribed historical schema through the use of legitimate archeological techniques, along with judicious misrepresentation and misinterpretation of finds, or the outright hiding of embarrassing material"! If someone wants to trust what "archaeologists" tell them, they shouldn't blame me when misplaced trust whips back and bites them!

You might have to explain this one to me - are you implying that archeologist and archaeologist have two different meanings - the latter being a sinister one?

Emps

 

[stu neville]

Re: more responses to reactions to my posts

Both mejane and stu neville take me to task for my point about "archeologist" and "archaeologist". It is asserted, for example, by mejane, that "'archaeology' is the correct British English spelling", while stu neville indicates that a friend, "who is an archaeologist", spells it that way... If someone wants to trust what "archaeologists" tell them, they shouldn't blame me when misplaced trust whips back and bites them!... No matter how they try to paint it, stu neville’s statement about me was invalid, unjustified and an evident attempt at character assassination, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the unwitting from accepting valid points I made.

Your points weren't valid, and I was not attempting character assassination: however you have directly insulted the integrity of a close friend of mine, as well as that of one of my colleagues.

Kindly retract the statement or, and I don't care how much self-righteous dirge it incurs, I will issue you with a warning.

 

[Anonymous]

responses to reactions

To all:

As part of their evident desperate attempt to give the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about, Spook asks, insolently, where he said a 19th century farmer would have an assault rifle. "I don't think I said that at all, did I?", they quip, "Are you not reading peoples [sic] posts thoroughly [sic] you naughty little 'seeker of truth' you?"

In fact, in their first response to my post, Spook mentioned "a farmer with a mean reputation and an assault rifle". The paragraph in which that was written addressed the assertion that the nature of the situation would have helped Range Creek Canyon remain undisturbed throughout its colonization. At least, the beginning of the paragraph did! I assumed that Spook would engage in the tradition of limiting a paragraph to a single subject. On the basis of that, I gave Spook the benefit of the doubt that the entirety of the material in the paragraph would be about how the history of the canyon would have prevented too much travel through it. I didn't think Spook would engage in what seems the equivalent of muddleheadedly "going off on a tangent" and start talking about a different subject altogether! I thought Spook would reserve a different paragraph for a different subject. Too, since Mr. Wilcox has not been shown to have so patently "mean" a reputation, I gathered, again, that this was a reference to situations in the past!

But, if Spook finds it so difficult to keep their thoughts in rational order, that they sprinkle them everywhere, that will be remembered!

I find Peni's "defense" of the South Texas Archaeological Association, using the term "a reasonably prestigious organization" particularly telling! And Peni can list all the books they want, they still don't seem to know the crucial difference between a "petroglyph" and a "pictogram", and they did refer to the same picture several times, as if it were of several different petroglyphs! It seems like it should be less a matter of proclaiming how many texts they have out there, and more a call for people to be careful at what may be a glut of imprecise information, in the market!

Emperor takes the familiar tack of misrepresenting my words, to try to make my claims sound ludicrous. "You might have to explain this one to me", they say with evident snideness, "are you implying that archeologist and archaeologist have two different meanings - the latter being a sinister one?" No, that's not what I meant, and that's not what I said! I said that it appears that those who represent themselves as engaging in "archaeology" [sic] may be of an ilk that has penetrated what calls itself science, intent on taking over the obtaining of artifacts, for the purpose of pushing only a particular, standardized view of "history", by misinterpretation and even the hiding of material, if necessary!

For their part, stu neville became utterly antagonistic, with respect to my comments about those engaged in "archaeology" [sic]. "You have directly insulted the integrity of a close friend of mine", stu neville asserts, "as well as that of one of my colleagues.

"Kindly retract the statement", they continue, "or, and I don't care how much self-righteous dirge [sic] it incurs, I will issue you with [sic] a warning."

I did not directly insult the integrity of anybody! The name of stu neville's "close friend" was never even printed! The comment stu neville points to is my statement that, if someone wants to take the word of someone who terms themself an "archaeologist" [sic], then they should not blame me when foolish trust turns back on them and harms them!

And no one should blame me when they make a mistake, after I warned them otherwise!

I made no direct accusations of anyone, since I did not even mention this purported friend's name! A staple of the skeptics is the insistence on evidence. Where, even, is the evidence that there is a friend? For that matter, where is the indication that this individual has integrity to be insulted? Integrity is not something that is just summarily bestowed on someone! You have to earn integrity! Suspicions about someone who has engaged in questionable acts is not "insulting their integrity"! It is making a reasonable point, about unreasonable behavior! Did this friend of stu neville blow the whistle on a colleague who was raiding their department budget for personal purposes? Did they correct the South Texas Archaeological Association's apparent inability to discern the difference between "petroglyph" and "pictogram"? Did they reveal evident scams, such as Range Creek Canyon seems to be shaping up to be?

If someone is provably noble, what I said should not do anything against them, since they can always prove how honorable they are!

The only ones who are so threatened by even tangential questions that they have to issue threats are those who already have a score of black marks against their name!

It seems that stu neville is revealing more against their friend than my remarks did!

Perhaps stu neville should give in to the same call for evidence, in proving their assertions against me!

It should be mentioned, too, that a common tactic of the unscrupulous trying to invalidate the truth is to toss around terms like “self-righteous”. It is likely that stu neville will accuse me of using the term “unscrupulous” on them. I said that the unscrupulous toss around insulting terms, to try to demean the honorable, and they do toss around terms like that, for that purpose! If stu neville insists on engaging in the actions of the unscrupulous, then they have no place complaining, when it is pointed out that that is what they are doing!

In fact, though, in their evident desperation to make me shut up about "archaeologists" [sic], stu neville has only strengthened the evidence that "archaeologists" are up to no good, and that Range Creek Canyon is a swindle!

Fear and threats are a poor accompaniment to the presumed search for the truth!



Julian Penrod

 

[lopaka]

Re: responses to reactions

Fear and threats are a poor accompaniment to the presumed search for the truth!

But apparently they'll do in a pinch.

I've been around this place long enough to think you might be treading on really thin ice here, jp. Tolerance (hell, encouragement!) for weird, idosyncratic, out-there takes on the world and the events that occur is pretty widespread on the FTMB. Invective coming from what reads for all the world like a persecution complex tends to have a real short shelf-life. This is not a threat (especially since I have no power), merely a friendly observation.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Re: responses to reactions

Emperor takes the familiar tack of misrepresenting my words, to try to make my claims sound ludicrous.

You seem to be doing a good enough job without my (snidey?) help

Emperor takes the familiar tack of misrepresenting my words, to try to make my claims sound ludicrous. "You might have to explain this one to me", they say with evident snideness, "are you implying that archeologist and archaeologist have two different meanings - the latter being a sinister one?" No, that's not what I meant, and that's not what I said! I said that it appears that those who represent themselves as engaging in "archaeology" [sic] may be of an ilk that has penetrated what calls itself science, intent on taking over the obtaining of artifacts, for the purpose of pushing only a particular, standardized view of "history", by misinterpretation and even the hiding of material, if necessary!

So you are then suggesting that archaeologists [sick indeed] are up to something sinister then? Also you din't clarify - are archaeologists not part of this conspiracy?

Emps

 

[stu neville]

Re: responses to reactions

I did not directly insult the integrity of anybody! The name of stu neville's "close friend" was never even printed! The comment stu neville points to is my statement that, if someone wants to take the word of someone who terms themself an "archaeologist" [sic], then they should not blame me when foolish trust turns back on them and harms them!

And how does that differ? The solid implication is that I should not trust someone close to me who is an archaeologist. Don't try and play the semantics game with me, Julian.

I made no direct accusations of anyone, since I did not even mention this purported friend's name! A staple of the skeptics is the insistence on evidence. Where, even, is the evidence that there is a friend? For that matter, where is the indication that this individual has integrity to be insulted? ... It seems that stu neville is revealing more against their friend than my remarks did!

You really don't want to do this..

Perhaps stu neville should give in to the same call for evidence, in proving their assertions against me!

It should be mentioned, too, that a common tactic of the unscrupulous trying to invalidate the truth is to toss around terms like “self-righteous”. It is likely that stu neville will accuse me of using the term “unscrupulous” on them. I said that the unscrupulous toss around insulting terms, to try to demean the honorable, and they do toss around terms like that, for that purpose! If stu neville insists on engaging in the actions of the unscrupulous, then they have no place complaining, when it is pointed out that that is what they are doing!

And now directly questioning my own scruples...

Julian, I am issuing you with a warning. Kindly debate the point of the thread only, and stop demeaning the opinions and personal virtues of others. Two more warnings and you will be banned.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Re: responses to reactions

Emperor takes the familiar tack of misrepresenting my words, to try to make my claims sound ludicrous.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I was going to put you on ignore pal - but your entertainment value is way, way too high.

 

[stonedog3]

julianpenrod.... I am the close friend of Mr Neville's. He txtd me the question while I was at work, got a brief factual response and had the courtesy not to attribute it directly as he knew that, when I could, I would make the statements myself. Not wanting to delay the data getting to you so that you could assimilate it he sensibly posted it as he did.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my statement that, if someone wants to take the word of someone who terms themself an "archaeologist" [sic], then they should not blame me when foolish trust turns back on them and harms them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now... I term myself an archaeologist. That's what it says on my degree certificate from the 1980s. That's what we were called by employeres and the general UK public when I worked in the field (archaeological joke there ). Could you explain what you mean by the statement above? One possibility is that you are saying I am untrustworthy, that people who trust me are foolish and that I will harm them.....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where, even, is the evidence that there is a friend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure if you are questioning my existance or if Mr Neville has friends....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where is the indication that this individual has integrity to be insulted? Integrity is not something that is just summarily bestowed on someone! You have to earn integrity! Suspicions about someone who has engaged in questionable acts is not "insulting their integrity"! It is making a reasonable point, about unreasonable behavior! Did this friend of stu neville blow the whistle on a colleague who was raiding their department budget for personal purposes? Did they correct the South Texas Archaeological Association's apparent inability to discern the difference between "petroglyph" and "pictogram"? Did they reveal evident scams, such as Range Creek Canyon seems to be shaping up to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I think you will find that integrity is something that one has, not something that one earns... certainly in my daily life it is the norm to assume the best of people until proven otherwise. You know the Innocent Until Proven Guilty idea? Which "unreasonable behaviour do you say I have indulged in?

In Scotland we still act on the word as bond idea and you can find yourself having bought a house if you don't watch what you are saying :we believe in and act on verbal contracts.... Your msgs are causing me puzzlement and distate: you seem to have made these personal allegations so where is your evidence?

If you believe that one of my collegeues has their finger in the till then I suggest you report it to their line manager - otherwise kindly stop abusing them!

Kath

 

[stu neville]

You asked for my corroboration, Julian: duly supplied above.

Your turn.