Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/08/2007 11:14:57 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SunkenCiv

GGG Ping.


2 posted on 01/08/2007 11:15:38 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
And if they are European in origin - does that mean I can open a casino?
3 posted on 01/08/2007 11:17:53 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

Topper (archaeological site)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World as far back as 50,000 years ago.

Since the 1930s, the most widely-accepted theory concerning the peopling of the New World is that the first human inhabitants were the Clovis people, who are thought to have arrived approximately 13,000 years ago. Artifacts of the Clovis people are found throughout most of the United States and as far south as Panama. The standard theory has been challenged in recent decades, with possible pre-Clovis sites, such as Cactus Hill and Monte Verde, suggested by a growing number of archaeologists. To date, no conclusive evidence of pre-Clovis inhabitation has yet been definitely established.

In 2004, Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology announced that radiocarbon dating of a bit of charcoal found in the Topper Site dated to approximately 50,000 years ago, or approximately 37,000 years before the Clovis people. Goodyear, who began excavating the Topper site in the 1980s, believes that the artifacts are stone tools, although other archaeologists dispute this conclusion, suggesting that the artifacts may be natural and not human-made. Other archaeologists have challenged the radiocarbon dating procedure of the Topper artifacts. Goodyear discovered the artifacts by digging 4 m deeper than the Clovis artifacts. Before discovering the oldest artifacts, he had discovered other artifacts that he claimed were tools dating around 16,000 years old, or about 3,000 years before Clovis. Until the recent challenges to the Clovis theory, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, on the grounds that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis.


9 posted on 01/08/2007 11:27:57 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

I always wondered where Helen Thomas was born.


11 posted on 01/08/2007 11:30:08 AM PST by DOGEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

Yet more evidence that radiocarbon dating is a bunch of BS. It's amazing that anyone still listens to the Darwinists.


17 posted on 01/08/2007 11:44:34 AM PST by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

Science schmience. This will make no difference at all to physics.


19 posted on 01/08/2007 11:47:07 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
(just for grins...)

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:


Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie".

It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record.

To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard.

We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

28 posted on 01/08/2007 12:09:31 PM PST by Jonah Hex ("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

This will be squashed because it violates PC dogma.


32 posted on 01/08/2007 12:26:05 PM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

Any avid golfer that has read "The Legend of Bagger Vance" knows that this discovery is long over due. Now get in the field Junah.


39 posted on 01/08/2007 2:30:21 PM PST by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
Let me guess, the guy he found was white, right?
40 posted on 01/08/2007 3:19:44 PM PST by fish hawk (. B O stinks. That would be body odor and Barak Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam; FairOpinion; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; 49th; ...
Thanks Blam.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

57 posted on 01/08/2007 10:04:44 PM PST by SunkenCiv ("I've learned to live with not knowing." -- Richard Feynman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

I thought this was old news. If I remember a NOVA report from last year, scientists had used DNA sequences and evidence from other dig sites to throw the Alaska trail into question.


70 posted on 01/09/2007 11:58:29 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

*


78 posted on 01/09/2007 3:36:00 PM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson