ancient_waterways_society : Messages : 2533-2562 of 3468

http://vimeo.com/28728537

1995 ISAC Conference Excerpts: Featuring Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

Tomb Tape IV: Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28719892

Lazeria Map Collection: Harry Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28721272

Artifacts from the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great on Vimeo

http://www.vimeo.com/28272008

~~ To stop getting 'News' emails from Sh0shanna@..., please send an email with "No More Newslist Emails' in the subject line. I'll still communicate on other matters. Thanks!~~

#2534

From: Larry Hancock <hancocklarry40@...>
Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:15 pm
Subject: Re: Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -

hancocklarry40

Thanks for sending this. I find it valuable and have some Italian friends that will be interested.

--- On Fri, 9/9/11, Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...> wrote:

From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -
To: "Ancient Waterways" <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 4:12 PM

1995 ISAC Conference Excerpts: Featuring Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28728537

Tomb Tape IV: Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28719892

Lazeria Map Collection: Harry Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28721272

Artifacts from the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great on Vimeo

http://www.vimeo.com/28272008

~~ To stop getting 'News' emails from Sh0shanna@..., please send an email with "No More Newslist Emails' in the subject line. I'll still communicate on other matters. Thanks!~~

#2535

From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:54 am
Subject: Re: Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -

prophecykeep...

"Egyptian" type artifacts have been coming out of that area for over 100 years.

They have long called that area near Cairo, IL "Little Egypt."

From: Larry Hancock <hancocklarry40@...>
To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -

Thanks for sending this. I find it valuable and have some Italian friends that will be interested.

--- On Fri, 9/9/11, Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...> wrote:

From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -
To: "Ancient Waterways" <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 4:12 PM

1995 ISAC Conference Excerpts: Featuring Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28728537

Tomb Tape IV: Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28719892

Lazeria Map Collection: Harry Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28721272

Artifacts from the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great on Vimeo

http://www.vimeo.com/28272008

~~ To stop getting 'News' emails from Sh0shanna@..., please send an email with "No More Newslist Emails' in the subject line. I'll still communicate on other matters. Thanks!~~

#2536

From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: Cahokia

tedsojka

Cahokia and other mounds were used for railroad fill when the bridges were built over the River. A portion of monks was mined away I believe on the West Side in the 1800's. This was not unusual during that time period. The largest number of mounds in the Upper Midwest at Harper's Ferry. Iowa, estimated at 1200, were destroyed and there are about five left. The Army Corps of Engineers after flooding a few yeas ago, stabilized the banks to protect the remaining mounds at the Sandy Point Cemetery, It also contains the remains of Harper the town founder and other early residents.

This site is a few miles up river from the Effigy Mounds National Monument which was established in 1950. There is a museum, trails, and guided tours of the mounds. You can visit on line at, http://www.nps.gov/efmo/index.htm

This earthworks were regularly farmed over in the state of Iowa in the last century as the state became populated after it was opened for settlement in the 1850's, although people like Julien Dubuque had a lead mining grant here sating from the Spanish claim and there is a state park that is called the Mines of Spain near the town which bears his name.

Native Earthworks Preservation / Iowa

On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:24 PM, kbs2244 wrote:

Not to take away from Cahokia.
But I believe there was a mound on the St Louis side, long since flattened, that was larger than Monks.
The is still a Mound Street in St Louis.
There is some speculation that the St Louis side had more, and larger, mounds that the Cahokia side.
They were just flattened sooner due to the west side being a better building site.
Cahokia lasted as long as it did only because it was an inferior site and did not attract the big buck developers that could afford to remove or mine a mound.

#2537

From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:50 pm
Subject: get well

tedsojka

Blufflands004 copy Spiral glyph copy.jpg

Susan.

Take it easy during your recovery and I wish you all the best. My wife
Nancy says she has been writing e mails to you sharing experience.

Be well
ted

Petroglyph in Allamakee County, Iowa, known as Spirit Rock, named by
early settlers
who witnessed Natives leaving offerings at the site.  One senior said
that on a visit as
a child, someone found a clam shell behind the rock and as it was a
mile from the river,
it was put in the trunk of a car.  The dry mud that held the shell
together let loose on the bumpy
ride home and the clam held a hand full of small arrow heads.  These
are called Oneota
Points by some or bird points by others.
NEP/IA

1 of 1 Photo(s)

#2538

From: TRAYLOROO <trayloroo@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -

trayloroo

THANK YOU ... THANK YOU .... CAL

==========================================

From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
To: "ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com" <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -

"Egyptian" type artifacts have been coming out of that area for over 100 years.

They have long called that area near Cairo, IL "Little Egypt."

Thanks for sending this. I find it valuable and have some Italian friends that will be interested.

--- On Fri, 9/9/11, Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...> wrote:

From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Fw: Alexander's Tomb-Illinois Caves: FOUR VIDEOS - Paul Schaffranke, Harry Hubbard -
To: "Ancient Waterways" <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 4:12 PM

1995 ISAC Conference Excerpts: Featuring Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28728537

Tomb Tape IV: Paul Schaffranke and Harry Hubbard on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28719892

Lazeria Map Collection: Harry Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/28721272

Artifacts from the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great on Vimeo

http://www.vimeo.com/28272008

~~ To stop getting 'News' emails from Sh0shanna@..., please send an email with "No More Newslist Emails' in the subject line. I'll still communicate on other matters. Thanks!~~

#2539

From: Vincent Barrows <v_barrows@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: Cahokia

v_barrows

Ted, Kbs; Cahokia's location very near the confluence of the Missouri, Mississippi, Illinois, Rivers made it a hub for trade networks and power. The size and influence of the city is shown by Evidence inluding obsidian, shark teeth, copper, marine shells, etc. Monks mound remaining size (21,551623 cubic feet of earth) was reduced by modern destruction but is still a remarkable. A portion of the west side was removed to make a road to the top of the mound in the 1800's. A conical mound that was once on the top of the mound at the southeast corner was destroyed. In 2007, an additional 30,000 cubic feet was removed from the monks mound by backhoes.

Vince

--- On Sat, 9/10/11, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Cahokia
To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 11:31 AM

Cahokia and other mounds were used for railroad fill when the bridges were built over the River. A portion of monks was mined away I believe on the West Side in the 1800's. This was not unusual during that time period. The largest number of mounds in the Upper Midwest at Harper's Ferry. Iowa, estimated at 1200, were destroyed and there are about five left. The Army Corps of Engineers after flooding a few yeas ago, stabilized the banks to protect the remaining mounds at the Sandy Point Cemetery, It also contains the remains of Harper the town founder and other early residents.

This site is a few miles up river from the Effigy Mounds National Monument which was established in 1950. There is a museum, trails, and guided tours of the mounds. You can visit on line at, http://www.nps.gov/efmo/index.htm

This earthworks were regularly farmed over in the state of Iowa in the last century as the state became populated after it was opened for settlement in the 1850's, although people like Julien Dubuque had a lead mining grant here sating from the Spanish claim and there is a state park that is called the Mines of Spain near the town which bears his name.

Native Earthworks Preservation / Iowa

On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:24 PM, kbs2244 wrote:

Not to take away from Cahokia.
But I believe there was a mound on the St Louis side, long since flattened, that was larger than Monks.
The is still a Mound Street in St Louis.
There is some speculation that the St Louis side had more, and larger, mounds that the Cahokia side.
They were just flattened sooner due to the west side being a better building site.
Cahokia lasted as long as it did only because it was an inferior site and did not attract the big buck developers that could afford to remove or mine a mound.

#2540

From: "james m clark jr" <jameyboy@...>
Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: Note: Regarding AWS Members

jameyboyusa

Hey Oz,

Aah! Never safe to assume as they say. Never really questioned this until Yahoo!
Chat was introduced to Yahoo! groups finally. Being in Yahoo! groups for so long
this possiblity never quit registered. I couldn't imagine being in Yahoo groups
without a virtual list of favorate groups favorites with so many pc's and
various reinstallments of windows over the years and a few groups created.

Speaking of that, what was that fellows name regarding the days of this so
called Prince Madoc, Madog, Madog ab Owain Gwynedd? I basically have no more
conclusions regarding this illusive man that I can't even find out much about
regarding certainty other than that the prince tradition I assume is a later
tradition.

I just created another group at Yahoo! groups Sept.8, 2011 under Education
[awareness] which is plannned to be a responsible bi-monthly public & private
group regarding group participation and perhaps submitted paper considerations
as public records archive for the public [if not deleted which is optional at
anytime] including preporational advice, notations of critical and agumentive
essays or  doubful, not in time, or overdue submittions in part or in whole of
some value or some worth if no intention to include in another event or if it
is. for or to various journals & instutions, some of which may be added to a
historical bi-monthly timeline created first on Aug. 29, 2011 that will
constantly be edited and updated if the end results are both legal and genuine,
including pfs video, text and blog links Between Christian Philosophies and
Hebrews.

Both of these are currently private and need atending to althouth I've already
recived 174 views but that includes namely myself and concerns for international
infrigments and needed permission and additional research and other such things
everybody needs help with from time to time to be on time.

As far as video, I was hoping interested pareticipants could add their own.
Still working on that currently with Dr. Dennis Portis.
if he is still interested. You can find him currently on Youtube.

Here is his latest addition according to him for those that encline the ear. I
sugested #34 I think it was.

"I have posted a video addressing the probllen of induction and contrasting
induction on the Hume-Mill model with abstrction on the Thomistic model.

#35 Induction and Abstraction - How we form universal propositions.  Induction
form inadequate data. Abstraction from adequate data. The basis of math and
logic."

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvqcL9LILiA

be well,
jamey

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick O" <ozman@...> wrote:
>
> Jasmey,
>
> No YahooID is required to join a Yahoo Group, only a valid email.
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr"
<jameyboy@> wrote:
> >
> > In AWS links, 9 members are listed as bouncing, 1 currently bouncing plus
Yahoo! ID (Not Available) and only listed as bouncing on the last page. In
additon, 4 others are listed with no Yahoo! ID on the last page yet they are
still listed members! How is that possible? Has anyone heard from Sitting Owl
recently? I'm not sure I'll have time to email him and recieve a response. I
suppose I should check email more often.
> >
> > You have to check Yahoo! webmail periodicly to prevent from bouncing in
Yahoo! groups.
> >
> > be well,
> > jamey
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#2541

From: "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:31 pm
Subject: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

bigalemc2

This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.

Rant warning!

I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.

Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia, about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add to Rick's post, but when I got to writing

Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time now. 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not science. Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So what if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found, in what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to do that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes. Up till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses, as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.

All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists. Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject. And IMHO, so is archeology.

Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is found, and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline with the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the Clovis barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a long time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis barrier was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.

Until it failed.

The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown, too - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern weapons could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through before publishing?)

So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?

Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again. Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate Fighting cage.

More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."

Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a helluva lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or so being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe, and all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya. No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s) happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a comet (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or metallic meteor.

The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or north of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites by geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it came from outer space" is a possible explanation.

One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the ones it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to keep a hungry mammoth alive.

Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow, elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S., were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the "splash" of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as to whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown form of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible - especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features of the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed the overlying bays.

The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about 12�C lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man as modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event, then at least two questions arise:

1. How far along was man when it happened?

2. How many other times has that happened?

How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man had certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous to that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be rediscovered all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So, "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.

Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River, too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement there, too.

#2542

From: "land_lubber" <aa376@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:51 am
Subject: Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

tjdeveau

Here is an interesting paper discussing a possible impact crater that may have
been on glacial ice around 12 kya.

http://www.acadiau.ca/~ispooner/pdfs_of_papers/Bloody%20Creek%20Crater.pdf

Terry

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
wrote:
>
> impact markers have been found in sites from California to  Europe, and
> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about  12.9 kya.
> No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the  impact(s)
> happened on the ice sheet.

#2543

From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

ozmanusaa

Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.

One note in particular.

The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.

Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement there, too."

They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.

The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage, it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.

Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.

Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private property

The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall, and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.

The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age. Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.

The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.

Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.

Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
>
> This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
> Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
> prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
>
> Rant warning!
>
> I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
> Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
>
> Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
> about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add to
> Rick's post, but when I got to writing
>
> Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
> time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time now.
> 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
> Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
> it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not science.
> Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So what
> if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found, in
> what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to do
> that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
> that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
> study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
> last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
> presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes. Up
> till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
> as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
> intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
>
> All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
> labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
> of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
> Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
> fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
> changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
> there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
> warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
> And IMHO, so is archeology.
>
> Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
> archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
> conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
> their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
> evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
> one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is found,
> and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline with
> the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the Clovis
> barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a long
> time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis barrier
> was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
> presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
> into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
>
> Until it failed.
>
> The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown, too
> - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
> NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
> mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
> joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern weapons
> could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
> "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
> weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
> pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
> before publishing?)
>
> So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
>
> Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
> didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
> between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
> blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
> sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
> Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
> in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
> Fighting cage.
>
>
> More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
> that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
> Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
> re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
> is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
> who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
>
> Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a helluva
> lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or so
> being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
> impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe, and
> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
> No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
> happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a comet
> (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
> metallic meteor.
>
> The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or north
> of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
> different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites by
> geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
> subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
> doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
> came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
>
> One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
> wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the ones
> it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to keep
> a hungry mammoth alive.
>
> Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
> elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
> were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the "splash"
> of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as to
> whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown form
> of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
> idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
> especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features of
> the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed the
> overlying bays.
>
> The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
> stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about 12�C
> lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
> humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
> began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man as
> modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
> then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
> need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
> civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event, then
> at least two questions arise:
>
> 1. How far along was man when it happened?
>
> 2. How many other times has that happened?
>
> How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man had
> certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous to
> that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be rediscovered
> all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
> at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
> "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
>
> Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
> afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
> Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
> too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume
> that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
> of operations or settlement there, too.
>

#2544

From: "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

bigalemc2

Thanks, land_lubber. It looks like they are on that one.

FYI, they are always all over the ones that look like meteor or "asteroid" impacts. Those are the ones they've accepted for a long time.

It is the other ones - comet impacts, especially - that they are overly cautious about. if they can't find a stony meteorite in the crater, their first reaction is, "Nope. Not an impact," no matter what other evidence is present. Oh, they finally, finally have (mostly) accepted that the Tunguska blast was a comet that exploded in the atmosphere. But it took them longer than my lifetime to come to that.

Beyond Tunguska, you can pretty much write them all off, all the possible comet impacts. The Y-D is probably the next one, and the establishment has attack dogs out there to try to shoot it down. But this summary shows how poorly the D-Fence is doing: Summary of unusual Mmaterial in early Younger-Dryas age sediments and their potential relevance to the YD Cosmic Impact Hypothesis

If anyone here believes this is off topic for this forum, please let me know. I know one researcher, Ed Grondine, who has compiled a book relating the indigenous American accounts of impacts. Susan knows Ed from Kempton. He is persona non grata there at this time, but his book, Man and Impact In the Americas, is a terrific source of pre-Columbian accounts.

It is widely known that all over the world there are accounts of "something" weird and violent happening in the skies and rains of stars, etc. This is one area the arkies won't touch with a ten-foot Pole or a 12-foot Indonesian. They sweep it into their "mumbo-jumbo" silly stories repeated imperfectly over the generations.

But Ed shows that some serious caca came down from the skies, and most often the tales include dragons or "hairy stars" with tails, breathing fire - in some way that really did impact the people's consciousnesses, not to mention killing a lot of them. Suggestions by arkies that these were made-up stories have to be balanced against the ubiquity of the accounts and the similarities between them, over vast distances.

Make no mistake about it - these were eyewitnesses within historical times* - to something far out of the ordinary. Geologiists toss about ages of impacts usually in the millions of years, mostly in the tens of millions of years. These are not eons ago - these are within the Holocene. The Y-D impact happens to be at the very cusp of the Pleistocene and Holocene. More than a few people believe the Holocene was begun by the Y-D impact.

I invite any interested parties to visit CosmicTusk.com .

Steve Garcia

* Historical at least in other parts of the world. Since arkies don't credit indigenous accounts anywhere as being worth their spit, they pooh-pooh pretty much all of them, relegating them to much less standing than, say, the indigenous accounts of Jewish writers or Babylonian ones. The Americas prior to 1492 are still seen as savages who get no respect.

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "land_lubber" <aa376@...> wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting paper discussing a possible impact crater that may have been on glacial ice around 12 kya.
>
> http://www.acadiau.ca/~ispooner/pdfs_of_papers/Bloody%20Creek%20Crater.pdf
>
> Terry
>
> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" puppet@ wrote:
> >
> > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe, and
> > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
> > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
> > happened on the ice sheet.
>

#2545

From: Deb Twigg <deb_twigg@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:36 pm
Subject: Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

deb_twigg

I have three images of different seemingly accounts of catastrophic events - I
will leave it to the group to judge what if anything they might mean:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aX7xzdNFQSk/Sa0ZVXEQbFI/AAAAAAAAG14/z3L4PeZipE8/s1600-\
h/aztalan_large.JPG

Spanish hill amulet--- ladders falling?
http://www.spanishhill.com/_amulet/bigger_pic_back.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aX7xzdNFQSk/SaqiCOWY9JI/AAAAAAAAG1o/FuxCHKfSyC0/s1600-\
h/Tooker+Amulet.JPG

Deb Twigg
Executive Director
SRAC
607-727-3111
www.SRACenter.org

#2546

From: "land_lubber" <aa376@...>
Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Bloody Creek Impact SIte

tjdeveau

Hi Steve,

Not to take away from your thread re. comets, etc.

But in case anyone wants more background on the Bloody Creek impact, here is
some info I'm reposting from Dave Dermott

Terry

...

On 15 January, CBC News provincially and nationally broadcast a short
clip about the site, the potential it has for explaining the extinction of Ice
Age megafauna, clips from a fly-over above the crater site, and showing Ian at
work in the field and in the lab. You can watch the clip here.

(2min 50 sec. filesize 25 MB, WMV format)

http://www.acadiau.ca/~raeside/CBC_Bloody_Creek_Jan_2011.wmv

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks, land_lubber.  It looks like they are on that one.
>
> FYI, they are always all over the ones that look like meteor or
> "asteroid" impacts.  Those are the ones they've accepted for a long
> time.
>
> It is the other ones - comet impacts, especially - that they are overly
cautious about.

#2547

From: Chris Patenaude <yacrispyubetcha@...>
Date: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:44 am
Subject: Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

yacrispyubetcha

My chances, this summer, to even get online have been few, let alone keep track of the overswamping flow of my online groups. Busy busy season! That said, this 'finding things at Cahokia' reminds me of a question i wanted to pop out to the thinking heads at AWS. It is my own opinion that Cahokia, perforce of its placement and history, had trade route connections nearly coast to coast. Certainly it would have had access to the goods coming anywhere in the region of the Missouri and its tributaries.

Awhile back, in archy-news bits, there was one archaeologist(?)/geologist(?) who claimed that Cahokia's trade contact was much more restricted than previously thought based on one finding he made. All this time, sez the guy, red pipestone being found at Cahokia has been assumed to be Catlinite from the Pipestone quarries in western MN.

But 'his' most recent chemical lab analysis of the archy-pieces are mislabeled and they were from stone much closer to Cahokia itself. Therefore, the man concludes that Cahokia did not even trade as far as Minnesota. This i cannot believe to be the case, as my own findings in my own county shows bits and pieces of stone tools using materials thousand or more miles away. Certainly Cahokia would have more trade than a backwater trading post in NW MN.

Has anyone else heard more of this claim/opinion of diminished Cahokian influence? Was the guy laughed out of the room, eventually?
-chris p

--- On Thu, 9/8/11, Ross Hamilton <d.ross.hamilton@...> wrote:

From: Ross Hamilton <d.ross.hamilton@...>
Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] A Major Re-think of Cahokia
To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan English" <beldingenglish@...>
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 3:40 PM

That's not all they found in and around Monk's Mound that dates it back to the Archaic. They'll keep rethinking Cahokia and other sites every time the coast seems clear of some bullying academic influence or seat. BTW, I think that labeling Cahokia as the largest pre-Columbian settlement is bogus--although it likely was the largest Late Woodland settlement.

Ross

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Barrows <v_barrows@...> wrote:

Good to see that rethinking Cahokia is beginning to happen amongst Archaeologists. They should reexamine the articulated archaic canine skeletons found on the top of the monks mound, as well as all other archaic materials.
I/ we sent this message about monks mound around five years ago and it is just now being heard. But it is not flattering that Tim Schilling is copying it now.
Thanks
Vince

On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 12:29 PM EDT Rick O wrote:

>Vince, They're starting to come around...
>
>"Monumentality at Cahokia"
>Friday, September 30, Noon
>Dr. Timothy Schilling, Post Doctoral Fellow at the Mathers Museum of World Cultures/Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University Bloomington
>Cahokia was the largest pre-Columbian settlement in ancient North America. Located near the confluence of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers, west of modern day St. Louis, the site is best known for having over 100 earthen mounds. Of these, Monks Mound stands out above the rest. Monks Mound is the largest single ancient construction North of the Valley of Mexico. Traditionally, researchers speculate that the site grew around the mound through time in a slow developmental trajectory. Recent work suggests the mound was built much more quickly and in a more planned fashion. These results indicate that traditional interpretations of moundbuilding and how researchers understanding its meaning in ancient contexts should be re-evaluated. Moreover, the Monks Mound case begs a reassessment of monumental construction done by small-scale societies worldwide.
>
>

#2548

From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
Date: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

ozmanusaa

Hi Chris

To the best of my recollection, Mound 72 had materials from the Gulf
Coast, Yellowstone, South Carolina, and (probably) Mammoth Cave all in
one burial. That guy got around....

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, Chris Patenaude
<yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:
>
> My chances, this summer, to even get online have been few, let alone
keep track of the overswamping flow of my online groups. Busy busy
season!  That said, this 'finding things at Cahokia' reminds me of a
question i wanted to pop out to the thinking heads at AWS. It is my own
opinion that Cahokia, perforce of its placement and history, had trade
route connections nearly coast to coast. Certainly it would have had
access to the goods coming anywhere in the region of the Missouri and
its tributaries.
>
> Awhile back, in archy-news bits, there was one
archaeologist(?)/geologist(?) who claimed that Cahokia's trade contact
was much more restricted than previously thought based on one finding he
made. All this time, sez the guy, red pipestone being found at Cahokia
has been assumed to be Catlinite from the Pipestone quarries in western
MN.
>
> But 'his' most recent chemical lab analysis of the archy-pieces are
mislabeled and they were from stone much closer to Cahokia itself.
Therefore, the man concludes that Cahokia did not even trade as far as
Minnesota. This i cannot believe to be the case, as my own findings in
my own county shows bits and pieces of stone tools using materials
thousand or more miles away. Certainly Cahokia would have more trade
than a backwater trading post in NW MN.
>
> Has anyone else heard more of this claim/opinion of diminished
Cahokian influence? Was the guy laughed out of the room, eventually?
> -chris p
>
> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@... wrote:
>
> From: Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@...
> Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] A Major Re-think of Cahokia
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan English"
beldingenglish@...
> Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 3:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's not all they found in and around Monk's Mound that dates it
back to the Archaic. They'll keep rethinking Cahokia and other sites
every time the coast seems clear of some bullying academic influence or
seat. BTW, I think that labeling Cahokia as the largest pre-Columbian
settlement is bogus--although it likely was the largest Late Woodland
settlement.
> Ross
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Barrows v_barrows@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Good to see that rethinking Cahokia is beginning to happen
amongst Archaeologists. They should reexamine the articulated archaic
canine skeletons found on the top of the monks mound,  as well as all
other archaic materials.
>
>
> I/ we sent this message about monks mound around five years ago and it
is just now being heard. But it is not flattering that Tim Schilling is
copying it now.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vince
>
>
>
> On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 12:29 PM EDT Rick O wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vince, They're starting to come around...
>
> >
>
> >"Monumentality at Cahokia"
>
> >Friday, September 30, Noon
>
> >Dr. Timothy Schilling, Post Doctoral Fellow at the Mathers Museum of
World Cultures/Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University
Bloomington
>
> >Cahokia was the largest pre-Columbian settlement in ancient North
America. Located near the confluence of the Mississippi, Missouri, and
Illinois Rivers, west of modern day St. Louis, the site is best known
for having over 100 earthen mounds. Of these, Monks Mound stands out
above the rest. Monks Mound is the largest single ancient construction
North of the Valley of Mexico. Traditionally, researchers speculate that
the site grew around the mound through time in a slow developmental
trajectory. Recent work suggests the mound was built much more quickly
and in a more planned fashion. These results indicate that traditional
interpretations of moundbuilding and how researchers understanding its
meaning in ancient contexts should be re-evaluated. Moreover, the Monks
Mound case begs a reassessment of monumental construction done by
small-scale societies worldwide.
>
>
> >
>
> >
>

#2549

From: charles bruns <charbruns@...>
Date: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

charbruns

I believe Catlinite is an important aspect. It was hand quarried in the southwest corner of Minnesota relatively near the Jeffers petroglyphs. How did the Sisters get to there present location? What do you think? chb

From: Rick O <ozman@...>
To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

Hi Chris

To the best of my recollection, Mound 72 had materials from the Gulf
Coast, Yellowstone, South Carolina, and (probably) Mammoth Cave all in
one burial. That guy got around....

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, Chris Patenaude
<yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:
>
> My chances, this summer, to even get online have been few, let alone
keep track of the overswamping flow of my online groups. Busy busy
season! That said, this 'finding things at Cahokia' reminds me of a
question i wanted to pop out to the thinking heads at AWS. It is my own
opinion that Cahokia, perforce of its placement and history, had trade
route connections nearly coast to coast. Certainly it would have had
access to the goods coming anywhere in the region of the Missouri and
its tributaries.
>
> Awhile back, in archy-news bits, there was one
archaeologist(?)/geologist(?) who claimed that Cahokia's trade contact
was much more restricted than previously thought based on one finding he
made. All this time, sez the guy, red pipestone being found at Cahokia
has been assumed to be Catlinite from the Pipestone quarries in western
MN.
>
> But 'his' most recent chemical lab analysis of the archy-pieces are
mislabeled and they were from stone much closer to Cahokia itself.
Therefore, the man concludes that Cahokia did not even trade as far as
Minnesota. This i cannot believe to be the case, as my own findings in
my own county shows bits and pieces of stone tools using materials
thousand or more miles away. Certainly Cahokia would have more trade
than a backwater trading post in NW MN.
>
> Has anyone else heard more of this claim/opinion of diminished
Cahokian influence? Was the guy laughed out of the room, eventually?
> -chris p
>
> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@... wrote:
>
> From: Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@...
> Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] A Major Re-think of Cahokia
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan English"
beldingenglish@...
> Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 3:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's not all they found in and around Monk's Mound that dates it
back to the Archaic. They'll keep rethinking Cahokia and other sites
every time the coast seems clear of some bullying academic influence or
seat. BTW, I think that labeling Cahokia as the largest pre-Columbian
settlement is bogus--although it likely was the largest Late Woodland
settlement.
> Ross
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Barrows v_barrows@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good to see that rethinking Cahokia is beginning to happen
amongst Archaeologists. They should reexamine the articulated archaic
canine skeletons found on the top of the monks mound, as well as all
other archaic materials.
>
>
> I/ we sent this message about monks mound around five years ago and it
is just now being heard. But it is not flattering that Tim Schilling is
copying it now.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vince
>
>
>
> On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 12:29 PM EDT Rick O wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vince, They're starting to come around...
>
> >
>
> >"Monumentality at Cahokia"
>
> >Friday, September 30, Noon
>
> >Dr. Timothy Schilling, Post Doctoral Fellow at the Mathers Museum of
World Cultures/Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University
Bloomington
>
> >Cahokia was the largest pre-Columbian settlement in ancient North
America. Located near the confluence of the Mississippi, Missouri, and
Illinois Rivers, west of modern day St. Louis, the site is best known
for having over 100 earthen mounds. Of these, Monks Mound stands out
above the rest. Monks Mound is the largest single ancient construction
North of the Valley of Mexico. Traditionally, researchers speculate that
the site grew around the mound through time in a slow developmental
trajectory. Recent work suggests the mound was built much more quickly
and in a more planned fashion. These results indicate that traditional
interpretations of moundbuilding and how researchers understanding its
meaning in ancient contexts should be re-evaluated. Moreover, the Monks
Mound case begs a reassessment of monumental construction done by
small-scale societies worldwide.
>
>
> >
>
> >
>

#2550

From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
Date: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

tedsojka

Chris,

There is was an earth lodge excavate in Iowa on the Upper Iowa River near the Minnesota border. The last dig was done by Fred Phinney, then of the Iowa Archeologists Office. Potsherds made from Cahokia clay were found on the site in pits, along with obsidian, shells from the Gulf, and copper beads made from float copper in Northern Michigan. It was felt this was a temporary trading post among those that lived here in the country formerly occupied by the Oneota, which some believe were ancestors of the Ioway.

Trading was in evidence at this site from distant locations. Whether this log stockade and house were constructed by Cahokians is still being decided by people in this field.

Ted

On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Rick O wrote:

Hi Chris

To the best of my recollection, Mound 72 had materials from the Gulf
Coast, Yellowstone, South Carolina, and (probably) Mammoth Cave all in
one burial. That guy got around....

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, Chris Patenaude
<yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:
>
> My chances, this summer, to even get online have been few, let alone
keep track of the overswamping flow of my online groups. Busy busy
season! That said, this 'finding things at Cahokia' reminds me of a
question i wanted to pop out to the thinking heads at AWS. It is my own
opinion that Cahokia, perforce of its placement and history, had trade
route connections nearly coast to coast. Certainly it would have had
access to the goods coming anywhere in the region of the Missouri and
its tributaries.
>
> Awhile back, in archy-news bits, there was one
archaeologist(?)/geologist(?) who claimed that Cahokia's trade contact
was much more restricted than previously thought based on one finding he
made. All this time, sez the guy, red pipestone being found at Cahokia
has been assumed to be Catlinite from the Pipestone quarries in western
MN.
>
> But 'his' most recent chemical lab analysis of the archy-pieces are
mislabeled and they were from stone much closer to Cahokia itself.
Therefore, the man concludes that Cahokia did not even trade as far as
Minnesota. This i cannot believe to be the case, as my own findings in
my own county shows bits and pieces of stone tools using materials
thousand or more miles away. Certainly Cahokia would have more trade
than a backwater trading post in NW MN.
>
> Has anyone else heard more of this claim/opinion of diminished
Cahokian influence? Was the guy laughed out of the room, eventually?
> -chris p
>
> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@... wrote:
>
> From: Ross Hamilton d.ross.hamilton@...
> Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] A Major Re-think of Cahokia
> To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan English"
beldingenglish@...
> Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 3:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's not all they found in and around Monk's Mound that dates it
back to the Archaic. They'll keep rethinking Cahokia and other sites
every time the coast seems clear of some bullying academic influence or
seat. BTW, I think that labeling Cahokia as the largest pre-Columbian
settlement is bogus--although it likely was the largest Late Woodland
settlement.
> Ross
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Barrows v_barrows@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good to see that rethinking Cahokia is beginning to happen
amongst Archaeologists. They should reexamine the articulated archaic
canine skeletons found on the top of the monks mound, as well as all
other archaic materials.
>
>
> I/ we sent this message about monks mound around five years ago and it
is just now being heard. But it is not flattering that Tim Schilling is
copying it now.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vince
>
>
>
> On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 12:29 PM EDT Rick O wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vince, They're starting to come around...
>
> >
>
> >"Monumentality at Cahokia"
>
> >Friday, September 30, Noon
>
> >Dr. Timothy Schilling, Post Doctoral Fellow at the Mathers Museum of
World Cultures/Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University
Bloomington
>
> >Cahokia was the largest pre-Columbian settlement in ancient North
America. Located near the confluence of the Mississippi, Missouri, and
Illinois Rivers, west of modern day St. Louis, the site is best known
for having over 100 earthen mounds. Of these, Monks Mound stands out
above the rest. Monks Mound is the largest single ancient construction
North of the Valley of Mexico. Traditionally, researchers speculate that
the site grew around the mound through time in a slow developmental
trajectory. Recent work suggests the mound was built much more quickly
and in a more planned fashion. These results indicate that traditional
interpretations of moundbuilding and how researchers understanding its
meaning in ancient contexts should be re-evaluated. Moreover, the Monks
Mound case begs a reassessment of monumental construction done by
small-scale societies worldwide.
>
>
> >
>
> >
>

#2551

From: "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
Date: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: A Major Re-think of Cahokia

bigalemc2

Chris -

I am with you. The patronizing attitude of arkies is unbelievable. Those backward retarded savages, what could they have done, anyway? They weren't white and Anglo-Saxon like us'ns!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize - as the indigenous Americans would have - that the easiest and best way to travel in mid-America was by water. And once they realized that, "Hey! we can put stuff in our boat instead of hauling it on our backs!" they were going to wear out the rivers instead of creating roads and long-distance paths.

Here is the thing: If the OTHER crossroads area - the Middle East - had lots of rivers, they would have done it that way, too. Instead, they had the caravan routes heading east. It is known that some of the earliest civilizations over that way were island ones or coastal ones, and that they did a lot of trade to the west of the Levant. Outside of ports and booty on sunken ships, that didn't leave a lot of evidence of worn paths.

So, here trade was via rivers. In Eastern Europe that was the case, too - even when they were all living in the forests. The Celtish mummies in western China may have made their way to their final resting place overland, but to get there from Europe about half or more the journey would have been by water.

I mention those areas believing that long before their civilizations developed cities, trade was a done deal. Cities do not create wealth enough within themselves to grow into cities - there must be a wider trade network. That has to have been true of Cahokia, too. And just as in Europe or the Levant or China or Sumeria, ONE location had to be the most prosperous, enough to become the first true city in that wide region.

And in America, what other location could be any more suitable for attracting wealth than one near the confluence of the two mightiest rivers? Yes, Cairo would be a candidate, but Cairo in "Little Egypt" doesn't have the geography, because it floods every year and agriculture had not been developed enough to take advantage of that. Heck, I don't think even now they've got it right. (Not like the real Egypt did.)

Any person who would take ONE artifact and conclude anything large out of it must be - don't tell Mark Twain - an archeologist! That guy has shown he is someone worth ignoring. Don't look now, but his ivory tower is showing. One wonders if he is simply a chauvinist or if he ever got outside the quad.

If I had been about to arrive on Earth, from elsewhere in the galaxy, in the early Holocene and allowed to pick where I wanted to start a civilization, my list would include:

The Nile delta
The land between the rivers
The Yellow River in China
The Rhine delta
The Rhone delta
The confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi
The Mississippi delta

I would NOT choose the Palestine area. All it had was a coast, and little else to offer. ANYONE could have a coast. But bare coastline means nothing, not without a river as a source of fresh water and a cost-effective (and energy-effective) means of getting inland. Palestine has no such river. Hence, the Hebrews who lived there and the Palestinians before and after them had nothing going for them. Further north, though, the Phoenicians were not so far from the source of the Tigris River, and travel could proceed upriver as far as possible, shortening the shipping effort for goods coming from or going to the east. No such option exited for Palestine.

I was taught that all major civilizations had to be located on water. I later learned that Indianapolis was the largest US city NOT on a major body of water. The lesson was: Water makes prosperity possible, in terms of agriculture, sure, but especially in terms of trade. NO MEANS OF TRANSPORT HAS EVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN SHIPPING. Shipping made all the great concentrations of wealth and civilization, at all points in history. I think of the Dutch and their tiny country, who became the most powerful nation for a time, all based on their shipping culture. England? Certainly. The Phoenicians, without a doubt. Rome was nothing without its merchant fleet, nor were the Greeks or the Minoans. Venice was totally a crossroads, between not only Europe and the Middle East, but also between Europe and CHINA (read "1434" by Gavin Menzies). And speaking of China, when it traded, it was a great nation, and when it did not, it was not. The amount of goods being traded in the SE Asia and Indian Ocean areas far, far exceeded anything traveling along the caravan routes.

Next to water, the most important factor was being on a crossroads. It is certainly why Russia has never been a natural wealth center (though with modern transportation that is due to change). Russia is at the end of the trail. The wealth gravitates into the pockets of the traders, those who move goods. And their natural abode is at crossroads, where the action of several regions come together and multiplies the opportunities.

Where opportunity meets opportunity - that is what wealth creation is about - when both parties see the goodies to be had, the visions of sugar plums danging in their heads, right next to the belly dancers and the hot babes from upriver.

And EVERYWHERE (almost) was upriver from Cahokia. And what wasn't UP river was DOWN river. In America, it was a no-brainer that Cahokia (or some other place within 30 miles) would be that threshold city, that first one.

Like you said, Chris, it wasn't going to happen in NW MN. That area is WAY too much like Russia - kind of like Timbuktu, it wasn't the end of the world, but you could see it from there.

Not so Cahokia.

Steve

A kind of funny P.S....

I am reminded of my first day of school in Cahokia, wondering, "What kind of a name is that?" and my 3rd grade teacher, Mrs Turner, calmly spelling it out for us - C-A-H-O-K-I-A. And my brain reeled at such a name. Cahokia? Cahokia? What the heck is a Cahokia? Coming from St. Louis, now THAT is a name for a town! Who would ever name a town something ungainly like "Cahokia"? *

Then in May 2000, attending David Childress' "End of the World" conference, when word got out that I was from Cahokia, I became a minor celebrity. Even people from Europe knew about Cahokia, for god's sake! (Which was ironic as hell, because I was only there because Chris Dunn told me about the conference, at a place called Kempton, IL - which I had ALSO lived within 5 miles of - and my reply to Chris was, "WHAT?! You know where Kempton is??? Nobody knows where Kempton is!" So, between Cahokia and Kempton - population 300 and steady for at least 40 years - somehow someone was trying to tell me something...LOL)

...Maybe Cahokia or Kempton are vortex centers like Sedona - or maybe it is me... Hahaha! A walking, talking vortex center. Now that is a scary thought...

Almost all done. Now for that asterisk...

* On my last visit home to Cahokia, in 2001, I visited the Old Courthouse** (vintage 1799), which has to be one of the most unique architectural examples in all of North America. Standing only a couple hundred yards from the Mississippi - directly across from the Budweiser Brewery in St Louis, that location made it mostly safe from springtime flooding, but close enough to command some say on what happened on the river. I liked the Courthouse so much better as a kid, when we could roam around the display cases and even pull artifacts out and handle them. ("Oh?! I wasn't supposed to take them out? But the case wasn't locked!" And what is the fun of that, anyway, Ma'am?")

Someone had sanitized it all, and lost all the glamor and rustica. God, it was like watching NOVA or something, all prettied up and safe-i-fied!

But one thing I learned was this: Cahokia did not lose its primacy when the Europeans arrived. On the contrary, at one point early on, it was the county seat of St Clair County, Illinois. No big deal? How about this: At that time (the time of the Northwest Territories) there wasn't any Illinois yet. And St Clair County included the western 1/3 of IL, about 1/2 of WI, the eastern 1/3 of Iowa and the SE portion of MN. I believe it also included the NE corner of MO, too. It was all bigger than Texas, I think.

It seems that crossroads thing was also recognized by the early settlers in the middle of America.

Granted, that literally was not the same Cahokia as the earlier culture. But somehow the name apparently had carried some power to focus activity into the European age.

And BTW, Cahokia is the only U.S. town I know of where every high school student was required to take 9 weeks and study the history of their own city.

Okay, one more asterisk, the double one:

The Courthouse is NOT the oldest building in town. That honor goes to the Holy Family Church (the old one). It beat the Courthouse out by a full 100 years. It was built - also by the French - in 1699. It is the oldest building between California and the Appalachian mountains. Cahokia, the town, dates its beginnings from that year, making it the oldest TOWN anywhere in the center of the U.S., including all along the Mississippi River, down to and including New Orleans. ***

*** Cahokia - the mounds now, not the "modern town" - was contiguous (as far as we know) with the Natchez Indians of the southern end of the Misssissippi and the Gulf coast for a few hundred miles east and west. Ed Grondine, in his Man and Impact in the Americas has a translation of an account by a very early French adventurer who befriended the Natchez chieftan. I believe the honcho was called a prince. In the account, the Natches fled the mountains of northeastern Mexico because they got tired of having to stave off the Teotihuacans who were a violent sort of people who subjugated any clan they found - all but the Natchez. The Natchez in Mexico were adept mountain fighters and never were never defeated by the people from the Valley of Mexico (the area around Mexico City). But they decided it wasn't worth it, and one day they just left en masse, and headed up along the coast. They ended up in the area south of Poverty Point, west along the coast to about far eastern Texas and east to the Florida panhandle. And they DID have a pretty darned civilized culture.

It would be a miracle if there was not some overlap or inter-trading between the Natchez on the Mississippi River and the Cahokians, also along the Mississippi. It is VERY likely that the Frenchman in the 1700s knew about Cahokia to the north, but his account did not include any mention of it in relationship to the Natchez. At least not the part in Ed's book.

S.

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, Chris Patenaude <yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:

My chances, this summer, to even get online have been few, let alone keep track of the overswamping flow of my online groups. Busy busy season! That said, this 'finding things at Cahokia' reminds me of a question i wanted to pop out to the thinking heads at AWS. It is my own opinion that Cahokia, perforce of its placement and history, had trade route connections nearly coast to coast. Certainly it would have had access to the goods coming anywhere in the region of the Missouri and its tributaries.

Awhile back, in archy-news bits, there was one archaeologist(?)/geologist(?) who claimed that Cahokia's trade contact was much more restricted than previously thought based on one finding he made. All this time, sez the guy, red pipestone being found at Cahokia has been assumed to be Catlinite from the Pipestone quarries in western MN.

But 'his' most recent chemical lab analysis of the archy-pieces are mislabeled and they were from stone much closer to Cahokia itself. Therefore, the man concludes that Cahokia did not even trade as far as Minnesota. This i cannot believe to be the case, as my own findings in my own county shows bits and pieces of stone tools using materials thousand or more miles away. Certainly Cahokia would have more trade than a backwater trading post in NW MN.

Has anyone else heard more of this claim/opinion of diminished Cahokian influence? Was the guy laughed out of the room, eventually?
-chris p

#2552

From: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:19 am
Subject: New file uploaded to ancient_waterways_society

ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ancient_waterways_society
group.

   File        : /birchbark biting - news.pdf
   Uploaded by : v_barrows <v_barrows@...>
   Description : Birchbark Biting Art - News Article

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/files/birchbark%20biting\
%20-%20news.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

v_barrows <v_barrows@...>

#2553

From: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:25 pm
Subject: New file uploaded to ancient_waterways_society

ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ancient_waterways_society
group.

   File        : /DOOR-4.doc
   Uploaded by : drsrmdejonge <drsrmdejonge@...>
   Description : BRONZE DOORS OF REKHMIRE

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/files/DOOR-4.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

drsrmdejonge <drsrmdejonge@...>

#2554

From: minnesotastan@...
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:25 pm
Subject: New geoglyph discoveries in the MIddle East

minnesotastan

"Referred to by archaeologists as "wheels," these stone structures have a wide variety of designs, with a common one being a circle with spokes radiating inside. Researchers believe that they date back to antiquity, at least 2,000 years ago. They are often found on lava fields and range from 82 feet to 230 feet (25 meters to 70 meters) across...

Kennedy's new research, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science, reveals that these wheels form part of a variety of stone landscapes. These include kites (stone structures used for funnelling and killing animals); pendants (lines of stone cairns that run from burials); and walls, mysterious structures that meander across the landscape for up to several hundred feet and have no apparent practical use...

In Saudi Arabia, Kennedy's team has found wheel styles that are quite different: Some are rectangular and are not wheels at all; others are circular but contain two spokes forming a bar often aligned in the same direction that the sun rises and sets in the Middle East. The ones in Jordan and Syria, on the other hand, have numerous spokes and do not seem to be aligned with any astronomical phenomena. "On looking at large numbers of these, over a number of years, I wasn't struck by any pattern in the way in which the spokes were laid out," Kennedy said."

There's further discussion of these "wheels" at the Live Science source, which also has an excellent gallery of photos. Those really interested in the subject matter should visit the APAAME's Flickr Photostream, which has over 2,000 pages of photos.

#2555

From: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:44 pm
Subject: New file uploaded to ancient_waterways_society

ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ancient_waterways_society
group.

   File        : /SITTINGbourne-3.doc
   Uploaded by : drsrmdejonge <drsrmdejonge@...>
   Description : ANGLO-SAXON CEMETERY ARTIFACTS

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/files/SITTINGbourne-3.do\
c

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

drsrmdejonge <drsrmdejonge@...>

#2556

From: "Susan" <beldingenglish@...>
Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:45 pm
Subject: Sawbill

beldingenglish

http://www.paddlinglight.com/articles/trip-reports/boundary-waters-route-the-hunt-for-the-viking-dolmen/

Welcome to all of the new members who have joined during my medical leave of absence. Thank you to all of you who have sent well-wishes here at the site and personally to my email address.

Thanks to Charles Bruns from Duluth (Ottawa and Florida) for mailing me a very well written paper and dedicating it in my name...a very find get well wish. I hope you will continue with your writing and include this fine report into a future book.

Part of Charles' paper includes the Sawbill Dolmen; he has submitted his photos of the ancient site to this group (I believe it is under Files). Coincidently, my twin sons from Chicago and St. Paul left a phone message this morning on my answering machine that they and two friends were north of Duluth heading on a several day canoe portage toward a place called the Sawbill water trail. My kids never click into this Ancient Waterways Society that is such an important part of my life or they would have read what Charles and some of you have written about the Sawbill canoe route. Anyway, hoping they are still able to read my iPhone reply, I sent the following YouTube video about Sawbill some of you may enjoy. Also told them they have an assignment to find and photograph the site:

Boundary Water's Route: The Hunt for the Viking Dolmen :

My one hour of library time here is up. Thanks for all of your fascinating Posts and responses to each other. I need to play catch up on Posts as still do not have a computer, though an iPhone and can read POsts but not links. I had two surgeries as the cancer was more extensive than I'd thought, then heavy bleeding, still drain tubes in but recovering well.

Susan

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2557

From: TRAYLOROO <trayloroo@...>
Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:38 pm
Subject: Fw: China Jade in Mexico -- 8,000 years ago

trayloroo

NEED HELP FROM CHINA HISTORIANS

It is believed this Olmec Mexican culture

originated in China. Seeking proof:

TRANSPACIFIC CONTACTS? by Dr. Mike Xu Texas Christian University EMAIL: m.xu@...   The following materials can be used upon requests. the Pacific Currents
www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm - Cached

SOURCE* =  http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=OLMEC+STONE+HEADS&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701-1&tab=organic&tab=organic&b=197

*bottom of  Page 8,, two images in center.

ALSO TRY THIS IN YOUR SEARCH WINDOW =
comparison of ancient artifacts between china and south america

Cal

#2558

From: wayne trickle <wtrickle@...>
Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: Sawbill

wtrickle...

Susan,

I hope you are doing o.k. We just returned from a field expedition in the Oklahoma panhandle,and S.E. Colorado,and as soon as possible I will share some photos .We observed some solar alignments,and lots of petroglyphs,some of which looked very ancient. There was a really neat inscription that looked to be of some semetic origin,either south Semetic,or paleo Hebrew.

I hope to share them soon.

I will be thinking good thoughts about your recovery.

Crystal Trickle

--- On Sat, 9/24/11, Susan <beldingenglish@...> wrote:

From: Susan <beldingenglish@...>
Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Sawbill
To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 12:45 PM

Welcome to all of the new members who have joined during my medical leave of absence. Thank you to all of you who have sent well-wishes here at the site and personally to my email address.

Thanks to Charles Bruns from Duluth (Ottawa and Florida) for mailing me a very well written paper and dedicating it in my name...a very find get well wish. I hope you will continue with your writing and include this fine report into a future book.

Part of Charles' paper includes the Sawbill Dolmen; he has submitted his photos of the ancient site to this group (I believe it is under Files). Coincidently, my twin sons from Chicago and St. Paul left a phone message this morning on my answering machine that they and two friends were north of Duluth heading on a several day canoe portage toward a place called the Sawbill water trail. My kids never click into this Ancient Waterways Society that is such an important part of my life or they would have read what Charles and some of you have written about the Sawbill canoe route. Anyway, hoping they are still able to read my iPhone reply, I sent the following YouTube video about Sawbill some of you may enjoy. Also told them they have an assignment to find and photograph the site:

Boundary Water's Route: The Hunt for the Viking Dolmen :
http://www.paddlinglight.com/articles/trip-reports/boundary-waters-route-the-hunt-for-the-viking-dolmen/

My one hour of library time here is up. Thanks for all of your fascinating Posts and responses to each other. I need to play catch up on Posts as still do not have a computer, though an iPhone and can read POsts but not links. I had two surgeries as the cancer was more extensive than I'd thought, then heavy bleeding, still drain tubes in but recovering well.

Susan

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2559

From: "Susan" <beldingenglish@...>
Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:05 pm
Subject: MES Symposium Sept. 30-Oct. 2 in Columbus, OH

beldingenglish

http://www.midwesternepigraphic.org/symp11.html

Coming up this weekend is the Midwestern Epigraphic Society Symposium.

Midwestern Epigraphic Society Symposium
September 30-October 2, 2011 se
Columbus Airport Marriott , 1375 N. Cassady Ave, Columbus, Oh 43219

Keynote speaker is Ian Hudson with the Galvin Menzes project. And, Dr Siu-Leung Lee, Dr James Krehbiel, Dr J Huston McCulloch, and Rich Moats. Several others included in this impressive lineup of speakers are also members/friends of Ancient Waterways Society: William Connor, Larry Gallant, Lee Pennington, Wayne May, and Scott Wolter. Cost for the three day symposium w/Sunday field trips is only $60; College students arefree w/ID.

Members who will attend the symposium (and those who attended the AAPS Conference in Marquette, Michigan two weeks ago), please post a few notes or comments to this group. Any members knowing of other conferences, organizational meetings, or field trips related to the broad interests of this group, freely post links and include descriptive announcements.

Thanks to all from the group for recent links...Vince, Renoud, and others. Crystal, thanks for your Post and offer to send photos and addl. information on the work you and Wayne have been doing in Oklahoma and Colorado. Looking forward to it.

Soon as I get a computer I will backtrack to excellent posts and submissions by so many members the past few weeks. Steve Garcia...you are never off-subject here and I am always delighted in your delving into very ancient human times rarely addressed by vocational or avocationional scientific research. Ted, please submit to the group the link you sent me earlier today.

Thanks to all here assisting as group moderators....the more, the better at a site such as ours,

Susan

#2560

From: "Susan" <beldingenglish@...>
Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:29 pm
Subject: ANCIENT AMERICAN MAGAZINE, Vol. 15, Issue #92 detailed

beldingenglish

Earlier this month I received an extra copy of the current issue of Ancient American. Once again, I am glad to send it to a member here, preferably a newcomer or someone who has not viewed a copy of the magazine before. First of the above to Post a request to the site, please also email me your name and mailing address.

I have been a subscriber of Ancient American since its beginnings, and been impacted by the authors of many of its articles as well as the courageous perserverance of the magazine's staff members. Ancient Waterways members Deb Twigg and Larry Gallant, and friends David Hoffman, (publisher) Wayne May, Frank Joseph, and John White have contributed articles to the current issue. See table of contents below:

ANCIENT AMERICAN MAGAZINE, Vol. 15, Issue #92

Features:

Search for the Mysterious Stone Builders of New England (James Vieira)

Spanish HIll: The Search for Answers (Deborah Twigg)

Ancient Forts of the Ohio River (Lawrence C. Gallant)

KRS: It Goes On! (Darwin Ohman)

Earth Reveals a Mysterious Stone Face (Matthew Stevens)

Ice Age Florida's Mammoth Drawing: A "First,", or in Seventh Place? (Frank Joseph)

Sensca Nations: Keepers of the Western Door (Wayne May)

News:

Bending History: Indian Trail trees offer a look into the past (Sarah Jones Calhoun Times,

Calhoun, Georgia)

National Park Service Selects Stanley C. Bond, Jr. as Chief Archaeologist (Kathy Kupper)

Pirates of the Paleolithic (Tracey Peake, North Carolina State University)

Letters to the Editor

1000 year old Canoe from Weedon Island

Decorated Boulder in United States Reveals Links to Early Bronze Age Ireland (Kate Hickey)

Columns:

A Quandary in Megaliths (David Hoffman)

Book Review: Atlantis in the Amazon (Catt Foy)

CONFERENCE Newport: Gateway to America (November 5-6, 2011 Newport, Rhode Island)

Hebrew Sun Worship at Burrows Cave? (Dr. John J. White, III)

________________________________

--Susan beldingenglish@...

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2561

From: TRAYLOROO <trayloroo@...>
Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:59 pm
Subject: China Jade in Mexico -- 6,000 years ago

trayloroo

NEED HELP FROM CHINA HISTORIANS

It is believed this Olmec-Mexican culture

originated in China. Seeking proof:

The gigantic Olmec heads all have skull caps, none identical.

TRANSPACIFIC CONTACTS? by Dr. Mike Xu Texas Christian University

The following materials can be used upon requests.

www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm

SOURCE* = http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=OLMEC+STONE+HEADS&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701-1&tab=organic&tab=organic&b=197

*bottom of Page 8,, two images in center. There may be others labeled "from China" that I missed. There are hundreds of photos. ..... CLICK on the image and it enlarges and the label can be read.

ALSO TRY THIS IN YOUR SEARCH WINDOW =

comparison of ancient artifacts between china and south america

Cal Traylor

#2562

From: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:18 am
Subject: New file uploaded to ancient_waterways_society

ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ancient_waterways_society
group.

   File        : /Native American Quillwork.pdf
   Uploaded by : v_barrows <v_barrows@...>
   Description : Native Quillwork Dyes

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/files/Native%20American%\
20Quillwork.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

v_barrows <v_barrows@...>