Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
- My mom rook a lot of interest in Vine de Loria's writings. As an adult, I have taken different opinions than my folks on many things, but may get around to checking out his efforts on my own.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:37:51
Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
Sadly, the majority of the treaties, even the later ones on the Black
Hills, were easily changed by subsequent laws. The Dawes act really
was meant to split up the reservations and give title that could be
given away, taken or sold. The design was to change the culture, or
assimilate the inhabitants.
Vine de Loria did a lot of work on the subject. The Long Island
tribes are trying to get their land back according to treaties past,
and some are trying to establish themselves again so that they can
have casinos in the Hamptons. There are one or two religious leaders
there fighting against the tribes goal. They know the cost to their
children. We have half a dozen casinos in my area that are run by
the HO Chunk nation, and they are getting their money back from the
surrounding people, one pull of the bandit's arm at a time. :-)
I hope they use their money wisely, as a son of a friend is a
counselor at a tribe in Minnesota where the children of that tribe are
in great need of help. They are falling victim to drugs, alcohol, and
the influence of a large payment they will receive when they turn 18.
What price financial "freedom" if it costs you your soul and your
On Jan 8, 2012, at 9:35 PM, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
> I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and
> several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are
> situated on land that was permanently ceded, by treaty, to the
> independent Platte Nation. Sadly, it seems that white folks have not
> honored their obligations under this treaty, as anyone who goes for
> a ride through Platte City, Acheson, Benenda, etc. may easily observe.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
> Sender: email@example.com
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:31
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a
> slow thing, but not uncertain
> Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
> "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a
> way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court
> case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not
> directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped
> them of all rights to their independence." I got this material
> verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at
> Lewis and Clark College.
> Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English,
> French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous
> occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage
> of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus'
> "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that
> case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like
> the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was
> unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch
> ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming
> evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges
> evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review
> jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
>> If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia
>> Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
>> Sender: email@example.com
>> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
>> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Reply-To: email@example.com
>> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is
>> a slow thing, but not uncertain
>> Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
>> One note in particular.
>> The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city
>> has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where
>> 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
>> the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or
>> there, too."
>> They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but
>> confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
>> The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is
>> geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at
>> 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
>> built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may
>> 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
>> also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the
>> The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of
>> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
>>> Rick's post, but when I got to writing
>>> Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all
>>> time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
>>> 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
>>> it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
>>> Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
>>> if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
>>> what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-
>>> 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
>>> of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
>>> Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
>>> the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
>>> barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
>>> time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
>>> 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
>>> into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
>>> Until it failed.
>>> The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
>>> - 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
>>> 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
>>> between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after
>>> blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and
>>> sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
>>> Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running
>>> in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
>>> Fighting cage.
>>> More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time
>>> 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
>>> is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for
>>> who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
>>> Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
>>> lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
>>> being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several
>>> impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
>>> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9
>>> 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
>>> (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
>>> of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
>>> different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
>>> 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
>>> of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence
>>> whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
>>> 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
>>> the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
>>> overlying bays.
>>> The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
>>> stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
>>> lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
>>> humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture,
>>> began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
>>> modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really
>>> then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question
>>> 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,
>>> 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
>>> certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
>>> that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
>>> 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
>>> too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
>>> that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a
>>> of operations or settlement there, too.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links