Well CMD if you will excuse me, and I apologize in advance, you seem to be guilty of exactly that.
However I agree with and respect the rest of you post because believe it or not I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
But I must take issue with the phrase you just posted “I have begun to wonder if Stanford/Bradley are engaged in an intellectual con game.” I am just as skeptical as you are because I have been following this First American stuff for a long, long time. I am attracted to S and Bs argument and theory because it fits the artifacts at the heart of that argument. I am convinced Drs. S and B are indeed convinced of the truth of their theory.
I was fortunate to have enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Stanford at least fifteen years ago at the Topper site in South Carolina and he was questioning Clovis across the land bridge even back then. He was questioning that theory because he had been at sites and analyzed artifacts on both sides of the Bearing Strait. When he compared Clovis artifacts to those he couldn’t see the continuation or nexus between them.
I agree with you because to really make the theory fly there need to be some Solutrean artifacts found in the Del Marva Peninsula area. However, if Clovis and the Solutrean from the Cantabria area of Spain are directly related there may be no daylight between the artifacts of both areas.
If Drs. S and B are right I would expect to see this proven by them in the course following years or even less. Will this mean that there were no really early Preclovis people here? No it does not because Clovis will be Clovis and Preclovis will still be Preclovis. Both theories can and will coexist because ond did not necessarily spring from the other.
I am also convinced that Dr. S and B are not cherry picking their data. That is what it is because both of these professionals have placed their careers on the line and realize subsequent finds will be closely and constantly examined by their peers. I am convinced they are blue ribbon Scientists and because their careers are on the line, they will do it right.
However I agree with and respect the rest of you post because believe it or not I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
But I must take issue with the phrase you just posted “I have begun to wonder if Stanford/Bradley are engaged in an intellectual con game.” I am just as skeptical as you are because I have been following this First American stuff for a long, long time. I am attracted to S and Bs argument and theory because it fits the artifacts at the heart of that argument. I am convinced Drs. S and B are indeed convinced of the truth of their theory.
I was fortunate to have enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Stanford at least fifteen years ago at the Topper site in South Carolina and he was questioning Clovis across the land bridge even back then. He was questioning that theory because he had been at sites and analyzed artifacts on both sides of the Bearing Strait. When he compared Clovis artifacts to those he couldn’t see the continuation or nexus between them.
I agree with you because to really make the theory fly there need to be some Solutrean artifacts found in the Del Marva Peninsula area. However, if Clovis and the Solutrean from the Cantabria area of Spain are directly related there may be no daylight between the artifacts of both areas.
If Drs. S and B are right I would expect to see this proven by them in the course following years or even less. Will this mean that there were no really early Preclovis people here? No it does not because Clovis will be Clovis and Preclovis will still be Preclovis. Both theories can and will coexist because ond did not necessarily spring from the other.
I am also convinced that Dr. S and B are not cherry picking their data. That is what it is because both of these professionals have placed their careers on the line and realize subsequent finds will be closely and constantly examined by their peers. I am convinced they are blue ribbon Scientists and because their careers are on the line, they will do it right.
Comment