1. Education
Send to a Friend via Email
K. Kris Hirst

More on Cactus Hill

By October 16, 2008

Follow me on:

The TAC video about Cactus Hill had some photographs of the artifacts--some pretty cool looking blades in fact--and it reminded me that I had never seen any professional academic research published on Cactus Hill, so I did a search, and I could find a monograph on the site, and a couple of articles on the geochronology. Still nothing in the academic journals about the archaeology, so, I couldn't find any photos of the snazzy blades.

But I was able to update the glossary entry with some new citations, so, if you're interested, please look here for more info.

Now, let's see about the Topper Site. Please let me know if you know of any additional refs I'm missing.

Comments

October 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm
(1) Dale says:

I found this link that has photographs of artifacts and dig at cactus hill.
http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4235&view=next&sid=ed50b4f3a0b3c876e07e843cb25d1996
I am not sure what dates the pictures represent bout they were posted on this site in 2008.

October 19, 2008 at 8:53 am
(2) Kris Hirst says:

Actually, that link leads to the wrong collection, and although there is a post with Cactus Hill photos, here is the Cactus Hill site, which has lots more photos and information. I’d never know it was out there without your note, though, so thanks!

http://www.jrwcc.com/nrs/index.html

Kris

October 19, 2008 at 10:29 am
(3) Kris Hirst says:

TAC tells me that there are actually two videos about Cactus Hill on their website, one on the site and one on the investigators:

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/content/Vidmap/Virginia.html

Kris

October 22, 2008 at 10:39 am
(4) boreas says:

There is something substantially problematic with the present comprehension of how and when the populating of America happened.

The real deal – in terms of tested results from contemporary archaeology – simply shows that there have been human beings inhabiting the southern and midle part of the continent more than 40.000 yrs.

Which definitely proves that the continent was populated DURING ice-time, or what? In that case we should be VERY careful about limiting the age of these populations.

Since migrations are very rare during ice-time we should be open to the posibility that the tropical populations of S-America and Mexico are as old as the African and the Asian populations.

The odd part of the present migration-model, as it is advocated by “mainstream” biologists, seem to completly overlook the simple fact that the massive cold of the ice-age did not allow people to migrate over oceans on any regular basis.

Thus we should ask the geologists and glaciologists about it – when did this ice-time start, that effectively isolated most continents from eachother.

That would imply that the aouth-americans are as old as the africans the indians and the chinese.

The TRUE age of these populations (as branches of humankind) are still NOT known – although modern science want to believe so.

Allowing the amerindians to speak in the matter we may start to hear what they say, when hey refer to their myths telling; “We have always been here…”

“Always” is obviously a big word – and a nearly – if not complete – incomprehensible thought to most high-school students. Thus we seem to keep he debate on the “safe side” – in refering to the gospel of Clovis, Leaky and National Geographic.

It seems that we are all catched and limited by the THEORY that became a scintologic truth; teaching everyone that we came out of Africa – some 40.000 years ago.

During the last decade there have been a number of discoveries telling that “modern humans” populated the arctic north – more than 40.000 years ago.

Everyone that knows anything about biology and adaption know perfectly well that higher primates need a very long time to adapt into stable cultures under new geografic and climatic conditions. Then please explain how a negrid population could find it “advantagous” to move north to the White Sea, the Pechora Bassin and the Lena river – to face the arctic ocean and club seals to survive – more than 36.000 years ago…?!

Another “odd” discovery occured in 1998 when a 120.000 years old human settlement were found in the so-called “Wolfcave” at west-coast of southern Finland…

What happened to the bananas, the oranges and the coconuts – not to mention the pleasant temperates of the Red Sea, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

Then we may add the problematic repport from Australian archeologers that in 2000 repported a more than 70.000 year old haitat of aboriginals. And now the S-American habitats with ages of 40.000 years – or more…?

Revising the OoA-theory once again simply won’t do. Their basic issue is still not solved. We seem to have been populating all the five coninents already BEFORE ice-time – which alo starts to give a logic course o events to explain the basic genetic diffrentiation into stable gen-pools that still discriminate the Chineese from the Indians, the Africans AND the Caucasians.

Our biologists still haven’t found “The Missing Link” – and we have definitly not found out when the first “naked” or “speaking” monkey started figuring out how to reproduce. Conseuently we still haven’t a real clue to how old we are – as a specie.

Two decades ago a highly renown geologist puished her sincere and thorough tests PROVED the presence of human beings had been at a site in Mexico more than 200.000 years ago.

Some may remember how her peers – and the entire community of objective, non-prejudiced science – was threating her and her pioneering discovery?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco

As this “incident” now starts to get supported by a number of new discoveries both in America and elsewhere it may be time to review Mrs’ Irwin-Williams and Steen-McIntyres
enigmatic discovery.

http://www.s8int.com/wrong-science.html

At the end of the day we may even need to have an eye open to the possibility that the cradle of human kind stood somewhere else than in Africa. Whatever gospel we have heard over he last three decades…

October 24, 2008 at 11:34 am
(5) Michael Kimber says:

Kris
Cactus Hill may be one of the myth breakers of the Clovis First theory. If it is so important, why has it received such little academic notice. Is it the current economic situation, or are archaeologists grasping at straws?

October 24, 2008 at 11:48 am
(6) Kris Hirst says:

Well, first, I think Clovis First is pretty much dead in the water, except to the very very hard core Clovis firsters, and I don’t know any of them.

Secondly, the reason Cactus Hill isn’t discussed is because it hasn’t been fully published. You can’t discuss something unless the evidence has been laid out.

Kris

December 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm
(7) John P says:

This classify as an academic reference? See URL

December 11, 2009 at 7:56 am
(8) Kris Hirst says:

John is referring to this article:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/rose2.html
in Archaeology magazine, and no, it doesn’t count. Archaeology is a great magazine, don’t get me wrong, but even editor Mark Rose who wrote that piece would agree the article is not the hard-core data that we’re looking for when we say “academic publication”. There is one published paper that I know of on Topper, cited on this page:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/tterms/qt/topper.htm
but I’m afraid that it concludes that although the dates are right (~50,000 bp), the artifacts aren’t published in detail. The authors of that article expressed skepticism as to their human origin.

Kris

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.