Archaeologists Explain Significance Of The Walker Site (Minnesota)

The Pilot-Independent ^ | 1-24-2007 | Molly MacGregor

[crkwells]

This posting is actually directed to everyone who has questions about the site...

Why don't you people wait for the official results from the RESEARCHERS who actually did the work? Relying on the media to present acurate data is beyond irresponsible. We all know that sensationalism sells, and that's what the media plays on. They have to sell a story. For everybody's information, I was a researcher involved in the project, and I can tell you all that the last thing we wanted was for the media to release the story before we completed our analysis. Everybody should take this into consideration before they start attacking the work they know nothing about. The three principals involved in this project have combined experience of over 60 years. We are not "enthusiasts" (whatever that means) but rather professionals, and in fact the reason the story was released by the press is because we have the support of numerous well-respected archaeologists, glacial geologists, soils scientists, and geologists in the state. If you want to know what is really going on with this site, wait for the professionals (me and my colleagues) to present our findings in an official report. Until then, be patient.

[Coyoteman]

Why don't you people wait for the official results from the RESEARCHERS who actually did the work? Relying on the media to present acurate data is beyond irresponsible. We all know that sensationalism sells, and that's what the media plays on. They have to sell a story. For everybody's information, I was a researcher involved in the project, and I can tell you all that the last thing we wanted was for the media to release the story before we completed our analysis. Everybody should take this into consideration before they start attacking the work they know nothing about. The three principals involved in this project have combined experience of over 60 years. We are not "enthusiasts" (whatever that means) but rather professionals, and in fact the reason the story was released by the press is because we have the support of numerous well-respected archaeologists, glacial geologists, soils scientists, and geologists in the state. If you want to know what is really going on with this site, wait for the professionals (me and my colleagues) to present our findings in an official report. Until then, be patient.

Good advice, and welcome to FR.

Coyoteman (also a professional archaeologist)

[grey_whiskers]

Awwww,you spoil everything.

Look for me on the crevo threads. I make most of the puns ;-)

Full Disclosure: I am in exile from Minnesota, so for me, reading the story was like old home week.

Cheers!

[crkwells]

Hey, just wanted to thank you both for presenting such professional and knowledgeable information for those who are unfamiliar with the field. I am new to the media spotlight, and this is my first experience blogging. But I couldn't resist responding, because not a single reporter has gotten it right yet! Wish my colleagues and me luck with this...

[SunkenCiv]

Retracing the footprints of time
by Steve Sandford
September 9, 1996
web archive version

Direct radiocarbon dating of the Calgary site is not possible because the ancient artifacts were not found in conjunction with organic matter, such as bones or decayed plant matter, which is necessary for such testing. Absent such verification, Prof. Young dismisses the find. For one thing, he says, the artifacts are so simple they could merely be naturally-occurring rocks; he says that most informed scientists are doubtful they are tools. And even if they are tools, he adds that there is no way to be sure that they were originally situated where they were found under the gravel, since the site has served as an exposed gravel pit for the last 100 years. Comments Prof. Young: "Any dude could have put that rock there."

Ancient stone tools chip away date of early humans' arrival
by Margaret Munro
National Post
Jan 16 1999
web archive version

Recently, Dr. Chlachula and his colleagues have discovered three more sites containing what they believe are preglacial stone tools. One set of choppers and scrapers, described in the current edition of The Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, was found in a gravel pit near the town of Grimshaw in northern Alberta. The other tools were unearthed last summer at two locations west of Lethbridge. All of them, says Dr. Chlachula, indicate that humans roamed through the Prairies between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago... Dr. Richard Morlan, curator of paleo-environmental studies at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull, Que., says he has no reason to doubt Dr. Chlachula. Few people in the world, says Dr. Morlan, can match the 36-year-old researcher's expertise. Professor Nat Rutter, the former head of geology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, agrees, noting that Dr. Chlachula has three PhDs and extensive field experience in both old world and new world archaeology... Prof. Rutter, at the University of Edmonton, also has much confidence in his research skills. "Jiri's work embarrassed a lot of other people," he says, because it suggests that Canadian archaeologists have been looking in the wrong place for human artifacts and they should be hunting underneath glacial deposits. "They may not admit it," says Prof. Rutter, "but they're all out there looking now."

[ForGod'sSake]

.

[dennisw]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_1.htm

[Nailbiter]

thanks, I often wondered how the experts could tell difference. Learned something today