Talk:Calico Early Man Site

Autoedit in midstream

What's happening here, brother? I'm trying to go over the the ref system, not take out your references! Then I plan to put the parenthetical stuff in notes - got any objection?Dave 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thanks. I finished refing it. The system you were using I believe is outdated now.

I found the arguments interesting and a nice addition to the topic but from an English point of view somewhat tortuous, the reason being that you assume the reader knows what you know and the names are meaningful. As this is not a scientific journal it seems to me concessions have to be made to readability. For example, 'the kernel of truth.' What kernel? It seems like an inside sort of statement but the only one inside is mainly you. Did someone use that phrase? What? Also there are a lot of names but somewhere I lost track of what name goes with what argument, and then there was that ref not attached to any argument but just there. Also there is at least one to us inscrutable code.

I bet you are not finished with it, hey? I understand. I look forward to seeing it completed; meanwhile, I like to think I improved the readability at least until you are done.Dave 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

I copyedited this article, trying to provide a balanced approach to the article yet showing that the strong consensus is that there is no proof of human activity. Madman 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work madman. The article is starting to look like something. I notice though that you restored the first sentence. The problem with the article when I first saw it was that it was trying to say too much in too few words. The phrase mentioning a possible archaeological site is one of the over-condensations. The site is not a possible site, it is one. Archaeology has been performed there, which makes it an actual archaeological site. What you mean is, the objects found there are possible artifacts of possible early man in America. if you perform a scientific dig and find nothing your efforts are still archaeology, which refers to the technique, not the finds. Whew. I feel long-winded. I will leave this up to you to change. Once is enough for me.

Second point. I thought it was wise not decide in the article if the objects are artifacts. You just never can tell what archaeology will turn up next. Next year or even already someone might find a site of unquestioned human presence with objects just like those, and then anyone who said, "no, no, those are not artifacts and Louis was a fool" will have to eat some crow. Louis thrived on visionary interpretations, which were more successful than not.Dave 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Is it Payen or Paven or are there two people here? That needs to be fixed too.Dave 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS. I notice you restored the 12,000. But your last reference says 60,000! Which is it?Dave 04:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was expecting to hear from you (and glad I did). Regarding a position, I do think it's necessary to say what the prevailing consensus is among experts, but also to give the minority opinion. I believe that this article does, but certainly the photo (which I uploaded some time ago) gives the strong impression that that "cutter" is a tool.

and it was Payen. I fixed that and the 60,000. Thanks for caring, Madman 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for caring. What about the possible? That was the first thing that struck my eye when I first looked at the article.Dave 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "possible archaeological site", why don't we ask user:CJLL Wright, who's the head of the Mesoamerican project here? I personally believe that an archaeological site must have proof of human activity, but I'm willing to leave it in your hands, or CJLL's. It's just not that important to me.

By the way, doesn't the Morrell book (you seem to have a copy handy) state that a 1970 conference on Calico found no evidence of human activity??

Later, Madman 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guys, I don't mean to interupt, and I hope you don't mind, but I saw Dave's question over on Cjll's page (I believe he said he would be gone for a week or so on vacation, so I don't think you'll hear from him for a little while) and thought I would throw my $.02 in. As far as I know, and as an archaeologist, for a site to be referred to as an "archaeological site" it must have been anthropogenic (i.e., produced by humans). The term "archaeology", according to www.dictionary.com, states that archaeology is

• the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, esp. those that have been excavated. Or,
• The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.

There are a couple more definitions, but they all revolve around the central idea that archaeology is the study of human history via the analysis of human-produced objects. Thus, by extension, an archaeological site is the product of humans. I think the way the site is presented in the article, as "possible," is the way to go. Anyway, very interesting - I hadn't heard of Calico Hill before. -- Oaxaca dan 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I also did some copyediting - if you object to any changes, feel free to change 'em back. I basically tried to condense some text, removed "Dee" from the text (which would be more appropriate on the article about her, and makes this article slightly less "academic," if that matters), and changed the "Louis"'s into "Leakey"'s - hope that's cool. -- Oaxaca dan 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. I definitely agree with your edits.

Misadventure at Calico

Hi there. I did contact CJLL. I'm glad we aren't getting excited about this so it can be settled objectively. You are right about about Morell. I didn't really get that far yet. This book is THE book to read! Chapter 27 is entitled "Misadventure at Calico". But, in the context of the whole book it does not mean much. Louis was a far thinker and the more cautious people were forever holding conferences about what he said and usually deciding he was all sorts of bad things but, wouldn't you know it, 10 years later they were all wrong and he was the prophet. However, he was wrong a lot of times and he knew it. He kept rewriting Adam's ancestors, as he said it became outdated every 10 years. So, as I see it, the 1970 conference may as well not even have been held, or if it was, it could never have established anything but the momentary sentiment. That is true of all archaeology. That is why I say, the case does not seem to be closed. Mary you know wasn't too happy with Louis, as, after she more or less forgave him for Rosalie Osborn, he took off after Vanne Goodall and then flung himself after Dian. Somewhere along the line she decided to get mad and I don't believe that is an objective state of mind. Bottom line: if the case is not closed, all I am saying is, should Wikipedia represent it as being closed? You decide. For myself I would have gotten to the misadventure chapter and this article but now I think I will stay out as you seem to have it under control. It's mainly the articles that need improvement that attract me. The book has to go back to the library soon anyway and then I'm moving on to other parts of my interest. I sort of rotate. Best, Dave 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is represented as "closed", but merely that today's consensus opinion is that there is no sign of human activity. I do believe that we should state detail the consensus viewpoint whilst also stating the minority opinion(s). Madman 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, looks to be an interesting and well-thought out article. As dan notes I've been offline the past week or so, and am just now catching up on the invitation to comment from Dave. FWIW I tend to agree with dan's comments about archaeological sites proper needing substantiation of human occupation, I guess this is similar to other disputed artefact claims like the Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay. Saying it's a "possible arch. site" seems a reasonable compromise, and the rest of the lead I think adequately covers the geofact vs artefact identification. Given the nature and standing of the artefact theories and proponents, a 'pseudoarchaeology' label would prob be a little harsh. However, the 'archaeological site' categories applied here might need revising- perhaps there is a need for a category:Disputed archaeological sites or something similar...?--cjllw | TALK 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One and only one

My examination of the best examples found at the Calico site turned up only one human artifact: it had been worked by a human, and there was no doubt in my mind that it was. The cutting edge was clearly percussed by a secondary point, probably an elk horn and another rock to strike the elk horn to flake off chips. One side was naturally flat, so the work was only done on one side, with flakes over-lapping a bit to give the entire side a sharp edge. The side held against the hand was thicker and not worked.

My opinion is that in the 1900s a white invader from the eastern USA brought the hand tool with her or him and either hoaxed the 'find' or dropped the hand tool in a place she or he knew it would be found.

The other 'artifacts' looked like unworked rocks to me. -- Desertphile

Location

Where is the Calico Early Man Site located – longitude and latitude??? --79.218.78.55 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

34.947396" N, 116.760944" W. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article needs real work

A whole lot of unsubstantiated claims are laid down with no evidence and no citations, and make things seem like they are a lot more exciting than they actually are. The article doesn't have a neutral POV and seems to have the impression that this is an equal debate as opposed to an absolute Longshot of a proposition. Aqua817 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit: a quick Google search suggests that this is more of a tourist trap than a serious archaeological site. Aqua817 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed to public?

BLM closes Early Man Site -- Victorville daily Press

BARSTOW— The Calico Early Man Site, near Yermo, once a bustling scientific stop for both professional and amateur anthropologists, is closed until further notice, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

“Approximately two years ago the site became a public safety concern,” said Katrina Symons, Field Manager for the Bureau of Land Management's Barstow office. “There was a lot of vandalism and theft which gave us no choice but to shut the site down indefinitely. Doors were torn off the two cabins there and artifacts were stolen from the cabins.”

The site, about 15 miles northeast of Barstow, became famous after Louis Leakey, the world renowned anthropologist, visited in 1964 and worked the site off and on until 1970.

Besides vandalism and theft, there is a potential health concern at the site.

“There is a very serious chance of the Hantavirus at the location,” Symons said. “That is why the area is secured with double fencing. No one is allowed out there until these concerns are first taken care of.”

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)