There are too many mysteries to have a single favorite but currently the disappearance of pleistocene N. American megafauna is using up a lot brain and imagination power.
btw:
I have read a few bits and pieces on the Egyptian glyphs....considering their great need for minerals and gems I wouldn't rule out the degree of their ambition...same as the ancient Chinese.
do you have any "serious" information/links related to your fave mystery??

The egyptian hyroglyphics in Grand Canyon.
Some archaeologists working for the Simthsonian found a cave full of burial stuff and Egyptian Hyroglyphics in the Grand Canyon. It was briefly written about in a local paper. Since than nothing else has been heard of, specificly form the two archaeologists who found it, as in no publications and almost complete denial that they ever worked for the smithsonian, and that area of the Grand Canyon is off limits except to the most important people.

I have never heard of this and have to say I am quite "skeptical". What paper are you referring to? Are there links to the paper?

There are also chunks of the Grand Canyon that are on Native American lands and are not open to the public, unless with permission from the appropriate tribes.

I would like to see some evidence of these supposed Egyptian glyphs.

I suspect they fall into the category (often seen in postings on this forum) of "Fantastic Archaeology". In other words everything from Aliens to Atlantis to Egyptians to Vikings, to Pre-Clovis natural rocks that were really "tools" blah, blah blah.

But I could always be wrong......BUT I want to see the evidence of these Egyptian glyphs in the Grand Canyon.

I don't buy into it.

Scott

Well yeah, thats the point it is one of those great archeological mysteries or I guess more apropriatly fantasy.


http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov2/gazette.htm

I think there are answers we don't have yet, and there are hoaxes. I believe that the Egyptian glyphs in the Grand Canyon are the latter of the two - such things were popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, and archaeologists didn't yet have the sense of chronology that we have established since that time.

I don't have a favorite archaeological hoax, because I think of the people perpetrating such things and just get angry.

Favorite archaeological "question not yet answered"
How often, and from how many different directions, have humans entered the Americas over the course of prehistory?

My favorite "Mystery" is the Clovis - Solutrean connection.

Mainly because of the 14,000-15,000 yr. old MtDNA that they named (X) was found to be in some of our
Ojibway here in the Great Lakes area, and the X lineage was found predominately In Europe.

Hopefully in my lifetime they will discover something more on this, to either move it along or dismiss this possible theory,
heck maybe they already have and you are all holding out on me. :lol:

Hmm ok since mine is a hoax, or has yet to be proven, i'll take the crystal skulls...does that work? and no not the Indian Jones alien crystal skulls...dont even start with that movie.

[quote:="Dano"]Hmm ok since mine is a hoax, or has yet to be proven, i'll take the crystal skulls...does that work? and no not the Indian Jones alien crystal skulls...dont even start with that movie.

My understanding is that pretty detailed analysis had confirmed that they were not of ancient origin, and had been made with modern (or relatively, anyway) tools.

Sasquawatch!!...joke.
I have been curious about the Easter Island heads, and I know there has been alot done with them, just dunno if they have ever figured anythign out.

I believe the Solutrean theory is teetering on wobbly legs at the very least nowdays, with the discovery that "X" is fairly common in some Asian populations. There's a chronological problem there that's always bothered me also. Morphological similarities can be misleading.

Early immigrations here are my fascination also. So far at least two populations, the Beringians and whoever was at Mesa Verde (I take full responsibility for unproven crackpot theories espoused here). Probably a few more that may or may not ever be discovered, much less proven. It's just as interesting to me how far those dates will eventually be pushed back, it just seems logical that Clovis spread too fast to be an initially small population expanding, but was rather more of a technology spreading across an existing population. I would also be pretty sure that an unfluted biface preceded Clovis in at least parts of NA, and that examples are in hand but not recognized for what they are. Interesting times for Paleo researchers.

I want to repeat myself since it might better fit this thread:
its a shame that "fringe/pop" archaeology taints the legitimacy of its claims by working outside of the academic guild- and that is what it is, a guild. In some ways this really helps keep outdated and misproven theories in our textbooks. As an example: if i were a Clovis first proponent (and based on what I have found first hand- I am not) I would welcome "pop/fringe" archaeology that stated theories such as "pre clovis mammoth riders or pre clovis horse riders" because these ideas which are theoretically possible, are easily attacked after they are made to appear outlandish and fantastic. They appear outlandish and fantastic because "a layman trying to sell a book" suggested the idea before a "qualified researcher" Herein lies a dangerous situation with a lot of scientific analogies. The scientific method must be upheld but it is laborious. What we need is an archaeological think tank where ideas (even garish ones) can be suggested. This stimulates new ideas and areas of research. But again another problem is evident: what researcher would spend effort on an idea proposed by a non-qualified person? I doubt any would. That is a glaring error in our way of thinking and in our way of exploring science. Science has become commercialized and a lot of pure thinkers will never be allowed into the guild.

[quote:="paleoface"]fringe/pop quote

I won't deny that there is certainly an element in academia that disdains the contributions of the amateur prehistorian. We have people in my department who purport to be open-minded, but even in the CRM courses they teach, it's quite clear that their "CRM" experience is really just academic archaeology performed under government contracts. They don't have a great deal of interest or respect for actual CRM-archaeologists (I'm lucky my advisor is not one of those).

The point is, if they don't think much of non-university real archaeology, they're going to have even less interest in the fringe stuff. But there's a pretty good reason to eye that stuff with suspicion: most of it is completely bogus.

Most of the folks on the fringe spend far more time and energy criticizing the "guild" and its lack of "intellectual curiosity" than they ever do researching and investigating the evidence necessary to demonstrate the reality of their claims. A lot of them are unaware of existing research which has already clearly shown that they are incorrect, but because they never bother to look it up, they continue to believe they're inventing the wheel, rather what they're actually doing: re-engineering the old wheel to a new, "better" design with four sides.

"You can tell how fast you're going by the number of times your head hits the roof of the car!"

You mention think-tanks as a possibility, but these already exist. There are archaeological researchers out there who are pursuing ideas which may be unusual and possibly even "fringe" but who are pursuing them in an appropriate, scientific manner. This is done at the university level, at the CRM level, and in the bars at professional conferences. Archaeologists do nothing but discuss new ideas when they get together. It's one of the reasons we tend to only really hang out with other archaeologists - it's all we talk about.

For that reason, if for no other, we don't need a dedicated environment where just anything can be thrown out and talked over, like a script-writing session backstage at SNL. Not all ideas are equal, and competent archaeological researchers know this. Most of us wrestle with our research ideas before we ever toss them into even the edge of the limelight. Sometimes this may result in holding something back that had real potential, but oftentimes it means the natural selection process has done its job. That great idea about how Paleoindians sponsored mammoth-pulls in the arroyos of the southwest, complete with championship atlatls and presentation-quality Clovis as prizes? That one would have died in committee.

Things become archaeological "mysteries" one of two ways:

1) So many archaeologists have tackled a problem, and have been unable to propose a viable solution to it, that it becomes one of those "who knows" kind of things. That's where the peopling of the Americas comes in. It's not that we don't know what happened, we just don't know some of the specifics.

2) The popular media / public gets hold of something, blows it hugely out of proportion, and treats it as though there's any actual controversy when in fact it was more or less resolved years ago, but the archaeologists forgot to tell anyone at CBS.

These often interact, as well, but in my opinion, number 2 happens way more often than number one. That's why stuff like the Anasazi "disappearance" in the southwest still gets attention (anyone else remember the X-Files connection?), and why the Solutrean connection gets so much press.

I just want to finish with one comment about the last couple sentences of that quote:
what researcher would spend effort on an idea proposed by a non-qualified person? I doubt any would. That is a glaring error in our way of thinking and in our way of exploring science. Science has become commercialized and a lot of pure thinkers will never be allowed into the guild.

A lot of researchers have collaborated with amateur prehistorians on research. A good example is all those guys who taught themselves to flintknap (i.e., Crabtree), something a lot of academics and professional archaeologists haven't had the time to do. Some of those guys have had some amazing insights from their experience, and such information has been shared and investigated with great interest.

So I don't think that there's a dearth of attention given to people with good ideas. But when you forget to install a filter on your pump, and somewhere along the way it starts sucking mud instead of water, you need to re-evaluate your process. Professional / academic training is the filter, and it's that filter that helps keep the discipline from becoming too muddy with unverifiable crap. Amateurs who have bothered to do some reading and research have installed enough of a filter to keep out the worst of the crud, and often have something to offer.

But a lot of the fringe is made up of folks who watch the history and discovery channels late at night, and pick up arrowheads and interesting-looking rocks in cornfields. They hit the mud and crank the pump to "max" and wonder why no one wants to drink their water.

Try this website.. a friend of mine collects "Bad Archaeology"

http://www.badarchaeology.net/bad/index.php :lol:

My favourite is the mystery of the Bosnian Pyramids...
Lighten up Osman.. they are bleedin hills...!

Mr. Kid, Thankyou for your thoughts on this stuff.

It helps a un-educated country boy like me tremendously, to feel and understand better, where you professionals are coming from at times, on various threads.

(For me personally, this is one of my all time favorite Reads on this site, from a "enlightenment" stand point at least, for a rookie like me.)

Thanks Jeff.

[quote:="DesertRat"]My favorite recurring bogus mystery is the "disappearance" of the Anasazi from the Four Corners region and, later, the well-known psychic vortex of Chaco Canyon. I think the folks living in Hopi country and in the pueblos of Acoma, Jemez, Zuni, Laguna, and all the towns in the Rio Grande Valley find it amusing.

"Hey, Mike, did you watch that show last night? Turns out we're missing."

"Well, I'll be damned. Wonder if the credit card companies'll leave us alone for a little while, now."

Kid, your last post on page 1 was simply beautiful.

"They hit the mud and crank the pump to 'max' and wonder why no one wants to drink their water".... brilliant

Kid,
Let me know if you do start writing. I'll buy a book. :D Firearch was right; that was brilliant. As an author, I really appreciate the way you paint a picture with words.

Troy

Kid,

One of the best things I have read on here in a long time.

Scott

I'm flattered, guys. Wish I was able to get out the words as easily for papers.

[quote:="KidCharlemagne"]I'm flattered, guys. Wish I was able to get out the words as easily for papers.

Ever try some relaxation exercises prior to writing papers? No bull, I had a college English instructor that required we do relaxation exercises before we wrote. Now I just drink. :wink:

My favorite (or most frustrating) mystery is the lack of unambiguous Clovis human remains. :?

Oddly my seemingly best writing ideas come to me while showering!!! Ugh, nothing to write with or on!!!

Charlie's idea is a good one; I always move to another area and work on something else, the more mindless the better, and in pop all kinds of great ideas. Well, they're great to me anyway.

[quote:="FireArch"]Oddly my seemingly best writing ideas come to me while showering!!! Ugh, nothing to write with or on!!!

Another good time for me is right as I'm waking up: half awake-half asleep. A very creative time for me. A small notepad next to your head is a necessity, or you'll forget it all by the time you fully wake up. A few keywords are all that are necessary to jog my memory. Of course I'm not writing archeological reports (instead, business proposals), but it seems the concept should be universal.

Kid,
I once had a Lit. professor that told me that if I could write as well as I talk, I would ace all of my tests. When I started writing novels, I remembered this and found that I could record what I wanted to say and then listen to the tape. It not only helped with the creativity, but, it helped me spot illogical reasoning, awkward phrases, and redundancy, redundancy.

[quote:="Troy"]Kid,
I once had a Lit. professor that told me that if I could write as well as I talk, I would ace all of my tests. When I started writing novels, I remembered this and found that I could record what I wanted to say and then listen to the tape. It not only helped with the creativity, but, it helped me spot illogical reasoning, awkward phrases, and redundancy, redundancy.

I have actually found it useful at times to record field notes via a tape recorder in the field and then trnscribe them later. So many times I have forgotten to write down small details that I have to reconstruct in the office, or I think I wrote them down and didn't. Just walking around a site and blabbing about the site seems to get me more information, although a bit more time to process it later. I have only used this on survey level investigations because I think a bigger project would just get too cumbersome with recordings. Granted I used to work for a company that had word processors that would transcribe our recordings for us (it was a big company), so I haven't used it much since then.

Hello Kid

Great post. I agree with the bulk of what you wrote in the detailed posting above, but as an example of how an 'outlier' idea can and does become adopted within academia, have a look at this article by a very well respected Northeast paleoindian archaeologist, in relation to a (paraphrased below) statement that you made above:

"...and presentation-quality Clovis as prizes? That one would have died in committee."

http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=16%2C215

The notion that something like pretty-looking clovis points functioning as 'prizes' or 'offerings' of sorts doesn't seem so outlandish anymore by some, above and beyond as functional tools.  Personally, I don't see anything new or revolutionary about the idea of some clovis points being of more than a utilitarian function, and so wonder why its being written or described as a 'new idea'.

...but as prizes for mammoth pulls, well there'll always be aspects of speculation surrounding this stuff, and most academics prefer to take the middle ground (and rightfully so) about the specifics of what/why these people might have varied in their use/purpose of such pieces that persist long enough for us to find them.