Mine Deity

[critter]

Hey Joe,

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to read all of that. If you want to bring some facts to the table, then I'd like to know what Dr. Smith thinks the Laz's figurine is made of. I'm looking for a specific mineral here. It is one that I can prove to you the figurine is actually made of. If "Dr. Smith" can determine that mineral from a photograph, as any good archaeologist should, then I would like for him to have a look at the artifact. Many already have, mate, many.

This is really the point, isn't it? By definition, an artifact is a fact. It was definitely produced by man. Whatever it's age or significance, which is obviously subject to much debate, the unequivocal fact remains that any artifact is a fact.

So let's have it. This is a public forum, right? Mine v yours, Joe.

Critter

[Joe Ribaudo]

pip,

"historiography is the study of historians and their methods."

I see. Are you now saying you are a historiographer? Here I thought we were dancing around objects as opposed to artifacts, and you go and start a new tune.

I know very little about Karl Marx, and even less about Marxism. What I do know, is that Marx had little to do with the basis of anthropology.

Your original post on Marxism as it applied to archaeology and Dr. Smith.......was made in a derogatory manner. By saying Dr. Smith was a Marxist, you are implying he is a Communist. A huge stretch and quite an effort aimed at only discrediting me. In a strange way, it's quite an honor for someone of your high standing to be focusing all these posts........on me.

I assume you are above posting all of this knowledge in some kind of effort to make yourself look grand. What is left, is a massive effort to make me look bad. It may very well be that you have done that, but I would bet it is only in the eyes of a few drug addicts, who are easily amused.

The reason I exchange posts with you guys, is to learn something. We learn by questioning the accepted "facts". Doing otherwise makes us no better than parrots. Not everyone can keep a level head under others questioning their conclusions. Looking back, how do you think you handled those questions?

It seems unlikely that this Forum will last much longer than the end of the year. Part of the reason for that is, likely, the low road taken by those who's comments are limited to name calling and four letter intelligence.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

[pippinwhitepaws]

actually...i was inquiring about facts...and typically was interupted by someone who is fixated on how everyone else is wrong.

i only use military issued profanity.

[Joe Ribaudo]

Dr. Critter,

"So let's have it. This is a public forum, right? Mine v yours, Joe."

At the risk of having you return to your previous habits, I must respectfully disagree. This is a public forum, but it is not Dr. Critter's nor Joe's. It belongs to all of the members who have basically "left the building" because of the level of discourse that seems to come from only three of those members. Beyond that, it belongs to Ron Feldman......as far as I know.

To return to the subject, I am the only one who has done anything, that can be talked about, to prove or disprove the authenticity of Brad's carving. Should any of you come forward with a reliable source for it's authenticity, I will be the first to congratulate Brad on his find.

"If you want to bring some facts to the table, then I'd like to know what Dr. Smith thinks the Laz's figurine is made of. I'm looking for a specific mineral here."

I did not present the picture of the figure to the Forum asking for opinions on what it might be. I gave my opinion and sent the picture, with Brad's permission, to four well known archaeologist. One replied, and Brad accepted his opinion, as well as my own......at the time. What the figurine is made of, has little bearing on it's authenticity.

The only way that can be determined now, is by the style and close examination of the surface. Had it been left in situ, as the law requires, it would have been easier to date and authenticate.

Brad now claims that he found it at his LDM site. If that is true, he should not be making a public announcement of such a crime, especially while claiming that he is trying to get a Treasure Trove Permit. I am no expert, but it seems like a serious mistake, unless he knows it's of modern manufacture, as Dr. Smith indicated.

Should anyone really have an interest in what an accepted expert on Aztec Civilization has to say, they need only walk onto ASU and place the object/artifact in Dr. Smith's hand. Please let us know how that turns out. If help is needed, I will be happy to do that for you.

Joe Ribaudo

[Joe Ribaudo]

pip,

"actually...i was inquiring about facts...and typically was interupted by someone who is fixated on how everyone else is wrong."

Sorry, I thought you were having a conversation with me. Since you didn't address your post to anyone, and only the two of us were exchanging posts......right then, I mistakenly assumed you were addressing me.

Sorry you took offense.

I don't think I said you were wrong, just asked for some reasonable facts to back up your positions, as I have oposing opinions. In my replies, I quoted sources and the reasonable response is to present your own. Your opinion is not a "source".

Joe Ribaudo

[lazarus]

First of all,

I gave those photos to Joe, and indeed, I gave him permission to share them with Mr. Smith. Joe is most certainly welcome to state his opinion, as is Mr. Smith. This was why he was sent the photos.

I'm not surprised or hurt by the response, but I'm not impressed either. I expect as much out of Joe.

Joe has feigned concern about me stating where I found the object, but he should know by now I would not bring it up if I had not already covered my bases. Like I have stated repeatedly, I don't believe in plundering artifacts, or treasure. That's not what I'm about. The powers that be are aware of my find.

Of course, Joe believes it's a piece of tourist junk I lied about finding in a place he has often stated doesn't exist, so I wonder what he's thinking.

Joe wrote:

"The reason I exchange posts with you guys, is to learn something. We learn by questioning the accepted "facts". Doing otherwise makes us no better than parrots. Not everyone can keep a level head under others questioning their conclusions. Looking back, how do you think you handled those questions?

It seems unlikely that this Forum will last much longer than the end of the year. Part of the reason for that is, likely, the low road taken by those who's comments are limited to name calling and four letter intelligence."

Joe,

the First Amendment Forum is the appropriate forum for our ongoing trash talk, and in that setting I will use whatever words I choose.

However, I concur with you on the statement above. I will admit to becoming pretty damn irked with your constant confrontational attacks, but you tend to be quite erudite, and I expect you to be equally stubborn. I have always been impressed with your ability to divine information, and you know that.

I also know you try to be respectful to the others, but it doesn't take a genius to realize you rub people the wrong way.

I'm not sure why you insist on degrading everyone. I've never had any problem with anyone here other than you and Knun, and my issues with Knun are strictly political, and not research related. You, on the other hand, have angered just about everyone on this forum at one point or another. Wake up. You are the source of the discontent.

Lazarus

[pippinwhitepaws]

well..i did not come in here to play the games i have stumbled onto...

i had been in cal for two years , knee deep in snow in flagstaff...i was homesick...i went to highschool in superior...wandered those mountains for years...nosie little kids find things...i was just hoping to find some old friends...whew...


this passage about sums up my interest in the superstition region...

"
In November, 1697, was undertaken the first formal exploration into Arizona of which any detailed account survives. Of this expedition, Bancroft says: ‘‘Lieutenant Cristobal Martin Bernal, with Alferez Francisco Acuma, a sergeant, and twenty soldiers, marched from Fronteras via Terrenate and Suamca, while Kino and Mange with ten servants came from Dolores. The two parties united at Quiburi, not far from the site of the modern Tombstone; Coro, a Sobaipuri chief, with thirty warriors, joined the expedition, and all marched down the Rio Quiburi, since called the San Pedro, to its junction with the Gila,"

[lazarus]

Correction,

I don't believe for a moment that Joe actually thinks I'm lying. I think he knows better.

Joe,

I have been informed by an insider as to my mis-interpretation of your post about Mr. Smith. The explanation makes sense, which is a relief, as I was surprised by what I thought I read. I don't doubt your word on this sort of thing, so it seemed out of nature for you.

Don't worry, Joe...
things come around. Tomorrow's another day. That goes for you as well, Pip.

Laz

[Joe Ribaudo]

Pip,

Nice quote from page 59 of: "History of Arizona" by, Thomas Farish.

I have read as much as I can about Kino's trips into Arizona, looking for any hint that he made it much closer to the Superstitions than the Gila River.

At one time I was convinced that Harry LaFrance's cave of gold bars was a Jesuit treasure trove. After over thirty years of searching the historical accounts, I am just as convinced that the Superstitions, while visible to the Jesuits, were never visited by them.

Even though I often voice that opinion, I am always ready to look at any story saying otherwise. I have never seen one piece of evidence supporting any Jesuit treasure, that was not manufactured or impossible to authenticate.

Nothing would please me more than to have this bit of history turned upside down.......by anyone.

Joe Ribaudo

[lazarus]

PWP,

Hmm...

I know Joe isn't talking with me, and I'm good with that. However, I agree with his assessment. I have yet to see any evidence supporting the contention of Jesuit treasure in the classic sense. That does not mean it is out of the question, it only means that I am of no help.

I wasn't sure what to expect going into this research, and I was immediately stunned by what I learned, so I'm not willing to discount any possibility. I know I personally laughed long and hard about the 'Kino Shades' bit, only to learn later they date back several centuries.

There are crazier realities out there than Jesuit treasure. That's a certainty.

Laz

[pippinwhitepaws]

well, i would consider the beloved fathers name carved in a rock face along the junction of the gila/san pedro to be jesuit treasure...

Francisco was here 1697

anyway...i know nothing of a jesuit treasure...perhaps the treasure is there are still jesuits.

[lazarus]

PWP,

good point.

Laz

[critter]

Joe,

In the field of archaeology, material scrutiny has everything to do with an artifact's authenticity. Try opening the dictionary for a definition of achaeology.

Just to be clear, i have no issues with Dr. Smith or his work; I don't even know him or his work, but I certainly don't accept hearsay evidence from anyone, especially coming from Joe. I'm sure Dr. Smith can speak for himself, or at least find a grad student to do it.

Can't tell what it's made of from the photo can you? It's actually quite important to its relevance in the Arizona context, but if you can't tell, then that sort of ends the photo analysis segment of this discussion doesn't it?

Critter

[critter]

Joe,

I must admit, I do agree with you on one thing, and disagree with Laz by the same token. I know, stop the presses, right?

Here goes: The artifact should have remained in situ for further analysis.

However, legally speaking, an archaeological artifact must come from a known archaeological provenance. Since the site where it was found is not a known archaeological site that pretty much puts the lid on the subject. The powers that be have said as much. As far as they are concerned it is junk left by tourists. Now, to me that is a very irresponsible approach, but hey, I'm just a kid with an astrolabe.

Critter

[Joe Ribaudo]

critter,

There are a couple of things you wrote that need to be addressed: A quick phone call to one (1) of the archaeologist that you have worked with would suffice for you to find out who Dr. Michael Smith is. Having someone of his stature coming here, to this madhouse, to comment on Brads find is somewhat ludicrous. As for trusting me, I still have every email written to, and received from, a number of very well known archaeologists.

I am more than familiar with what it is to be an archaeologist, and have no need to look up the definition in a dictionary. I will leave that to others.

Once again, Dr. Smith was kind enough to give an opinion with what he was provided.......to wit, a picture. Your own opinions, are not to be dismissed out of hand, but you will forgive me if I place a little more weight with Professor Smith's word. While I have provided a small window into the qualifications of Dr. Smith, we only have your own word and, of course, Brad's, as to your expertise in these matters.

I believe, to this day, it would be an easy task to walk onto the ASU campus and put the piece in Dr. Smith's hand for the kind of examination you have suggested. While it has been claimed that such an examination has been done by a professional, that "fact" has remained as nebulous as any application for a Treasure Trove Permit.

"However, legally speaking, an archaeological artifact must come from a known archaeological provenance. Since the site where it was found is not a known archaeological site that pretty much puts the lid on the subject. The powers that be have said as much. As far as they are concerned it is junk left by tourists. Now, to me that is a very irresponsible approach, but hey, I'm just a kid with an astrolabe."

That "astrolabe" was a really wonderful find. You are a lucky lad.

I will accept your professional legal opinion, if you will quote the source for that information. It would also be helpful to know your qualifications for writing such an opinion.

"People hiking, hunting, or camping on public land often discover an archaeological site or artifact. By law, the artifact is to be left in place, and the site is to be undisturbed."

Is your opinion based on the law in New Zealand or the United States?

Thank you for your comments.

Joe Ribaudo

[lazarus]

Joe,

I have already had the piece inspected by an expert, but thank you for your concern. The object will be on display by the end of the year, so I won't be dragging it around to your pajama party.

Let there be no doubt. In a perfect world, the poor little guy should still be out there watching the sun rise every day. Unfortunately, there are people who wouldn't hesitate to plunder this stuff, yourself included. At least one such near sighted soul knows where to look, as I was giving a lecture on the subject when I found it.

Duh!

[lazarus]

Joe,

one need not read back too far to realize that from day one, you have been all about pilfer, where-as Critter and I have been all about protect. Now you talk all this trash about provenance...

Go ahead...
keep up the hypocrisy. I expect as much.

laz

[lazarus]

Joe,

if you believe an expert has already declared the object a piece of junk, why do you keep bringing it up?

Because you obviously don't believe Mr. Smith yourself, do you.


Laz

[critter]

Joe,

FYI

"Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979"

That is the applicable US law.

Archaeology: The study of the material remains of past human life or activities.

That definition pretty much makes material analysis part and parcel of the practice of archaeology. So if you or "Dr. Smith" can't perform a simple material analysis of Brads figurine from a photo, then that isn't archaeology, is it?

It's a simple question, Joe: What is it made of? Even the most basic archaeological assessment would address this, but since you haven't offered one, then you have not given any kind of archaeological assessment. That is not opinion, which is what you have offered, these are something you tend to have difficulty with, these are the facts.

Mine v yours, Joe

[Joe Ribaudo]

Critter,

That's a fine job of Internet fact finding. If you read farther down, you will find this:

[In the absence of an appropriate Section 4 permit or exemption, Section 6 of ARPA prohibits excavating, removing, damaging, or otherwise altering or defacing archaeological resources on federal or Indian lands or attempting to commit such acts. Also prohibited is trafficking of archaeological resources removed illegally from federal or Indian Lands or those taken in violation of state or local law when they are moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Except for the removal of arrowheads from the surface of the ground, which is exempted, The penalties for knowingly violating or Counseling, procuring, soliciting, or employing Any other person to violate any of ARPA’s prohibitions Are:

• A fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, when the commercial or archaeological value and the cost of restoration and repair of the resources involved are $500 or less (a misdemeanor),

• A fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both, when these values exceed $500 (a felony), and

• A fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both, in the case of a second or subsequent such felony violation.]

Considering the following, touting a find on a public forum does not seem prudent:

[Rewards for information leading to convictions

Section 8 of ARPA authorizes the payment of a reward of one half the fine or penalty, not to exceed $500, to any person or persons providing information leading to a criminal conviction or the finding of a civil violation of the Act. Upon certification by the federal agency, the reward is paid by the Secretary of the Treasury from the fines or penalties collected.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[B. Definitions: ARPA defines "archaeological resource" as "any material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest" [Sec. 3(1)]. Compromises made during the drafting led to certain exemptions. Artifacts must be at least 100 years old. Paleontological resources are exempted unless found within an archaeological context. Arrowheads found on the ground surface are exempted, while those found beneath the surface are protected. Collection of rocks, coins, bullets, or minerals for private purposes does not require a permit unless they are within an archaeological site. In making these compromises, ARPA was seeking to distinguish casual surface collecting from commercial looting. Still, other general provisions of federal law prohibit removal of surface arrowheads, coins, etc.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering the number of drug addicts that have been attracted to this site, and the fact that they are known to steal from their mothers to feed their habit, the above offer seems like an invitation to fund someone's next weekend.

While analysis of the material is one way an archaeologist might authenticate an artifact, it is by no means a requirement. It is not uncommon for them to compare the style or construction of the artifact with known previously authenticated objects. In this case, that is exactly what Dr. Smith based his opinion on. As I said originally, I would not accept one man's opinion, if I were Brad, but his was good enough for me..... not having a personal interest in the artifact.

Beyond that, you may be correct in your conclusion, as it's difficult to pin down exactly what Brad's figurine is.

Joe Ribaudo

[lazarus]

Considering the number of drug addicts that have been attracted to this site, and the fact that they are known to steal from their mothers to feed their habit, the above offer seems like an invitation to fund someone's next weekend.

Joe,

Wow...

You just keep getting creepier and creepier.

I don't know of anyone who visits this website who has been accused of stealing from their mother. Your comments are increasingly desperate and disgusting.

That will certainly go over well with the others. Obviously you weren't talking about me. My mother has been dead thirty years.

[lazarus]

Joe,

you are right. Flaunting about is bad science, and that is precisely why I pulled down the photos and won't be re-posting them.

I don't know how many times I must explain this to you, but the object is not, and has not been in my possession for some time. It's not mine. It never has been. I found it... that does not make it mine.

I just don't get you, Joe.

For the record, I have already been assured that my arrest is in no way imminent, so you can relax. Critter and I have gone over and over it with you. We are not hiding our research... we are simply not telling you everything involved. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[lazarus]

Joe,

one more time from the top.

Dr. Smith, an expert whom you admire and respect has already assured you he believes the object is worthless junk.

On the other hand, I am just some ignorant drug addict who claims to have found something.

Who do you really believe, Joe?
Why would you go on and on as you do?

Stick with the opinion of the obvious expert, and quit fartin' around with the druggie.

Unless of course, you don't believe any of the crap you've been spewing.

[critter]

It's interesting to see that the administrators of this site have relaxed the policy on personal attacks. Or is this just a blatant example of bias?

Critter