Comments on: JOURNEY THROUGH THE PAST /journey-through-the-past/ Art and media blog of the unexpected Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:08:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Warren Church /journey-through-the-past/comment-page-1/#comment-4405 Warren Church Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:14:03 +0000 /?p=11550#comment-4405 Thank YOU, Dave, for taking my (admittedly provocative) comments in a constructive spirit! Clearly there is an acrimonious divide between those who "explore and discover" the surface, and those who systematically dig. This is unfortunate, but neither party is completely innocent. I don't gain anything by smearing the memory of the late Mr. Savoy. His re-discovery of lost Vilcabamba was the product of good research and dogged exploring, and I can respect and admire that. I respect anybody's right to look at the past any way they wish. Scientific archaeology is one way. Archaeologists certainly do not "own" the truth. Personally, I don't believe that scientists are unable to see the forests for the trees (although that does describe some of them). I trained in archaeology because I find that it offers the most convincing method of arriving at what really happened when, why and how. It satisfies ME. It sparks my imagination, and real creativity is required to formulate the "right" questions... or at least interesting questions. So, Dave, thanks for letting the phuddy-duddy ramble. Here's to intellectual diversity... salud! Thank YOU, Dave, for taking my (admittedly provocative) comments in a constructive spirit! Clearly there is an acrimonious divide between those who “explore and discover” the surface, and those who systematically dig. This is unfortunate, but neither party is completely innocent. I don’t gain anything by smearing the memory of the late Mr. Savoy. His re-discovery of lost Vilcabamba was the product of good research and dogged exploring, and I can respect and admire that.

I respect anybody’s right to look at the past any way they wish. Scientific archaeology is one way. Archaeologists certainly do not “own” the truth. Personally, I don’t believe that scientists are unable to see the forests for the trees (although that does describe some of them). I trained in archaeology because I find that it offers the most convincing method of arriving at what really happened when, why and how. It satisfies ME. It sparks my imagination, and real creativity is required to formulate the “right” questions… or at least interesting questions.

So, Dave, thanks for letting the phuddy-duddy ramble. Here’s to intellectual diversity… salud!

]]> By: Dave /journey-through-the-past/comment-page-1/#comment-4378 Dave Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:45:39 +0000 /?p=11550#comment-4378 thanks again for the comment! A little bit. I know Savoy was not universally admired to say the least; a tireless self-promoter and an advocate of his own religion called cosology.You have given me some information, that I did not even have the potential to willfully ignore if I had chosen too, which is not likely given how thorough it is. Your description of ''faith based'' theories is interesting as well. Perhaps Savoy would have termed your remarks ''provocative''. I respect the time you have taken to write this and when I return to this subject, there will be a little more circumspection on my part and I'll communicate with you at that time. I do realize, at least in part, the tremendous amount of work your profession puts into these projects and I thank you again for your professional integrity. Best, Dave thanks again for the comment! A little bit. I know Savoy was not universally admired to say the least; a tireless self-promoter and an advocate of his own religion called cosology.You have given me some information, that I did not even have the potential to willfully ignore if I had chosen too, which is not likely given how thorough it is. Your description of ”faith based” theories is interesting as well. Perhaps Savoy would have termed your remarks ”provocative”. I respect the time you have taken to write this and when I return to this subject, there will be a little more circumspection on my part and I’ll communicate with you at that time. I do realize, at least in part, the tremendous amount of work your profession puts into these projects and I thank you again for your professional integrity. Best,
Dave

]]> By: Warren Church /journey-through-the-past/comment-page-1/#comment-4357 Warren Church Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:04:19 +0000 /?p=11550#comment-4357 Hi Dave: There is a lot of misinformation out there. I did fieldwork at Gran Pajaten and surrounding sites for three months. For the record: - Gran Pajaten was discovered in August, 1963 by a group of villagers from nearby Pataz, led by mayor Tomas Torrealba, - Photos of Building No. 1 appeared in newspapers, La Industria of Trujillo and El Comercio of Lima in September and October of 1964 - archaeologist Rogger Ravines reported on the ruins with a brief description in the National Museum Bulletin, also in 1964. - the Peruvian government also led an expedition to the ruins on foot in 1965. - Mr. Savoy could not possibly have seen Gran Pajaten from the air in 1962. These sites can barely be seen on the ground. If archaeologists could find some scientifically verifiable evidence for some of the trans-oceanic voyages proposed by Heyerdahl and savoy, then they would happily buy into the notions. At present, these theories are faith-based. I do not believe that the late Gene Savoy has looted archaeological sites. However, I do question his motivations for exploring, and his ethics. Here's a quote from the LATimes (2004) regarding Torrealva's discovery of Gran Pajaten, "That's nonsense, Savoy said. "Did they report these things before I found them?" A native might see a wall covered with bush, he said. "We spend months and years exploring a wide territory to uncover a lost metropolis. Who in their right mind is going to say that the Indian is the discoverer?" Did they report these things? Yes. In most cases the sites had been reported to the INC in Lima, in some cases by archaeologists. Some of us have spent months and years exploring and studying these sites... but then, we're only scientists and Indians I guess. You do like to be provocative, don't you, Dave. Cheers! Warren Hi Dave:

There is a lot of misinformation out there. I did fieldwork at Gran Pajaten and surrounding sites for three months. For the record:

- Gran Pajaten was discovered in August, 1963 by a group of villagers from nearby Pataz, led by
mayor Tomas Torrealba,
- Photos of Building No. 1 appeared in newspapers, La Industria of Trujillo and El Comercio of
Lima in September and October of 1964
- archaeologist Rogger Ravines reported on the ruins with a brief description in the National
Museum Bulletin, also in 1964.
- the Peruvian government also led an expedition to the ruins on foot in 1965.
- Mr. Savoy could not possibly have seen Gran Pajaten from the air in 1962. These sites can
barely be seen on the ground.

If archaeologists could find some scientifically verifiable evidence for some of the trans-oceanic voyages proposed by Heyerdahl and savoy, then they would happily buy into the notions. At present, these theories are faith-based. I do not believe that the late Gene Savoy has looted archaeological sites. However, I do question his motivations for exploring, and his ethics. Here’s a quote from the LATimes (2004) regarding Torrealva’s discovery of Gran Pajaten,

“That’s nonsense, Savoy said. “Did they report these things before I found them?”

A native might see a wall covered with bush, he said. “We spend months and years exploring
a wide territory to uncover a lost metropolis. Who in their right mind is going to say that the
Indian is the discoverer?”

Did they report these things? Yes. In most cases the sites had been reported to the INC in Lima, in some cases by archaeologists. Some of us have spent months and years exploring and studying these sites… but then, we’re only scientists and Indians I guess.

You do like to be provocative, don’t you, Dave. Cheers! Warren

]]>