 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / January 2008Handmaiden to History
I throw these points open to general discussion... 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? 2) Should history be applied "indiscriminately" as Lars Wilson proposes or should we discirminate between the evidence we chose to accept and the evidence we challenge? 3) What can be said of historical texts when they have been proven to be innacurate by Archaeology? Should we disregard them completely or should we still see them as valuable sources of information? >I throw these points open to general discussion... > > 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta > Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? Both are different in the data they access, the methods they employ, and the results they acchieve. History is as much a helper for archaeolog as archaeology is for history, but they are distinct from one another. > 2) Should history be applied "indiscriminately" as Lars Wilson proposes or > should we discirminate between the evidence we chose to accept and the > evidence we challenge? I try to challenge every evidence. > 3) What can be said of historical texts when they have been proven to be > innacurate by Archaeology? Should we disregard them completely or should > we still see them as valuable sources of information? Historical sources are always accurate, but not necessarily on those points, that us modern people tend to think. They tell about what people thought to be important, not about what we think is important or truthfull. I'd like to add a question. 4) How do the different realities, emerging from different historically working disciplines, interrelate to each other and to the period in question? have fun Uwe Mueller > 4) How do the different realities, emerging from different historically > working disciplines, interrelate to each other and to the period in > question? I would suggest that generally we "merge" the differing realities, applying prior knowledge and assessing various probabilities in order to then assemble a new "reality". It would seem to me that we can never truly "know" very much at all. All we can hope to do is form hypotheses based on what we think we know and hope they stand up to testing. I think problems arise when neither discipline (history and arcaheology) is prepared to listen to the other (a situation which seems to arise when there are reputations or egos to protect). I guess this also takes us into the realms of defining the difference between "knowledge" and "belief". >> 4) How do the different realities, emerging from different historically >> working disciplines, interrelate to each other and to the period in >> question? > I would suggest that generally we "merge" the differing realities, applying > prior knowledge and assessing various probabilities in order to then > assemble a new "reality". It would seem to me that we can never truly "know" > very much at all. If you want to get all existential on us then you can likely come to any position you wish. That was what held back science for so long, the principle came before the facts. One collects physical evidence, things, objects and their contexts. One then can come up with a theory to explain these objects. You do not have to "know" anything to develop a theory. There is only the best theory there is no such thing as a correct theory. Knowledge consists only of knowing the evidence and the theories regarding the evidence. There is nothing esoteric about it. You know exactly what you know. Much progress comes from realizing one is making assumptions not supported by the evidence. > All we can hope to do is form hypotheses based on what we > think we know and hope they stand up to testing. I think problems arise when > neither discipline (history and arcaheology) is prepared to listen to the > other (a situation which seems to arise when there are reputations or egos > to protect). > I guess this also takes us into the realms of defining the difference > between "knowledge" and "belief". True but it is the concrete type of knowledge as exists in science. Take for example the "skeptical" believer. They cannot imagine how the Jews could have come to exist if there were not some truth in the OT. Some of these fake skeptics keep arguing for a kernel of truth. But that is a false assumption. Islam, Mormonism and Scientology are just three that suddenly appeared in history accompanied by a book, the Koran, Book of Mormon and Dianetics respectively. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose the Jews did not suddenly come into existence with their book also. Only believers search for a kernel of truth in any of the four sources. We know religions can suddenly come into existence. One cannot know something that is not in evidence nor can one know something that is contrary to the known evidence.  SignatureHodie decimo quarto Kalendas Februarias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 >> 4) How do the different realities, emerging from different historically >> working disciplines, interrelate to each other and to the period in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I guess this also takes us into the realms of defining the difference > between "knowledge" and "belief". And towards defining reality. (What I have is 'knowledge' while everyone else trades in 'beliefs', that one was fairly easy :-) ) What got me thinking, was the way the long distance traders were glorified in Luebecks written sources from early on, while archaeology has little to set them apart from 'normal' households. There are distinct changes from the 2nd half of the 13th c on, and they are fairly easy to tell beginning with the 14th c. However the status of those traders was expressed in earlier times, they did not do it through the display of wealth (as apparent in the archaeologic data) or through a different style of living. At the same time they had the power to redesign the town according to their changing needs, and to throw out the nobility (and the bishop). There are quite a number of cases where written sources explicitly state a town was founded from scrap (Luebeck and Freiburg being the most well known cases), while archaeology has a flourishing non-agrarian settlement before that. So there are different realities even for the time in question, not just in the way we think about the situation today. have fun Uwe Mueller Digger wrote, On 18/01/2008 13:49: > I throw these points open to general discussion... > > 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta > Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? Of course not, although it depends on your definition of history. Written records and archaeological records are very different and I don't think it will ever be possible to write 'real' history on the basis of archaeology. There are exceptions though, think e.g. of Egypt, but then archaeology (the digging) only made it possible. > 2) Should history be applied "indiscriminately" as Lars Wilson proposes or > should we discriminate between the evidence we chose to accept and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inaccurate by Archaeology? Should we disregard them completely or should we > still see them as valuable sources of information? From an archaeological point of view we certainly should disregard them as far as they are inaccurate. And in general historical sources are of little help to archaeology anyway. Sometimes they can help to interpret what we see, eg to identify a site. In short: archaeology and history are very different disciplines. Signaturep.a. >I throw these points open to general discussion... > > 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta > Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? Yes, definitely. Particularly Biblical history. Lars Wilson >>I throw these points open to general discussion... >> >> 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta >> Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? > >Yes, definitely. Particularly Biblical history. So not need to bother with archaeology where we don't have historical texts. Back to the archaeology of kings and battles I guess. And special pleading for religion. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >>>I throw these points open to general discussion... >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doug Doug, I like you!! But you are SOOO funny. The biggest debates going on right now are between Mazar and Finkelstein and fights over Bible characters like Solomon and David, etc.!! That's the FUN of archaeology now. The majority of the people, primarily Christian, want their Bible to be true. So archaeology, which sheds some light on that "reality" for them is sought to do that. When it doesn't they try to find explanations for why it doesn't work. Sometimes they get answers and sometimes not. Even so, critical oversights and misjudgments are made even by these to prominent archaeologists and they need to expand into understanding, especially since this David-Solomon issue is not about lack of evidence (except perhaps at Jerusalem) but simply chronology and dating!! They need to include scenarios for the entire range of secular options in the dating (i.e. Xenophon revisions) as well as STRICT BIBLICAL DATING (i.e. Martin Anstey) that has always dated Solomon later than the Assyrian-based dating does. In essence, they are not really dating the Bible's timeline, but the Assyrian timeline. The Bible's own direct "absolute" chronology dates Solomon to 910-870 BCE. That should have been included as a possible scenario whether than jumping to the conclusion that the posexilic writers for some strange reason wanted to pretend Solomon built all those great buildings that they think right now that Omri must have built. Dohhhhhh. But it's all good, because when discussions get focused and heated, a lot more information comes to the public and it's easier to sort out the mess. Which, of course, I have. (smile). Thanks, Doug!! Lars Wilson > >>>I throw these points open to general discussion... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > right now are between Mazar and Finkelstein and fights over Bible characters > like Solomon and David, etc.!! That's the FUN of archaeology now. Biblical archaeology is a very small part of archaeology. The fun of archaeology is learning about the past. For most archaeologists, the past in question is pre-historic, or the study of people in historic times who have little or no mention in the historic record. Your exceptionally narrow focus, and your personal agenda, may have blinded you to that fact. But the rest of us are not so blinkered. <snip> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >>>>> I throw these points open to general discussion... >>>>> 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > <snip> Biblical archaeology is archaeology with an agenda and blonkers > Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: > > Biblical archaeology is archaeology with > an agenda and blonkers Actually, per my observation, I think the intellectual capacity of the average person is not up to the task. It needs to be more comprehensive. It's rather dense to think that archaeology can adequately made presumptions without the background with a comprehensive reference to historical references. Else, what is perceived can be interpreted too loosely, or will go without interpretation at all. Take for instance the recent seal coin found with the family name of one of the priest families of Levi. If you didn't know that temple prostitutes used various trinkets and personal items to "convert" clients to at least saying and "signing" that they "belonged to bail" or some other false god, the seal would have less significance and meaning. Not saying that all "history" is absolutely correct but to ignore what we can find out and relate historically is absolutely essential. But you know, it's hard to explain music to someone who is deaf. That's what trying to show certain people in certain fields who have their degrees and think that shows them the whole picture is like. And because they don't like new ideas and "conspiracy theories" cause them to break out in hives, they will only be latecomers to both truth and reality. Oh well. A sinking ship, will eventually sink, though those who go down last who have their eyes closed will maintain that fantasy until that cold water and lack of air forces them into reality. Lars Wilson >> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > historical references. Else, what is perceived can be interpreted too > loosely, or will go without interpretation at all. And I can give you plenty of examples where early medieval ecclesiatical documents have been shown to be wholly incorrect by the archaeology found at a range of sites. It's almost as if somebody writing these documents didn't want us to know what was really going on! Digger wrote, On 20/01/2008 14:38: >>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a range of sites. It's almost as if somebody writing these documents didn't > want us to know what was really going on! Very likely they didn't know themselves, or only thought they knew. The bulk of the historical documents are only hearsay noted down by monks with a very resticted view on the world around them. Signaturep.a. > Digger wrote, On 20/01/2008 14:38: >>>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: > Very likely they didn't know themselves, > or only thought they knew. > The bulk of the historical documents are > only hearsay noted down by monks with > a very resticted view on the world around > them. Fine. But let's be specific. We have archaeology on one side and we have history on the other. That includes Biblical history, Greek history, Assyrian and Egyptian history. All of it. They are here for us to COMPARE, so let's compare! Watch this: Archaeologists date the buildings at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer that have matching design and evidence of "full statehood" using fine ashlar blocks, the ones usually dated to Solomon as being built in the "early 9th century BC". That is archaeological dating for these buidings. Were they built by Solomon? Possibly. That is, if we can date Solomon to the early 9th century. Now was Solomon dated to the early 9th Century? Depends on your favorite timeline: 1) The popular Assyrian-based dating for Solomon is 970-930 BCE. Not early 9th. 2) Jehovah's witnesses date Solomon 67 years earlier that this. Sorry. Not early 9th. 3) Syncellus, who dates the Exodus in the first of Akhenaten though would indeed date Solomon to the early 9th century and later. For instance, if you date the 1st of Akhenaten per the KTU 1.78 astro text, where year 12 falls in 1375 BCE, then the 1st of Akhenaten and the Exodus would occur in 1386 BCE, meaning Solomon's rule would be dated to 910-870 BCE. That covers "early 9th century" (i.e. 900-875 BCE). 4) If you use Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE then the Exodus occurs no earlier than 1390 BCE, dating Solomon at the earliest to 914 BCE, which would also date him to the early 9th century. So that works. 5) Or, if you're an outsider, a Christian Biblicalists, who is adept in application of Biblical numerology, you'd be retrodating all the ancient dates based upon the jubilee cycle and you could use 1947, the year the Jews were restored to their homeland to determine the Exodus date. 1947 would be the 69th jubilee in a pattern where the Exodus is the 1st. The 69th jubilee begins the 70th jubilee period of 49 years in a period of 70 jubilees, or 3430 years (70 x 49). This is all beyond science just like art appreciation is, or the love of a child. Anyway, that dating is out there and the result is 1386 BCE. That is, 1947 + 49 gives you 1996, ending the 3430-year jubilee cycle that began in 1435 BCE. The Exodus is the first jubilee of this 70-jubilee period, so we get 1386 BCE for the Exodus and, of course, the death of the ruling pharaoh who would be Amenhotep III, no big surprise since Syncellus/Manetho already noted that. So per advanced esoteric Biblical dating, Solomon's rule would specifically occur between 910-870 BCE, which, again is the early 9th century which fits the archaeology. So you see? Basically, if you use archaeology as a strict criteria, you can dismiss the Jehovah's Witnesss timeline and the Assyrian Timeline, but keep the Kenyon-Jericho timeline, the KTU 1.78 timeline, and the 1947-jubilee fixed dating timeline from the Bible. Simple. Some historical reference is compatible with archaeology and some isn't. Lars (New!) Corrected Timeline Outline: http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html Lars Wilson wrote, On 21/01/2008 14:36: >> Digger wrote, On 20/01/2008 14:38: >>>>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >> Very likely they didn't know themselves, >> or only thought they knew. >> The bulk of the historical documents are >> only hearsay noted down by monks with >> a very resticted view on the world around >> them. > Fine. But let's be specific. We have archaeology on one side and > we have history on the other. That includes Biblical history, > Greek history, Assyrian and Egyptian history. All of it. They are > here for us to COMPARE, so let's compare! > [...] Yeah, lets be specific: Greek history is history of Greece or the Greeks Assyrian history is history of Assyria or the Assyrians Egyptyan history is history of Egypt or the Egyptians Biblical history is history of the bible Nothing to compare. The same goes for archaeology. What the hell is "biblical" archaeology? Was the bible dug op somewhere? >> Digger wrote, On 20/01/2008 14:38: >>>>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> a very resticted view on the world around >> them. > Fine. But let's be specific. We have archaeology on one side and > we have history on the other. That includes Biblical history, All educated people know there is no history in the bible. So your continued LIES are transparent to your betters. You are doing nothing more than show how eager Christians are to lie. SignatureThe Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 by an organization amed Blood of the Chosen. Sounds like a white supremacist organization to me. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3920 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 >>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >>> Biblical archaeology is archaeology with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> historical references. Else, what is perceived can be interpreted too >> loosely, or will go without interpretation at all. > And I can give you plenty of examples where early medieval ecclesiatical > documents have been shown to be wholly incorrect by the archaeology found at > a range of sites. It's almost as if somebody writing these documents didn't > want us to know what was really going on! Although that is likely a factor along with keeping one's job or head or grav train there is a subtler issue. Today we expect factual writing to be about the subject. The farther back in history we go and the farther we get from western civilization in modern times the more likely we are to find we are being told a story about the thing rather than the thing itself. Today even a writer with a poetic bent will write, "It was as though the sky darkened." In the past and outside of western civilization there will be a flat statement, "The sky darkened." Those folks do not have clear distinction between the thing and how they feel about the thing. They do not talk about the thing but tell a story about the thing. For these people numbers are not an actual count, they are adjectives. Good, better, best, bester and bestest are described by simple using larger numbers. If a number is used that is larger than any used about real things, it means 'beyond comprehension' not an actual number. There are examples all through the bible. A number beyond imagining was stopped by the 300 from Sparta. And for my less than favorite subject, when it comes to what happened to them during WWII eastern European Jews tell a story about what happened to them with events invented to show degree and how it felt to them not what really happened. "It was as though they destroyed the entire community" when people wee shipped to camps is told as "They killed everyone." I find the same kind of word usage in description in Haaretz and Jerusalem Post articles today from people who have still not outgrown their primitive, non-western cultures. SignatureThe music industry insists there is the same penalty for copying a CD you own to your computer as there is for illegally downloading music. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3918 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 > And for my less than favorite subject, when it comes to what happened to > them during WWII eastern European Jews tell a story about what happened to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > articles today from people who have still not outgrown their primitive, > non-western cultures. Matt, I'm aware that you have a particular standpoint on this subject. However, I'd just like to point out that a woman I knew very well was employed by the German government during WWII as an interpreter. Before she died a few years ago she made it clear to me that the holocaust really did happen. She was there. She saw it. Furthermore, I had an uncle serving in the British army during WWII who saw it for himself when his regiment liberated two of the camps. Whilst I suspect this won't cut any ice with you, I'm quite willing to accept the personal testimony of two eye witnesses, neither of whom were Jewish and one of whom actually worked for the "bad guys". >> And for my less than favorite subject, when it comes to what happened to >> them during WWII eastern European Jews tell a story about what happened [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > accept the personal testimony of two eye witnesses, neither of whom were > Jewish and one of whom actually worked for the "bad guys". Interesting. But it is only necessary to make reference to the references. There is a webpage that actually shows the estimates of populations before and after. Now whether these numbers are accurate are not is not something a Biblicalist can personally prove or disprove. But the numer dying in WWII, which was prophesided in the Bible as the "great tribulation" is specific. It is two-thirds. (Zech 13:8). Two thirds were to die "in the fire" and a third then restored to their homeland. 6 million out of an original nine is 2/3rds. So it is considered fulfilled by these numbers. For those who then would claim these numbers are less and inaccurate, I'd dismiss that based upon the Biblical prediction and given the choice, side with the numbers being officially and customarily provided. Everyone has heard "six million Jews killed" out of 9 million. That's the prophesied two-thirds. So I wouldn't be influenced by any numbers one way or another that didn't match the prophesy. For instance, this doesn't represent the total world population of the Jews, but the context of the attack by "Gog of Magog" (i.e. white children of Japeth, Noah's eldes son) would be the focus, thus the primary displaced dwelling for Jews in Easten Europe. So I, as a Biblicalist was going to manipulate the numbers to make the prophecy work for two-thirds regardless. That's what Biblicalists do. But I obviously don't have to. 63% is close enough to two-thirds if you are rounding to the nearest third, obviously. Just some perspective here. But aren't we turning a scientific group into a religious group by discussing this? Why are you two bringing this up? TOTAL 9,508,340 63% 5,962,129 3,546,211 From: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-statistics.htm Lars Wilson ... > TOTAL 9,508,340 63% 5,962,129 3,546,211 > From: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-statistics.htm The government of Israel disagrees in its brief for a legal case for reparations. There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe at the start of the war. However one million is a conveniently round number. Perhaps it was an early estimate and in error. In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still alive in that year, 1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits. So 59 years after the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in 1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13 being killed we have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is nearly twice as many Jews as were in all the world in 1938. ===== The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml Please feel free to demonstrate you are ignorant of elementary algebra by disagreeing. SignatureDon't let the weather spoil your Holocaust Day Bar-B-Que plans. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3916 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 >> And for my less than favorite subject, when it comes to what happened to >> them during WWII eastern European Jews tell a story about what happened to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> articles today from people who have still not outgrown their primitive, >> non-western cultures. > Matt, > I'm aware that you have a particular standpoint on this subject. I find the modern belief in literally ever claim about holocaustic matters to be our modern version of belief in witches. Yes there were women who made folk remedies. That does not confirm cavorting the devil and all the rest. It is the same issue I address regularly to the bible thumpers when they appear. Acceptance of everything based upon the tiniest premise. Lars wants to move a timeline and say that simply moving it shows Solomon really lived and the was a biblical Israel. Your friend likely saw nothing more than persecution of Jews and sending them to camps. In no way does that establish the extermination of 13 million people and among them 6 million Jews in gas chambers and disappearing the corpses without a trace. I am very careful to apply exactly the same rules to all real and claimed events in history. They are also the rules of science and the foundation of western law. There must be physical evidence before any stories about the physical evidence are admitted. If we were to permit it to be done backwards we have the story about the flood establishing the fact and nothing but rationalizations to explain the absence of physical evidence. When people take extermination by gas chamber as an article of faith they too have nothing but rationalizations to explain away the absence of physical evidence such at the thousands of cubic yards of cremation remains. Some invoke magic, a total violation of thermodynamics, claiming a few kilos of coal can consume a body in minutes. Same rules in all cases. > However, > I'd just like to point out that a woman I knew very well was employed by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > during WWII who saw it for himself when his regiment liberated two of the > camps. > Whilst I suspect this won't cut any ice with you, I'm quite willing to > accept the personal testimony of two eye witnesses, neither of whom were > Jewish and one of whom actually worked for the "bad guys". But you do not have testimony about anything of interest. It is a similar fallacy used by bible believers. They believe if they can point to one mention such as in Josephus they have proven born of a virgin, son of god, rose from the dead and every other aspect of Christian doctrine all from a single mention. Similarly there is a Christmas but you can't jump from that to the son of god was born. Lars is jumping from there is a building in a city to Solomon lived and built it. Yes, there is a city. But whatever she said exactly to the effect a label, Holocaust, first applied in the late 1970s and still called the Shoah in Israel's Shoah Museum Yad Vashem, does not address anything other than exactly what she witnessed. So unless this interpretor personally saw mass gassings in the camps in Poland she had no personal knowledge of the only thing that matters. No extermination, no holocaust. Israel has said there was no extermination. ===== There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in all of Europe at the start of the war. However one million is a conveniently round number. Perhaps it was an early estimate and in error. In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still alive in that year, 1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits. So 59 years after the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in 1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13 being killed we have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is nearly twice as many Jews as were in all the world in 1938. ===== The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml Please feel free to demonstrate you are ignorant of elementary algebra by disagreeing. SignatureHodie undecimo Kalendas Februarias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org a1 > So unless this interpretor personally saw mass gassings in the camps in > Poland ... Which she told me she did. I have no cause to think she was lying. > No extermination, no holocaust. And my uncle helped move the piles of bodies in the second camp he came to. Sorry, I can't tell you which camp it was (he died some years ago too) but I have no reason to doubt his testimony either. >> So unless this interpretor personally saw mass gassings in the camps in >> Poland ... > Which she told me she did. I have no cause to think she was lying. You have a story. Everyone lies. That is why only physical evidence matters. Do you think all the thousands of people who report having been abducted by UFOs are lying? Do you think all the people who have seen UFOs are lying? Do you think all the millions of people have reported seeing witches and witchcraft are lying? Do you think all the people who have seen Bigfoot are lying? Do you think all the people who have seen the Loch Ness monster are lying? Do you think all the people who have seen ghosts are lying? In all the above cases they tell remarkably similar stories. They give very similar descriptions. They almost always have solid reputations within their communities. What denies all of those stories credibility? The absence of physical evidence. >> No extermination, no holocaust. > And my uncle helped move the piles of bodies in the second camp he came to. > Sorry, I can't tell you which camp it was (he died some years ago too) but I > have no reason to doubt his testimony either. If your uncle was not with the Red Army then he was not in a camp where today people claim there were gas chambers. So his STORY even if true has no bearing on gas chambers. As I said, there are only stories. There is no physical evidence. SignatureIraqis have one glorious moment to remember. The never surrendered to Americans. The war is still on against the American invaders. Why is anyone complaining? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3914 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 >>> Tom McDonald wrote, On 19/01/2008 18:56: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > at a range of sites. It's almost as if somebody writing these documents > didn't want us to know what was really going on! Fine. Historical REVISIONISM is common. The Jews did it and the pagans too. Everybody knows that. But are we suppose to just ignore that and not make comparisons? I say let's make the comparisons and see whose telling the truth per archaeology and who may not be as accurately truthful? Maybe "truth" is not the word, but "accurate" is. You're suggesting that everything ever written is absolutely false and worthless as far as science goes and thus archaeology should proceed without a single historical background reference. That's idiotic. Lars Wilson > You're suggesting that everything ever written is absolutely false and > worthless as far as science goes and thus archaeology should proceed > without a single historical background reference. No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that historical documents can be hugely helpful to archaeologists and, where they exist, should ALWAYS be consulted before commencing any form of archaeological work. However, they should rarely, if ever, be accepted as absolute "truth". Documents can be wrong and can be challenged just as much as archaeologists can! Before commencing any projects of my own, my first port of call is always the library and my local records offices. Maps, land deeds, letters and a whole range of other documents are just as important to me as a trowel and a magnetometer. ... > You're suggesting that everything ever written is absolutely false and > worthless as far as science goes and thus archaeology should proceed without a single > historical background reference. > That's idiotic. Because the bible was totally and completely wrong about Egypt lots of effort would not have been wasted if they had simply ignored it from the beginning. SignatureAccording to all the eulogies at the JFK funeral, Oswald was just an extremist. That is what they all said he was. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3923 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 "Digger" schrieb: > And I can give you plenty of examples where early medieval ecclesiatical > documents have been shown to be wholly incorrect by the archaeology found at a > range of sites. It's almost as if somebody writing these documents didn't want > us to know what was really going on! Could you expand a little on the above ? Do you mean forgeries, chronicles, documents regarding church law or what ? Cheers, Michael Kuettner > "Digger" schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Michael Kuettner The particular example I had in mind refers to the work of Roberta Glichrist who has looked at early medieval stone coffins. The symbolism found on these coffins often contains clues regarding the status and/or gender of the deceased which is then found to be misleading when the physical remains of the person are examined forensically. In other instances we find written documentation stating that women may not enter the clergy, but stone coffins and human remains which indicate otherwise. I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but I will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. > > "Digger" schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but I > will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. The notorious Skeleton at Varna with the gold "penis sheath" has been reported to also have a female pelvis. This fits with a tradition in Albania, not that far away, of Balkan Hill tribes that use transvestite lesbians for tribal chiefs. During the chronic blood feuds hillbillies have, nobody would assassinate a woman. Another of my sources goes into a long list of clerical characteristics seen among the Aryans. The pope wears that tall hat to hide beehive hairdo. He wears "lace". He dont wear pants. He is forbidden from using weapons that draw blood. Aryan clerics can only kill with the mace, poison, and magic. Then too, we have the record of transvestites in scythia who invented a potion made of pregnant mare's piss that was so loaded with estrogen that their beards fell out and they developed what today's fags call "puppy tits". Not that different from the transvestite priesthood in India today for Kali. The pre-christian Aryan priesthood was female. >> > "Digger" schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >The notorious Skeleton at Varna with the gold "penis sheath" has been >reported to also have a female pelvis. Reference? Anyone interested in Varna should read: "Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 640654 New perspectives on the Varna cemetery (Bulgaria) AMS dates and social implications Tom Higham1, John Chapman2, Vladimir Slavchev3, Bisserka Gaydarska2, Noah Honch1, Yordan Yordanov4 and Branimira Dimitrova4 1Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK 2Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK 3Regional Museum of History Varna, 41 Maria Louiza Blvd., 9000 Varna, Bulgaria 4Institute of Experimental Morphology and Anthropology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, bl. 25, Acad. Bonchev Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria The research team of this new project has begun the precision radiocarbon dating of the super-important Copper Age cemetery at Varna. These first dates show the cemetery in use from 4560-4450 BC, with the possibility that the richer burials are earlier and the poor burials later in the sequence. The limited number of lavish graves at Varna, representing no more than a handful of paramount chiefs, buried over 50-60 years, suggests a stabilisation of the new social structure by the early part of the Late Copper Age. Keywords: Copper Age, Eneolithic, Bulgaria, Varna, mortuary practice © 2007 Antiquity Publications This fits with a tradition in >Albania, not that far away, of Balkan Hill tribes that use >transvestite lesbians for tribal chiefs. Reference? > During the chronic blood >feuds hillbillies have, nobody would assassinate a woman. > >Another of my sources goes into a long list of clerical >characteristics seen among the Aryans. Which source is this? The pope wears that tall hat to >hide beehive hairdo. He wears "lace". He dont wear pants. He is >forbidden from using weapons that draw blood. Aryan clerics can only >kill with the mace, poison, and magic. Um, don't you mean to post to alt.dungeonsanddragons? I know you have your special definition for the word Aryan, perhaps you could remind us of what it is? And what an 'Aryan Cleric' is? A Vedic priest perhaps? Then too, we have the record of >transvestites in scythia who invented a potion made of pregnant mare's >piss that was so loaded with estrogen that their beards fell out and >they developed what today's fags call "puppy tits". Not that different >from the transvestite priesthood in India today for Kali. > >The pre-christian Aryan priesthood was female. Where can I find this in peer reviewed literature? Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: > >The notorious Skeleton at Varna with the gold "penis sheath" has been > >reported to also have a female pelvis. > > Reference? The Prehistory of sex by Talyor. But he didnt provide his reference. I merely said it was reported. If you read what he has to say, his presentation is reasonable. It makes sense. If a chief has a real penis, why would he bother with a gold copy? As for Albanian transvestite chiefs, that was a bit of photo journalism on CNN, interviewing one at her/his farm in the mountains. The only links I found are on gay/lesbian links which you would not regard as credible. Why would you think that female leadership is limited only to those cases where you have faith in the reference? As noted elsewhere in this thread, the documentation we have is often unreliable. You get to pick the sources you regard as credible, and disregard those who disagree with your position. I dont see that any reference I mite supply you would be received as credible. If you have a ref, like the document on the Varna graveyard that you'd like to share the relevant parts of, some of us would be grateful. > I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but > I will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. Here's the reference... Roberta Gilchrist 1997 Ambivalent Bodies : Gender and Medieval Archaeology in J. Moore and E. Scott (Eds) Invisible People and Processes: Wriiting Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London : Leicester University Another thing to consider might be medieval writings like those of Gildas and Bede. I think it was Gildas who wrote about the ferocious vikings raiding up and down the east coast of England. However, the archaeological record doesn't really support what was written. There are some examples of monasteries being raided but little to suggest widespread pillaging of the land and we certainly don't find evidence of many (if any) villages being razed. It couldn't possibly be a case of the pagan raiders deliberately being given a worse press than was warranted could it? > > I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but > > I will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > razed. It couldn't possibly be a case of the pagan raiders deliberately > being given a worse press than was warranted could it? Standard word of mouth problem. There is a game called "Telephone" where one person starts with a sentence, each person in turn repeats it to the next in a whisper and the final person announces the end consensus. The story never survives the retelling in anything like the original. > > I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but > > I will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > razed. It couldn't possibly be a case of the pagan raiders deliberately > being given a worse press than was warranted could it? I think you're probably right - they've had a very bad press. But they settled in Eboracum, changed the name to Jorvik, and established the second Christian English city (York) to Canterbury, where a certain St Augustine was supposed to have founded a church. If you were invaded, you'd probably adopt the same attitude towards, and opinions about, your invaders. But the Vikings also did a whole lot more - read up about the Janissaries, and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. I once found a solid silver torque, identical to a 'Viking' one, in the bazaar in Amman, Jordan. But the fascinating thing is that these raping, pillaging, bloodthirsty, etc Vikings begot the most pacific people on earth - the Scandinavians. Is that how genetics works? regards Richard "Digger" schrieb : > "Digger" wrote : >> I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > J. Moore and E. Scott (Eds) Invisible People and Processes: Wriiting Gender > and Childhood into European Archaeology. London : Leicester University Which era and area were looked into ? > Another thing to consider might be medieval writings like those of Gildas and > Bede. I think it was Gildas who wrote about the ferocious vikings raiding up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possibly be a case of the pagan raiders deliberately being given a worse > press than was warranted could it? Yes, of course. No historian would take their writings at face-value. That's where textual analysis comes in - eg., what was the intention of those writers ? To record history ? Not really. Gildas wanted to teach a moral - people were sinners and so the Vikings came (to sketch it roughly). The only thing we get from this example is that there were indeed raids at that time. Another famous example of taking liberties with the truth would be the battle of Khadesh. Egyptians portrayed it as great victory. When Hittite documents about the battle were found, they said that it was a draw. Shortly after that battle, Egypt and the Hittites made peace ... Cheers, Michael Kuettner "Digger" schrieb : > Here's the reference... > Roberta Gilchrist 1997 Ambivalent Bodies : Gender and Medieval Archaeology in > J. Moore and E. Scott (Eds) Invisible People and Processes: Wriiting Gender > and Childhood into European Archaeology. London : Leicester University Forgot to thank in my other reply. Thanks ! Cheers, Michael Kuettner >> I'm afraid I can't give you detailed reference at this precise moment but >> I will try to find it for you and post it here in the next day or two. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and Bede. I think it was Gildas who wrote about the ferocious vikings > raiding up and down the east coast of England. Gildas was writing in the west of England or Wales, some time in the 6th century, too early for Vikings. He was writing about the Anglo-Saxons, but up to a century after the Adventus Saxonum (and so out of living memory). The archaeological evidence for the 5th and early 6th centuries is pretty vague, so it’s hard to say that it doesn’t agree with the documentary evidence: much of what Gildas says can’t be evaluated archaeologically anyway. The only things that can be are the spread of Anglo-Saxon material culture (the question being whether or not this represents the movement of people), and oddly the two Roman walls, which Gildas assumes were built after the departure of the Romans, and also he assumes the turf wall (Antonine) predated the stone wall (Hadrian). It does make him a very dubious historical source, except as a snapshot of the early 6th century British mindset. I think you're confusing Gildas and Bede (part of whose History heavily relies on Gildas) with the later Anglo-Saxon writings, particularly the Chronicle which does discuss Viking raids (in the context of being a punishment from God). Actually, that is the point of view that Gildas adopts in The Ruin of Britain, but then, neither Gildas nor Bede, nor the writers of the Chronicles, were writing history as we would understand it. Rather they were using events (both real and imagined) to lecture their audience about morality and God: for Gildas the Anglo-Saxons were God’s punishment of the Britons’ immorality; Bede agreed, but looking from the Anglo-Saxon point of view; for the Chronicles the Vikings were a punishment for the Anglo-Saxons’ immorality. There's no objectivity there, so documents can’t be relied on: hence the need for archaeology. However, the archaeological > record doesn't really support what was written. There are some examples of > monasteries being raided but little to suggest widespread pillaging of the > land and we certainly don't find evidence of many (if any) villages being > razed. It couldn't possibly be a case of the pagan raiders deliberately > being given a worse press than was warranted could it? > Of course, up until the mid-9th century the Vikings were only raiding, and the richest and least protected sites were the monasteries and the emporia. So when you are largely targeting the church, which is the the only literate organisation around, you aren’t going to get a good press. At the same time, you can’t deny that there was plenty of archaeological evidence for raids on monasteries: Lindisfarne, Whitby, Hartlepool, Jarrow and Monkwearmouth are all abandoned in the 9th century, after the Viking’s switch from raiding to invading. The monastic community at Lindisfarne eventually established a church at Chester-le-Street, which is located inland and within a disused Roman fort, and so less likely to be raided. Around 993 the community moved to Durham, because of further Viking activity in the north of England, which is much a much more naturally defensive location. There is also the problem of a shortage of excavated settlements between the 8th and 10th centuries, particularly in the north. Even were any to be found, I think making a direct link between an abandonment or burning phase and Viking activity is almost impossible. Settlements can burn down or be abandoned for a variety of reasons. There have been attempts to rehabilitate the Vikings since the 80s (Traders not Raiders), but I think this is ignoring massive amounts of evidence that they were both raiders AND traders, as and when it suited. Even taking into account the bias of the documentary sources it's obvious that the Vikings could be a mean bunch when they wanted to be. Jamie > I think you're confusing Gildas and Bede (part of whose History heavily > relies on Gildas) with the later Anglo-Saxon writings, Yup! That's the fella. I always get the two of them muddled up. Thanks for pointing that out. >> >>>I throw these points open to general discussion... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ><snip> For most people in the world, and the vast majority of archaeologists, Biblical characters are of absolutely no interest. They could care less about their historicity. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >> I throw these points open to general discussion... >> 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta >> Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? > Yes, definitely. Particularly Biblical history. We know there is no history in the bible. There is no evidence of any bible source older than the Greek Septuagint. You have been told this many times. You have failed to show there is any evidence of any history in the OT. The most you have done is try to claim it is only a matter of a correct timeline. You have not presented physical evidence of any event because there is none. SignatureIt is very difficult to explain how the US could fight two world wars to save the Emperors of India and claim it was fighting for democracy. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3919 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 > We know there is no history in the bible. There is no evidence of any > bible source older than the Greek Septuagint. Everybody knows the best history and absolute history is the Biblical history. Where have you been? You can disprove nothing and want to distort progress when it goes into the direction of vindicating the Bible, like pretending there was no political-based revisions of chronology and history during the Classical Greek Period. So if you refuse to face the facts the facts will face you, eventually. We already have the original timeline set in place based upon astronomical dating left behind by the historians . You are out of touch, out of line, out of sync, and out of your mind.... Lars Wilson (New!) Corrected Timeline Outline: http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html >> We know there is no history in the bible. There is no evidence of any >> bible source older than the Greek Septuagint. > Everybody knows the best history and absolute history is the Biblical > history. Where have you been? I grew up and stopped believing the lies the preachers were spouting. You have yet to grow up. Educated people know there is no history in the bible. SignatureThe history of WWI was revised in the 1920s and the revision was correct. The world leaders still desperately cling to the unrevised version of WWII. They are clearly benefiting from their propaganda version of it. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3910 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 >>> We know there is no history in the bible. There is no evidence of any >>> bible source older than the Greek Septuagint. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Educated people know there is no history in the bible. Maybe, Matt. But all I know is, that per the Jews restoration to Palestine in 1947, the Biblical date for the Exodus is locked and fixed to 1386 BCE. Therefore Solomon's rule is FIXED and LOCKED to 910-870 BCE per the indepedent Bible timeline. I'm not talking about archaeologists who piggy-back chronology from an incorrectly dated and revised Assyrian timeline, I'm talking direct Biblical. When I also date Shishak's invasion to year 39 of Solomon that ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL DATE turns out to be 871 BCE. Now all I need to see from archaeologists is whether or not they have their sh.t together enough to figure out this is the correct date for Shishak's invasion. And what do I find? I'm IMPRESSED! Those archaeologists came right on the button. Kathleen Kenyon dated Jericho's fall by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. Right on! The absolute Biblical date is 1346 BCE. She gets a gold star. The Groningen dating team provided a chart pointing to c. 871 BCE as the highest probable 95.4% date for Shishak's invasion. WOW! I'm impressed. That method really worked out well this time, since 871 BCE is the right year. And even my good pal Israel Finkelstein saves the day by quite specifically stating that Solomon's buildings were built in the "early 9th century BC", meaning 900-875 BCE. Well that's perfect, since Solomon did rule from 910-870 BCE!!! So, again! Impressive! Finkelstein also said the Philistine pottery period ends "well into the 10th century BC" which means David should have followed the end of this pottery period also "well into the 10th century BC". Well per direct and strict Biblical chronology David's rule is from 950-910 BCE, so that again proves the archaeologists truly are dating things correctly, based upon the absolutely correct timeline from the Bible. That is, per my opinion. I don't mean to imply anyone else has to share my interpretation, everybody is free to error away from reality as much as they wish. So you see?!! Archaeology and the Bible work out. Only when I insist on having the defective Assyrian timeline thrown out, based upon all the archaeological and RC14 dating evidence, the intelligence and expertise goes right out the window. They seem totally incapable of moving in that obvious direction. Probably because they have been brainwashed so thoroughly that the timeline is absolute and will never change and is reliable. Well....that's just not he case. The VAT4956 alone forces the redating of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE whether any archaeologist or historian likes it or not. It's there and dismisses the current timeline as completely fabricated. That is, if you get through the lies of Sachs and Hunger as to what the text actually says, make the corrections and then face reality. But based upon whom I've talked to here, most may have majored in archaeology and anti-Biblicalism but they minored in Denial strategies. I didn't realize they actually gave a doctoral degree in that subject. Lars Wilson >>>> We know there is no history in the bible. There is no evidence of any >>>> bible source older than the Greek Septuagint. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> have yet to grow up. >> Educated people know there is no history in the bible. > Maybe, Matt. There are no maybes. It is a fact. > But all I know is, that per the Jews restoration to Palestine in > 1947, the Biblical date for the Exodus is locked and fixed to 1386 BCE. And there is no evidence to support that so it is a myth until established by physical evidence. That is all there is to it. You are OFF topic with this crap in addition to being an open liar. SignatureThe only way to avoid being a terrorist is to get the US to pay you to do the same thing. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3927 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 > I throw these points open to general discussion... > 1) Should archaeology be seen as the "handmaiden to history" (see Roberta > Gilchrist), merely there to support what is written in historical texts? Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. Real history is boring. It does no consist of interesting tales. Real history tries to reconstruct events from the records found. Stories and narratives are just one source and have no special standing or priority. No real historian would seriously look to the bible as authoritative or anything more than one of many equal sources such as Herodotus. Real historians have to accommodate both the positive and negative findings of archaeology. So one has to ask the definition of handmaiden being used? As in servant? Bullshit! As in The Handmaiden's Tale? Biblical archaeologists are officially sanctioned prostitutes. > 2) Should history be applied "indiscriminately" as Lars Wilson proposes or > should we discirminate between the evidence we chose to accept and the > evidence we challenge? There is no rational assumption that the bible contains any history and there are many contrary sources of history such as Herodotus which are at worst co-equal to the bible and contrary to it. Physical evidence ALWAYS rules over stories. Therefore archaeology always rules over historians when there is a disagreement. However real historians do not disagree with archaeology. It is the official prostitute historians who disagree with archaeology. > 3) What can be said of historical texts when they have been proven to be > innacurate by Archaeology? Should we disregard them completely or should we > still see them as valuable sources of information? All texts that disagree with the physical evidence we shitcan as stories unrelated to reality. The bible is what we might call today historical fiction although not up to the quality we have come expect today. SignatureZionists are so stupid they will deny they stole land from Palestinians by saying the stole it from absentee landlords. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3917 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 > Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. A statement as completely ignorant as this is why you're still behind the 8-ball as far as reality or history goes. You have to take it ALL in and set it into perspective. Archaeology means little without historical and anthropological reference. Archaeology is just digging in a certain place and noting where a seal is found. That's ALL archaeology is supposed to do. Did we ask them to date it? NO! How can they date it without history? How can they date it without RC14 testing coordination? They can't. But that's NOT their full areas of expertise. So simply digging up something and noting the local is not the extent of our interest. We want to compare it to other things and try to date it and related to the history out there, whether folklore or not, whether in the Bible or in some inscriptions from some ancient king written in stone. ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Hey? The Bible says God created the Earth. I see the earth. That's physical evidence of a true statement in the Bible, because the earth is definitely here. On the other hand, do YOU personally know how life started or how the Earth got here, so perfectly in orbit around the sun? No. That's beyond your area of expertise I'm afraid. So just deal with others who might happen to be more gifted than you are an have a broader perceptibility of things, right? Some people are near-sighted and they get a prescription and glasses so they can see better. Some people prefer to squint and refuse to improve their vision. Their loss. Lars Wilson >> Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. > A statement as completely ignorant as this is why you're still behind the > 8-ball as far as reality or history goes. You have to take it ALL in and > set it into perspective. Archaeology means little without historical and > anthropological reference. The expanded name of this newsgroup is science.archaeology. It is a science newsgroup. You do not abide by the rules of science. Your posts are off topic by definition. EVERYONE but David tells you that you are wrong. You are too stupid to learn. SignatureIf you believe the purpose of government is to serve the people then realize To Serve The People and to Serve Man are both cookbooks. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3913 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 >>> Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > science newsgroup. You do not abide by the rules of science. Your posts > are off topic by definition. Yes, and RC14 is science related to archaeology. This all started with an RC14 chart from Rehov, remember? A chart you're in denial about. A SCIENTIFIC STUDY in the context of archaeology. So you're clueless, obviously. Oh well. Denial and panic I guess has that side effect. Lars (New!) Corrected Timeline Outline: http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html >>>> Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. >>> A statement as completely ignorant as this is why you're still behind the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> science newsgroup. You do not abide by the rules of science. Your posts >> are off topic by definition. > Yes, and RC14 is science related to archaeology. But your usage of it is NOT scientific. Your usage of it is Ascientific. Therefore your posts remain off topic as they do not relate to science. SignatureIf Ron Paul is doing well after Super Tuesday he will soon die of natural causes. In politics, assassination is a natural cause. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3911 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 >> Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Archaeology is just digging in a certain place and noting where a seal is > found. That's ALL archaeology is supposed to do. If this is waht you genuinely beleive, you know NOTHING about archaeology! Try reading a few theoretical texts and at least TRY to educate yourself! >>> Archaeology is a science dependent upon physical evidence only. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If this is waht you genuinely beleive, you know NOTHING about archaeology! >Try reading a few theoretical texts and at least TRY to educate yourself! There is no point trying to discuss archaeology with someone who so fundamentally misunderstands it. Don't bother discussing evolution with him either. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ "Doug Weller" schrieb : >>"Lars Wilson" burped : Killfiled long ago ... >>> Archaeology is just digging in a certain place and noting where a seal is >>> found. That's ALL archaeology is supposed to do. >> >>If this is waht you genuinely beleive, you know NOTHING about archaeology! >>Try reading a few theoretical texts and at least TRY to educate yourself! Exactly. Beer is involved, too ;-) > There is no point trying to discuss archaeology with someone who so > fundamentally misunderstands it. Don't bother discussing evolution with > him either. Except that he is a walking example for evolution. A random mutation going nowhere ... Cheers, Michael Kuettner |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.