Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w
From: I.E_Johansson (inger_e.johansson_at_telia.com)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Previous message: David B.: "Re: Baffin Island & The Vinland Map"
- In reply to: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Next in thread: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Reply: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:44:25 GMT
Doug,
you are not the one to decide if and why diplomas and or maps are within
archaeologic topic or not.
If you don't like a post - then don't read it and don't write comments to
it. Simple as that.
Unfortunatly for you and your anti Norse presence in NA there is a full
documentation now that can be presented to prove the connection between the
"Grænlendinga þáttur" - Historiae Norwegiae for 1180's and artifacts which
can be followed up to 1457. More unfortunatly for you the last days also
have presented an excellent written documentation, Ivar Bardson related, why
there is a silver coconut vessel in the Museum in Reykjavik. And more.
Thus you shouldn't be so hostile towards written documentation. You can't
interpret artifacts without having full documentation from written sources.
You might think you can but you must at least give others a chance to
present their case no matter if you don't like it.
Inger E
who will be sending part 1 Greenland-Vinland and Vinland map as soon as
possible. Artifacts as well as documents and background history for both
included.
"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:hbpr31lneucj4rppi1f04aikd0ct8lntu7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:34:50 +0000 (UTC), in sci.archaeology,
> kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article <d1f7u4$26c$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> >davidb@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk (David B.) wrote:
> >
> >> but also when the text throws light on archaeological finds under
> >> discussion) then it is more appropriately considered in a history
> >> group.
> >
> > The only problem with that is the history group in question. At one
> >point I used to read soc.history,ancient, I gave it up because 90% of
> >the posters were only interested in pushing "wild ass" theories and
> >not discussing any evidence. I would say that comparing what Tacitus
> >and other Roman authors wrote about Britain compared with the
> >archeological evidence seems to be on topic here, to me.
>
> Absolutely. But a discussion of Tacitus not related to the archaeological
> evidence would not be, nor would a discussion about the Sagas and what
> they suggested about a Norse presence in North America (they might
> interest some people here but that doesn't make them on topic).
>
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>
>
- Next message: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Previous message: David B.: "Re: Baffin Island & The Vinland Map"
- In reply to: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Next in thread: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Reply: Doug Weller: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA w"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|