Re: Hauksbok treated as an artifact - intro for context presentation

IEJ wrote:
[snip]
an artifact is an artifact no matter if the existing artifact is found on a
shelf in an old house or dug up of the ground by an archaeologist.
"artifact: any object made, modified, or used by people."

[snip]

OK, I have a book on my desk:

1) is it an artifact? yes.

2) does that (alone) make it a proper
matter for discussion on an archaeology
newsgroup? no

3) could even a 9-year-old follow the
logic of that? yes

4) why is it that Inger cannot follow
the logic of that?

because she wants to (and will) blather
on about whatever *she* wants to...
even when, clearly, it's OT.

5) at this moment there are literally millions
of 'artifacts' currently being shipped from
China to retailers around the world - which
ones are *archaeologically* worth considering?

6) aside from the wrong-headed illogical
insistence of our perennial kook-troll,
does the Hauksbok have any greater
relevence to this newsgroup than, say,
a certain ISBN-lacking dictionary?

(But... but... it's an 'artifact'!)

.

Relevant Pages
Loading