Re: Methods treating a written document as an artifact
- From: "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Jul 2006 13:03:27 -0700
bogart.lloy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dylan Sung wrote:
"IE J" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b0Prg.8151$E02.2429@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All human produced tools as well as document are from a strict definition
to
be regarded as an artifact and thus analysed and compared with each
artifact
's equals and/or contemporary artifacts.
Definition of artifacts?
Eric S - do you feel sorry, now?
I sure do.
Dyl.
How many words does she require to say;
"I don't understand what archaeology is,
and I'm going to post my delusions here
regardless"?
On current evidence? Nearly all of them.
To be fair, many of them are only dragooned into service via bad
spelling or misunderstanding of English. (Think 'summery'.)
.
- References:
- Re: Methods treating a written document as an artifact
- From: bogart . lloy
- Re: Methods treating a written document as an artifact
- Prev by Date: answer to Lloyd and Dylan. - definition artifact/artefact
- Next by Date: Re: With and without Celts
- Previous by thread: Re: answer to Lloyd and Dylan. - definition artifact/artefact
- Next by thread: Re: Methods treating a written document as an artifact
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|