Re: Food Culture: Mesolithic Western Europe.

prd wrote: news:pXEIg.711026$Fs1.469097@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In sci.archaeology message news:ecuvsb$ub9$1@xxxxxxxxx by "Uwe
Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> . . . :

Try, again, throwing your corrections at wikipedia. You see
what TinyUrl does to your mind, you've even forgot how to
parse a Url.

Using a name with a wrong spelling can happen, insisting it is
the right spelling without checking is a bit foolish. Have you
never heard people mention, that they are not glad with
wikipedia being treated as a scientific source, because of the
many faults?

When its the only source or the most informative source in english
I didn't want to push the issue because it appeared that Peter was
trying to pick a fight, I had hoped you would have done more
research before sticking Peter's foot in your mouth.

Peter tried to be helpful.

Google:
18 for sauveterien
827 for Sauveterrian

And again it is about quantity, not quality.
Did you assess the hits?
Did you see how many of that 827 contained
exactly the same information?
Did you look at the images?
Sauveterrian: nothing
Sauveterien: 34

Lets see more:

about 8,460 for Tardenoisian.
about 2,740 for Tardenoisien

Images 2 for Tardenoisian.
Images 19 for Tardenoisien

about 11,900 for Maglemosian
about 19,600 for Maglemose.

Images: none for Maglemosian
Images 28 for Maglemose.

So, with the images I 'beat' you every time
and with Maglemose also with the web result.

I said after your rude complaints "with the
indigenous term you get additional information"
Note the "additional". Was I wrong?

BTW, why didn't you use "Kongemosian"?
I know you get no hits with that, but isn't
that strange?

--
p.a.

.