Re: A list of cities going farther and farther back into antiquity

On Jul 8, 7:04 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:17 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

<snip>

I never said archaeology deals with literary evidence but it is clear
that I deal with literary evidence.
That's why this group has no dealing with you.
Thi is sci.archaeology, you know.

You don't know how to lecture well.

Whereas you are a full professor in irrelevantology.

So, I've already given the 2 links containing
reference to the literary sources which show the strong inference that
Noah was a historical figure.
W don't care. Piss off

I am not interested in your static, Peter.

And we are not interested in yours. So does that mean you will
stop posting said static?

BTW, the expert scholar knows which
parts of the Bible are historical and which are not so that in this
sense the Bible is a historical source.
We are not interested. Piss off.

I get great satisfaction in the fact that there is not a cotton-
picking thing
you can do to stop my posting.

Calm down, Carl.

<snip>

You can't stop me from shouting; I reject your directives; I am not
trying to "turn" you yourself but instead, your achaeological friends.

...who also reject your directives. You should calm down and just
accept that. The red-faced rage you evince in your postings is
not good for your health.

This is sci.archaeology, not the Thiering church
of reverent Christainen.
*** off.
Forget about Thiering;

Fucking off reminds you of Thiering? Huh.

let's get back to archaeology, please.

Would you know it if it bit you in the ass? On current evidence,
the answer would seem to be, "***, no!"

I plan to research the Wikipedia article on cities to get the links
for constructing
a list of cities going farther and farther back into antiquity. We'll
see whether
other sci.archers get interested.

If you intend to use Wikipedia for your research, why bother? No
archaeologist uses it for research. You claim some extravagently
high standards of research and scholarly capacity, yet you show
up here (where many people use Wikipedia for a quick-and-dirty
first approximation of stuff in which they are mildly
interested), and use non-archaeological references, even
references that don't show any real understanding of the issues
experts in relevant fields care about; and then excoriate us for
not capitulating to the wonder of your scholarship.

But on the other hand, we appear to be between other kooks at the
moment; so you do serve a useful purpose in that way.

The wooden block found in situ underwater among the structures in the
Gujarat
can be carbondated. I will follow the story.

This interests me because the hypothesis (Han***) dates the submerged
city
to 7000 BC or so.

.

Quantcast