Re: The first Mehrgarhans did not come overland from the west

Carl wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:41 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl wrote:
On Jul 29, 3:35 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:40:16 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca
wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:46 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
...
Since they were already farmers according to Possehl,
He did not say that, as you show yourself below.
Gregory L. Possehl, Indus Age: The Beginnings, 440, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1999
"already farmers"
'Possehl explains the "sudden" appearance
of the strangely sophisticated village farming
community at Mehrgarh as an artefact of
incomplete excavations and is confident that
"the beginnings of food production and domestication
in the region" will eventually be traced - within the
region itself.'
And either 'Carl' is being dishonest or he shows himself up again as
unable to understand archaeology.
[SNIP]
This example shows that he doesn't understand
what he posts as argument to support 'his' ideas.
On the contrary I understand fully the dichotomy I posed on the
origin (homeland) of the pre-Mehrgarhans and my purpose for discussion
purposes was merely to roll it out.
I never said there was mucho archaeological evidence for the
alternative
I favor. On the contrary there is a distinct lack of it.
Then you have to work even harder with the actual archaeological
evidence there is, if you want to make an
archaeologically-supported point.

Handcrock can get away with hand-waving (I hope while his hand is
mercifully ***-free) propaganda, because he is a good writer and
knows how to make tons of dough by scamming the rubes.

You, on the other, well, hand, have to make a case in front of a
number of people who are not rubes, and who are wise to the ways
of Handcrank and his ilk.

Do you see the difference? Do you have a clue as to the enormity
of the job you have undertaken?

And do you have a clue as to how poorly you have been doing on
your self-chosen campaign in your self-chosen milieu?

If you don't, I can tell you...

BTW, I understand fully what archaeology is; you are barking up the
wrong tree again.
BTW. Although Mr. Ch. didn't present it as a quote,
I suppose it is a quote from Hang***.
...
BUT, it is not; the quote is genuine from Possehl and he means it.
Prove it, Carl. Give us the full reference, and quote the entire
paragraph where he says that the first Mehrgarhans were 'already
farmers'.

Then quote the preceding and following paragraphs, to put it in
some measure of context.

I don't think you can, because I believe that you did, in fact,
quote Possehl here out of Hand-me-my-***, and not from Possehl's
own work.

If you guy would just stop your insinuations about my honesty, I would
greatly
appreciate it.
Fine. Just as soon as you become honest.

Although, come to think of it, what we see as dishonesty might
sometimes be simple ignorance or foolishness. I guess that could
be the case.

Please get to the merits, guys.
None are in evidence. That is your job, Sparky.

o, so far, my postion on Mehrgarh
origin
has only interpretation of Indian sacred texts,the Lukacs finding, and
Glenn Milne. A weak
reed perhaps and a bold speculative hypothesis based on a weak signal.
'Bold.' You keep using that word. I think you mean it as 'daring
and brave and progressive'; but you use it in circumstances where
a more proper term would be, 'left-field unsupported noise'.

Nonetheless, the implication for archaeology is to get to deeper water
off Dwarka
to get and find archaeological evidence going back further in
antiquity than
Harrapan. This takes funding in the real world and thus takes a lot
of time
for anything at all to happen.
How convenient for you. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped you
from your 'left-field unsupported noise' based on
Hand-me-my-***-will-you-there's-a-good-mushroom's 'work'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's agree to disagree; let's move on.

No.

Except to say to you - no man can do it all alone.

This is a pitiful excuse for your poor performance so far. Why not just admit you don't care about the archaeology and move on to something you are interested in, in a more appropriate ng?

The acknowledged authority Possehl opened the door a crack because
he is qualified and scrupulously honest.

Possehl himself would tell you that his work alone is not adequate to establish what you are trying to establish. This is especially true since the book you are referencing is based on work at least eight years old now, and in a field where on-going work can change any given statement at any given time.

Gregory L. Possehl, Indus Age; The Beginnings, 440, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1999

Which you have admitted to not having read.

"Almost nothing is known of the time between the late Glacial Age at
circa 15,000 BC and
the beginnings of Mehrgarh at circa 7000 BC... The first period at
Mehrgarh has fully
developed domestic architecture based on mud brick... So while
Mehrgarh... is undoubtedly
an early village farming community, there is also a sense that the
excavations there have
not documented the beginnings of this tradition or the beginnings of
food production and
domestication in the region. It is certainly nothing like a terminal
hunter-gathering site
with the intensive collection of cereals, pulses and sophisticated
hunting. These people
were already farmers."

Which is not responsive to my request. Where is the paragraph preceding this one? And the one following this one?

You have, one might hope faithfully, reproduced Hand-over-your-***'s carefully selected quotation from Possehl; carefully selected to make a point that may *or may not* faithfully reflect Possehl's meaning.

Did you do as I suggested, and have your daughter review this post? I renew the suggestion, as you don't seem to get why I made it, and as a result have cocked it up once again.

Bonus reference -

S. P. Gupta, The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, 16-17, Pratiba
Prakashan, Delhi, 1996

Which you have also not read? And from which you cannot seem to produce a relevant (and complete) quotation? And regarding which you have not made your own interpretation?

And most importantly, about which you do not know the work of Gupta's colleagues and other relevant archaeologists in the specific you wish us to believe he somehow supports your 'left-field unsupported noise'?

If you paid attention and actually desired to learn something about archaeology, you would be getting a pretty fair tuition about the field from the exchanges you're getting here. But you don't seem to be able to profit from this tuition; and instead appear to want to insist that we learn from you.

Huh.
.