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

Carl wrote:

<snip>

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

"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."

Wow, I can't believe I missed this the first time or so around:

There are three ellipses in the paragraph (?) you quote. They would not be present in Possehl's original, unless he was quoting someone else. But that cannot be, since you are honest.

So this must mean that the quotation above is either from Handmedown***, with his ellipses; from Handmeyour***, with you yourself having elided the missing material; or from Possehl, with you yourself having elided the missing material.

In the first case, would that fact not have suggested to you that the quotation might reflect Hanoverdacockdereduffus' *impression* of Possehl's meaning (to take the most benign view possible)? Or even worse, H's emendation of P's meaning to make P seem to say what H needed him to say, without regard to P's actual meaning?

In the second case, what would it have hurt you to have included the elided material? You would have done it only to hide relevant facts. Unless you really are that poor a typist that you wouldn't have been able to bring yourself to do the typing involved to report the entire quotation.

In the third case, why would you not present what I asked you, at a minimum, to produce: the preceding and following paragraphs?

I am quite certain, given your acceptance of Haveacockwillyahey's view of the issues, that the first option is the correct one. You took Handmedown***, not Possehl, as the authority; and have been paying the price in lost chances and failure ever since.

Either start over, from the beginning, using only relevant archaeologists and the folks *they* rely on for ancillary materials; or just quit this futile attempt to play archaeologist. Either way, I would be a happier man.

<snip>
.