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

Carl <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

On Jul 30, 7:14 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:43 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:28 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
The first Mehrgarans were already farmers, get it?
No
Your answer noted.
BTW, can an archaeologist research Indian sacred texts and
establish that Manu and the terrible oceanic flood was
historical to the immediate pre-Mehrgarh period? IOW, what's
wrong with consulting Indian sacred texts?
It is not archaeology.
So what?

This is sci.archaeology
Don't let your science stand in the way of historical
interpretation of relevant Indian sacred text which might suggest
further marine archaeology in Gulf of Cambay because it is
closest to ocean for Mehrgarh.

You surely show no knowledge of Indian
sacred texts and geography.
You never read me on sci.arch with an honest eye.

I'm afraid I did.

Then cut the flack.

I never take away from your competence as a very good archaeologist.

Typical. I am not an archaeologist.

Tell us what you are; not what you are not.

This again shows that you are not interested
in this newsgroup



I look forward for the immediate future to sci.arch conversation
with somebody other than Peter Alaca. IOW, I've had enough.

Try Tom. He loves stupid liars with silly ideas.
...

I came back because I want Tom to make a genuine contribution himself
in the way
I recently stated for the benefit of our newsgroup.

As long as you are not talking archaeology,
sci.archaeology is not your newgroup


You're right - I don't know you.


.

Relevant Pages