[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient India: transpacific links (cont.)
On 29 Dec 1996 21:44:28 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Peter van Rossum (email@example.com) wrote:
>: Archaeologists recover, analyze, identify, and report plant remains
>: on a daily basis. Given the ubiquity of these "maize sculptures" it is
>: obvious that if the identification is correct then there should have been
>: a lot of maize in their lifestyle, therefore, some remains should have been
>: left. The fact that such remains have not been found should lead us to
>: be cautious about the accuracy of the identification.
>Isolationists wish to assure us that archaeologists should have stumbled
>upon the evidence they require in order "to change their mind" without
>looking for it.
Stop the name calling, Yuri, you aren't debating with 'Isolationists'.
Archaeologists look for any and all artefacts on a site, and any and all food,
animal, and plant remains. There's no question of stumbling upon evidence.
Again you are showing your ignorance of how archaeology works.
>Such mumbo-jumbo can only be brought forth by someone who never learned
>the elementary principles of logical reasoning... Peter gives us new
>evidence every day to substantiate this hypothesis.
More name calling from the person who hates people bringing in personalities.
For someone so interested in myths you seem to rely very much on whatever you
think of as 'logical reasoning'.
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Requests To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details