Archaeologica.org

I simply do not have the same confidence in this "First Peoples" crap that you do. Written histories are edited to serve the needs of later editors. You will not convince me that oral tales are any more reliable.

Truthfully, the whole concept of "First Peoples" seems to be a modern political usage designed to advance native-american claims.

Minimalist wrote: Written histories are edited to serve the needs of later editors.

The same thing happens to oral histories, once the keepers have been destroyed.
And that is why impacts are so helpful. Something that no people would simply make up.
And something that does leave behind a physical trail.

As far as written records goes, the same thing holds.

Minimalist wrote:I simply do not have the same confidence in this "First Peoples" crap that you do.

Truthfully, the whole concept of "First Peoples" seems to be a modern political usage designed to advance native-american claims.

As far as "First Peoples" goes, that is what they were, and still are.
If you can not handle the facts, that is not my problem, it is your problem.

More mythology, E.P?

At least you are consistent.

I tend to ignore theories and stick with facts, min.

One fact is that you have a problem with Judaeo-Christian religions,
and it biases your theoretical apparat,
as you project processes that have little bearing on the materials at hand in this case.

It sure would be nice to have another couple of caches of contemporary Bronze Age texts found at some major urban sites in the ANE region.