Archaeologica.org

I strongly suspect that Mins list was compiled by a underendowed man with what he thought was a sense of humour
because any woman making the list would have included at least :-
flowers
chocolates
alcohol
Huge penis
go on
say it aint true

Minimalist wrote:So....with a female judge you would have gotten about "2?"

Maybe 5, although factoring in Marduk's amendments to the list I feel duty bound to point out that ...how can I put this... with regards to trouser paraphenalia (I'm trying to avoid turning this thread into a locker room) I have been blessed with a verdict of "well above average" by two independent witnesses, although not at the same time I should probably point out.

In conclusion, I have an apparently enviable hampton and therefore claim my extra point.

Returning to the thread, I've just been to The Hall of Ma'at (I think it's called) and found out that Gavin Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks. Which is a shame, I fell for it hook, line and sinker, despite some doubts about the allegedly Mexican objects. Oh well, you live and learn. i noticed an old thread on that somewhere round here. I should probably check it out.

Returning to the thread, I've just been to The Hall of Ma'at (I think it's called) and found out that Gavin Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks.

War Arrow, I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.

Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I'm getting ready to read 1491 which I have heard is a very good book.

Cognito wrote:

Returning to the thread, I've just been to The Hall of Ma'at (I think it's called) and found out that Gavin Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks.

War Arrow, I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.

No way, dude. My main man Erich has way more spaceships and other cool stuff. Now that's goooood science-fiction.




















I can't believe I just wrote that.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I'm getting ready to read 1491 which I have heard is a very good book

oh like you heard that fingerpaints of the gods was a very good book
what did you think of chariots of the gods
think that was good as well

how about the twelth planet

I have to thank Hancock for Fingerprints of the Gods. Not because it is actually worth anything, but because it aroused my interest again and made me reseach and find out, years later, that it's 99% bullshit. To the un-educated it is a good book. I have even recomended it to friends as a place to start, simply because it makes one ask questions. I also tell them not to believe a word of it, but let it invest them with the spirit of curiosity. I never read Von Daniken. I was religious back them.....boy is my face red............................... I also have seen "UFOs" myself. Thsi simply means that they were "unidentified" to me. Still...I have seen some weird shit in the sky and have never found any explanation for it. (Insert Twilight Zone music here) I know it doesn't make sense, but what I saw doesn't either.

Oh and on the subject of women, I am 47 years old and never been married so i am still clueless about them too. I know you're thinking, " he must be ugly as hell or nerdy or weird not to have ever been married", but that ain't it at all. I have had plenty of opportunities, but never the proper amount of courage.....or is it stupidity.........?

I must respectfully disagree with you. Menzies' 1421 is an impressive work of science fiction.

well i will respectfully disagree with you... i think that the chinese 'discovering' america before columbus is plausible, though i would lean towards a pacific landing not an atlantic one.

Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks

what did they quote that would lend credibility to that? and how did they come to that conclusion?

archaeologist wrote:well i will respectfully disagree with you... i think that the chinese 'discovering' america before columbus is plausible, though i would lean towards a pacific landing not an atlantic one.

Pacific certainly. And it does on the face of it seem plausible. So impressed was I by its plausability that I bought a copy of the book for my Mum as a present.

archaeologist wrote:

Menzies 1421 book is probably a load of bollocks

what did they quote that would lend credibility to that? and how did they come to that conclusion?

An extremely persuasive argument against resides at http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=91 although I saw this topic also covered in one of the older threads in this forum. When I read the book I found it very convincing, although the actual points about Mexican contact (specifically the artefacts and the idea of influence on architecture - this influence being suggested by traits which were already there long before any hypothetical contact with China) I found a bit awkward - though I gave it the benefit of the doubt on the strength of the metate grinding stone of indisputably Mexican origin. Well, it turned out said stone wasn't of indisputably Mexican origin but just one of many developed in China (the old parallel evolution thing) so therefore I was duped by my own ignorance of Chinese culture. I'm not absolutely saying it didn't happen, just that from where I'm standing, the premise of events described in this book seems shaky.

By the way, Arch, whilst you're here. I'm new to this internet thing so it's still quite exciting being in contact with people all across the globe and I'm dying to know what you're doing in Korea. Are you Korean? Are you just working there? Hope that doesn't sound too nosey. I'm just curious.

An extremely persuasive argument against

it is okay, i saw some errors in the writers thinking and some assumptions of his own. i so not know who bill hartz is, nor do i care, but he seems to have some vendetta against the chinese and menzies which is never cleary explained. the whole article sounds like a bitter man who was beaten to the punch by someone else and this is his revenge.

i read the book, i saw the discovery channel 2-parter and menzies did not look good while the book read well. i don't think he has done anything different than what most archaeologists do when they are trying to fill in the blanks so to attack him on those points is a bit unrealistic.

sure menzies makes mistakes but so do people like finkelstein and dever (couldn't resist) and i am not convinced that the chinese took the longer, more scenic route. the currents make it possible and probable but like other historical events, it has to get past 'the club' before given credibility and thought of seriously.

it is highly possible that the emporer had all the records burned which means we are left to speculation despite the objections made by hartz. so while the jury is stillout with me , again despite hartz's work, i still lean towards a pacific discovery.

By the way, Arch, whilst you're here

sorry, i rarely give out personal information on the internet.

archaeologist wrote:

By the way, Arch, whilst you're here

sorry, i rarely give out personal information on the internet.

No worries. Just polite curiosity.