Archaeologica.org

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

Let's talk it over when the weather improves. Too much ice and snow in Texas right about now!

Right? This last week was the longest running spell of freezing precipitation on the books, for central Texas.

What major city is it near?


And don't say Crawford!!!!

At first I just thought you were ugly and mean spirited.

You might want to hang on to that thought for a while Charlie

that guy didnt have a clue did he

Funny thing, is I'm no closer to figuring it out.

Have you ever been able to make out the figure carved into the limestone:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2029.jpg

If not, no biggy. It's hard to catch the 3D elements in a 2D depiction.

I know you did offer up the possibility of Re (is that correct? I don't know jack about Summeria / Egypt), for all the bird figures.

What major city is it near?


And don't say Crawford!!!!

Austin...15 miles north.

You might want to hang on to that thought for a while Charlie

Might be easier to fly. I can go direct via Southwest from Phoenix to Austin....and just rent a car.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Austin...15 miles north.

That's not too far from the border.

..
..

between Longhorn and Aggie county.

Might be easier to fly. I can go direct via Southwest from Phoenix to Austin....and just rent a car.

Just let me know.

That's not too far from the border.

..
..

between Longhorn and Aggie county.

How'd the Aggie burn his face?

Bobbing for french fries.

I'll catch up with ya'll this evening. Me and my wife are headed to Hondo, to visit a bit with her folks.

Beagle wrote:

At first I just thought you were ugly and mean spirited.

You might want to hang on to that thought for a while Charlie

Beag - I give Marduk credit for promoting sound scholarship and rigorous investigation. This is the effect he has had on me. When you have a guy who will call you to task if you shoot off the cuff, its not a bad thing. It keeps the crackpots and pseudos off the board.

If anyone has an alternate point of view, express it but be prepared to back it up with facts. Marduk always presents his points of view with legitimate links and he rarely speculates. While sometimes it seems like a cold slap in the face, sometimes I need it when I start babbling.

What you say Monk is generally correct in principle, but as I have observed before, many of the advances that have taken place in the sciences have been achieved by a leap of imagination and without a shred of proof to support them. That came later.
Just one example, Wegener, take a look at some of the insulting comments that he had to put up with and you'll see what I mean. Fortunately for his detractors he died young, and thus they were spared the humiliation of having to publicly consume large quantities of humble pie.

(Sorry to take it a little off topic Charley)

True Digit, but if I came in here, with a leap of faith and state (which I do believe) that the Genesis account of the flood and the Sumerian flood epic were both redactions of a common earlier, oral account, you guys would line up from end of the board to the other to slap me.

Some might, not me Monk. When you consider how much of our history, let alone pre-history, has been lost to us I personally would record an open verdict. Look at the S--- that Schliemann put up with because there was no more evidence for his view than yours, he simply had the funds to find his own proof.
Lack of evidence not infrequently means that we simply haven't found it yet, not that it doesn't exist.

Lack of evidence not infrequently means that we simply haven't found it yet, not that it doesn't exist.

Digit, you are correct. However, the scientific method does not allow for speculation and where some people have a problem (not you) is when they start building one speculation upon another to arrive at some sort of conclusion, whether accurate or not (re: Sitchin, Hancock, etc.). Some articles get really confusing when speculation is interlaced with known facts, thereby creating rhetorical crap that passes as scientific treatise. I enjoy sailing on the GOOD SHIP SPECULATION as much as anyone else, but we still need to follow the scientific method in archaeological discussions to get from one point to the next ... otherwise it becomes pseudoscience and there's way too much of that in print for comfort.

I suppose we need to institute a caution that states: WARNING: SPECULATION TO FOLLOW! when going off on a tangent.