Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:Look how many illegals avoid France in preference to your country and mine.

The fact that they are illegal makes any attached number a totally wild, unsupported guess, Roy...

Long before I heard of OOA or MR Min I had formed the conclusion that those of a 'western' origin were not the same peoples as elsewhere, and had developed separately.

Roy.

Well, you only have to go back a few centuries to find Westerners acting every bit as barbaric as anyone else, though. While a fascinating topic of discussion one must look at The Enlightenment as a reaction to the horrors of the 30 Years' War for an explanation of Western liberalism. I always laugh when I run across someone who claims that the "US was founded on 'Christian Principles.'" What would those be? Christianity gave us the Divine Right of Kings. It was the thinkers (generally not Christians) of the Enlightenment who came up with the Declarations of Independence and the Rights of Man. 1789 wasn't all that long ago in historical terms.

I agree that non-Western nations react negatively to Western ideals yet many want to try to pick and choose which of those ideals they will adopt and reject. The Chinese, sooner or later, are going to learn that there is no such thing as "a little freedom." In any case, in much of the world the resentment of the West stems from the Age of Colonialism and the White Man's Burden. I might be a little pissed about that too were I in their shoes.

My only quibble with you about Iraq is not that it "will fail" but that it "has failed." Our withdrawal will see the country dissolve into civil war. We should go sooner rather than later and not leave anyone behind to be targets. As in Afghanistan, the government is a stunning choice of one group of criminals over another. A pox on all their houses.

You're projecting ethnocentrism on peoples who may have not have suffered from that particular problem.

And, if so, were unique among humankind in that respect.

The plains Indians quickly adopted the horse from the Spanish and the North-Eastern Indians were just as quick to adopt the gun from Europeans. The scimitar is "Arab" but they have gone to the AK-47 with ease.

Kindly see previous comment on NEW ideas (like pottery and ground stone tools) spreading quickly.

Goodyear, at my last reading, agreed that Topper could have been a quarry, that is what makes me cautious. If you are preparing stone to trade, predressing helps reduce the weight the customer has to carry, thus he will carry more 'tools' and less dross, more profitable to both parties and reduces the chance of trading stone containing inclusions or hidden faults, good for your rep.
Therefore the flakes that he has recovered might just be the rubbish left behind, after all, if it was a quarry why produce flakes then leave them?

Quarry waste is easily recognised. The artifacts in the pre-clovis level are not quarry waste.

Christianity gave us the Divine Right of Kings. It was the thinkers (generally not Christians) of the Enlightenment who came up with the Declarations of Independence and the Rights of Man

Objection, Your Honor. The prosecutor is hallucinating again. The foundational, categorical refutiation (not merely rejection) of the purported "divine right of kings" was in the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. Which is why possession of one in Britain was a capital offense.

in much of the world the resentment of the West stems from the Age of Colonialism and the White Man's Burden. I might be a little pissed about that too were I in their shoes.

I would venture to suggest that most of it stems from the behavior of the British East India Company.

I suspect this pre-dates Protestant drivel.

5 Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. 6 He said to his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the LORD."

1 Samuel 24

C'Mon, Min. Samuel's warning Israel to have nothing to do with kings in the first place, and that God said Kings were a bad idea, precedes this.

The fact that they are illegal makes any attached number a totally wild, unsupported guess, Roy...

So go on RS, make an unsupported guess! The principle of my comment remains valid even if the numbers are uncertain.

Roy.

uniface wrote:C'Mon, Min. Samuel's warning Israel to have nothing to do with kings in the first place, and that God said Kings were a bad idea, precedes this.

"Saul" was a king, man. How much plainer does it have to be for you?

That they failed to follow simple instructions ?

Pretty obvious, IMO.

for he is the anointed of the LORD."

Lessee....what other bible character claimed to the "anointed?"

Minimalist wrote:

for he is the anointed of the LORD."

Lessee....what other bible character claimed to the "anointed?"

Wasn't every king and prophet 'anointed'?
It apparently was an inflationary thing. Like holy communion is. Empty rituals for mass-hypnosis.

Just the kings.

Roy.

And the high priests.... priests and kings always scratch each other's asses.

But not in the same manner Min. it would be logical for lesser mortals to ape their 'betters' with a crowning, anointing, blessing, robing etc, but the anointing of a king was a special event, a Messianic occurrence.

Roy.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

--Thomas Jefferson

I gotta go with Jefferson here.

Minimalist wrote:

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

--Thomas Jefferson

I gotta go with Jefferson here.

Yeah, and he was vindicated by Pius XII, wasn't he?