Posted on 09/01/2003 3:00:05 AM PDT by jimtorr
SO begins man's so march 'back into the muck', eh?
I think not ...
You have a strong, but limited knowledge on these subjects brother, I'll give you that, but no more.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
However, regarding this particular "find", there is a strong tendency among archaeologists and other "experts" to say such and such article is so many years old with little or no real evidence. Stone cannot be carbon dated. It's not an organic material. They can only date organic material which may happen to be at the same strata and confirmed to be directly associated with the piece of rock in question.
I don't see in this article exactly how they came up with the 7,000 BCE (9,000 year old) figure. Basing it on the way it was made being similar to other "verified" artifacts is one trick they use but this layman finds that logic shaky at best.
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.