Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says in
> Sorry, Inger, that does not make sense. You are using a
> personal definition of 'confirmed'. Confirmed to virtually any
> archaeologist would mean an artefact that is accepted as
> authentic by what some people call the 'archaeological
> establishment' -- and accepted *now*, in 2005. A forgotten
> artefact that someone in the early 40s said was authentic
> doesn't count.
Doug, who really cares what Inger calls confirmed or authentic. She
blabs about confirmed iron when she is talking about some undefined
fire pit. She cannot even keep the type of evidence strait.
She doesn't know the difference between primary literature and
primary sources, between peer-reviewd and pay perveiw. That anyone
still talks to her is amazing.
Tom has got her pegged right on the numbers, she is just one pile of
BS after another.