> Oh, well. This shows SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY that Dr. Thiering speaks
> to archaeology.
Why is important that sci.archaeology (no need to shout, honest) knows
Thiering 'speaks legitimately to archaeology'?
BTW, I accept your observation (which squares with mine) that the
sundial does not have good provenance, but is almost certainly the same
artifact de Vaux noted in 1954 as a stone disk.
While this does not give us perfect confidence that the thingie is the
same thingie de Vaux dug up, it is good enough to be going on with for
Now are you going to discuss the need for an odometer in the Qumran
community, and/or the issue Stacey brought up that Qumran was not in
the middle of nowhere in the late first millenium BCE?