[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: orion RE: ostracon locus
Once again, even an elementary grasp of methodology would be useful here.
Strange can say *anything* and *everything* he wants after the fact. It will
not change his bulldozer into a teaspoon, nor his moved artefact into an in
> From: stephen goranson[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: 17, december 1998 15.34
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: orion RE: ostracon locus
> Fred Cryer evidently has some difficulty in accurately characterizing the
> archaeological information, information which goes against his proposed
> reading of the ostracon, a reading (in SJOT) which, in any case, was
> rejected by Greg Doudna, regarded skeptically by P. Callaway, and
> thought not worth comment by Cross, Eshel, or Yardeni.
> Please note that Prof. Strange's information includes two posts on
> 26 Aug 1997 as well as one on 2 Sept.
> the posts of 26 August 1997 at
> >> http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/19970825.txt
> >> and of 2 September 1997 at
> >> http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/19970901.txt
> >> Unlike some publications which have misunderstood the
> >> archaeological context of this ostracon find, Prof. Strange graciously
> >> provided a reliable account. I, for one, thank him.
> Stephen Goranson