Dear Gill & Peter,
Some explanation is necessary here. I'm archaeologist to the Tamar Mining Group, of which Rick is also a member. He has been ribbing me for years about archaeologists using the excuse 'its a ritual site' when they can't think of any other explanation. I can assure you he was joking! Probably...........
Robert
========================================
Message Received: Feb 13 2006, 12:09 PM
From: "Gill Smith"
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Ritual Protection Marks
Ritual?, Surely the last refuge of the confused archaeologist.
I'm an archaeologist - sometimes confused.More confused when I'm doing non
archaeological 'stuff'
Ritual is something that has to be accepted as a part of life then and now.
This has been a very interesting topic
Gill Smith
N Wales
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Burgess"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Ritual Protection Marks
> Rick
>
> I am neither confused, nor am I an archaeologist.
>
> I always try to have an open mind on anything that could be interpreted in
> a variety of ways. Similar marks in caves have been interpreted as ritual.
> I merely suggest that this avenue of interpretation should be explored.
>
> To deny that humans have undertaken ritual acts in a number of ways,
> throughout many centuries right up to the current age (crossing fingers,
> touching wood etc) would be a puzzling thing for an intelligent researcher
> to do. I hasten to add that I am not accusing anyone here of closing their
> mind to the possibility of the marks being ritual.
>
> The study of these marks in in its early stages. It may not come to much,
> but raising it here gives others the opportunity to give consideration to
> the matter.
>
> Peter Burgess
>
|