 |
 |
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 >