Merryn Dineley wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
>> Merryn Dineley wrote:
>>> ... 'prehistoric salt water communities'? (and more)
>>> I wonder if I am alone in thinking that this is archaeological
>>> theoretical language gone crazy?
>> How would you distinguish archaeological theoretical language that
>> has gone crazy from archaeological theoretical language that has not
>> gone crazy?
> One is clearly understandable, the other is not.
And when have you ever seen the former?