John, after eagerly scanning my quotes for anything to use against me as
usual, states:
>No, the making of wine is significantly after the beginnings of
>agriculture. It is currently accepted as being some time around 5,500
>BCE, and is associated with Flannery's "Secondary Products
>Revolution", which occurred significantly after the first flush of the
>neolithic in the Middle East (circa 8,500 BCE).
Right, 5500 BCE... which is... around the beginnings of agriculture IN
EUROPE... as I had said. If 500+ years is "significantly after", fine. I
don't care. With this, we may even make the timeframe tighter (5500-4000
BCE). However, that would be hasty since we really can't date the first
occurence of wine when we consider that pottery only goes back so far and
that people may have had other dishware before that. There could have been
wine left in wooden cups or jugs that have long since disintegrated, leaving
no evidence for the unthinking archaeologist to find. But the origin of wine
and the origin of agriculture are probably hand-in-hand in the end, so this
is why I use agriculture as the marker. What was John's point again? I would
implore John to read my posts carefully before zealously attacking them.
The rest of John's message about his usual skepticism of the date of
proto-Semitic and other unsubstantiable points of view are something that I
don't care to wrestle with him on again.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com