From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V6 #182 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Thursday, October 5 2006 Volume 06 : Number 182 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] RE: ancient sumer's xena [cr ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:44:24 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] RE: ancient sumer's xena On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:12, LAS wrote: > sekhmet wrote: > >Well, I'm not disputing your basic premise that an archaeologist's > > presuppositions can affect his interpretations of a site and its > > artifacts, because after years of study that's obvious to me, but > > "disposed of" covers a lot of [ground]. > > yes, thanks for asking the question, especially if a well-known > archaeologist's reputation is being questioned. how can we find out? i > also don't have access for financial reasons to sources on the web. i > feel predisposed, however, to contact mccaffrey. to ask what the word > "disposed" means. > > IS she STATING this; > and yes admittedly i jumped the gun on this; being aggravated as i am > about how finds related to women's lives have been misinterpreted, etc, > for instance as relates to goddess worshipping issues and artifacts in > many cultures. i assumed she chose the word "disposed" intentionally. > the tone of her writing sounded pretty rational, not hyped up > emotionally. so the question is, did she mean the word she used and > what did it mean, or as you suggested, were those bones among those > transferred to the royal college of surgeons. > > is that a source where mccaffrey did some of her research? > i assume behind her abstract was some very deep research. but thanks for > encouraging going deeper and staying clear. however, my allegedly > jumping the gun still might have been accurate. and so may her claim, > whether we like it or not. i claim the right to righteous indignation. : > ) Methinks you're definitely jumping the gun. I'd suggest your immediate interpretation of 'disposed of' in the most prejudicial way says something about your own bias Suggest waiting to exercise your righteous indignation until it's established (if that is possible) exactly what Woolley did do with the bones (and whether it was any different from his treatment of male bones). Further - if there was such a strong prejudice against the mere idea of ancient female leaders, then why was the Boadicea legend so widely popular? (I say 'legend' not to cast doubts on Boadicea's existence, but because many of the stories about her are undoubtedly embellished - just like King Arthur). cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V6 #182 **************************************