> And I would note that for my own research nothing
> would be more bonerific than if this wharf did in
> fact have an earlier Mesopotamian provenance as
> this would be clear validation for my theories,
> but its not there and unlike some I am not going
> to make something out of nothing just to affirm my
> own beliefs. This is not how science works. We do
> not bend the evidence to our will, we bend to its.
Our obviously different definitions of "science" notwithstanding, you absolutely are the one that's bending the evidence to your will.
You see a 30 year old car coming down the street, and without considering whether the car has already gone through 5 different owners that live hundreds of miles away from each other, you jump to the conclusion - with insulting certainty - that the last guy seen driving it must definitely be the only guy who's ever owned it since there is no other evidence in the car that it was ever owned by someone else. You illogically bend the evidence to fit your preconceived notion without considering the other real possibilities. Meanwhile, if I suggest that this 30 year old car might have been purchased as a used car multiple times before this guy bought it, you cry that I have no evidence for saying that since we only see the one guy driving it today and so you accuse me of being the one that's bending the "evidence".
And the irony is that you CAN indeed logically invoke the Mesopotamians as a possible provenance but for whatever reason you refuse to do so.
You're right, this discussion is indeed careening at the brink of Sillyville.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?