Great — all of that is a part of the theory that I linked you about as part of a scholarly article about two different types of research methodology. I’m sorry that you aren’t sophisticated enough to understand what it means, or that you don’t agree with his scientific methodology (which you’ve just admitted that you don’t actually understand) but that’s not really my problem. He’s one of the most respected anthropologists in the world. Cambridge and Stanford are well known for associating with crappy scientists…. snort! The Queen typically honors cranks. Ha!
And, I linked you the Wikipedia page I referenced right from the beginning and also told you again that’s what it was, including mentioning that it references 45 scholarly research documents. It was more succinct than linking the 20 other stories I found that say the same thing. Here’s exactly what I said.
“That’s why I quoted to you from a Wikipedia story with 45 citations to scholarly articles.” Below is the actual link of what I said.
What I know is what anthropologists, archeologists, climatologists and art historians tell me…
This below is a quote from that page. That’s why it’s marked with the bar that indicates it’s a quote block.
Çatalhöyük has strong evidence of an egalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures. Çatalhöyük
See those little underline thingies -those are hotlinks. That’s how research is indicated in modern times. Hover your cursor over them and you can click on them to go to the reference that was cited.
This has been so much fun talking with you, but now I’m on to other more interesting conversations that are actually going somewhere productive. Ta!