The dawn of civilization

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

That is a tu quoque fallacy.  Any "Written word" has nothing to do with his claim.  He either has something that objectively provides a date, or there's no reason to assume it as being objective. 

As far as your objection on its own, I never dated anything in such a way, so I don't see why I would need to justify it.

What the what now?

Uhm..... you started mentioning 'The written word', not myself.

I asked you why you seemed to have such a high metric for 'The written word'.

My position was that there are/were more methods for transferring and storing information (As it pertains to human ideas) than just 'The written word'. Hence my recommendation to reading Prof Kelly's book.

As for archeologists and anthropologist? I would say 'Yes' they have robust methods for working out the dates of the things they are studying.

Even if I did say "written word", I certainly never asserted a date.  If you feel I did, please provide the post #, and I will gladly apologize and retract my statement.  But I'm certain I never dated anything 6000 years old, on the basis I don't believe that as being likely, so it wouldn't make sense for me to proclaim such a thing.  So no chance of me even whoppsying it into a post.  Regardless, it's still independent of his assertion.

I know there are archeologists and anthropologists who attempt to date things, but in most cases they can come up with a rough estimate at best.  Of course some events are easier to approximate than others.

As far as your question about having a "high metric", can you maybe clarify what you are looking for.  High metric in regard to what?  I'm not trying to dodge it but rather answer it more thoughtfully in the context in which you are attempting to ask it.