<HTML>Well, to clarify what you said:
CD:
>However, because <b>they were intrusive rather than original</b> the question becomes, ...
You wrote it as a fact that all burials are intrusions. This is plainly wrong because the intrusion matter is DEBATED. You turned this without any further information to a fact.
On the other hand I EXPLAINED why the Snofru foot for example is an original burial. You can dispute the facts I gave there, eg. the singular bandaged toes. If you have FACTS showing that a similar bandaging practique was used in later periodes you can counter this facts I gave.
This is impossible with your way of turning suggestions to facts. This is the difference between our way of arguing.
FD</HTML>
