Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Unitof1 Wrote:[FONT=Arial]Eh are also landowners, owners of monuments and statutory advisors to planning applications.
Only one of those statements is (partly) true.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
if you like your archaeology served up by nationalists be my guest, enjoy the banal jobs worth scam, in this case tax money from qurries to support other tax jobs through some grant or other patting their own commitees backs. Was there a tender for the work? Still kev they probably let you play with their machinery on some short term contract.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
[QUOTE=Unitof1;66347 Still kev they probably let you play with their machinery on some short term contract.[/QUOTE]
Yes the machinery is fun but the best bit is when they give me the occasional biscuit.....but seriously I have so many short-term contracts, it's a full time job to fit them all in...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
so as a biscuit taker makes you the representative of the new how to date everything paradigm and you must then have to explain how the new wonderbar works. Correct me if I am wrong, the method takes a load of radiocarbon dates which have something to do with mostly sand a gravel areas and that did not obviously suggest what ever it is the eh is now telling us is in the holy book but that when you mix them up with baysian statistics which you have to do with a collaboration (pay to give you an answer) with a professor in a maths department and half a million squids of grants money which you allocate to yourself under no pressure that it now makes it very clear on which exact day the battle of the mesolithic ended at any particular place in britain but it started at dover and that the radiocarbon dates were right all the time although they still do not obviously suggest what ever eh is going to write on its storyborads
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Unitof1 Wrote:so as a biscuit taker makes you the representative of the new how to date everything paradigm and you must then have to explain how the new wonderbar works. Correct me if I am wrong, the method takes a load of radiocarbon dates which have something to do with mostly sand a gravel areas and that did not obviously suggest what ever it is the eh is now telling us is in the holy book but that when you mix them up with baysian statistics which you have to do with a collaboration (pay to give you an answer) with a professor in a maths department and half a million squids of grants money which you allocate to yourself under no pressure that it now makes it very clear on which exact day the battle of the mesolithic ended at any particular place in britain but it started at dover and that the radiocarbon dates were right all the time although they still do not obviously suggest what ever eh is going to write on its storyborads
sublime - fantastic stuff unit - dont you get any grants then?
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
Unit is right. no single view should be taken as gospel. Just because it has Bayesian in the title does not mean all other epistemological issues have been dealt with. Archaeological data is very fuzzy data.
However, as a tool, Bayesian statistical approaches relying on mutually connected probabilities of differing events is as good as any other - used badly it is like a shovel to pick teeth.
but it is an excellent tool for trying to untangle webs of connected probabilities....whether Bayliss et al have got this one right, will require review from persons with similar expertise. The results should not however predetermine approaches to archaeological sites or the material evidence they contain. Other issues (taphonomy, individual site integrity etc) might also be considered in detailed critique of particular sites.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:Unit is right. no single view should be taken as gospel. Just because it has Bayesian in the title does not mean all other epistemological issues have been dealt with. Archaeological data is very fuzzy data.
However, as a tool, Bayesian statistical approaches relying on mutually connected probabilities of differing events is as good as any other - used badly it is like a shovel to pick teeth.
but it is an excellent tool for trying to untangle webs of connected probabilities....whether Bayliss et al have got this one right, will require review from persons with similar expertise. The results should not however predetermine approaches to archaeological sites or the material evidence they contain. Other issues (taphonomy, individual site integrity etc) might also be considered in detailed critique of particular sites.
i dont think the authors or anybody else is chanting gospel and lets face it, none of it is knowable, but the quest, the joy is in the quest
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
the joy is in the being index linked paye statutory authority telling everybody what the truth is based on apriori assumptions using grant money that you allocated to yourself
cha-ching
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
gwyl Wrote:
well, you know how these things are. agriculture probably took a little while to catch on outside of the cosmopolitan southeast, like cappucinos, crystal balls, spelling and all the other great stuff we got from the Romans over the years
Check out the nightclub bit in Get Carter (the original), the Mayfair in Newcastle had glitter-balls even back then, so at least some markers of civilisation spread pretty fast! }
Prehistory is 'complete bollocks' says radiocarbon expert
