Oh thats a shame..........

[P Prentice]

and so did i

[CARTOON REALITY]

Me too!

Sorry what are we talking about?

[P Prentice]

Me too!

Sorry what are we talking about?

not what butt where from

[CARTOON REALITY]

Rooty-Toot-Toot!

[Dinosaur]

and so did i

Not since page 8, and no real mention since page 6? - was hoping everyone had forgotten and I could advance it as a whole new premise....:I

[P Prentice]

you must be right bored if you have the time and inclination to go hunting back through threads

[Dinosaur]

Fishing medieval potsherds out of a mid 1990s fieldwalking archive to send off to a specialist, so yes, refreshing break from the dust thanks! :face-approve:

[Ken Denham]

What !!! Just a bow tie?

Well, ok then if you insist.

[Dinosaur]

Should just about cover your modesty :I

[Jack]

i may have taken liberties with the actualitea but i was making the point that absolute dating is just another technique we use - just like typology

Yep, but I would still argue (ad nauseum) that some archaeologists still have a bad habit of ignoring scientific dating results if it doesn't fit with what is 'expected' from typologically-base frameworks.
It should be the other way around.................as long as the results themselves are critically assessed too.

Its time to stop squeezing the facts into the shaky tower of the three age system.

But to make my rantings clearer, I see the three age system as the foundation of typology, the idea that objects can be cataloged into a timeline, each with its own time slot. Ignoring the facts such as: curation of objects, forgery of objects, re-use, differential use of objects over distance, reburial, technology not advancing only forwards....to name a few.