8th June 2011, 05:02 PM
and you know the best bit about medieval and post-medieval archaeology - not to mention archaeology of the 20th C? you can test those hypotheses with increasing reliability. the 'problem' with prehistory is the magnitude of the time-scales and the amount that happened here in NW europe, which was frankly a bit of a backwater. looking to the east and the depth of strat and quality of gear is gopping. archaeology from NW europe will never compare; equally, if the theoretical discourses emanating from the near east are passable but not great, how much less developed are they going to be here, where we have a rnage of material culture and structural forms which are again not comparable.
come to the medieval and post-med and we are if not cooking with gas, at least matches in hand and looking for to turn it on...
for sure med needs more theory, and there is nothing cuter than a med arch squirming under the threat of theory, but whatev's; it's whatever does it for you. and surely not THAT rigid?
come to the medieval and post-med and we are if not cooking with gas, at least matches in hand and looking for to turn it on...
for sure med needs more theory, and there is nothing cuter than a med arch squirming under the threat of theory, but whatev's; it's whatever does it for you. and surely not THAT rigid?
Your Courage Your Cheerfulness Your Resolution
Will Bring US Victory
Will Bring US Victory