31st January 2012, 10:01 PM
Quote:But that is the difference, if you prove a so-called 'pseudo' theory true it dies, loses its value and mystique and is no more.
No it is actually the point. You can't actually name one, cos I am damned if I can think of one.
Archaeological theory is based on and derives from actual information which can be tested, which can be subjected to scrutiny. Pseudo Archaeology may be sexy, but derives it's power from what if, rather than hard work.
Believe me, I have just spent two years in just such a position as well. all the way from Templars to Phonecians in America, from Ancient Steel Technologies and even some Arthur as well. When I present actual evidence why it can't be ( for example, the pottery is xx in date therefore the site is pretty definitely xx in date... ) it does not matter, because the pseudo starts with the idea and then looks for evidence. I - as an archaeologist start with evidence and then create theories, which are fluid as new information comes in and demolishes the previous construct... I really don't mind... it is exciting. But I change I adapt, I take on new information to further hone a theory. the crank does not.
If you can't see that, I worry... so I can say that every archaeology theory is based on available data. so... to strengthen your beleif, tell me any pseudo theory that has been shown to be even worth the words.
tic toc... er... um... tic toc... yepp... waiting? any... ? um...
If it is about making money, then your next site should be a crystal camelot. rather than a slightly grey brown sandy silt with 4 quartzite debitage fragments. make it frags of the crystal pyramid after it was destroyed by the great ancients with leyser technology. you will make more money... but ./..... you are no longer an archaeologist.
pschaw!