Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[quintaine]

*Does this mean that, in your eyes, I am displaying false consciousness and that truly I should throw my lot in with the crystal gazers?

but even you are making a differentiation between crystal gazers and archaeologists, why can it not be both. Can you not accept that perhaps it could be a good thing that diversity of practice is intermingling into archaeology and if you don't certain practices then mention the practices, not just attack the whole belief system of the person carrying them out, because that does not show archaeologists in a very good light at all. If you read my past posts you will see that I make a point about archaeologists judging by belief and I for one was not in favour of it.

No it is actually the point. You can't actually name one, cos I am damned if I can think of one.

Well can you think of an archaeological theory that has been proved true?

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.

But of course you see it that way, you are seeing it from the archaeological perspective. Years of theory, practice and dogma means that you can only see one way of doing something and to relinquish belief would make you some kind of traitor. I can imagine too that is how the so-called cranks feel about their opinions and yes work. How do you know what work others put in unless you are there to oversee it, aren't we being a tad omnipotent here?

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.

I have never been on a site where anyone would be arrogant enough to believe for one instant that a shard of pottery is of a certain date ergo the layer must be the same date. I have never seen any item of material culture which can prove conclusivley an exact timeframe and so can never produce evidence why it can't be, only why it may not be. Archaeological theories that suggest this stratigraphic thinking would be blown to hell and was in the Five Points excavation in New York where in one layer items from 1840 ish were mixed with detritus from 1900 and yes even from 1940s London and that was just the small percentage that could be reasonably dated.

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!

First of all, don't worry, second try not to be so condescending, third, as I said so-called pseudo archaeology doesn't work the same as practiced in universities nor was it meant to, accept it.

and finally archaeology is for all, I'm afraid you cannot judge who is and who isn't simply because they don't fit into your narrow parameters