1st February 2012, 10:35 AM
quintaine Wrote: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.
There are a number of reasons why there is a distinction between crystal gazers and archaeologists. First is that crystal gazing produces no results better than we would expect than from chance. Archaeologists use and develop a set of methods and techniques that produce results and that can be refined and honed as new data and technologies become available. Also archaeological techniques are open to, and hopefully accepting of, criticism in order to better refine these methods. Even the most subjective of archaeological practices, phenomenology, produces results which can be brought into making a narrative of a site or landscape. Crystal gazing however is simply the practice of 'making shit up'. Where phenomenology says "I feel, or see this" crystal gazers are wont to say "they felt, they saw, they thought".
Diversity of practice is a good thing. The mingling of aerial archaeology, remote sensing, field survey, experiential approaches, excavation, landscape studies, computer modeling, studying the ethical and philosophical ramifications of archaeological work, developing new theoretical approaches to interpretation of sites and artefacts all serve to make archaeology a rich and diverse field. it is because of this diversity that debate and argument are so lively, though I don't think it is anymore so than in any other discipline to be honest.
Crystal gazing, dowsing and making shit up however are not archaeology as the results they claim to produce, at best, are no better than chance. At best these cranks are harmless and have no impact outside their own community of believers. At worst we have people committing suicide out of fear that the Mayans predicted the end of the world this coming December. A claim given validity by people that we, as archaeologists, should be bitch slapping into oblivion. Yes 'History' channel I'm looking at you. *shakes fist at the USA*
Quote:I'm afraid you cannot judge who is and who isn't simply because they don't fit into your narrow parametersSorry but that's mince. Words have meaning and social context. Someone who has thrown a couple of stones off a ledge to see which hits the floor first is not a physicist. They may call themselves that but it still won't be true. Similarly someone sat in a pub spraffing about the ills of society is not a sociologist, or a stoner laying in a field at night watching the milky way pass over head thinking about aliens is not an astronomer.