Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[quintaine]

Now finally./ You (quintaine) asked for an archaeological theory that had been proved. Rudely using the counter question rather than answer my original one. This is a cheap shot... but here we go. in return. You give me a similar number of pseudo theories that have been verified.

Here we go....

[I]Archaeology has proved that there was a progression of technologies and various times and in various locations that each precede and directly allow the subsequent technology.
So Stone is followed by Ceramic technology is followed by metal technologies

Archaeology has proved nothing of the sort, it is still a theory 'The Progressionist Theory' and it is highly controversial due to its colonial implications. Some sites fit this theory, many do not. It is used by people who think ceramics and metal technologies signify more advanced societies and who consider indigenous tribes backward and incapable of building structures such as Great Zimbabwe.

Iron Age people in Britain lived in circular structures on average 8m-9m in diameter. They ate a variety of foodstuffs including pig, cattle and grain (we even know what type of grains)

"Some" Iron Age people lived in circular structures, some may have used them as livestock pens. Their diet may have been varied and may have included pig, cattle and grain but just because all of these items were found in a midden, it doesn't mean they were all eaten at the same period or even by the same generation. The grain may have been used to feed said cattle and pigs, however, none of this can be proven, unless you have some insider knowledge.

The battle of Prestonpans (1745) was in a different location that previously thought, and given the mix of round shot and cannister shot, it is clear that the govt forces fired more than one round of fire.

The ratio of round shot to cannister shot may suggest that govt forces fired more than one round but it is one of many possibilities. Nothing is proven here, nothing is clear. It is indeed tantalising evidence and it substantiates a theory, not a fact.

The spacing of British troops at Isandwana would have a direct impact on the reasons for the defeat

Again a theory based on finds and accounts, not a fact.

Roman hypocaust systems and the technical functioning of the systems are well understood.

These systems are, from certain standpoints, well understood but it would be a big leap to say they are totally understood.

The earliest cereal farming takes place in the levant /mesopotamia and anatolia

According to archaeological data- at present, the earliest farming may have taken place in these regions, but does the absence of evidence always mean evidence of absence, sorry but it's not a fact it is based on the "fertile crescent theory".

Early churches are often located on earlier ritual sites.

Is this a test on whether your statement is fact or determining archaeological facts?
Your statement is fact, early churches are often (not always) located on earlier ritual sites. In archaeological terms, findings "suggest"...etc...

The location of the quarry for stonehenge bluestones is known.

The geological sub-strata associated with the bluestones has been identified, there are, however, numerous candidates for the quarry location. Theory, not fact.

Roman field systems and farms overlie Iron Age systems.

What, all over the world, or even in Europe, that's a bit of a sweeping statement and a bit progressionist. What about Ireland. Except for scant evidence of Roman occupation on Lambay Island and a small site on coastal Wexford, no overlying Roman field systems there.

I seem to be just stating knowns. but you can't actually do that for pseudo archaeology.

And as I stated before, no pseudo archaeologist in the world wants facts. They deal in, as someone put it, "the what ifs" it's just that the media like them better because they offer a bunch of easy answers, enthrall their viewers/ followers and avoid, for the most part, alienating them by disingenuosly putting questions out there when they quite clearly already have an answer firmly in their mind.

Which brings me nicely to the first part of your "question" Seeing as you already have made up your mind regarding the included passage there would be no sense in trying to debate the issue. Just don't set me up as a posterboy for your hate crusade against pseudo archaeologists. I am not in favour of Pseudo Archaeology, I am in favour of an inclusive and rationally minded archaeology, which, I am afraid seems to be a lost cause here.