Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[BAJR]

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.

hmmmm really... an interesting answer that does not get away from the fact that people did not start with iron then give pottery a go then move to stone. it is a simple fact of life, you can't smelt bronze until you can make pottery, you can't make iron until you make bronze. unless it is introduced by another culture. etc. Nothing colonial in there and no intention to belittle any culture and it's technological level. I should also have added

Roman field systems and farms overlie Iron Age systems. IN SOUTH ENGLAND = there... factual enough? or do you think there is a chance that we can prove the Romans came before the Iron Age tribes?

You seem to ustilise the pseudo archaeology arguement whereby just because you say... "but what if" there is no need for further debate - it is up to me/the archaeologist to prove you wrong, rather than for a reasoned argument to be put forward. I cannot prove that a super civilisation does not exist (I may just not have found it yet) , therefore to the pseudo archaeologist this means it could exist and this means it does exist, and pass the royalties for the next book.

If you don't want to defend them, then I do not understand your argument. THey muddy waters, they confuse, they disseminate mis-information as fact...self reference and create a new history. they are (to my mind) the antithesis of all that is archaeology. The pursuit of the understadning of human history through material remains. NOT the pursuit of a fantasy bolstered by no material information at all. Or like the Bosnian Egg of Immortality - by jaw dropping audacity.

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.

Well you really could have fooled me. I am in favour of what TDUB suggests. and in fact I will leave the last word to TDUB, whose first post is a true gem.

This is the key difference between the 'pseudo' archaeologist and the professional as I see it. One (the latter) has enough associated knowledge to determine whether a statement is likely be false or correct, the other has not.