1st February 2012, 08:02 PM
BAJR Wrote: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.
But why is it up to "the archaeologist" to prove anyone wrong. What is wrong with formulating and publishing your own theories and add them to the pool of other possible ones and let the public decide. Professional media archaeologists let themselves get set up as the rebuffer, just look at Robert R. Cargill. PhD The viewer sees the archaeologist constantly saying "This can't happen, that didn't happen and I'm not even going to get started on that theory etc.." Why do archaeologists feel the need to police archaeology? Just because there are two or more distinct archaeological theories out there, must we choose one or be damned for all eternity? Likewise must we castegate others at the first opportunity?
BAJR Wrote: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.To attack or defend pseudo-archaeologists. Are they the only options? If one of your archaeological associates has a different opinion than you, would you attack it, ridicule it, grind it into the gound, or would you put forward your own and discuss it, keeping in mind that it's not a war, no one has to win, and both of you come away a little more enlightened. Must it always be win/lose black/white. Can I not choose the third option of understanding where pseudo archaeologists are coming from, be entertained by the colourful theories scant as they often are on evidence after all the first keepers of the human story were, aparently, the story tellers.