Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[Bodger51]

there is psuedo archaeology and psuedo science

the only difference is the relevance and approriate weighting of stakeholder partispation.

The political aspect is then down to engagement and interest when considering the appropriate remits for functional sectors


even computers need to break sometimes

[Oxbeast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test


Turing test fail!

[monty]

Should Archaeology been accepting of Pseudo Archaeologists? OR Should it resist it.

..........................accept !..... after all they may be right.......... and just how is a pseudoarchaeologist defined ......it's all theorising any way ...

[monty]

there is psuedo archaeology and psuedo science

the only difference is the relevance and approriate weighting of stakeholder partispation.

The political aspect is then down to engagement and interest when considering the appropriate remits for functional sectors

could we have this in plain English please .........

[Welsh Andy]

Wasn't that Holtorf article from 6/7 years ago?

[kevin wooldridge]

I think one of the dangers in defining archaeology s too precise terms may hinder new approaches to archaeology and/or a widening of the discipline. Just in my 30 years in archaeology I have seen Post-Medieval and Industrial archaeology go from hobbyist backwater to mainstream archaeology, phenomenology and landscape archaeology accepted as legitimate approaches to the subject, various scientific techniques move from 'Tomorrows World' to everyday tools and at that same time other approaches attempted and abandoned. I think we should go for the broad church and 'don't scare the horses' approach and let most people follow their inclinations. Doesn't do us any harm to be inclusive after all......most people think we are loopy anyway!!

[Jack]

...................<snip>. phenomenology and landscape archaeology accepted as legitimate approaches to the subject, ......................!

Tut, tut. I'd query that phenomenology has been 'accepted as legitimate' by anyone except the loons:face-stir:

Why is it that archaeologists feel its important to include anything other than reasoned arguments utilising an accurate assessment of the evidence..........(i.e. scientific reasoning).


If you stray from this path you'll end up with flawed and unsubstantiated conclusions which do little except set current knowledge back a few decades.

Evidence is the key. Anything else is just superstition and magic.

[monty]

Evidence is the key. Anything else is just superstition and magic.

.....the key maybe.....depends on how the 'evidence' is interpreted.............superstition and magic ? ...would this be people actually using their imagination for once..... instead of sticking to rigidity of theory......as they are only theories when all is said and done !!

[kevin wooldridge]

Tut, tut. I'd query that phenomenology has been 'accepted as legitimate' by anyone except the loons

They maybe don't explicitly use the P-word, but I would suggest that all of the following are pretty mainstream and phenomenonological in nature:

The English Heritage document: Heritage Counts - A Sense of Place,
The PPS5 document references to planners to consider not just monuments or sites but the setting and public perception of local heritage,
Most historical re-enactment groups,
Most experiential archaeology projects,
Museums and heritage 'attractions such as the Yorvik Viking Centre where visitors are encouraged to 'see, hear and smell' the past,
Any archaeological reference to a 'ritual' landscape,
Most digital reconstructions or computer 'visualisations' based on heritage subjects,
etc etc etc

[P Prentice]

Why is it that archaeologists feel its important to include anything other than reasoned arguments utilising an accurate assessment of the evidence..........(i.e. scientific reasoning).


If you stray from this path you'll end up with flawed and unsubstantiated conclusions which do little except set current knowledge back a few decades.

Evidence is the key. Anything else is just superstition and magic.

you seem to be confused about what constitutes evidence and what is scientific reasoning jack
surely reasoning includes perspective, modelling, theorising and conjecture
fixating on reactionary doctrine alone is unlikely to advance the state of anyones knowledge