Oh thats a shame..........

[Jack]

I was just getting into the heated discussion on pseudo-archaeology when it ended! Serves me right for being out in the field and missing most of it.

We need more interesting discussion on here, too much agreement (honest!).

Whatshisface may have been hot-headed and seemed to have already decided the result before he/she had even typed a single word.............and he/she seemed to have missed the point entirely............

But I feel we missed the point too.

To an outside observer, archaeology does seem like a bunch of stuffy old 'experts' and 'academics' who dismiss mere mortals with a casual scoff.

I feel that I have been guilty of this in the past too.

The problem is, to those 'not in the club', critical discourse can seem like dismissive ranting.

It takes an understanding of the process to gain an understanding of what people are trying to argue and counter-argue.

I wish more 'cranks', 'free-thinkers', pseudo-archaeologists, hobbyists, or just interested non-archaeologists posted on this forum to liven up the debate.

As an archaeologist (and scientist) I feel its part of our mandate to teach as well as discover. Without input from further afield I sometimes feel like this forum is stuck in its own stagnant mire of bitter and malignant souls beaten down by the rigors of our craft.

So I say welcome the crazed rantings, invite theories new and outlandish, relish in looking at things from the other side of the harris fence.................

But explain to those timid civies that our rough ways and abrupt arguments are the well-meaning critiques, jibes and discourses of interested professionals trying not to stifle others freedoms, imaginations or colourful views of the past, but to teach, guide and hopefully learn new insights along the way.

Archaeology is for all, but equally for all. Everyone's deeply held pet theories are nothing until they have been subject to the rigors of a forum of critique. Only those that survive the test of fire emerge stronger and ready to progress human knowledge.

(Anyone would have thought it was Friday or something)

So to start us all off..............(difficult to stay within archaeology)...............but my favourite pet theory (amongst many) not my own work though is........

Typology should be abandoned as a means of dating.

Although typological studies and categorisation have proven useful in ordering developments within the manufacture of objects. It has been shown as woefully inadequate in providing dating frameworks. Its time for a greater use and reliance in scientific dating.

Discuss

[the invisible man]

We need more interesting discussion on here, too much agreement (honest!).

No there isn't.

[Welsh Andy]

No there isn't.

Yes there is.

[Welsh Andy]

Although typological studies and categorisation have proven useful in ordering developments within the manufacture of objects. It has been shown as woefully inadequate in providing dating frameworks. Its time for a greater use and reliance in scientific dating.

Is typology used as anything more than an extremely vague preliminary means of dating though? The sort that would be done in the field and would only show up in a final report as an aside before the actual dating from other means was detailed? I'm 2/3 of the way through my degree and typology is talked about as 'traditionally we do this but..." or is something that is used by curators for organising displays.

[BAJR]

I wish more 'cranks', 'free-thinkers', pseudo-archaeologists, hobbyists, or just interested non-archaeologists posted on this forum to liven up the debate.

And would 'we' remain polite and discuss each one as a valid proposition? and keep doing that after the 9th one?

I speak from experience. I agree there is nothing wrong with listening and nodding. It is just the constant wearing down.

Anyway... to set you off... try this one. I would be intersted in how people would answer this one. Do they have a point? Should I reply? WHat do you say. ? and more importantly can you spend the time ( 3 or four times a week) to research enough about it to show why they are wrong..

as a test. see how long it takes you to put together a convincing case that shows both why this is most likely wrong ( my opinion only - you may disagree) AND how better they could carry out the research with the sure and certain knowledge that they will ignore what you say anyway, given they have already created a book/website/life based on the original theory they ask you to look at - but they really mean is you have to agree with them or be seen as one of "those" academic orthodox blinkered muppets ( my fave insult that I have recioeved. )

So... this person has not had a reply. Lets see how much patience you have Looks intersting to start with.... now read on

Hello, and thank you for sharing so much fascinating information on Past Horizons. I have been collecting information that links megalithic sites and ancient trade routes. I believe these sites served utilitarian purposes including, but not limited to, navigation, safe corridors for the transportation of goods and people, housing and storage in a time of archery warfare. Their form and placement i suggest have more to do with commerce than simply ceremony and this is why their popularity spread across a vast span of space and time. Like agriculture and pottery the arts of commerce and war were becoming more sophisticated.

Please do have a read at: http://www.ancienttrenches.com
Any more insight
or information on this would be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Drusin

https://sites.google.com/site/ancienttrenches/home

[BAJR]

I do however agree that more public questions and thought s would make it more intersting. a sensible question often challenges more than an academic noodling one.

But we are quite scary as well. bit like the lions in an arena!

[Dinosaur]

Typology should be abandoned as a means of dating.

Although typological studies and categorisation have proven useful in ordering developments within the manufacture of objects. It has been shown as woefully inadequate in providing dating frameworks. Its time for a greater use and reliance in scientific dating...

What u mean like post-Med pot specialists actually reading the dated factory stamps on the bottom of the pots (eg. Feb 1827) rather than suggesting on typological grounds that its "18th/19th century"? -depressing how often that happens....have been tempted to take site assemblages along to the Antiques Roadshow where they'll even tell you who painted the flowers on it....and for free... :face-thinks:

[kevin wooldridge]

Well I gave Ancient Trenches a go, but it is typical of this type of website and this kind of speculation.

The biggest problem is that there are far too many unsustainable assertions littering the text. Mainly I got the impression the author is well meaning, but has had very little critical feedback, not on their thoughts or ideas, but on an ordered way in which to promote and support a premise and from that suggest a hypothesis. I counted 9 unsustained assertions in the first 21 lines of text. Failing to reference any serious archaeological research upon which their premise is based is one thing. Referencing any number of 'publications' or web-sites clearly produced by lunatics is another! Again mixing metaphors, chronologies, fact and fiction are the kind of errors that I suspect occur because the author had not been critically schooled in the ways of presenting an argument that is deserving of academic attention.

That said, what did I think of the main thrust of the authors theory, overlooking the petty details of presentation or attribution? Ummmm.....I don't think it is sustainable. The author should go away and read something by say Richard Bradley to have some idea of the complexity of the relationship between ritual and the common-place and maybe the works of Jez Bentham to understand where the term 'utiiitarian' comes from!! They also need to understand how modern day concepts such as 'trade' cannot be applied uncritically to earlier societies or cultures. The militaristic aspect of the piece (rocks make good things to hide behind) is probably more appropriate to mid 20th century cowboy movies. I suspect also that the author may have spent far too much time reading Lord of the Rings.....

That said I have recently heard a not dissimilar perspective on the subject voiced on Time Team by someone claiming to be a professor of archaeology, so maybe this is about to become mainstream and us diehard non-believer uber-critical archaeologists will be dismissed to the unsunny side of the spoil-heap where the naughty and unattractive boys and girls are sent to play - of course other BAJRites may (will) have other views.

[BAJR]

Next one - you see how annoying it gets... (oh, I will use that reply above - if that is ok) and reply to the person, and we will see the response. It is quite encouraging and so he should take it well. we will see.

Take a drive or walk down any country road that is surrounded by either hills or valleys and you will see strange grassy mounds spread sporadically across Britain’s landscape. These mounds are known to archaeologists as ‘barrows’ and ‘tumuli’ on Ordnance Survey maps. Furthermore, they are some of the oldest prehistoric monuments in our history.
This article explains the current interpretation of these objects in their various forms. Moreover, it also looks at recent new and past evidence that link these ‘sign posts’ as prehistoric markers for our ancient ancestors who travelled by land and boat.
In conclusion, it is shown that these are relics could only belong to a ‘lost civilisation’ that lived in the Mesolithic Period (9000BC – 4000BC) who travelled too and constructed our famous monuments by boat following these incredible sign posts. What’s more, it asks the question whether the current dating of these artefacts need to be reassessed in the light of these new discoveries and theories.
Author: Bob Davis – Journalist and Publisher
http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.com/20...-lost.html

[loupiote]

The man responsible for the wild theories in this last website (http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.com/20...-lost.html) is called Robert John Langdon? Really? Like the Harvard dude who unearths the secrets of the Mona Lisa and other Illuminati conspiracies, culminating in the discovery of the last living descendant of the Christ in the oh so scientifically convincing Da Vinci Code? Well' HE's Robert Adrian Langdon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Langdon), but close enough. Coincidence? I think not.