wideford wrote:
The old-time antiquarians always took into account other sites in the area of any particular site of interest. Then archaeologists started treating stuff in isolation. Now the spiral brings us landscape archaeology [first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is]. But this often reduces to geology and geography. How I see it is that having thrown oot what they thought 'bathwater' the ritual landscape is their attempt to put the 'baby' back [or is it tub-thumping].
Hi Wideford,
I guess my feelings are known. I can see A link between evolved and constructed landscapes; it's the current trend to label joined structures into some kind of "ritual" framework that bothers me: partly because it pre-supposes that there was a societal mindset that required it, and partly because it does nothing to represent the aesthetic of the landscape in the argument: the landscape only becomes "important" when it is tied in to some controlling theism doctrine - which is derived from the people within it (in a cross-country grouping). I'm not denying that RL's don't exist, but it's just wearing a bit thin is all. And of course, the fact that these "facts" are coming out of the box in corner of the living room mean that they MUST be true rather than the latest vogue idea. I therefore believe that before spouting off about their latest theory in order to further their own particular opinions or careers, the experts (i.e academics) should take along hard look at what exactly they are trying to do: which SHOULD be to inform and interest the public, and stimulate wider debate on the subject: NOT to use the opportunity to promote THEIR theory as the right one. And of course, the TV companies need to follow that too.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
