Littlestone wrote:
Nice feature on Mike Pitts’ Digging Deeper blog. Mike concludes by saying -
The 'problem' with our peers in archaeology is that much of it is based on what has gone before in days of old when antiquaries ruled the earth. Their ideas on the less iconic sites were embellished upon without further research even being made and became 'fact'. Joe Bloggs, the keen amateur in the street who surprisingly does have a brain in his/her head and who has easy access to most of these lesser sites, sets about doing his/her own research. In their own way and without the opportunity afforded a professional archaeo or even the old antiquaries, they reach different conclusions but they are never given any credit for it because they are not seen as being qualified to do so. “And, this is the rub, so would academia. Asking specialists to address a wider audience, during their research, forces them to think beyond the narrow confines of their immediate tasks, to see the bigger picture. It demands that they communicate in clear language, which means they have to think clearly. It encourages them (though in this case I doubt such incentive was needed) to work together, not competitively. And it asks them to think very hard about what they are going to say. For if they get it wrong, they surely will be fried.
“Sometimes the peers in the street are the ones that matter most.”
