Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by texlahoma
close
more_vert

To which one could add -

Giving explanations for lay persons is often considered cheap and populist (or career threatening even, if the wrong end of the stick is publicly got).

The alternative is for lay persons to attempt to explain stuff - but then there's a chance they'll be dismissed as cheap and populist and having got the wrong end of the stick.

All of the above can explain why so few archaeos openly post on here even though oblique references in what they write suggest a lot visit a lot.

I guess it's the downside of "all views no matter how bizarre are equally valid and welcome". It results in the pros keeping schtum and not attempting to explain stuff. Two forums try to solve it by having a special section for way-out stuff. I suppose I'd be thrashed in the name of democracy if I suggested that might be of benefit here so I won't.

nigelswift wrote:
I guess it's the downside of "all views no matter how bizarre are equally valid and welcome". It results in the pros keeping schtum and not attempting to explain stuff. Two forums try to solve it by having a special section for way-out stuff. I suppose I'd be thrashed in the name of democracy if I suggested that might be of benefit here so I won't.
I think its a shame. Its what makes the subject for me. The combination of science, adventure, beauty, spirituality. Time. 'Us'. Getting to the bottom of our very nature.
The 'way-out' stuff is not so way-out after all, is it? Modern human beings built the monuments. They must have thought about and acted upon some pretty 'way-out' ideas themselves? And lots of us in 2012 find it attractive. I believe there is some sort of residue within us, not yet beaten out of us entirely, and thats what that feeling you get is when you get excited about seeing a monument, or, perhaps, long to protect it.
I personally wouldn't want to see 'The Sensible Forum' and 'The Way-out' Forum'. It doesn't feel right to me. This subject is about us, all of us, and where we come from!

nigelswift wrote:
All of the above can explain why so few archaeos openly post on here even though oblique references in what they write suggest a lot visit a lot.
I've seen this suggested before but other than look at the pics , which are a great resource , why would they bother ? I can't think of any examples where it has been apparent . Although Andrew Cochrane did mention some tma posters attitudes to Newgrange , a few years ago , but the content of the essay was really more po mo , Baudrillard , Benjamin and simulcra .