Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by RoyReed
Stonehenge

New study challenges timeline

close
more_vert
Evergreen Dazed E
Evergreen Dazed Dec 3, 2012 13:01:15
Replying to bladup

bladup wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
It comes down to what you want I suppose.

Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff.

It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here.
We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they.

Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority.

Of course, that would be great. Who wouldn't like to see Archaeologists popping in here for a chat? I'm not saying I have a solution, its' just a shame somebody like Tim or Josh Pollard couldn't come here and have a chat with a dowser, for example. I'm not convinced they wouldn't want to, but probably feel they 'can't'.
However, we shouldn't make allowances for that. We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter".
They're openly admitting that all views don't matter though- sickening isn't it?
My guess would be that a lot of archaeologists got into the subject because they felt those things about these places too. The mystery of it is a huge draw. It is very human to be seduced by that kind of thing.
I think that in order to continue to be taken seriously in their work, unlike, say, Lethbridge, they need to maintain a certain distance from what some (the people with the money and final decisions) may think of as 'odd' theory.
I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject. Don't we all, to various degrees?

B bladup
bladup Dec 3, 2012 13:15:18
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
bladup wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
It comes down to what you want I suppose.

Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff.

It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here.
We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they.

Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority.

Of course, that would be great. Who wouldn't like to see Archaeologists popping in here for a chat? I'm not saying I have a solution, its' just a shame somebody like Tim or Josh Pollard couldn't come here and have a chat with a dowser, for example. I'm not convinced they wouldn't want to, but probably feel they 'can't'.
However, we shouldn't make allowances for that. We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter".
They're openly admitting that all views don't matter though- sickening isn't it?
My guess would be that a lot of archaeologists got into the subject because they felt those things about these places too. The mystery of it is a huge draw. It is very human to be seduced by that kind of thing.
I think that in order to continue to be taken seriously in their work, unlike, say, Lethbridge, they need to maintain a certain distance from what some (the people with the money and final decisions) may think of as 'odd' theory.
I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject. Don't we all, to various degrees?
It would seem not, the younger people i'd say in general yes, but only a few of the older ones even acknowledge the "weirder" side of this world, or maybe the world is splitting into 2 forms of human again [just like humans and neanderthals], it sometimes feels like i'm talking to a different type of being even though i know it's just the generation gap [before anyone has a go that wasn't a dig, because if you feel it was i bet you feel the same back about me].

N nigelswift
nigelswift Dec 3, 2012 14:12:03
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter".
"I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject."

Maybe. But Mr Cope recognises there is sometimes great merit in silence - for when asked "What is the strangest experience you've had whilst out walking on the Ridgeway? "

he replied....

"If I answered this question honestly, I'd be ridiculed in the tabloids and gain an even higher profile in Private Eye's Pseuds Corner than I already have. "

and his reward is that he HAS been taken seriously and he was able to write....

"The Modern Antiquarian had a marvellous response from archaeologists, and I was asked to speak at Southhampton, Manchester, Aberdeen and Glasgow universities. Mark Gillings, who recently discovered the Beckhampton Avenue, asked me to sign his copy and said that they even teach my 'Silbury Game' at Leicester. Timothy Darvill, the editor of Antiquity and The Archaeologist, asked me to write for both magazines, and I'm now in constant contact with Aubrey Burl, who recently suggested that I write a book on Callanish. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University is the foremost scholar of pre-Christian Britain, and he called The Modern Antiquarian, "the best popular guide to Neolithic and Bronze Age sites for half a century."

So that's it. He deliberately kept away from stuff that might capsize his project and gained academic respect. Whereas his TMA website....