I was interested both in Bastian's proposal and David Killick's reply. Is it significant that the
examples given in David's reply were drawn from ferrous studies, whereas, I believe,
Bastian's background is in the non-ferrous world?

I really don't see any 'divide' in the ferrous world that is a signficant barrier to progress. Of
course there is a difference in the results people derive from different approaches, but in the
ferrous world there is already a very healthy dialogue and collaboration between the scientific
and craft communities. There is already a good Yahoo group and a Facebook group dealing
with iron smelting, for instance, where people of both backgrounds have constant dialogue -
and that leads to practical collaborations too. There are also multiple internet fora associated
with subjects such as bladesmithing - with much historical value, if little, at present, academic
input. And of course there is the discussion here on Archmetals. Such dialogue is already
fantastic - and I'd hate to see it get spread more thinly over multiple fora. The online world is
fine, but I don't want to have to go to too many different places to follow conversations, my
day is full enough with distractions already!

I do think that Bastian is behind the times with iron -  'academic' work still leads where that is
more appropriate and it is the craftspeople that are leading the way in other aspects of the
field, but much study of pre-industrial processes entails both facets. Of course the practical
side is not led by craftsmen in areas where the craft is not practised for practical reasons
(typically where the industrial scale is problematic - though practical potting and stamping, for
instance, is crying out to be done...). The biggest advances in ferrous studies of recent years
have definitely been where craftsmen have led the way in understanding aspects of
bloomeries - and, as David has pointed out, that led to 'academic' papers. I could give you
examples of bad practice in both camps - but the existing dialogue and collaboration is
reducing those issues. There will always be people on both sides with closed eyes and ears!
The old days of pointless experimental archaeology where academics tinkered with crafts for
which they didn't have the manual skills are rapidly dying-out and realistic work is replacing
clumsy struggle. Equivalently there is a slow erosion of the number of so-called 'traditional'
craftspeople who refuse to accept to be limited by the archaeological evidence and cannot
accept people in the past did not do things the way that is 'obvious' or 'pragmatic' to them. I
think, Bastian, that your dichotomy is both too simplistic - and also, fortunately, rapidly
narrowing.

If there are no similar fora in non-ferrous studies, then that is clearly a gap to be plugged. I've
no idea if there are Facebook groups for practical non-ferrous matters, but personally, if there
are gaps to be filled, I'd rather see it done within the framework of existing social media to
lessen the burden of following the ever increasing volume of chat. My impression is,
however, that there are plenty of appropriate places to hold these discussions, creating a new
one is not necessarily a benefit.

Just my 2d/p/c worth...

Tim


--
Dr Tim Young MA PhD FGS FSA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.geoarch.co.uk
Phone: 07802 413704
Fax: 08700 547366