I really support Caroline on this one.  I have yet to meet an 
archaeologist who isn't interested in debate on a site or point of 
view.  Furthermore, they must undergo a process of critical review like 
all academic publications.  You can get a consensus which inhibits new 
views or conceals flaws but they are out there for critique and 
evaluation and very quickly become a centre for debate and thus more 
detailed scruitiny.  In contrast present a view that a religiously 
minded person (who is not of the liberal intellectual type) disagrees 
with and watch the sparks fly.  Paganism has nothing different to any 
other religious tradition in this respect.  When the sole rationale of 
evaluation becomes application in a religious context or affiliation to 
religious ideals it can't help but lose sight of analysis and 
objectivity.  In a sense it simply becomes an issue of how much can you 
read out of it within your religious cosmology. 

There is a line I adore on this in Hutton's Pagan Religions of the 
British Isles.  I have the book at work but I think it runs something 
like "Pagans argue that archaeologists and academic historians can never 
understand the spiritual beauty of watching the moon rise over an 
ancient monument. Of course we do why else do you think we want to spend 
vast amounts of time scrutinizing a site learning everything we can 
about it and the people who built it."  (People can correct me who have 
a copy of the book to hand on precise wording) Anyway wearing my Asatru 
and recon' hat I would argue that in terms of belief we owe it to the 
Gods and ancestors to try to understand as much of the culture as it was 
as we can without the need to twist it into romantic fantasy because it 
is aesthetically pleasing to the present.  In my academic hat I would 
argue that we have a duty to self critique the basis of our analysis and 
subject it to peer review on the basis of the evidence.  Actually one of 
the things I love about Hutton is that he cuts things back to the small 
fraction that can be said for certain.  It leaves open what you want to 
develop  religiously and can hypothesize in practice but you can do it 
with eyes open and negotiate it with an awareness of where invention 
begins and empirical history stops.  There is nothing wrong with 
inventing religious practice but it is really worth doing with eyes open 
and being able to discuss the basis on which its applied.

David

heliade wrote:
> I'm on a terrible computer at work that keeps misbehaving so I don't know if my previous reply came through. 
>
> I said that I don't think archaeologists are 'god(s)' either, but at least when interpreting a site/obects they need to be *very careful* about showing how they came to their conclusions because they are being judged by other critical archaeologitsts, whereas New Age practitoiners don't have to answer to anybody, in fact they'd ignore criticism rather than take it on. This was my experience when attending a 'Goddess Tours in Turkey' slide show a few years ago. I asked a few really quite simple questions about certain interpretations about 'goddess' artefacts and was the recipeient of comments about how I must be man-centric and not supportive of goddess religion  - because I questioned some New Age interpretations. In fact I'm *very* intrested in ancient goddesses and the place of women in ancient and modern societies... Anyway, I found myself removed from the mailing list of that goddess group.
>
> ~Caroline.
>
>