I suspect the romanticising of the burial might be in the main to drum up
custom for the newish Novium Museum in Chichester. I notice from the
museum's website that they have dropped the entry charge. This burial, it
would seem, will be a key exhibit in the museum.
On 16 Dec 2014 00:24, "Raymond Nilson" <[log in to unmask]>
> The problem is, that is what was entirely missing. Yet, it was still
> claimed as fact. Inference means interpretive/hermeneutic. You have no room
> to interpret with objectivity. And archaeology is nothing if it is not
> interpretive. We must leave the door open and resist the force-feeding of
> romantic notions clearly intended for public placation. We need
> counterintuitive arguments which reflect complexity instead of conformity.
> All the best,
> From: British archaeology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on
> behalf of Dave Tooke [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 December 2014 20:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Racton Man
> He was old. He was ill. He was buried with a valuable object. Those who
> buried him thought it worth putting that object with him.
> We cannot know, but it is a fair inference thatcher was deemed important.
> What could that mean? Perhaps he was a chief, perhaps a priest, perhaps a
> retired warrior. You are right we don't know.
> But the whole point of archaeology is to explore options suggested to us
> by the physical remains of the past to make inferences about the past; and
> thereby learn more about ourselves.
> Dave Tooke
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 15 Dec 2014, at 19:37, Raymond Nilson <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > This sort of story is interesting up to a point. However, to put it
> colloquially, it really winds me up when I see these stories in the media.
> Why do we persist to allow such pontificating reporting regarding
> archaeology? How on earth do we know this human was a chief? Did they build
> a time machine and go back and ask him? Moreover, modern western
> superficial conceptions of 'seniority' would most-likely have been
> completely dichotomous to these groups in the past. The article states,
> nonetheless, that the information they have provided is 'fact' advocated by
> science. It appears that they know everything about this man. Do they also
> know his name? Was it Frank?
> > Ray (BA, MA).
> > Doctoral Research Student
> > Archaeology, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures,
> > University of Manchester
> > ________________________________________
> > From: British archaeology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on
> behalf of John Wood [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 15 December 2014 16:20
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [BRITARCH] Racton Man
> > A nice little write up on the BBC website:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30478544
> > And will be appearing on BBC South Today tonight.
> > Particular interest to me as I used to live in the parish.