John, John and beyond ...
I will respond to your comments to me collectively here. Sorry for the delay.
The simple view you make of my comments does not make my views simple. I have in the past acknowledged there are strict and rigorous methods consistently applied to archeological research. I have no doubt or problem with that. But 'consistent' is not the same as 'true'. Since, when it comes to archeology especially, "the exception is the rule". Each site must be considered and examined individually. It is only the indisputable facts on the ground that can tell us the objective truth.
I am aware of the Harris Matrix. This does provide some rigorous methodology in codifying an excavation site. But the Harris Matrix cannot provide absolute dates. It may not even provide relative dates in some scenarios. And unless specific artifacts found in undisturbed contexts can be independently dated, the Harris Matrix cannot date the site.
To be clear, the focus of my comments has been primarily Prehistoric Archaeology and Paleontology. Here the issues can get even more muddled. How did whole dinosaur skeletal remains got to be deeply embedded in rock without being crushed by the same geological forces making the rock? But (intentionally or not) the impression left with the willing to be impressed is 'experts' have sorted it all out. And their 'opinions' are the 'truth'.
In the context of this thread ("Ice Age engravings ...") I asked what is the evidence the engravings are Ice Age? Not implying by my asking there is no evidence. No response!
[log in to unmask]
From: John Wood <[log in to unmask]>
To: kostadinos <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Ice Age engravings found at Jersey archaeological site
I have. over the years, have read a great deal on this list but I am
of the view that your recent posting is perhaps the most remarkable of
all. Especially the lines:
>>But how do you systematically "layer solid ground" in the dry open fields without such disturbing and disruptive natural processes? In my view, no archeological site can be said to have a "secure context" based on such stratigraphy.
It implies, at least to me, that your cumulative understanding of the
techniques and processes involved in archaeology seems to equate to no
greater than a 'total vacuum' of knowledge.
As has been said before, it would be ideal if you could read just a
little around the subject before you proceeded to pose more questions.
That would help us in enagaging in more meaningful discussion.