Questioning is not knocking. I accept each archeological site is unique and should be considered by the evidence unique to it. So, in your view, what makes this particular "rock art" 14,000 years old? I'd rather know!
But more generally, stratigraphic layering in time depends on the deposition of sediments and artifacts found in the layers. I can accept such layers can mark time for alluvial, fluvial and glacial deposits of rocks, soil and debris (with reasonable qualification and exceptions). Thus, the layer beneath was deposited before the layer above it. 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.
If all the geological stratigraphy we see is the result of alluvial, fluvial, glacial and other natural processes, how could such stratigraphy apply to archeology? Since human habitation and artifacts can only happen in the open at ground level. And if these are found deeply buried, that would suggest to me subsequent catastrophic geological processes at work which do not respect the workings of people. And would indiscriminately bury these from various different places and times.
Please understand all my questions and misgivings are in earnest. Not in my character to "knock down" what others think for the "fun of it". I am NOT a troll! But I am committed to objective truth and sensible reason. Archeological dates based on stratigraphy does not make sense to me. Though it certainly can provide archeology "secure" dating methodology. And allow a narrative to be developed on these dates, right or wrong.
[log in to unmask]
From: John Wood <[log in to unmask]>
To: kostadinos <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>; 0000056e05d7cec9-dmarc-request <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2015 08:44 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Ice Age engravings found at Jersey archaeological site
<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_a1148b02-fd9f-4b32-a1a8-b1298d2ffaf6" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>On 11/4/15, <a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a> <<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:
> John Wood,
> > I
have misgivings about "stratigraphy". The notion "deeper is older" can be
challenged. And dating by C14 or other radiometric methods can be
Since this assumes the age of everything in the same strata is
The problem I see here is that you, like so many others, like
concentrate your efforts on sites that fall into the category of
exceptional'. These tend to attract fantastical theories based
very little archaeological evidence.
Most archaeologists spend most
of their time working on more mundane
sites, ones that won't ever appear in
'The Fortean Times', where the
sites are excavated stratigraphically hence the
stratigraphy as a relative dating methodology.
ought to take the opportunity to work on an excavation
then you might learn
some of the fundamentals and understand why
archaeologists use the techniques
that they do. If you spent just a
little time on an excavation it would soon
become very apparent why
archaeologists depend so much on stratigraphical
Don't knock it until you have tried it!
</div> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_a1148b02-fd9f-4b32-a1a8-b1298d2ffaf6 -->