Have you by any chance, of late, been asked to write any speeches for
anyone one in the Republican Party ?
On 22 Feb 2017 00:32, "John Wood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well said!
> On 22 Feb 2017 00:15, "Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2017 23:36, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> I intentionally qualified my comment to "Prehistory". Lacking written
>>> records and other material culture, anything archaelogists tell us are made
>>> up stories. Even their "facts" are made up by the stories they promote.
>>> Now why is this so shocking that must be kept from people? Hey Mike?
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> Kostas, most archaeologists are passionately keen to get to the facts
>> and where possible they base their views about the past on concrete facts
>> such as carbon dates and chronologies. However, these facts can only fill
>> in so much of the detail without which the facts would not make sense to
>> So, archaeologist try to put together the facts with their own ideas of
>> what things were like in order to create an overall picture which can then
>> be understood by the public. That is a perfectly valid way to proceed.
>> Most of the time, a huge amount of effort goes into trying to understand
>> what is already known and what others have found out, trying to bring
>> together a lot of disparate information ... which due to constant work, is
>> constantly changing. So, yes archaeologists often get things wrong - and at
>> other times they do go further than I would like and include more detail
>> than is justified by the evidence.
>> And at other times, they rely on the work of previous archaeologists and
>> antiquarians - and if they made a mistake, or were not familiar with modern
>> evidence (as antiquarians clearly would not) - then it is all too easy to
>> use ideas and concepts from the past which would not be used today if we
>> started afresh.
>> However, the idea that (modern) archaeologists intentionally misled
>> anyone is not supported by anything I have seen from ARCHAEOLOGISTS.
>> And Please note, I'm not speaking as an archaeological insider, but as
>> someone whose work has been met with a certain degree of resistance:
>> The identification of Old Kilpatrick as Roman Nemeton or Nemthur the
>> birthplace of St. Patrick