Print

Print


________________________________________
From: British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of PETTS D.A. <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 October 2015 19:56

>Any body can have put forward a controversial idea, it really is remarkably easy:

>1.)people of the Iron Age were remarkably long-lived because we hardly find any graves so they clearly did not die; 

Ah, the old 'absence of evidence' ploy, eh?

>2.)Kostas does not exist, he is a Turing test; 

Well according to some branches of metaphysics (and certain episodes of Dr. Who) none of us does... Incidentally, answer me this: If Dr. Who really had the ability to travel through time, then what's to stop Matt Smith from going back in time to before he first regenerated, so he could remain as William Hartnell? The BBC never thought of that one, did they. Plus, isn't it about time he regenerated into a woman...

>3.)the Anglo-Saxons reached Britain in biodegradable plastic boats; 

That may indeed explain many things. Though I'm not sure technology had advanced to such a level in the late 5th/6th c. Their plastic boats would probably still be visible on our eastern shores alongside multifarious disposable shopping bags. Incidentally, of course, your former mentor, Heinrich Harke, did once make the point that those many thousands of A-S long ships must now be lying at the bottom of the North Sea (in order to explain the theory that, when they abandoned their homelands on the North Sea littoral, they didn't end up arriving in Britain to found Anglo-Saxon England). Which might be an alternative explanation for their disappearance. And on the same question, on another list, I did once see someone advance the serious claim that there can't have been an A-S migration to our eastern shores, as their long ships are no longer visible on the beaches! To which, I replied that he must also be contesting the veracity of the Norman landing in Pevensey Bay in 1066, since he won't find William's fleet still beached there, either...

>4.)Avebury was jam factory; 

Yummy! What flavour? (Rose, I hope :-)

>5.)the people of Swindon evolved from some kind of primitive badger; 

Well if you ask me, that's yet more compelling evidence for calling-off this appalling badger-cull, since they are clearly a related species... 

>6.)Barry Cunliffe and Jeremy Corbyn are the same person, you never see them in the same room together; 

And if you did, it could easily be accomplished by 'split-screen' technology (look at what they did with Francis Pryor... :-)

>7.)there was an unrecognised Bakelite age between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age; 

Come now, that's going too far...

>- see it's really, really, REALLY easy!). There is nothing remotely clever or remarkable or iconoclastic about having a wild hypothesis. The key element >of archaeology (or indeed remotely any other academic endeavor) is to actually put some effort into developing some kind of methodology that might >proof or disprove an idea and then carrying out this research. 

Well certainly, that's how it ought to work. But then again, I've seen (and discussed on Britarch) peer-reviewed articles in respectable publications dealing with both ends of Roman-Britain where the evidence & methodology presented within the articles don't actually support the authors' conclusions about dating/ethnicity etc. So it's also important for the public constantly to question what's presented to them by academia. But I do agree that it's equally important to provide evidence of one's own when questioning certain assumptions.


>Kostas, if you are really sceptical of the quarry hypothesis, if it really exerts profound cognitive dissonance, then why can't you be bothered to make >an effort and do some research yourself? Britarch subscribers are not your data bitches- I think I can speak on the behalf of a lot of people on this list >when I suggest you treat the list with a little respect and stop seeing them as research gimps when you patently can't be bothered to do it yourself.

I'm still trying to find out what one of those is :-)

Mike (not PP)