Actually, I think that illustrates my point. Archaeological evidence is rarely conclusive, so it's always subject to opinion. Even RC dating is not so accurate that it removes all doubt. Apart from the inherent error in the method, there are often issue like "old wood" and "later disturbance" that could add or remove several hundred years from RC dates.
So, as you say it would be nice to have an archaeologist who is willing to consider our proposals as "plausible". He doesn't have to nail his colours to our mast, only to say that our interpretation of the evidence is reasonable.
What about this BBC guy who favoured wooden cribs? Can we contact him?
|