Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

But if we did not have the books of speculation, would'nt our imaginations be stunted?

Any archaeologist who knows his stuff must be worth listening to when it comes to speculating , a discussion at the end of a paper is a fine way to round it off , it occupies 10% or less of the content and may help outline future attitudes . It's a stop gap until the next bit of info comes along . For some writers the speculation is much greater and it's not a case of terminology like sacred or ritual it's maths , energy and the cosmos .
They seem a wee bit more popular too and just because they have helped romanticise and popularise the subject doesn't mean to say we should not point out their failings . i'm still trying to think of some non informed arcaheo speculation that subsequently proved to be the case .

OK .. hint not taken, I was hoping someone would start a thread "Speculation V Science" or some such thing.

Tiompan, I love your posts and have l learned so much from them - or at least realised there is still so much to learn. Can we not have both of the above though ...

Was it not Einstein who said "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”

bw
tjj

This is where that wonderful resource the 'public library' comes into its own .. you can read 'whatever' digest the bits that make sense and are useful then return said volume back to library.

And someone ought to start a new thread soon because this one is being waylaid.

Sorry , don't mean to come across as being all scientistic ,i'm not . Although I do wish that I never hear old Bill's "There is more to heaven and earth etc " ever again .
It's probably a case of horses for courses , attempting to discover what went on in the minds of the peoples of prehistory and why they built the monuments they did has been well served by science and excavation/discovery whilst the more imaginative approach that is so successful in the arts and life in general has been less so .
When science and logic is introduced in these areas I would be the first to decry it as being the inferior method .

Hate to be boring but I agree with almost everything you have said - and defer to your greater knowledge. I was just playing 'devil's advocate' and wracking my brains for an appropriate book to add to this thread.

(Am currently re-reading 'Gone to Earth' by Mary Webb ... its nature inspired fiction and doesn't call itself anything else).

I have a problem with explaining these things with science as I really dont think its all that simple. We have to remember that what science KNEW 50 years ago is very different to what they KNOW today and I'm sure things will continue in much the same way. Hey, Heroin is a brand name and Marie Curie carried radioactive isotopes in her pocket because they KNEW that they amazingly cured everything. I really dont think you can explain away Stonehenge based on what we think we know; for all we know it was built as a landing pad for E.T. or a centre for taking magic mushrooms and floating off to another dimension. Its good we dont know, and therefore I think its good that people come up with other ideas or "speculation" and make us question what science KNOWS.

Maybe its just me but I love thinking about these other options. Doesn't mean I believe them, just that we shouldn't assume we know better.

Your choice of book started an interesting and hopefully good humoured discussion which perhaps could have done with being on a separate thread.
On the subject of 'books' - imagine a future 'fantasy' scenario: all the libraries closed; precious books uploaded onto the internet ... then there is some sort of global disaster and the internet it wiped out. The people that follow on would consider us as being 'without the written word' and we will have prehistory all over again.