Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern not antiquarian
Log In to post a reply

280 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Re: The finished circle
Aug 05, 2012, 18:47
thesweetcheat wrote:
bladup wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
bladup wrote:
That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us.


I could be wrong, but I think hardly any of the people who post on TMA are academics, and even fewer are trained archaeologists. Most people just have a shared interest.

Julian's original book uses plenty of terminology that people wouldn't necessarily understand unless they had some knowledge of this sort of thing. In the Cornwall chapters he refers to "Scillonian tomb", "capstone", "rab-cut", "creep passage", etc etc. My posts, for what they're worth, are based on what I have observed at sites, put together with things I have read. So I call a stone box buried in a barrow a "cist", and the inner side of a hillfort rampart that slopes inwardly a "counterscarp". But there's very little in TMA about Angel People. I reckon the site keeps the spirit of the book, by and large.


Sorry it should have said wannabe academics, i don't know if there are any real academics [ in a relevant field ] on here, it's not something that would interest me, julian's book gets quite nicely hippyish in places ["live" chambers and things like that], and new terminology is not a bad thing, all the names start somewhere.


In respect of terminology, I agree, although all the terminology referred to in my post above (and in Julian's book) is "old" terminology, that the archaeologists of the 19th century would recognise, but most people in 21st century Britain wouldn't, unless they were interested in this subject already.

I think it's a bit wasteful to dismiss people because they are educated or professionals, equally as much as it is to dismiss people because they aren't. Everyone brings something different to this website (and this whole area of interest), and there's a place for both the visionary and the academic, in my opinion.

You mentioned yourself that you have books by John Barnatt and Aubrey Burl, both "proper" archaeologists, whose opinions I guess you respect. The archaeologist can learn from the lay person, who might well suggest ideas that the archaeologist never thought of, and often will visit sites the archaeos haven't the resources to bother with (and Tiompan deserves huge credit for doing that himself). Similarly the lay person can learn a load from the professional. Think how limited our discussions on here would be if we hadn't all picked up things that have been codified and classified already (e.g. portal dolmen, wedge tomb, passage grave, recumbent stone circle).

I've got no problem with Angel People or UFOs or whatever, as long as people don't present these sort of ideas as "fact" when there's no proof in support. Ideas are just that: ideas. They are vitally important in moving us forward, but should be examined in the context of evidence. But equally, what might be thought of as "fact" now may be challenged and revised if new evidence to the contrary is found later. The classic case is the Iguanadon dinosaur, which originally was considered to have been a quadruped with a horn on its nose.

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/115/179

Reminds me a little of Sanctuary's Trethevy post elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps the pieces have been put in the wrong places there too.


I'm not dismissing anybody it just doesn't matter to me if they are academic or not, and it shouldn't to anybody else should it?
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index