|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » New study challenges timeline |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 12:37
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: It comes down to what you want I suppose. Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff. It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here. We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they. Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority. They'd only come on here if they've got something to sell.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 12:39
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: nigelswift wrote: It comes down to what you want I suppose. Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff. It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here. We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they. Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority. Of course, that would be great. Who wouldn't like to see Archaeologists popping in here for a chat? I'm not saying I have a solution, its' just a shame somebody like Tim or Josh Pollard couldn't come here and have a chat with a dowser, for example. I'm not convinced they wouldn't want to, but probably feel they 'can't'. However, we shouldn't make allowances for that. We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter". They're openly admitting that all views don't matter though- sickening isn't it?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 12:40
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: I've seen this suggested before but other than look at the pics , which are a great resource , why would they bother ? I can't think of any examples where it has been apparent . Although Andrew Cochrane did mention some tma posters attitudes to Newgrange , a few years ago , but the content of the essay was really more po mo , Baudrillard , Benjamin and simulcra . Think the idea that there was a strong porky-based culture at play in the Neolithic was suggested here before the discoveries at Durrington Walls confirmed it. That some (many?) stone circles were just corrals, and that Silbury, Avebury and Thornborough were originally (and designed to be) a brilliant white. And, most well-know of all, how Silbury plays out its position in the surrounding landscape. Think we continue to throw ideas (not to mention lizards ;-) into the melting pot that then seem to be picked up by some archeos and investigated by them – more power to us :-) YES YES YES.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Dec 03, 2012, 13:01
Dec 03, 2012, 12:50
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "why would they bother ?" Well, to give the right end of the stick, to correct misreporting and untrue rumours, to stimulate public interest and involvement and to "outreach" (whatever that means, but archaeologists, particularly those using public funds, have a duty to do it). They have their roles to play and me mine, I know my views are just as valid as someone trying to sell a book or themselves, I at least have never done anything for money, so at least I'm righteous on that score, I don't want anything from anybody, the same can't be said for them, they want money and your recognition [for something that'll be proved wrong down the line], if you want universal truths come to Bladup [tongue firmly in cheek] because i'll give you truth and i don't even want your money or your recognition, The real truth is often found in the middle of two contrasting idea's.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 13:01
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: nigelswift wrote: It comes down to what you want I suppose. Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff. It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here. We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they. Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority. Of course, that would be great. Who wouldn't like to see Archaeologists popping in here for a chat? I'm not saying I have a solution, its' just a shame somebody like Tim or Josh Pollard couldn't come here and have a chat with a dowser, for example. I'm not convinced they wouldn't want to, but probably feel they 'can't'. However, we shouldn't make allowances for that. We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter". They're openly admitting that all views don't matter though- sickening isn't it? My guess would be that a lot of archaeologists got into the subject because they felt those things about these places too. The mystery of it is a huge draw. It is very human to be seduced by that kind of thing. I think that in order to continue to be taken seriously in their work, unlike, say, Lethbridge, they need to maintain a certain distance from what some (the people with the money and final decisions) may think of as 'odd' theory. I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject. Don't we all, to various degrees?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 13:15
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: bladup wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: nigelswift wrote: It comes down to what you want I suppose. Personally i regret the Lizard era and I've heard TMA spoken of disparagingly by archies quite recently on the grounds that it was full of that sort of stuff. It's quite a thought that very few pros come here openly (Mike Pitts was the last I think) yet there's a huge and healthy public interest in prehistory here. We can grumble that they are arrogant as they don't descend from their Ivory towers to outreach and engage with that public interest. Or we can ask - WHY don't they. Personally, I'd rather Tim Darvill et al popped in here sometimes than the lizard lot or their more recent successors. But no doubt I,m a very bad, closed minded person for having such a preference. And I'm certainly in a minority. Of course, that would be great. Who wouldn't like to see Archaeologists popping in here for a chat? I'm not saying I have a solution, its' just a shame somebody like Tim or Josh Pollard couldn't come here and have a chat with a dowser, for example. I'm not convinced they wouldn't want to, but probably feel they 'can't'. However, we shouldn't make allowances for that. We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter". They're openly admitting that all views don't matter though- sickening isn't it? My guess would be that a lot of archaeologists got into the subject because they felt those things about these places too. The mystery of it is a huge draw. It is very human to be seduced by that kind of thing. I think that in order to continue to be taken seriously in their work, unlike, say, Lethbridge, they need to maintain a certain distance from what some (the people with the money and final decisions) may think of as 'odd' theory. I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject. Don't we all, to various degrees? It would seem not, the younger people i'd say in general yes, but only a few of the older ones even acknowledge the "weirder" side of this world, or maybe the world is splitting into 2 forms of human again [just like humans and neanderthals], it sometimes feels like i'm talking to a different type of being even though i know it's just the generation gap [before anyone has a go that wasn't a dig, because if you feel it was i bet you feel the same back about me].
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 13:31
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: I've seen this suggested before but other than look at the pics , which are a great resource , why would they bother ? I can't think of any examples where it has been apparent . Although Andrew Cochrane did mention some tma posters attitudes to Newgrange , a few years ago , but the content of the essay was really more po mo , Baudrillard , Benjamin and simulcra . Think the idea that there was a strong porky-based culture at play in the Neolithic was suggested here before the discoveries at Durrington Walls confirmed it. That some (many?) stone circles were just corrals, and that Silbury, Avebury and Thornborough were originally (and designed to be) a brilliant white. And, most well-know of all, how Silbury plays out its position in the surrounding landscape. Think we continue to throw ideas (not to mention lizards ;-) into the melting pot that then seem to be picked up by some archeos and investigated by them – more power to us :-) The corral idea is an old one James Lynch suggests that Irish historians believed “The stone circles of Ireland, and beyond, are cattle crushes or corrals, for want of a better description. “ and I'm sure there are plenty of other vicar/antiquarians had the same belief ,but who of the contemporary pros has championed the idea ? Burl mentions the whitness of henge at Thornborough before TMA began and probably that of Avebury in the Avebury book . To suggest that there was a porky based culture would require using the evidence from pros to support that idea , so it's a bit circular .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 14:12
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: We should continue down the 'right' path with open discussion, and "all views matter". "I feel sure there must be plenty of archaeos who love the 'weird' side of this subject." Maybe. But Mr Cope recognises there is sometimes great merit in silence - for when asked "What is the strangest experience you've had whilst out walking on the Ridgeway? " he replied.... "If I answered this question honestly, I'd be ridiculed in the tabloids and gain an even higher profile in Private Eye's Pseuds Corner than I already have. " and his reward is that he HAS been taken seriously and he was able to write.... "The Modern Antiquarian had a marvellous response from archaeologists, and I was asked to speak at Southhampton, Manchester, Aberdeen and Glasgow universities. Mark Gillings, who recently discovered the Beckhampton Avenue, asked me to sign his copy and said that they even teach my 'Silbury Game' at Leicester. Timothy Darvill, the editor of Antiquity and The Archaeologist, asked me to write for both magazines, and I'm now in constant contact with Aubrey Burl, who recently suggested that I write a book on Callanish. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University is the foremost scholar of pre-Christian Britain, and he called The Modern Antiquarian, "the best popular guide to Neolithic and Bronze Age sites for half a century." So that's it. He deliberately kept away from stuff that might capsize his project and gained academic respect. Whereas his TMA website....
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 14:45
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: and his reward is that he HAS been taken seriously and he was able to write.... But the TMA isn't a campaigning website or forum, is it? So while I could understand a reluctance to widen the topics of discussion on, say, the HA forum, why on TMA?
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 14:53
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: [quote="nigelswift"] I personally wouldn't want to see 'The Sensible Forum' and 'The Way-out' Forum'. It doesn't feel right to me. This subject is about us, all of us, and where we come from! Personally I think it is about "them " , and what you or I think is not really that important . Yes, I see what you mean, but we 'are' them, if you get my drift. I evidently got up from my lie down too soon!
|
| Pages: 22 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
