Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur

From: Doug Weller (dweller_at_ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk)
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:05:09 +0000

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:46:23 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:

>
>"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>news:idim31d8coautg4qnafbnjrjfhkjt0utiu@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:45:54 -0000, in sci.archaeology, David B. wrote:
>>
>> >Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:35:07 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, the vast majority of written sources indicating that the Romans
>got
>> >>>to Britain are .... objects with text on, found in Britain by
>> >archaeologists :-)
>> >>>
>> >>Come on David. You are fudging the answer. Irrespective of whether
>> >>they were found in Britain or are literary works like "Agricola" and
>> >>the "Antonine Itinerary", we are still discussing written sources.
>> >
>> >Agreed- I was just trying to highlight, for the benefit of somebody who
>> >often forgets, the area in which there is a genuine and clear crossover
>> >between "history" and "archaeology". This thread was, a few days ago,
>> >discussing the relevance of textual study in a newsgroup called
>> >"sci.archaeology"; in general I'd have to say that unless the text
>> >illuminates an archaeological discussion (most obviously, of course, when
>> >the text is part of an artifact being discussed, but also when the text
>> >throws light on archaeological finds under discussion) then it is more
>> >appropriately considered in a history group.
>>
>> Which is exactly the point I was making, thanks.
>
>Problem Doug is that you and some of the others aren't aware that it's not
>possible at all to come up with reliable assumptions without knowing much
>more than what's usually are considered as sufficient about what the written
>sources tells. Without knowing about a time when your artifact is dated to,
>and believe it or not it's not enough to lean to a scholar who for one or an
>other reason missed to include a major part of the documents that deals with
>the area where the artifact been found or what's said in the documents about
>the type of life, production etc that caused the artifact to be made.
>You can't have one without the other reaching a realiable set of assumptions
>and conclusions.

Badly written nonsense not responding to the subject of the posts she is
responding to. She clearly doesn't understand what people are saying. I
think she has a compulsion to post her ideas to newsgroups even when they
are off topic - and maybe even the negative response she gets feeds this
compulsion. She will clearly continue to post historical discussions to
archaeology newsgroups no matter what anyone says.

Doug

>Inger E
>>
>> Doug
>> --
>> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
>> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
>> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

Relevant Pages