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

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 03/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:36:02 +1200

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:16:41 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lljn31h3ffd8hajqbh25nl059en7e7daa4@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>Doug,
>
>Why are you attempting to a have a discussion with an imbecile??
>
>The answer to her question is "Occam's Razor."
>
>Roads, buildings, fortifications, artifacts all could be imitations by
>people indigenous to the British isles, who for some reason decided to
>abandon their usual style of living and magically advance technically a few
>hundred centuries in order to imitate the Romans.

" ... a few hundred centuries ... " Haw.
>
>Or, the roads, buildings, fortifications and artifacts that scream "Roman"
>were actually built and occupied by Romans. Only an imbecile would require
>"texts" to support the latter conclusion over the former.
>
>Why do you encourage her by replying to her?
>
>>
>>>Inger E
>
>> Doug
>
>Steve

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jews and dystopian futures (potential spoilers)
    ... clear that the Romans were responding to Jewish demands. ... If the Romans had responded to Jewish demands, ... Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung! ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Jews and dystopian futures (potential spoilers)
    ... clear that the Romans were responding to Jewish demands. ... If the Romans had responded to Jewish demands, ... Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung! ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Jews and dystopian futures (potential spoilers)
    ... clear that the Romans were responding to Jewish demands. ... If the Romans had responded to Jewish demands, ... one would have been "Go back to Rome and let us have our country ... And it's common throughout history for soldiers of the conquering ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Jews and dystopian futures (potential spoilers)
    ... time when most people couldn't read the text, and the texts make it ... clear that the Romans were responding to Jewish demands. ... If the Romans had responded to Jewish demands, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: does vind have muttenchops?
    ... Scout) wrote: ... out what you're responding to, you imbecile. ... ppor that i am an imbecile. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)