archaeological strategy-- the good and the bad

[stan]

I thought there were a couple of odd things about this thread that I don't think anyone has mentioned:

Arch seemed to think that the results of his poll would have some kind of impact on the scientific community.

He also used the term "we" as though he were a real archaeologist.


In reference to dogmatism, as mentioned by john, it seemed that his starting of this thread yet again followed his original pattern: He posed some kind of theoretical questions as though he was seeking information, then turned around and attacked the responses he got. This is especially annoying in a so-called "poll."

[Minimalist]

Jesus told him to do it.

[john]

Sorry i've been gone for so long. hellish busy, mostly with work.

however, i will say this.........

to me this forum is a free exchange of THINKING AND EVALUATING. archaeological degrees not required. nor any degree, for that matter.

to those who will at, any price, attempt to force this forum into a dogmatic and locked position, i say "f--ck off and die in a bucket". Better yet, just leave. You know who you are.

science, historically, can be defined as the contributions of a number of individuals who had the courage to think out of the box, way out of the box.

to summarize: the value, here, is in free thinking and absolutely not in set positions.

it is a fatal mistake to live and think according to a set of predisposed and predefined conceptions.

there are examples of this among BOTH the religious and the scientific on this board.

have at.

john

To continue........


Very interesting. No response from the trashtalkers (ok, a distinct minority, but they seem to take up a hell of a lot of space in this forum). Perhaps we are making progress, eh?

And by the way, to the guy from texas - Charlie Hatchett - the ochre stained tool. Rodents. And I'm not joking. I see beaver chewed sticks here in the pacific NW regularly, and, interestingly enough, once collected an Oligocene (White River Formation) antelope horn which, prior to fossilization, had precisely the same rodent chewing marks, although smaller. Companions of mine collected other bones with the same. I do believe the Oligocene is a little bit early for even the very earliest hominid..........

As for American handaxes, having had the experience of finding them on an ancient lakebed near Yermo, California in my youth, under the tutelage of Raymond Alf, I will say the question as to whether they exist or not is absurd; i.e., yes they do.

john