I was intrigued, a few weeks ago, with a Facebook conversation I had with a senior archaeologist who is fully aware of the information and arguments contained in the two papers on Rhosyfelin written by Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd, John-Downes and myself. The subject of our exchange of views was the mechanism by which bluestones were transported from West Wales to Stonehenge. She signed off in the conversation by saying "I still think that Occam's Razor points to the human transport hypothesis......" I have no way of telling whether she was just using a throwaway phrase and showing solidarity with the archaeological establishment, or whether she used those words very carefully, after due consideration.
Anyway, I found that rather enlightening, since I have always assumed that the most parsimonious explanation for something which has expression in the natural world is that it is natural. To invoke human involvement in the transport of the bluestones (especially when there is no actual evidence to support it) seems to me to be adding a layer of complexity and even fantasy, and in those circumstances Occam's Razor cannot apply. I have explained my thinking here:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-human-agency-thesis-cannot-be.html
But it's a nice illustration of the gulf that exists between archaeologists and earth scientists. The latter know about earth surface processes and tend to recognize their effects, whereas the former instinctively look for artifacts and traces of human activity -- that is what they do, for hours on end,when they are scraping away in the wind and rain on some remote archaeological dig. Part of the problem is that there appears to be remarkably little communication between geomorphologists, geologists and soil scientists on the one side and archaeologists on the other. Probably the fault lies on both sides -- but what is to be done?
1 comment:
Josh Pollard of the MPP camp claimed to me that he at least knows some of the Geomorphologists at Southampton University where he works. But I see no sign of them having a working dialogue with the Archaeologists there.
I think my old University (and Brian's), Durham, has cooperation and dialogue between Archaeology and Geography (and hence Geomorphology, Soil Science, Historical Geography). Aren't Joint Honours Degrees offered, for example? Brian Roberts taught me Historical Geography and I think he had/ still has linkages between that specialism and Archaeology.
As for MPP's University College London [UCL], it would appear they have no Geography Department to communicate with. Can anyone confirm this? It would certainly explain a lot of curious thinking! There is a massive crevice in their attempts at joined - up - thinking!
Post a Comment