Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Hudson: quote: Originally posted by Steffan: quote: Originally posted by Ann W.:
Didn't one of the Kings endorse the finding of Arthur's grave to enhance his (the King's) standing?
Yes. Richard I.
And didn't Henry VII claim descent from Arthur? Something of my deeply-buried 'O'-level History says he was trying to bolster his shaky claim to the throne, or something like that. Edward I too.
|
| |
|
|
you might be onto a conspircy here! It's like Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian (where I am the archaeologist) No matter how many times you tell people it is not Rose Line but British for Rocky Waterfall they won't believe you... and worse... the place was built over a hundred fifty years after the Templars were destroyed.. but even more daft.. the actual verified headquarters or preceptary of teh templars does exist in Midlothian only 4 miles from Rosslyn Chapel.. and yup its called ... temple! People make stuff up write it down and then it becomes fact .. which is what we call history I suppose! (or a Walter Scott novel!)  |
| |
|
|
I seem to recall two recent TT episodes (for us in Australia anyway!) where a local dowser argued for a trench to be sunk in a particular location on a dig site, claiming that there would be finds or evidence of a Roman road. Graciously, some energy and time was committed putting in exploratory trenches, with not an shard of evidence resulting. Which is what John Gater had advised from the outset. Anyone with dowsing or, indeed, psychic ability in general should get in touch with the Australian Skeptics to prove their skills. And they will walk away with a tidy £40000...more than enough to cover their costs and enjoy a holiday over here while they're at it. The UK's equivalent, Association for Skeptical Enquiry, offers £12000. James Randi in the US offers $1000000. All prizes still remain unclaimed. We had a national water dowsing competition in the region in which I live a couple of years back. The "success" of finding bodies of concealed water was found to be no better than that of random chance. Still, the offers of financial incentive are out there, and now is the time for those people who can stand by their convictions and prove their claims to the world. Contrary to the view expressed further up, I'd say that there is no shortage of 'open minds' out there. I, for one, would be fascinated to see these claims proven!
Regards to all,
Mike
|
| |
|
|
A number of Water authorities used to employ dowsers to find pipes and stopcocks. I have no idea how effective they were.
........................................................................
Support the PAS
Go with the FLO
|
| |
|
|
Yes...more details on the source of this tidbit of information would be required before any serious examination took place. Many who claim psychic abilities are the very ones who state that their abilities have been used by unspecified various agencies or authorities. It would be very interesting to actually hear the authorities speak for themselves and find out the official results. Many of water dowsers in our local testing actually admitted to having had prior knowledge of aquifers (underground water bodies mapped by hydrogeologists) in the areas that they were asked to dowse! It's also worthy to note that none of the dowsers that were tested locally ever came across as trying to deceive people. They were genuine types who honestly believed that they had a supernatural ability and wanted to help others. I guess the lingering question is: is it in the realm of religion (untestable, unrepeatable, a belief system) or is it a science that is yet to be understood? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Regards to all,
Mike
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tetricus:
A number of Water authorities used to employ dowsers to find pipes and stopcocks. I have no idea how effective they were.
My mate uses dowsing to find leaking pipes that are underground. Works too although he is not that particular how it works. |
| |
|
|
Strange that David, would these gas/ water /other pipes still be found whether they were leaking or not or can a couple of bent coat hangers discriminate twixt the two.  |
| |
|
New Member
|
When it comes to things that slightly touch on the extra-ordinary or even paranormal, people seem very willing to instantly dismiss them. I'ts almost as if they are scared of something.
|
| |
|
|
Sad to say, I have actually used 'two bent coat hangers' and tehy did work... (both at a desert water canal site and a Roman Fort - lokoing for ditches) However... that said.... give me geofizz - as at elast its easier to see the results! ) In this particular thread... there are very very rational explanations (the guy was good.. there is no doubt about it... but it is still rational) I often get great ideas when I sleep.. but I see it as my brain being freed from the constraints of concious thought... and being able to see possiblities... I am not willing to dismiss... only point out that there are other explanations... why loko for a complex solution when there is an easier solution |
| |
|
|
In a book on old wives tales for gardening -or something like that, the writers point out that sowing under a new moon makes sense because if the moon can affect the tides then all things have water in their make up and respond accordingly so why should not dowsing work on a similar principle -if we are so much of a percentage water why should that not respond in some people to water -as for artefacts =-then who knows its a different kettle of fish -so to speak!
|
| |
|
|
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it. They are too keen though to use their professional position to political or personal means while "discovering" new and wonderful and newsworthy things, but at the end of the day, so few are in fact capable of bringing their work to completion with final scholarly publications. They try to hide the faults in the system, but it is true. My feeing is that there is a lot of sense in what is said by Wayne Sayles in his important critique of just some of what is wrong in archeology today ("archeology: a wolf in sheep's clothing"). Professional archeology today has too often a self-righteous dog in the manger approach, and I think that some of the things we see going on might lead us to question this. Just my two cents worth..
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Antiquitist:
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it. They are too keen though to use their professional position to political or personal means while "discovering" new and wonderful and newsworthy things, but at the end of the day, so few are in fact capable of bringing their work to completion with final scholarly publications. They try to hide the faults in the system, but it is true. My feeing is that there is a lot of sense in what is said by Wayne Sayles in his important critique of just some of what is wrong in archeology today ("archeology: a wolf in sheep's clothing"). Professional archeology today has too often a self-righteous dog in the manger approach, and I think that some of the things we see going on might lead us to question this. Just my two cents worth..
Sorry to be blunt, but that really does come over as a pile of petulant old twaddle.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Antiquitist:
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it.
With respect, I can't see how you can draw this conclusion. Time Team has, at its very essence, a willingness to communicate the archaeological process to a non-academic audience. Tony's role is quite specific: to pin down the academics to explain their thought processes, decisions and conclusions in plain English. I seem to remember that earlier in TT's formative years it was castigated by the more conservative UK academics who thought poorly of bringing archaeology to the masses. And if I understand your meaning of 'vocational hobbyist' I see many such people, who preserve ancient technologies and culture, brought in to TT episodes to demonstrate or articulate these things to the TV audience, thereby making relevant particular issues associated with an episode. They are extraordinary people who want to keep history alive. In the short time that I have been interested in archaeology it has become apparent to me that there are some 'hobbyists' - a minority - who view history in the realm of some sort of romantic fantasy that they pursue on their weekends. They are, of course, entitled to their views, but need to disclose to the rest of us that they may have bypassed the scientific process when drawing conclusions, or not referred to the accumulated body of knowledge that archaeologists have painstakingly assembled and tested over time. There is room for everyone, along with their energies and enthusiasm, provided that we know where everyone is coming from. I certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by someone speaking authoritatively on a subject without them revealing their credentials or experience.
Regards to all,
Mike
|
| |
|
|
ditto above...
with the addition that I can see how that perception can appear... archaeologists do tend to have a dificulty in relating the excitement of yet another 5% evaluation on a development site in surrey (just kiddin)
Though I would say that a more inclusive approach is just what is happening... more needed... but this is teh year of inclusion...
Archaeology for All
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chris D: quote: Originally posted by Antiquitist:
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it. They are too keen though to use their professional position to political or personal means while "discovering" new and wonderful and newsworthy things, but at the end of the day, so few are in fact capable of bringing their work to completion with final scholarly publications. They try to hide the faults in the system, but it is true. My feeing is that there is a lot of sense in what is said by Wayne Sayles in his important critique of just some of what is wrong in archeology today ("archeology: a wolf in sheep's clothing"). Professional archeology today has too often a self-righteous dog in the manger approach, and I think that some of the things we see going on might lead us to question this. Just my two cents worth..
Sorry to be blunt, but that really does come over as a pile of petulant old twaddle.
Dunno about you Chris, but I'm forever digging up new and wonderful and newsworthy things! Can't stop it. I'd do it even more if I didn't have to spend half my time trying to prevent amateurs trying to dig all the road schemes and sewage treatment plants I seem to spend my working life on!  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Antiquitist:
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it. They are too keen though to use their professional position to political or personal means while "discovering" new and wonderful and newsworthy things, but at the end of the day, so few are in fact capable of bringing their work to completion with final scholarly publications. They try to hide the faults in the system, but it is true. My feeing is that there is a lot of sense in what is said by Wayne Sayles in his important critique of just some of what is wrong in archeology today ("archeology: a wolf in sheep's clothing"). Professional archeology today has too often a self-righteous dog in the manger approach, and I think that some of the things we see going on might lead us to question this. Just my two cents worth..
From my (limited) experience most County Archaeology Units like to involve the public, and it is only a lack of funds that prevents more community digs. It is also worth remebering that it is a profession. Whilst many of us who are hobbyists enjoy being involved, there needs to be qualified people overseeing it. |
| |
|
|
I had a most encouraging and helpful reply from the PAS.
As far as TT is concerned I watch it to -a) enjoy the programmme and learn about the site and
b) to hear and see what the experts have to say and demonstrate to me -an amateur history lover.
They are experts through their experience and studies
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by aardvark: quote: Originally posted by Chris D: quote: Originally posted by Antiquitist:
Personally, I think the real "shame" of archeology is it's failure to be inclusive. The "Time Team" programs try to bring the mystique in archeology to everybody, but hide so many aspects in my opinion. The professionals desperately want to exclude the vocational hobbyist, to stand guard over the (their?) "cultural resource" and seem to want to exclude all from using it. They are too keen though to use their professional position to political or personal means while "discovering" new and wonderful and newsworthy things, but at the end of the day, so few are in fact capable of bringing their work to completion with final scholarly publications. They try to hide the faults in the system, but it is true. My feeing is that there is a lot of sense in what is said by Wayne Sayles in his important critique of just some of what is wrong in archeology today ("archeology: a wolf in sheep's clothing"). Professional archeology today has too often a self-righteous dog in the manger approach, and I think that some of the things we see going on might lead us to question this. Just my two cents worth..
Sorry to be blunt, but that really does come over as a pile of petulant old twaddle.
Dunno about you Chris, but I'm forever digging up new and wonderful and newsworthy things! Can't stop it. I'd do it even more if I didn't have to spend half my time trying to prevent amateurs trying to dig all the road schemes and sewage treatment plants I seem to spend my working life on!
Yes, I have the same problem, mate. Our local newsmedia are so overwhelmed with our latest facinating discoveries, they refuse to take our calls now I sometimes think we don't always put ourselves over as well as we could do, but sometimes challenging people's somewhat deeply entrenched perceptions can be a demoralising process, particularly when you don't have the resources to do it adequately. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chris D: quote: Originally posted by aardvark: Dunno about you Chris, but I'm forever digging up new and wonderful and newsworthy things! Can't stop it. [snip]
Yes, I have the same problem, mate. Our local newsmedia are so overwhelmed with our latest facinating discoveries, they refuse to take our calls now
Very funny. OK, so to give an example, what's behind the latest "discovery" (mentioned in another thread here) which according to your British archeologists "sheds new light on the grisly Roman slave trade"? All very melodramtic and "newsworthy". But is it true? And to whom in the English archeological world is it "news" that the Romans had slaves? More to the point, why is this bound captive necessarily a "slave"? On the coin reverses of the period, such figures are a symbol of defeat and subjugation of a people by the victorious empire (read: emperor). This is a prisoner, but whether destined for exhibition, ransom, hostageship, incarceration, exile, execution, sacrifice OR slavery, I really don't see where you archeologists have grounds for saying. So why announce it as "news"? Now, I am willing to bet that when the media hoo-ha has blown over and someone has had their five minutes of fame, the full evidence of this particular figurine being a "slave" will never be published. This is the typical way of things with such sensation-seeking (self-seeking) archeological "news" stories. This is just one example of the sort of thing I was writing about guys. And let me add that the article in question is built around a "we should remember the fate of the poor slaves" admonishment. This is pretty typical of the moralistic high-ground tone archeologists often adopt when dealing with the public and, especially, collectors. |
| |
|
|
And its interesting to note that for all their self-gratulatory bluster, the archeologists seem not to want to try and answer that. WHY do they say it is a "slave"? Where is their evidence?
They seem quite happy to pontificate to a passive public what THEY think, less happy to engage in places like this with an informed public which questions those assumptions. Where have all the archeologists gone when you ask them?
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
