quote:

Flint for food preparation, so how do you explain flint querns then? There are a few around in the southeast.

At least querns don't pound. Still, maybe there are only a few because people got fed up with ground glass in their dinner.

quote:

well its NOT [speculative], because I am telling you that for sheer practical reasons such a flint cannot be used for striking sparks from a steel, whatever they might look like.

If you say so. I won't bother to remark that the discarded thing is by definition no good for the job... only that we are left without an explanation.

quote:

So is your concern the flint balls and what they are used for...

Certainly... but we got nowhere with that.

quote:

...or just cocking a snook at archaeology?

You seem to take it personally, PMB, but I am (also) simply pointing out, by means of this example, that being a member of the professional fraternity affords you no special powers in the use of logic. That's about as dispassionate as you can get.

I have no contempt for archaeology or archaeologists: actually, I'm very interested in it. Nevertheless, they do not make it their job to re-examine the very basis of their discipline; and somehow always working in a positive light, as it were, seems to blind people to the logical structure of their discipline, the possibility of different paradigms and the ineffectualness of applying inferences from premises to the soundness of the premises themselves. Professionals tend to dismiss revisionist arguments as what-ifs (and it is perfectly true that they are) without acknowledging that their own work is all what-if as well.

Flint is not a "glass".

quote:

You seem to take it personally, PMB

You flatter yourself that any of us are a bit concerned about what the Harperian Revisionists here think of archaeology. Its clear what they know about it and where they are "coming from".

I was just observing that what was presented as a request for information from the list, once again - like the "Roman roads" and the "hey has anybody seen this book?" turns out to be a springboard for more anti-archaeological happy slapping from the Harper hangers-on.

quote:

being a member of the professional fraternity affords you no special powers in the use of logic

Of course not, but neither was I saying it does. Did I? I was talking from hands-on experience of using a firesteel.

quote:

they do not make it their job to re-examine the very basis of their discipline

Complete nonsense. There is a whole field of knowledge called theoretical archaeology which is involved PRECISELY in doing that !! There's a Theoretical Archaeology Group meeting coming up soon, why not go along and see whether your preconceptions have any basis in fact? Mr Harper too.

As for professionals not admitting "that their own work is all what-if", try reading some of the Post-Processual stuff which is EXACTLY about that, mind you not all professionals read much post-processual archaeology, its pretty hard going (and I dont pretend to have read or understood much of it myself, but I am at least am aware it exists and the gist of their arguments). You only make yourselves look ridiculous claiming that only you can see what "the professionals" don't see, when in fact there is a whole body of literature examining precisely the role of paradigms and preconceptions in archaeological model building.

This appears to be a thread devoted to the arguments between two schools of thought on archaeology.

Whereas I was genuinely interested in flint balls having found a number of them.

So a) if this forum is for the initiated only -OK goodbye

b) When doing something practical I might pick up anything with the appropriate shape to use. If I lived in a desert island without any modern tools I might use flint balls for any manner of purposes if they were useful. i.e. killing food, using as weights, grinding if nothing else available, keeping the roof anchored if large enough.

At the moment a number are edging a border in my garden -what will a future archaeologist make of that?

Pointless arguments do not advance knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Ann W.:
At the moment a number are edging a border in my garden -what will a future archaeologist make of that?

That you didn't like trimming the edge of your lawn?

quote:

That you didn't like trimming the edge of your lawn?

which would prove Occam right!

quote:

Pointless arguments do not advance knowledge.

Pretty much what Karl Popper said.

quote:

I was just observing that what was presented as a request for information from the list, once again turns out to be a springboard for more anti-archaeological happy slapping from the Harper hangers-on.

The very model of dispasstionate intercourse.

Is there any reason a request can not serve two purposes? Or for a discussion to change course?

I implore you to address the arguments in these matters.

quote:

I was talking from hands-on experience of using a firesteel.

And I was not talking about your comments on using a firesteel.

quote:

As for professionals not admitting "that their own work is all what-if", try reading some of the Post-Processual stuff which is EXACTLY about that, mind you not all professionals read much post-processual archaeology, its pretty hard going (and I dont pretend to have read or understood much of it myself, but I am at least am aware it exists and the gist of their arguments).

If the what-if status of its work has been embraced by the archaeological profession, perhaps you could let those of your colleagues know who use the very same status in an attempt to rebuff "alternative" suggestions.

quote:

You only make yourselves look ridiculous claiming that only you can see what "the professionals" don't see

Please disabuse me of my ignorance: I was brought up to believe the truth of a proposition was independent of the person asserting it.

quote:

when in fact there is a whole body of literature examining precisely the role of paradigms and preconceptions in archaeological model building.

Great! Please direct us to the one where the question of Anglo-Saxon being the direct ancestor of English and all its material ramifications were put to bed once and for all. ('Sfunny: I thought the tried and tested method would have been deployed when the subject was first raised.)

quote:

Whereas I was genuinely interested in flint balls having found a number of them.

So am I, Ann, honest. But when it comes to dispelling this little mystery, we come immediately to what has already been said about them; and, since it always seems to be such an issue when an amateur questions a professionsal, who said it.

So far, it seems we have no satisfactory explanation, but I am more than happy for this thread to return the matter of finding one. And your experience should be invaluable here.

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
perhaps you could let those of your colleagues know who use the very same status in an attempt to rebuff "alternative" suggestions.

I think you misunderstand. If an "alternative explanation" is based on reading a rather generalised four line description in a book produced by an amateur archaeological society in the 1960s (revised in 1989) and is not based on an examination of the objects themselves, and not based on any real knowledge of parallels or what how (for example firesteels actually are used), then yes, I think one should dismiss it. It has no real basis. I assume because you don't mention one that there is no illustration in this book. If you are so desperate to find out what these objects were for Innocent, mail the museum, get a photo of a group of these things and post them up somewhere and THEN ask what people think they are. So, "how round is round". Are they really all flint (and some not chert or other stones)? Is the surface bruised by hammering or is it crazed by heating? Is there any cortex on part or most of the surface? Are they balls created by hammering, or ball-shaped nodules (like Ann has in her garden) modified by hammering parts of the surface? Ask the museum whether any have turned up in excavations in stratified contexts, or do they always occur just on the surface? I think if you want to find out what people think they were, you'd have to provide more information, because otherwise all anyone can go on is speculation.

What actually is the source of your interest in the Dunstable flint balls?

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: Great! Please direct us to the one where the question of Anglo-Saxon being the direct ancestor of English .........

Well, if you look again, I was talking (in a thread about flint balls) about the literature of archaeological epistemology. Yours is a linguistic question, why don't you take that one to a linguistic forum?

A fascinating answer, PMB. Here’s an extract from my book concerning how academia (sometimes) deals with the question of how Anglo-Saxon replaced Celtic languages in Britain.

<<History, like most academic subjects where peer review is the sole means of establishing agreed truth, is structured so that in extremis bucks can always be passed. In this case the process might go along these lines:

1) Historian: “Yes, this is a historical question but not one that falls within my remit, you will have to talk to an Early Medievalist.”

2) Early Medievalist: “Yes, this is a question that technically falls within my remit but it is not primarily a historical question. You are asking for a judgement on a linguistic matter and should therefore consult a linguist.”

3) Linguist: “Yes, this is a question that technically falls within my remit but it is one of such importance that a sub-category of specialists has come into existence to study it, the Anglo-Saxon and Middle English experts, whom you will find in the English Department.”

4) Middle English Specialist: “Yes, this is a question that technically falls within my remit but this is not, as we would understand it, a problem of literature. In so far as it pertains to language morphology, it is a problem for linguists; in so far as the evidence is wholly derived from a small number of historical documents, it is a historiographical problem. Either/or, but I'm sure they will sort it out for you.”>>

Highly entertaining Mr Harper.

So obviously it would have been pointless for you to even attempt to create a work of scholarship. Why bother to even try to have your work refereed by the most knowledgeable specialists prior to publication? Why bother to give references for your assertions? (Why bother to even note them down for your own personal reference?) Scholarship is all a waste of time. All we have to do is believe.

quote:

If an "alternative explanation" is based on reading a rather generalised four line description in a book produced by an amateur archaeological society in the 1960s (revised in 1989) and is not based on an examination of the objects themselves, and not based on any real knowledge of parallels or how for example firesteels actually are used, then yes, I think one should dismiss it. It has no real basis.

A fascinating illustration of how epistemology is applied, thank you; but this is scurrilous nonsense. Who has a premise for assessing a priori the value of a suggestion when the truth of a proposition is unequivocally independent of the circumstances from which its assertion arises and can only be assessed on its own merits? You are surely not suggesting that all academic publications are redundant because everyone must always return to first principles, but by all means point out the incompleteness of a given published source. Or demonstrate the impracticality of the suggestion. Or something else that addresses the merits of the case. "I can't be bothered to look into anything so-and-so says" is an entirely different matter. "Should be dismissed" may well be a valuable expedient in a given line of work, but let's not have it mistaken for any kind of logical inference.

quote:

I assume because you don't mention one that there is no illustration in this book.

That is correct.

quote:

If you are so desperate to find out what these objects were for Innocent, mail the museum, get a photo...

If I were desperate to find out, I would. But my question was "does anyone know what they are?" and I've had my answer: "without more information: no". Thank you.

quote:

Yours is a linguistic question, why don't you take that one to a linguistic forum?

I already know that there is no linguistic basis for the assertion. I also know that the English-from-Anglo-Saxon paradigm carries a number of material ramifications which archaeology should have plenty to tell us about... and you said such paradigm matters were already settled in the archaeological literature... so you'd be doing Stephen Oppenheimer, Win Scutt, the viewers of Newsnight, Francis Pryor, Heinrich Härke and a whole lot of other people a big favour by pointing out where this issue was put to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
the truth of a proposition is unequivocally independent of the circumstances from which its assertion arises and can only be assessed on its own merits

I must say I am astounded to hear that coming from somebody who labels themselves an "epistemologist" !! So, what kind of epistemology does your little group practice? Surely it is precisely those "circumstances from which its assertion rises" that is the fundamental subject of epistemlogical analyses?

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
my question was "does anyone know what they are?" and I've had my answer: "without more information: no".

heady stuff this "epistemology" stuff you demonstrate. If you actually look at the way you first phrased your question, it could hardly have been vaguer.....

Hi, i am also trying to find out about little flint balls as i have found a few of them ranging from 30mm - 50mm in diameter. I have a few theories as to what they are & where they came from. Are you any closer to getting a credible answer as to what they are or where they came from?