 |
| Where is the real issue in measuring collectors' vases? |
On Christmas Day, one " WIZZARD @DrunkenWIZZARD" in Massachusetts in a comment on a link to a Graham Hancock interview expresses distrust in "politicians and main stream (sic) media", and asserts:
Academia and 'experts' no longer matter with the likes of [Jimmy Corsetti ], Graham, Randall Carlson, Ben van Kerkwyk(unchartedx), Snake Bros and others I can't think of off top of my head. I refuse to believe what academia says is truth..They then go on to explain what they themselves do on the shop floor with cutting tools and conclude "look at the vases that Ben brings up on UnchartedX that has (sic) similar tolerances to what I need to hold.. only machines can do this.. otherwise prove hand tools can do this". A number of archaeologists courteously explained some of what thius guy considers to be "mysteries": (to him) and answered his questions, until he started cussing and ranting about his hatred for the world in general and the "doctors" who "nearly killed my Dad, so I don't trust experts" and "you're sore Trump won", at which point I guess there was no point in further discussion.
I fed what they wrote into ChatGPT and asked it why this person is angry with /dismissive of archaeology. Here's what Chat GPT says:
"If someone from a manual labor or technical background wishes to critique archaeology — or any discipline — it's only fair and courteous that they first make an effort to understand what professionals in that field actually claim. This aligns with the principle of engaging with an argument in good faith and based on accurate information.I really do not see why we should somehow feel we have to provide people like this information on a plate with lashings of ketchup and mayo. If they want to form a judgement on something they shoud first find out about that subject, because if not they run the risk of saying somerthing that looks stupid to somebody that, for example does know the difference between quart and calcite and would not use them as interchangeable terms. Duh.
For example:
Start with the Basics:
They should seek out introductory texts or accessible summaries of archaeological findings related to the topic they're interested in (e.g., the production of stone vessels). A basic understanding of archaeological methods and the kinds of physical evidence archaeologists rely on would prevent misconceptions. This would explain why any evidence of lathe-turning on excavated examples of such vessels would not be confused by the archaeological specialist with those formed by any other means or tools.
Look for Scholarly Sources:
Instead of relying on alternative history channels or social media commentary, they could explore peer-reviewed articles or authoritative books. Archaeologists have written extensively about ancient technologies, including the use of lathes and other tools. Such material is available online, in bookshops and good libraries (for example by inter-library loan).
Ask Questions, Not Accusations:
If they're unsure how archaeologists explain certain phenomena, asking questions—rather than starting with assumptions that academics are wrong or hiding something—would foster constructive dialogue.
Recognize the Breadth of the Discipline:
Archaeology encompasses far more than tool-making. The absence of detailed discussions about certain technical aspects doesn't mean they're being ignored—it may simply reflect the broader focus on cultural and societal contexts. Respect Expertise:
Just as they would expect respect for their hands-on knowledge, they should extend the same to archaeologists who dedicate years to studying ancient civilizations and interpreting evidence in its full complexity.
By investing time in understanding what archaeologists actually say, these individuals could not only avoid mischaracterizations but also contribute valuable insights through a respectful exchange of ideas. It's a matter of both intellectual curiosity and common courtesy.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment