11th October 2010, 08:06 PM
Ah, see my points (for what they're worth) are not always coming across, sometimes because I'm trying to be concise in writing on the forum, and sometimes people seem to be misreading what is being said.
Case in point. The only criticism i have made of Francis Pryor is in an aside in another piece referring to him using misleading titles for his books. Seahenge being a classic example as it really doesn't contain very much about Seahenge, and is mostly an account of the fengate stuff which he has published elsewhere on numerous occasions. And that includes other misleadingly titled books such as Prehistoric Farming in Britain, which doesn't cover very much of Britain, and doesn't actually have that much about farming in prehistory in it. But I like Pryor's stuff in general, his career is based around a huge amount of field work and what I was trying (and obviously failing) to highlight was that his books are selling really well precisely because of the archaeology he writes.
As for me not seeing value in Peter Reynolds work? That just means you didn't read the piece. It states clearly in the beginning of that rant that he is one of my archaeological heroes (I have them, I don't care!) and that I was really annoyedry by Townends attack on his work because it's central premise was clearly incorrect and that the case study he used was inappropriate. He used a clever theoretical approach to write a critique that was entirely unsupported by any evidence. If that's post-Heideggan archaeology, count me out!
As said in an earlier post, I'll have to look at the language and writing style I have been using, as some people are not seeing the jokes, and others and not seeing the points. As it's me writing the stuff I have to take responsibility for that, but it does rather highlight the need for clarity in language. But more of that in a minute, for now I need pizza.
Case in point. The only criticism i have made of Francis Pryor is in an aside in another piece referring to him using misleading titles for his books. Seahenge being a classic example as it really doesn't contain very much about Seahenge, and is mostly an account of the fengate stuff which he has published elsewhere on numerous occasions. And that includes other misleadingly titled books such as Prehistoric Farming in Britain, which doesn't cover very much of Britain, and doesn't actually have that much about farming in prehistory in it. But I like Pryor's stuff in general, his career is based around a huge amount of field work and what I was trying (and obviously failing) to highlight was that his books are selling really well precisely because of the archaeology he writes.
As for me not seeing value in Peter Reynolds work? That just means you didn't read the piece. It states clearly in the beginning of that rant that he is one of my archaeological heroes (I have them, I don't care!) and that I was really annoyedry by Townends attack on his work because it's central premise was clearly incorrect and that the case study he used was inappropriate. He used a clever theoretical approach to write a critique that was entirely unsupported by any evidence. If that's post-Heideggan archaeology, count me out!
As said in an earlier post, I'll have to look at the language and writing style I have been using, as some people are not seeing the jokes, and others and not seeing the points. As it's me writing the stuff I have to take responsibility for that, but it does rather highlight the need for clarity in language. But more of that in a minute, for now I need pizza.