12th April 2012, 12:48 PM
I feel this thread is descending somewhere, though not sure where? But to get to the original claim of stone outcrops that look like something to someone and therefore are proof of ancient religions/ideas etc........... I wonder whether other disciplines suffer the same kind of nutjobs, lazy practitioners and glory-seekers. Or is just a product of engaging with the public through the bullsh*t/sensationalist filters that we call journalists? Feel we've been here before. I wonder what journalists feel when they see their latest pile of fiction in print or when the predicted 'end of the world' fail to emerge. Do they just blame someone else, 'not my fault my sources were incorrect' or do they just laugh all the way to the bank. I know I feel sick every time I see a story (archaeology or not) butchered in the name of making it a better story, or so that the general public can 'understand it'. Why is that some feel that archaeology has to be dumbed down for the public so much as to be so inaccurate that its basically nonsense. Surely the 'general public' includes other archaeologists, rocket scientists, theoretical physicists, economists etc etc. No wonder no one values archaeology, I wouldn't based solely on whats released to the public via the bullsh*t merchants.............. Ooo I seem to be standing on some kinda wooden box 
!
!