https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/nov/05/archaeologists-discover-how-oldest-american-civilisation-survived-a-climate-catastrophe
I think archaeology is better when it's an ideology free zone. As soon as you start using it to try and justify your world view, it generally goes badly wrong.
Some of the stuff that she says would be fascinating if said by someone who didn't have an ideological (stone) axe to grind.
Are there plans for a golden ballroom to move into the site?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Nov 06, 2025, 10:50 AMI think archaeology is better when it's an ideology free zone.
Good idea, though people do have a chronic issue with filtering out their own ideology. It's probably a subject formally studied in archaeology now, less so when I studied it. I recall one of my lecturers, who fancied himself as an archaeological theorist, used to moan about Communist archaeology. He also had little time for Colin Renfrew, a major prehistorian, who he felt was wedded to the "Big Man" idea of history/archaeology.
Yes, probably the most dangerous people are those who think that they are unbiased. There are very few people who are as unbiased as I am.