Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroJunk
That's not what they say though . Field archaeology is very rigorous indeed and you can see the teams of analysts collating the site material in the tents on site. Do you remember an early episode when some guy had salted a site with relics? It was fascinating as the team saw through the scam very quickly due to the distribution and representation of the finds. Top science!
And from a pottery perspective, Pot shards are the graptolites of Archaeology - highly indicative of period.
PS I studied Archaeology & Geology (and Astronomy) at Uni  |
The only thing rigorous about field archaeology is that they use shovels to dig holes....or an occasional backhoe
Yeah, I remember that episode. It's just good detective work and a good bit of foreknowledge of what you're going to be finding in the first place.
Ah, I wouldn't be comparing pottery with graptolites. The only thing pottery is truly indicative of is that people once occupied a site. To then claim it's indicative of a time period, based just on the pottery evidence alone, is not even good archaeology. It has to have solid supporting evidence that's more of an indication of what time it came from.
That's why future archaeologists, in some sense, are going to find digging up our civilisation rather easy to date....someone will be digging in a field and next they'll say (Time Team 4850AD)...."Hey, look what I've found!!!. Looks like a dual quad core chip from an ancient computer!!!". Then the equivalent of that time's Phil Harding will say..."My Gosh, it is!!!. From the Late Microsoft period, I think. You can just make out the manufacturer's stamp on the back...2012 it looks like..."