More Blundering Archaeologists - 221 LexiLine Journal

More "blundering archaeologists" are described by The Guardian
at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1034647,00.html

a link provided by "explorator" at yahoogroups.com,
a link listing provided through David Meadows,
who in my opinion is generally unduly hard on the non-mainstream and
here, at least, exceptionally "forgiving" to mainstream archaeology
blunders, where no forgiveness should be given.

Meadows writes:
"Not sure the press coverage is fair on this one ... petroglyphs
found this summer in Norfolk which were thought to be possibly
2000 years old have turned out to date from 1995 ... A.D."

In fact, the "excited" archaeologists in Norfolk had dated rock
carvings to ca. 1000 BC until a construction worker came forward
stating that the carvings (two intertwined serpents, a dragon and
runic symbols) were his, and made only 8 years ago.

Contrary to the opinion of Meadows, in my opinion, the press
coverage was in fact very KIND to the archaeologists. Here is what
The Guardian should have written.

"As far as rock carvings go, mainstream archaeology has not a clue
about what they are doing in interpreting prehistoric art and
megalithic sculpture, otherwise, they would have no trouble in
distinguishing the real things from falsifications or "modern art".
If the construction worker had not come forward, this "sensational"
find would have gone into archaeology books as "legitimate". Is this
a wider problem in archaeology?

As observed by Andis Kaulins - whose book, Stars Stones and
Scholars: Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the
Earth by Astronomy" appears this month - "Most legitimate ancient
rock carvings relate to astronomy. One has to know what the rock
carvings meant in their regional astronomical context in ancient
days to correctly interpret them. Knowing this context, legitimate
ancient art can be distinguished easily from art which has nothing
to do with ancient eras. Anyone finding runic symbols together with
intertwined serpents together with a dragon - now or in the future -
is the subject of a hoax, whether intended or not. No such themes
were actually used in the UK in ancient days. This is a case of a
modern myth propogating a myth, so-called imagined modern Druids
seeking mythical Druids - which seems to be the penchant of
mainstream archaeology. Stated simply, mainstream archaeology has no
clue on this score. If you want to know what significance attaches
to prehistoric art and megalithic sculpture, you have to read my
book."
__________

Ponder if you will, dear LexiLiners, what "scientific method" other
than "guesswork" and "wishful thinking" is at the root of the
numerous mainstream archeaological blunders which I have described
to you in the space of just the last few weeks. And imagine just how
widespread such archaeological blunders are - and how many of these
have not yet been shown to be the blunders they are.

I think then that all of you will obtain a better understanding of
the research that I present to you in LexiLine.

I know what the stones and drawings mean - the archaeologists do not.