It is amazing to me that this subject appears every so often on various
lists. It is almost as if some brand new student has discovered the concept
for the first time. The bottom line hear is simply either you believe it
works or you don't. There does not seem to be any middle ground-under some
conditions and so on. This argument is remarkably similar to an argument
about the existence of a supreme being, with similar results.

Besides this discussion has become polarized and is in the beginnings of a
name calling session. Both of which seem outside the civil discussion zone.

However, I would like to try and stimulate a real discussion of real
concerns. After reading this list for quite a while I have come to the
conclusion that most of the "Historic/Historical (of whatever nomen)
Archaeologists" are certainly not archaeologist judging from the seemingly
little understanding of archaeology, its tools,  theory and methods
evidenced on the list. I may be misguided by the list (only the loudest
mouths, fastest fingers, or those with the lowest thresholds of BS write)
but it seems that your discipline has progressed little beyond the
Antiquarians of the last century.

Flames expected but at least informed the uniformed without resorting to
name calling and disparaging others beliefs and recognize when an
discussion has run it's course and the lines have been drawn. Besides you
cannot argue with a drunk or a zealot.

Jim Chase, dyed in the wool Archaeologist, Anthropologist, and Historian
with a very low tolerance for BS.

OK, flame away.