Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T13:22:02.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Neo-Prehistory—Exist. Regenerate. Repeat?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Christopher Chippindale*
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK (Email cc43@cam.ac.uk)

Extract

As archaeologists we try hard to communicate our insights to a wider public, whether through lucid writing, as exemplified by Brian Fagan's many books, or increasingly through technology such as a 60-second YouTube video. But our subject runs away from us, and our audience, as it gets ever more technical. A century ago, discussion of the chronology of Stonehenge relied on everyday language to describe the order in which the stones were put up; now it depends on Bayesian statistics applied to calibrated radiocarbon dates (Parker Pearson et al.2007). How many practising archaeologists understand that well enough to explain it lucidly in 60 seconds? Or really understand it at all?

Type
Debate
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, K., Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A. & Richards, M.. 2007. The age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00095624 Google Scholar
MacGregor, N. 2010. A history of the world in 100 objects. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar