06-19-2006, 06:36 AM
Errrr ... what's wrong with archaeologists dabbling in history, Robert :twisted: To try to give a full picture of a site/subject, archaeologists need to look at written evidence too. Perhaps that's what made him a great archaeologist - he tried to look at the whole very complex 'Arthurian' picture. Perhaps that's why he's considered worthy of being mentioned here.
Should historians only look at history and archaeologists only look at archaeology?
Should historians only look at history and archaeologists only look at archaeology?
