<HTML>Mark
I've found the thread I meant - here's JoeRoyles comments
************************************************************************
Author: JoeRoyle
Date: August-10-01 04:43
I thought it was OK, just - the 'evidence' in support of the guy's theory loked a bit shaky - a single glyph referring to drought (the context of the glyph was not given), some hybrid Christian/Mayan ritual practised today to appease the rain gods (taken to infer that these people fear drought), evidence for more recent droughts, climate fluctuations in Sweden, and the trump card, a sediment core dated on the basis of a single seed, radiocarbon dated (no mention of the error range inherent in the C14 technique). We were led to believe that 'scientific' techniques can pinpoint a year or two in history (dendro can do this, but can Oxygen-isotope analysis of ice cores, or lake sediment cores?)
His theory necessitates a rapid collapse (over a few years) - why not simple over-farming, coupled with a prolonged period of semi-drought conditions, disease, and a decline over a generation or two (appearing to be sudden in the archaeological record)? No, catastrophism is deemed to be more interesting, while the prevailing theories are dismissed as being 'over-complicated' (the archaeologist seemed to argue that a simple answer is best - but we're dealing with the comlpex interplay of culture and environment here)
The narrator kept referring to archaeologists who didn't accept his theory (the BAD GUYS), but none of these was named, nor did any appear in the programme. The BBC can and should do better - even the graphics were a bit dodgy.
************************************************************************
(reproduced without permission ~lol~)
I enjoyed the show too - I think there is another one this Thursday. I also would be interested to know whether his theory has gained recognition - it was clear from the show that initially some skepticism has been expressed, so it would have been interesting to see if his evidence had changed any minds......But to be fair to the BBC it may not yet be clear what the position is? (I'm not familiar with the sort of time frame we're taking - it could be really current ~lol~)
Thanks
Claire</HTML>
