(Part 2) Best archaeology books according to redditors

I love how they leave out the part where the Ottoman empire were one of the biggest slave traders ever known to mankind.

And the part where they declared Jihad, no longer allowed pilgrims to Jersulem and the systemic oppression and mistreatment of Christians in their lands that led to the first crusades.

Sources, the first on is by a Belgian author I sadly never learned about in school. Second one is a rebuttal years later and third one a rebuttal of that.(1 2 3 )

Have the book as a .pdf if you want should be public domain

As someone who has lived in two "Celtic" nations I know plenty about it! My dissertation supervisor actually wrote a book that delt with the subject, he received plenty of flak for it at the time. Dont mind a bit of "celtic pride" but it does get my goat when people take it further than that.

Hmmm. Looking further, you have posted a link to the 5th edition.

Publication Date: April 22, 2009 | ISBN-10: 0073530999 | ISBN-13: 978-0073530994 | Edition: 5


This one is the 6th:

http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Our-Past-Introduction-Archaeology/dp/0078034914/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Publication Date: March 4, 2013 | ISBN-10: 0078034914 | ISBN-13: 978-0078034916 | Edition: 6

I'll look around a bit more. I'm sorry. I know I can't help afford it at full price.

Ok, we can look at that for a moment. Before we start though, let's frame the discussion in a more academic light and say: "His views do not correspond with the current consensus of the research community." That way it's not about "right" and "wrong" but about what is "most likely" the correct outcome.

We should begin by noting that Hancock is not trained in history, archaeology or anthropology. Please recognize that this does not make him wrong by default, but it does make his claims more susceptible to criticism by individuals who are trained in those fields.

Wikipedia suggests that works by Fagan, Regal and Greene contain criticisms of Hancock's work. The wiki page on pseudoarchaeology also contains some discussion of Hancock. More importantly however, the wiki page lists characteristics of pseudoarchaeology that we can use to examine the claims that Hancock makes.

Not being my direct area of study, I don't know the location of strong academic resources, but I suspect that if you sent an e-mail to your local university's department of history/archaeology they would be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

I hope that this helps!

Edit: You might also try messaging one of the archaeology folks on the panel of experts for asksocialscience. They may not have checked in, but you might be able to get more direct answers from them.

I don't envy you. The used versions of most of those books on amazon are still more than $80.

This one is less than $10:
http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Theories-Methods-Practice-Edition/dp/0500287139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345575926&sr=8-1&keywords=9780500287132

Alas! I cannot claim to have read any English book on the subject other than an obscure book on the deciphering efforts of the Indus Valley language a decade ago - which does not seem to be coming up in google search unless it’s this one : https://www.amazon.com/Deciphering-Indus-Script-Asko-Parpola/dp/0521795664.

The author of the book wanted to decipher the script with the conjecture that it was some form of Sanskrit. Not a book I d recommend for someone starting out in the subject since it will paint a narrative that will color your subsequent inquiries.

Can't believe this one hasn't been mentioned

History of Archaeological Thought

The books that I most need are:

Principles of Archaeology

Field Methods in Archaeology

Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice

They are kinda pricey, which is why I haven't been able to get them yet, but nowhere near $100. And used is perfectly fine. I've just been borrowing from the library whenever they are available, so it's not urgent that I get them, but it would be nice to not have to stay in the library for hours, because you can't leave with textbooks. And in case it wasn't obvious, my major is Anthropology with a specialization in Archaeology. I am taking about four archeology classes this semester alone.

Also, if those are way too out of price range, I have a whole wishlist full of learning resources. Anything would help!

Archaeology Learning And Resources Wishlist

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0129035505/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_mw42CbF94BRHM

I have seen it a few places, but they pop up and disappear fairly quickly. Just watching it for now. That $5,000 process is absurd of course, but I could imagine how that might end up the only copy online eventually. :/ Damn scalpers. If you found a reasonable copy if be interested. :)

Hi there, here are some options, have fun!!

Dresses:

one

two

three

four

five

six

seven

eight

Separates:

top one

top two

top three

top four

top five

skirt one

skirt two

skirt three

skirt four

skirt five

Accessories:

one

two

three

four

bunch of 'em

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Moravia-Archaeology-Century-Czechoslovakia/dp/0714105201

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801439779/local1-20

http://www.academia.edu/227715/The_history_and_archaeology_of_Great_Moravia_an_introduction

> Classes have always existed. Social stratification has always existed. Humans are not, nor have they ever been equal. Civilizations had a concept of private property for millenia. You are literally making that shit up.

Your ignorance is showing.
Nope, I am not making that shit up, these are facts of anthropology. As I already said, go read some history. I will even give you a suggestion for start:

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Makes-Himself-Thinkers-Library/dp/0851246494

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3915783-the-dawn-of-european-civilization

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/961180.What_Happened_in_History

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Society-Classics-Anthropology-Morgan/dp/0816509247

Your understanding of society, history and Capitalism is naive in the extreme. Don't reply to me before you read up some more, any sort of debate requires competence from both parties.

>You don't think the Ark would have the same problem with rough seas?

There's nothing to indicate it faced rough seas so it's irrelevant.

Wikipedia listing something as mythical is not really a good argument to make.

If your argument relies on inductively making things up you are making a bad argument. Your argument does rely on inductively making things up.

>I think it still is unless you can find a successful, wooden-only ship of similar size to the Ark. All known vessels close to that size used steel and iron in their construction. And are very modern relatively speaking.

I did.

You can read more here, here, here, and more aren't difficult to find.