Archaeology ought to be a much simpler subject that it turns out to have become. Particularly in the study of human prehistory the subject has become heavily defended, even brittle, in supporting a paradigm that fails to incorporate other significant and observable aspects that can reasonably be termed objective evidence. Fifty years ago, when archaeologists were coping with a wholly wrong model of European prehistory within the massive rearrangement of the prehistoric chronologies brought about by radiocarbon dating, they failed dismally to embrace the highly objective archaeoastronomical paradigm being suggested by Alexander Thom, even less the less objective but observable phenomenon described by Alfred Watkins - of straight lines connecting ancient sites. Both Thom the ultra rationalist, and Watkins, the inventor scientist and the first ley-hunter, were attacked as "lunatic fringe", "deluded" and 'no longer of archaeological interest', this last quote (about the work of Thom) coming from Clive Ruggles in 1998.
While no-one can put archaeology on the therapy couch, what Stout has done is to determine the symptoms and the nature of its psychological state, its 'shadow-side', and this he does extremely readably and well. Having embraced the academic route, obtaining a PhD in archaeology, and also fully familiar and active within the 'earth mysteries' movement, Stout is thereby better qualified to advise archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike on how alternative evidence can be incorporated within new models of the distant past. Many would be grateful for that.
Robin Heath