Among university academics, these post-processual archaeologists are in the probably unique position of being paid to invent knowledge to cover those topics currently beyond our understanding, especially in those areas where objective knowledge is impossible.
Traditionally, this is the province of religion, whose prophets have special insights beyond our shared objective reality, and whose texts can testify to events that transcend normal physical laws. While priests can report on opinions and beliefs of prophets, and even gods, at least they have some written records to work with; professors of prehistory can profess a detailed knowledge of the minds of people who left no records at all, and use it to explain the physical evidence.
Is it time to reclassify this form of archaeology as a religion, differentiated from mainstream scholarship, and fund it accordingly?
As a practitioner of archaeology, I naively thought that objectivity had place in the intellectual culture of archaeological interpretation, and based my now-abandoned PhD on detailed measurements and observations taken from real data [below], but I was greeted with consternation and disbelief.
I had missed a synod; archaeology is now about belief, and peer-reviewed revelations of ancient cosmologies are sacrosanct; I had insufficient faith in the extrasensory powers of my colleagues, and I was summarily excommunicated. To be fair, Newcastle University eventually forgave me, and despite my work's being of ‘no value’, were prepared to let me resume paying my fees.
However, since the laws of gravity are not part of their peer-reviewed canon, and therefore are not a relevant or credible basis for an argument in prehistory, it was clear I'd be flogging a brain-dead horse.
Like all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists, Post-processual archaeologists are more than happy to accept the benefits of modern science, from radiocarbon to DNA, but they have a complete blind spot when it comes to mechanics. Thus, postholes are increasingly understood as the product of special rituals and beliefs, that have been specifically imaged to explain them, and to suggest that they are the product of a rational process like timber building places you well outside the church of academic prehistory.
So, in a way, this is more than just about postholes; it is a battle for a rational past, with built environment, something that we can understand and relate to, rather than a set of mystical insights we have to believe in; it’s about the soul of archaeology.
In the decades following the War, the large-scale excavations of key nodal sites in the landscape produced archaeological plans of such fiendish complexity that they defied comprehensive explanation. Hillforts like Danebury , and complex crop mark sites like Mucking in Essex , produced what came to be referred to as posthole palimpsests.
Nevertheless, the only rational way into this data was to start by finding similarities between sites; Bersu’s findings at Little Woodbury before the War are of central importance in this respect, and his findings, roundhouses and four-post structures became points of reference for future reports. 
Archaeologists lost faith in their ability to interpret the data rationally, and I would venture that this failure led to a rejection of conventional and utilitarian explanations in favour of accounting for archaeological features in terms of the supposed spiritual beliefs, rituals and cosmologies of their creators.
Thus, while I was looking to the nature of timber frame engineering as an explanation, Post-processual archaeologists based in university departments, and often divorced from the physical and intellectual realities of real excavations, went in quite the opposite direction.
The peer review system ensures faith is maintained in the power of contemporary prehistorians to divine these ancient beliefs from archaeological features. It also ensures that, once an idea has been accepted as part of the canon, it is safe to suspend your critical faculties, and believe it. In addition, one of the great advantages of academic freedom and peer review is that you can block any research that challenges your subjectivity. It is no longer ‘our’ shared and objective prehistory, but ‘their’ subjective intellectual property they are selling, and they have cornered the market.
Post-processualists redefined archaeology so as to put it beyond the reach of science and rational objectivity, and as long as they articulate their explanations in terms of the unknowable, it is a valid approach to make up a narrative to explain real complex phenomena. Just as the adherents to a religious sect don’t have to justify their beliefs to anyone from outside their faith, so academic archaeology does not have to make sense in a wider world, and can teach what it likes to its students.
It has been my experience that British academic prehistory is effectively a closed shop, and the minimum price of entry is your objectivity; you won't survive in the seminary if you question the infallibility of the prophets.
It would be wrong to assume some deep underlying academic conspiracy here, and I should make a very real distinction between prehistory and archaeology of classical or historical periods. Where we have evidence of real belief systems, it is simply not acceptable to make up new ones or import them from elsewhere. Similarly, rational, utilitarian, and even process- based accounts of the archaeology are allowed, and even expected, in non–prehistoric contexts. [Medieval people dug pits to shit in, not to redefine their relationship with the earth.]
I also suspect prehistorians in continental Europe are more grounded, and less reliant on their supernatural powers of perception to explain archaeological features. It is mainly British academics that are making the running in divining the belief systems of these preliterate and extinct cultures.
Unfortunately for scholarship in general, and my own research in particular, once a subject has been colonised by post-processual archaeology, it is lost to rational analysis. Thus, postholes cannot be regarded as the product of a logical empirical ‘process’ like architecture, since archaeology has been redefined to exclude such heretical explanations. Once something has become the object of a subjective belief, it cannot be given up, since this would threaten the integrity of the whole faith. Once you have created your own or someone else’s cosmology to explain reality, there is no way back to rationality.
Post-processual archaeology had created a world in its own image; it is an irrational, simplistic, dysfunctional, and structurally illiterate mythology of the past, and sadly, once you have plumped for the Garden of Eden, you are stuck with the talking snake.
Sources and further reading.
 M. Parker Pearson (1999). 'Food, Sex and Death: Cosmologies in the British Iron age with Particular Reference to East Yorkshire'. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1999 (a) 9:1, pp. 43-69.
 Cunliffe B, 1984. Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 1 The excavations, 1969 –1978: the site. CBA Research report 52.
 The crop-mark sites at Mucking, Essex, England. In Bruce-Mitford, R Ed. Recent archaeological excavations in Europe. Jones, M. U & Jones, W.T., Robert Routledge Kegan Paul 1975: 133 -187,