- The tutor knows she is correct about Iron Age Building Cosmology
- Iron Age Building Cosmology is peer reviewed
- The Postgraduate Dean knows the tutor is an expert in Iron Age Building Cosmology
- The University knows there are no bad academics only poor students
- All Institutions know there are no bad universities only poor students
As a result of the deep personal trauma of watching my life savings go down the pan because academics cannot distinguish between archaeological evidence and a construct of our shared visual culture, I am deeply suspicious of archaeology that has not been in contact with a trowel; a principle I extend to archaeologists. Outside this redbrick reality, you cannot represent the views, opinions, feelings, perceptions, beliefs, cosmologies, or humour of the preliterate dead as some sort of knowledge, even if you use complex language and the magic words Claude Lévi-Strauss.
We need look no further than the Peter Principle, and what I imagine must be some form of Imposter Syndrome, as the cause of institutions that promote and protect a narrative of faith based learning.
In the case of roundhouses, we connect their archaeology with buildings on the basis of shape, not form, function, construction method or materials. Shape also trumps technology, culture, climate, and environment as a basis for comparison and "ethnographic parallels". Above left; Little Woodbury reconstruction by Crown Film Unit 
Except for a few notable exceptions, our pictures and realisation of the past are not real, or even necessarily evidence based, yet can have a powerful influence the way we think and visualise the past. This visual conditioning presents the biggest barrier to understanding the evidence; it is probably akin to deprogramming former cult members, who have also received positive feedback and reward from their peers that reassures them their beliefs are rational, hoverer strange they may seem to us.
I have suggested that imperialism and classical education helped generate an idea of ”primitive culture“ as a universal quasi-evolutionary phase somehow comparable to our Pre-Roman culture. In addition, it’s natural that archaeologists, consider woodworking tools in terms the materials they are made from, rather than what they were used for, further aiding inappropriate comparison.
I have also argued that, rather than copying his methodology, post-war field archaeology sought to reproduce the results of Bersu’s Little Woodbury [roundhouse] excavation, giving rise to a fundamental bias in our methodology and subsequent results.
This simplistic borrowed conception of a prehistoric built environment has created a discontinuity with our own historical architectural and craft culture, particularly the use of wood. Dumbing down the past betrays its practitioners, patrons and the public, undermining value and trust in education among those who pay for it. Experimental archaeologists, re-enactors, and the builders of ancient buildings want to believe in the authenticity and educational value of what they do.
Above left; Detail from Secoton North Carolina by John White, 1585. 
As recent work at Stonehenge has shown, the representations of past landscapes that we have routinely imagined are completely wrong, proving basing our ideas on pictures and constructs is simply building a house of cards, sticks, straw, or any material you care to imagine.
Sources and further reading
 http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/469778/ Bernatz, Johann Martin (1802-1878); Album of 19 drawings of scenes and landscapes made during an embassy to Abyssinia. 1841-1843
 G. Bersu: 1940: Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Part 1, the settlement revealed by excavation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 6, 30 -111