Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India

David <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:45 am, "Digger" <p.du...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189432751.438415.210080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Specifically, it seems that your knowledge is deficient because you
do not show that you ever read -

Han***, Graham.
Underworld : the mysterious origins of civilization / photographs by
Santha Faiia.
New York : Crown Publishers, c2002.

David,

One major point you seem not to appreciate is that very few people
with a professional invovlement in archaeology would even bother to
read much of what Han*** writes. He has so tarnished his own
reputation over the years that even if he did come up with something
worthwile, it would take an awful lot of persuasion for "the
establishment" to take him seriously.

When I first started out in archaeology I hoped that Han*** might
have had something valid to say but ended up finding myself
disappointed with his lack of academic rigour, his repeated attacks
on the "establishment" and his selective use of "evidence", (then
again, I suspect somebody like Han*** would say I've now "sold out"
to the establishment, so I *would* say that wouldn't I?).

In the long run I think Han*** is a tremendous disappointment. He
writes reasonably well for the popular audience and he comes across
well on TV. If only he could apply that to sticking to the facts and
presenting things that can always stand up to scrutiny.

I am aware of Graham Han***'s shortcomings. His errors are already
pointed out on sci.arch years ago. He did not have formal training in
archaeology.

Formal training is not the point.

[...]

--
p.a.

.

Quantcast