Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- From: "Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:12:38 +0200
David <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:29 pm, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:David <pchristain...@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.
[...]
Please get to the point of refuting Han***'s speculation here with
hard facts.
I bet you can't.
This is sci.archaeology, not a betting office.
You keep bringing people like Hang*** up,
and expect us to refute him.
Piss off, troll and go play with yourself.
--
p.a.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- References:
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- From: David
- Re: Nailing Peter Alaca
- From: Digger
- Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- From: David
- Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- From: David
- Re: Archaeology and speculation
- Prev by Date: Re: Sundaland
- Next by Date: Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- Previous by thread: Re: Getting serious about the Qumran Sundial and its connection to the Essenes
- Next by thread: Re: Graham Han*** and his marine archaeology in India
- Index(es):