Orion, you're absolutely correct. I certainly did misread. And I'm
certainly glad the word was arrogant rather than ignorant. But I
thought I was the one who used the word arrogant?
Anyhow, about the quality of history -- show me good archaeology done by
avocational groups. Perhaps you might like to list a few groups and
then I'll be glad to comment. As far as good or bad archaeology and a
person's affiliation you are correct. There are some horrible
archaeological stuff being backed by our major instiutions but there is
also some very good archaeological stuff. The mark of a great
institution is one that supports both.
Gerry
Orion wrote:
> Excuse me, Gerry, but didn't Jay use the word "arrogant" and not as
> you say
> "ignorant"?? Or have I missed something here?
>
> Orion
>
> At 11:26 AM 12/13/1999 -0800, you wrote:
> >Sorry Jay,
> >How can a "quality" history be written by an ignorant person?
> Perhaps
> >you had better check out the definition of the word "ignorant". I
> >wouldn't want an ignorant person selling me vegetables, living next
> >door, nor interpreting my history. But everyone is entitled to his
> own
> >opinion.
> >Gerry
> >
> >Jay Cunningham wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Gerry,
> >>
> >> >I would prefer my "history" being written by an arrogant
> >> >professional than by my illiterate cousin.
> >>
> >> I tend to think that the quality of the history should be the
> >> question, not
> >> the affiliation of the researcher. Just think of how much terrible
>
> >> archaeology is done by people with great credentials, and how much
> >> good
> >> archaeology is done by advocational groups. Unavoidably,
> credentials
> >> become
> >> a sort of 'short hand' when we don't know enough about a body of
> >> material,
> >> but we should at least try to look at what people are saying.
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________
> >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|