most of us have a list of "books to buy as soon as we pay for something
else" as long as your arm. Mine is even longer. Could you not explain in
words of one syllable how "integrity" has allegedly been questioned,
"reputations destroyed" etc etc etc. without making us buy a (possibly
ranty) book from some obscure publisher? [Off list if you prefer]
No, I've not read the book.
I assume Pat Barrow says the bones were most likely those of slaves, Mark
Horton on the basis of closer examination (apparently) disagreees, where is
the problem? Where is the alleged malpractice supposed to lie?
Since the whole issue has been plastered all over loads of newspapers and is
a textbook case of "whose heritage?", I don't think Mark Horton is the "only
one" who could have suggested the story to BBC scriptwriters. You seem to
dismiss the possibility that they might have done some background research
on their own, why?
> we were all empathic with the original finder of the site, who was treated
> so badly during that period of regretful events.<
Empathy is one thing, palaeo-osteology another. If the bones don't (as the
newspaper reports seem to be saying) match the story then there's nothing
much to do except change the interpretation... "integrity" and painstaking
work don't mean much if they are directed towards an "alternative truth"
which is in conflict with what the material evidence suggests.
> Money, in archaeology, appears to be the driving force these days for
> destroying many a reputation. <
Explain please how we can all make money out of reputation destruction. I'd
love to know. Until you explain what you mean, this anti-professional rant
looks like a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory.
"Protocols of the Elders of Archaeion" eh?