Re: FWD: re:Forbidden Archaeology

Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:22:53 -0500

Thanks? for this disturbing item. I am struck by the quote from "Tim Murray,
archeologist and historian of archeology at La Trobe University", who wrote
"I have no doubt that there will be some who will read this book and profit
from it. Certainly it provides historians of archaeology with a useful
compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge,
which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the
epistemology of one's discipline."

I interpret Murray's statement as a polite reference to the utility of bad
examples in teaching and as cautionary notes for future publications. I can
recognize several of the items of "evidence" in the publicity for the book from
the historical literature (e.g., the Galley Hill skull, pushed by Keith as
Pliocene man, but rejected even by his contemporaries as an intrusive burial
into older sediments). I do include such items in my course on human evolution.

However, if Murray's quote is being used to sell the book, then the book should
be honestly advertized as a bad example.