I never read the book, but ironically it came up as a subject on Mediev-L list I'm subscribed to. It was pretty heavily criticized as a crack-pot type interpretation of history. The main complaints, however, is that it did not follow standard historical methodology, such as making conclusions from unsupportable evidence, interpreting evidence out of context, and more importantly, ignoring (or failing to address) evidence that contradicts the main thesis of the book.
Although occasionally advances in historical knowledge can occur by "outsiders" (i.e. non-professionals), more often than not these people have little to add (and therefore would be fine for "pop" or introductory history), or rather, lack training in methodology so that their conclusions are twisted or unsupportable. I liken it akin to if I talked about astronomy. I might have a lot of information about it, and generally could possibly even teach it, but any real new discoveries (beyond finding comets and other stellar bodies...I'm thinking more in the line of astrophysics or new theories) would be beyond me because I lack training in formal methodology of science and Astronomy research. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
