<HTML>Mark -
A fair comment, fairly offered (thanks for the kind words, by the way). I will say one thing, however. You have commented yourself (in private correspondence) how readig the alternative works left you with the distinct impression that professional or "orthodox" scholars are all close-minded buffoons, wedded to narrow visions and arrogantly conducting an inquisition to crush alternative views. They were motivated above all to keep their jobs. (I hope this captures your former impression accurately; if not, apologies.) The message you are replying to above certainly reflects just such unreconstructed attitudes.
This is not a very nice presentation of professional archaeology/ancient history, is it? It sort of suggests that professionals are all unthinking dupes of their teachers (another accusation championed by the likes of JAW), con-men out to peddle lies to the public for personal profit. In a word, it suggests they are frauds
Is it any wonder, then, that when "orthodox" scholars reply to alternative works there sometimes creeps in an element of vitriol? They have spent years of their lives underpayed and overworked, studying arcane material in dusty libraries or in the field, facing uncertain futures -- and now they are derided as con-men and frauds and intellectual inquisitors. In my view, if the alternative camp did not laden its output with such character-assaulting rhetoric, there would be far less unpleasantness from "meanies" on both sides.
Just my thoughts.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
