|
rockhopper wrote: Thats all way above me, but ta for the feedback. On a more serious note, this paper(edited for brevity on this site due to 10'000 character limit) was rejected by the Waterford archaeological and historical society for being "too controversial"(!)
My experience with Irish academics, and this may hold true elsewhere, is that if it does'nt further their own careers, then they block any attempts for others to proceed. i was told by one leading member of the 'establishment' who actually came out to see this, "dont push this any further...and don't expect archaeologists to come down here and help you. They never have and never will." With which this particular individual got in its car and drove away.
Once they begin the ascent of the greasy career pole, they lose all sight of why they are on it in the first place. But I'm sure the state pension will compensate for this lack of ethics.
It's the same in other fields too. I'm in a different field, in Ireland, but still history related and the same thing goes. Anything controversial gets pushed aside. They just want people producing reworkings of the same old stuff and simply refuse to engage with anything that challenges that.
|