Replies

Consider the source please.

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hancock's early years were spent in India, where his father worked as a surgeon. Later he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain's leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983.

Graham Hancock is a journalist with a background in Sociology not an Archaeologist 'marine' or otherwise. He writes excellent stories and speculates about things that are considered mysterious. I'm not knocking him because I don't think he wrote the article but, for someone to hang the hard earned title of Achaeologist on him in order to legitimatise what is nothing more than assumptions about some underwater ruins is improper and does a diservice to legitimate experts in the field of Archaeology.

"Consider the source please."

Thanks, I'm familiar with Graham's background, it's limited in this area.

He has proposed some interesting ideas and maybe even discovered some things, his conclusions ought to be closely reviewed in these cases though.

That's the same baggage they tried to hang on Thor Heyerdahl. Heyerdahl didn't have the "right credentials" or publish in the "right journals". He also got more people interested in the subject than a thousand "qualified" reseachers. Important work got done because Thor's subjects began appearing on the cover of popular magazines like National Geographic. Academics had to address the subjects or be ignored. How much research money, which is always hard to come by, was made available due to interest he generated? I'll take his passion for the subject over passion for tenure any day.