I continue to read the anonymous book reviews over at ACX, and am enjoying the one on The Dawn of Everything. The reviewer likes some of the book and agrees with some premises but detects large holes in the reasoning, as "the Davids" impose their own progressive politics on the archaeological record.
I heard an interview with Wenfrowe and was impressed, reporting on it in March. David Foster inserted a word of caution about it in the comments and I encouraged him to get back to us about his reading group's conclusions. That may no longer be necessary if this review covers his material.
A comment by Freddie DeBoer, who I very much like, and have also mentioned.
Forgive me for commenting before reading, though I very much look forward to digesting this review - at the request of some subscribers I started blogging my way through this book but quit in disgust after a few chapters. (I did finish reading it however.) I'm someone with a fairly high tolerance for, let's say, ambitious nonfiction, but in terms of citation and responsible reference to evidence this is one of the most irresponsible books I've ever read. Just hundreds and hundreds of pages of inadequately sourced claims and a few instances of misreadings of the provided citations so egregious that it crosses the line into dishonesty.
3 comments:
I like the gossip hypothesis he came up with. I don't believe it, but I like it.
I think it explains a great deal, but have an aversion to explanations that promise to cover that much territory
Exactly.
Post a Comment