pseudo archaeology

[Guest]

i guess this is a good time to explore this area of archaeology since it has cropped up from time to time in these discussions.

what are the rules that define this area? who is part of this? what should be looked for when deciding something or someone belongs to this category?

also who is borderline or close to crossing that imaginary line? i know a few names will crop up like van daniken but i am sure there are others less well known that we should be aware of.

so have it and lets have a decent discussion on this as being made aware is important.

[Essan]

I wonder how long before this degenerates?

Anyway, a psuedo-archaeologist is one who has no formal archaeological training - and often no experience in that field whatsoever - but on the basis of his ignorance in the matter, reinterprets evidence in order to provide support for a book he hopes to publish. He invariable pre-selects the evidence in accordance with how well it supports his conjectures and conveniently forgets about any conflicting evidence.

A genuine archaeologist is primarily interested in finding evidence which he may or may not subsequently interpret in accordance, or in difference, to current theories. But he does so by drawing a conclusion based on all available, rather than drawing the conclusion and then seeking the evidence to support it.

Obvious candidates include Von Daniken, Sitchin, Hancock, Collins, Flem-Ath etc

As well as pseudo-archaeology, these people also usually indulge in a spot of psuedo-geology - the same thing: they know nothing about the subject so reinterpret evidence in accordance with their preconceptions, and hope the gullible people will believe that 100,000 scientists are wrong...

I won't include Hapgood in this category since, at the time he published his ECD theory, it was worthy of consideration. Later discoveries and the development of plate tectonics theory have shown ECD to be wholly wrong. But at least Hapgood did write at a time before we knew this, unlike some modern authors who continue to regurgitate his theory as if it still has validity.

[Guest]

at the time he published his ECD theory

not sure what you mean by ECD there. i know of his pole shift thinking and his ancient map thesis but that one doesn't ring a bell.

also, i have read his books and he does not come across as a sensationalist like the others. he tries to logically sift through his topic and present a very good hypothesis whereas, hancock and others seemto just want to make outlandish statements just to stir up controversy.

hope the gullible people will believe that 100,000 scientists are wrong

well they can be...ha.

[Beagle]

ECD is Earth Crustal Displacement, which is the term used for "flipping of the poles".

I think Essans' definition is as good as one can get and I agree with him that the potential for this thread to provoke a lot of angry exchange is very high.

So - good question Arch but I'm going to give this thread a wide berth.

[Starflower]

Arch I found this spot when looking into pseudoarchaeology:

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/quotes/qt/quote46.htm

it is progress in knowledge, evidence, and understanding that separates plausible hypotheses from the silly ones,

Bettinger seems to say that only after a theory has been debunked and continues to crop up does it become pseudoarchaeology.

[Minimalist]

Depends on who is doing the debunking.

[DougWeller]

ECD is Earth Crustal Displacement, which is the term used for "flipping of the poles".

I think Essans' definition is as good as one can get and I agree with him that the potential for this thread to provoke a lot of angry exchange is very high.

So - good question Arch but I'm going to give this thread a wide berth.

ECD isn't the same thing. It's about the earth's crust actually slipping, the lithosphere slipping over the asthenosphere. A pole flip may have taken place 800 million years ago, but Hapgood writes about the earth's crust 'slipping' 3 times in the last 100,000 years.

A pole flip/tilt is different. You may find this interesting!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132321.htm

Doug

[Guest]

So - good question Arch but I'm going to give this thread a wide berth.

well i hope we can be gentlemanly about this and avoid such conflicts. along with people agreeing to disagree so we can get a good picture of where people stand and learn how to take each with a grain of salt.

let's not be inflamnatory, as an example--i could say that dever and finkelstein belong in the pseudo bunch but that woulod only be said toget a rise out of minimalist.

so lets avoid those type of statements and discuss on an even keel here being objective .

[DougWeller]

Back to the topic:

'Cult' Archeology

Traits that set the pseudo-archeologist apart... how he makes even the wildest claims sound convincing

By John R. Cole

Early Man, Spring 1980

Archeologists study the past, to which there are no surviving eyewitnesses. Therefore, their general subject matter is always ripe for speculation. And ever since Christopher Columbus misidentified Native Americans as "Indians!' a myriad of guesses, claims and hopes have been advanced to explain human origins here, even though for about 200 years most scholars have agreed that the American population descended from ancient migrants across the Bering Strait from Asia. Even when the speculators deal with outside influences on the cultures and civilizations of the New World - granting that the first humans in the Americas did arrive from Asia at some time far in the distant past - they generally become more involved in passion than they do in the scientific, analytical course of scholarship which has characterized modern archeology.
Thus, the term "cult" archeologist to denote those who, intentionally or misguidedly, would distort evidence and make it tell us only what they want it to. The dictionary defines "cult" as a "great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing" and gives the connotation of a fad to the term. U implies a leader or leaders of messianic tinge, resorting to a variety of techniques - once again intentionally or misguidedly - to win converts. Science is characterized by conscious efforts to eliminate or minimize elements which are central to the cultist approach. What, then, are some of the traits that characterize "cult" archeology?
1. Extreme particularism: Specific claims and myriad details are treated as ends in themselves rather than as elements to be interpreted according to what can be observed in relation to them. The "cult" archeologist tends to forego the experimental trial and error method which characterizes mainstream science and subjects claims to rigorous testing. Example: "Ancient inscription" advocates discuss large-scale colonization of America by Old World peoples without showing how their claims relate to or can be explained by cultural theory. How would Old World colonization have affected Native Americans according to what archeologists and anthropologists have learned about human adaptations and cultural change? "Cult" archeologists do not consider it either necessary or important to address themselves to such questions.
2. Single-mindedness: A piece of "evidence" is pursued ignoring the system into which it must fit. For example, all "ancient inscriptions" whatever the date or context, become evidence to support the case for "diffusion" from across the seas. Only confirming evidence is allowed in the debate.
3. Oversimplification: The world is a black and white struggle between right and wrong answers, not a realm of greater or lesser probabilities. People and ideas are toppled rather than built upon or modified. Example: A. Hyatt Verrill argues in a 1953 book that man arrived in the Americas from across both the Atlantic and Pacific. Accusing professional archeologists of deliberately suppressing information that conflicts with his theories, Verrill claimed that archeologists long knew of Mexican wheeled toys. "For some unknown and mysterious reason" he wrote, "perhaps merely to sustain their denial of any Old World contacts, no North American scientist would publicly and openly admit the existence of the wheel in pre-Columbian limes" until an article in Natural History inadvertently shattered the "conspiracy" by illustrating the supposedly secret toys.
4. Ambivalent authoritarianism: Authorities are vilified, but people are asked to accept new authorities, whether because of arguments or leaps of faith. Questions devolve to: "Whom should one believe?" Ideas are not tested rigorously. Skeptical viewpoints are attacked as a "failure to believe" rather than as a healthy approach - if such skepticism is applied to "cultist" ideas rather than to those of the "establishment:1 Examples: Those who questioned some of the conclusions of Barry Fell, whose claims are examined in detail elsewhere in this issue, were called "dissidents" by Gloria Farley, a Fell supporter, admitting no leeway in judging the evidence. Around the turn of the century, Augustus Le Plongeon - an advocate of "lost" Atlantis who thought Mayan temples had been connected by telegraph wires because Yucatan lintel sculptures contained zigzag motifs associated with lines - wrote: "Who are these pretended authorities (whom one may trust)? Certainly not the doctors and professors at the head of universities and colleges in the U.S., for not only do (hey know absolutely nothing of ancient American civilization, but judging from their letters in my possession, the majority of them refuse to learn anything .,."
5. Ambivalent anti-establishmentarianism: The "establishment" is vilified, yet at the same time respected and envied. "Cult" archeologists curry big-name endorsements so avidly they count as "votes" in their favor the simple lack of an attack on them. Scientific caution may be interpreted as cowardice or an inability to answer a devastating argument. Example: The wife of A. Hyatt Verrill (quoted earlier) wrote that she "confidently expected that (their) work would be discredited, derided and cast aside!' However, as the Verrills wrote in their book, "to her intense satisfaction and astonishment several leading archeologists and scientists accepted her findings. One copy ... was presented to Dr. Earnest A. Hooton who placed the work in the Peabody Museum reference library..." The implication was that Dr. Hooton was endorsing her views. Another example: George Carter, the geographer whose claims of transoceanic contacts based on plant evidence are reviewed elsewhere in this issue, also has involved himself in "early man" evidence in California. Referring to this evidence, Carter commented at a meeting, "Louis Payen (an archeologist) bought the whole complex as artifactual!' He eked a number of other scholars who had endorsed his claims, even though Pay en was actually preparing a study debunking Carter's claims. Other authorities cited also were critics rather than supporters, but since they were not present at the meeting, Carter could drop their names impressively.
6. Paranoia and delusions of grandeur: It is satisfying to think one can slay giants and change the course of history by advancing unique claims, and to tell oneself that the giants are being frightened into defensive responses. Like heretics, the "cult" archeologists put themselves into the role of martyr. The "cult" archeologists are out to make the outside world conform to their ideas, so they depict science as a wrong belief system, rather than a system of testable explanations.
7. Logical fallacies: According to William of Occam, a 14th century English philosopher and theologian, the simplest explanation - so long as it "works;1 explaining and predicting the most - is the best explanation ... until additional evidence rules out that likely explanation and a new one takes its place. Called Occam's Razor, the principle is concerned with probabilities. However, if something is possible, one cannot logically argue that therefore the something is probable. If\l were determined that life was possible on a planet such as Mars, for example, one cannot advance as an acceptable "truth" that there/ore life does indeed exist on Mars. Yet "cult" archeologists frequently do equate possibility with probability, arguing from "if" to "therefore" when there are other viable alternative possibilities. It may be pointed out that the burden of proof for a new idea lies with (he proponents of that idea, not on everyone else challenged to prove it wrong. Example: Fell states in America B.C.: "Pottery appears abruptly in north-eastern American sites, suggesting that it was introduced by visitors or settlers from Iberia during the Bronze Age!' (The fallacy of arguing from "if to "therefore".)

These basic characteristics of "cult" archeological thinking and procedures are generally accompanied by specific techniques to enhance the plausibility of claims:
1. Using snowstorms of details to give the impression of vast knowledge.
2. Misusing references: selective use of sources and quotations, misquotation, use of out-dated sources, and the ignoring of sources which contradict a premise,
3. Trusting a source because it is printed, such as balancing a news- clipping against a documented monograph. (Explaining his translation of Sumerian, Fell replied: "I was following the pamphlet of Dr. Robert P. Pfeiffer...")
4. Citing secret or non-existent sources. ("A leading archeologist assures me...")
5. Ignoring prior research to give the illusion of innovation.
6. Making assertions with oblique questions. (Commenting on a stone "just big enough to hold a human body," with channels carved around the perimeter, Charles Boland wrote in They All Discovered America: "I was told by an archeologist who dug at the (New Hampshire) site in 1955 that it was probably a leaching stone made by colonists for manufacturing soap ... I think (it was a sacrificial stone). And I think (it) was hewn by expatriate Phoenicians-Carthaginians come to America for religious freedom. Freedom that permitted the sacrifice of humans when the ritual demanded. Ritual that demanded a medium for the execution. A stone table. Not quite the same method used in the Mediterranean. Or was it?") (This stone is illustrated on page 16 -/Editor)
7. Appealing to insiders' knowledge. ("If you only had access to the documents 7 have seen...")
8. Finally, implying, intentionally or not, that Native Americans could not have achieved civilization without outside help, thus introducing a racist element which has no foundation in fact.
These are just a few examples of tip-offs that a book may be unscientific in its appeal. The popularity of "cult" archeologists does not depend on their being right or wrong, I would argue, but rather on their insistence on setting up David and Goliath contests, where they of course are the underdogs, competing by their own rules against the methods of the Goliaths of the "establishment" - methods which have proven sound in all the sciences. Rather than deride their motives, however, I would ask an unsuspecting public- to evaluate their theory and method, not just their ideas.

During World War II, Melanesian Islanders saw Japanese, Australian and American troops arrive with miraculous cargoes, from medicine to ice cream cones to guns. Invaders built harbors and airstrips and radio towers, and the cargo poured in. Then the invaders left. Obviously, there was something wrong with a world which distributed material goods so capriciously, and on island after island the natives hit upon the same solution: The invaders had built things which pleased the gods and lured the cargo. The islanders then built crude airstrips and bamboo control towers and spoke meaningless phrases into wooden "radios" and waited for the cargo to come.
Like cargo cultists, "cult" archeologists seem to confuse form with substance, holding meetings, presenting papers, publishing articles in their own journals, and so forth, emulating the form of science without comprehending its more meaningful aspects.
At the same time, science has been too often aloof, excluding much of the public eager to share the experience. Sometimes the resulting alienation has produced attempts to set up cargo cult-like parallel "sciences," deficient scientifically but perhaps rewarding psychologically. Cargo may indeed be generated in the form of book royalties, hotel and tourist dollars, lecture fees, and so forth. But more importantly there is the sense of sharing in the exalted work of "sciencing" from which many people feel excluded unfairly, and the sense of community and romance in the sharing of an insider's knowledge of ritual and detail - felt to be equal to or better than the "faulty" command of the same general subject matter on the part of the experts.
In an impersonal world filled with intimidating complexities and a few "best and brightest" experts who profess to understand them - while producing Vietnams and Three Mile Islands - it is no wonder that amateurs conclude that they can do as well or better as the experts who too often snub or talk down to them.
Unfortunately, the "cargo cult" solution to real world problems is very inefficient and wastes economic and social resources which could be devoted to better problem-solving approaches. The concept of predictive advantage is the heart of science - theories which work best can be used until a more efficient theory is developed - but irrelevant to "cult" archeology. Substituted for science's basic rationalism are solutions based on leaps of faith, which most often are more ego-massaging than knowledge-generating.
Professional archeologists and other scientists need to include the public in their work better than they sometimes do, and non-scientists need to make an effort to understand science better than they often do. Otherwise, "cult" archeology and its prophets stand to capitalize on the void that is created. The intellectual challenges of archeology which are worthy of mutual communications and shared analysis should be the real goals to strive for.
For further reading:
Ashe, Geoffrey (ed.) The Quest for America. New York. Praeger. 1971. Gardner, Martin Fads and Fallacies in (he Name of Science. New York. Dover. 1957.
Neudorfer, Giovanna "Practical architecture in the Hills: Vermont's Stone Chambers!' Vermont History, Spring. 1971
Silverberg, Robert The Mound Builders: The Archaeology of a Myth. Greenwich. New York Graphic Society. 1968
Wallace, Birgitta "Some Points of Controversy!' In The Quest for America (see above)
In addition to these works, the following publications regularly examine a wide range of exotic claims of interest to the general public, including those in archeology:
The Skeptical Inquirer, Box 29, Kensington Station, Buffalo, N. Y. 14215 (A quarterly, SI is priced at $15 per year)
The Zetetic Scholar, c/o Marcello Truzzi, editor, Department of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Mich. 48197 (three issues per year, $12)

About the author:
John R. Cole is adjunct assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is consulting editor for anthropology of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. A Ph.D. from Columbia University, he has done archeological fieldwork in Massachusetts, Iowa, Ecuador, Tanzania, and Great Britain. He is interested in the analysis of unscientific interpretations of archeology, and the public understanding of science and archeology.

(that's what he was doing when he wrote the article).

[Minimalist]

let's not be inflamnatory, as an example--i could say that dever and finkelstein belong in the pseudo bunch but that woulod only be said toget a rise out of minimalist.

Don't let it concern you. I call you a bible-thumping jackass and mean it.

[FreeThinker]

DougWeller posted:

"'Cult' Archeology

Traits that set the pseudo-archeologist apart... how he makes even the wildest claims sound convincing"

Great post Doug! John R. Cole does a fine job laying out the pitfalls of cult archaeology. I have seen some of the described methods used on this forum (I am sure you have too).

For another take along the same lines, but more geared towards science in general, check out "Cargo Cult Science" by the Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman. It can be found here:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_ ... ience.html

I really recommend it very highly! In fact I recommend all of Feynman's lectures. Don't worry, he does not talk in equasions or obtuse resoning. Everything I have read by him is straight common sense. "Cargo Cult Science" is about the same length as Doug's post so please check it out (didn't want to cut and paste another long post). Enjoy.

[ed]

i guess this is a good time to explore this area of archaeology since it has cropped up from time to time in these discussions.

what are the rules that define this area? who is part of this? what should be looked for when deciding something or someone belongs to this category?

also who is borderline or close to crossing that imaginary line? i know a few names will crop up like van daniken but i am sure there are others less well known that we should be aware of.

so have it and lets have a decent discussion on this as being made aware is important.

I think that junk Archeology is about the same as any junk science. The sniff test to be applied consists of answering the following questions:

- Are the contentions at odds with common sense and bodies of related well established fact?
- Have these contentions along with proof been published in any main-stream, peer reviewed journal?
- Have the findings been replicated and expanded upon?

What one often finds with pseudo science is that papers are published in woo-woo journals that are little better than some fringe web sites. You also see a fair amount of vanity press publications. If the "researcher" has a glossy website ... beware!! If he is selling anything ... Run away!!! If he whines about his findings being "too explosive" for the establishment" .. laugh in his face.

Let's face it: scients are like the rest of us. They would like the good things that success brings. They would like to stand out, buy good wine, get hot chicks, all of that. An "explosive" finding that turns science "on it's ear" would gurantee that stuff. Nobels are not given out for the 1,000,000 and first birdpoint (to quote myself, humbly).

So, no, if something is hot you would not be publishing it with a catalog printer in Tulsa, similarly, it would not be in The Creationist Journal or the Jesus is Lord Archeology Review. It would get big attention and, after review, the author would be on Leno.

Institutions really, really want hot stuff. It draws grants and students. If it is real it is supported. If Pons where not a goddamn lier he would be banging (wrack brain to think of young hot nubile chick singer ... damn, can't think of one) anyhoo, he would be though every other physicist would be trying to figure out how it worked. If you have the goods you don't have to beg.

For some really, really bad archeology check out the threads that I have linked to.

http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/php ... a796325d97

http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/php ... a796325d97

There was also some guy (dead now, I think) who made a career "finding" things like the Ark and other biblical stuff. He sold tapes, as I recall. I suspect that he bilked many a God-fearing Baptist lady. Fraud. He should burn in hell.

[Guest]

There was also some guy (dead now, I think) who made a career "finding" things like the Ark and other biblical stuff

that was Ron Wyatt, he was 7th day adventist, not baptist and his claims were debunked the moment he said anything. i believe there still is a website and a museum of sorts

So, no, if something is hot you would not be publishing it with a catalog printer in Tulsa, similarly, it would not be in The Creationist Journal or the Jesus is Lord Archeology Review

well i can see you are not objective. i on the other hand would put my discovery in such places as B.A.R. and other Christian publications as many are just as worthy as any secular journal.

wasn't it newsweek that published the ' Hitler dairies'???

[ed]

There was also some guy (dead now, I think) who made a career "finding" things like the Ark and other biblical stuff

that was Ron Wyatt, he was 7th day adventist, not baptist and his claims were debunked the moment he said anything. i believe there still is a website and a museum of sorts

So, no, if something is hot you would not be publishing it with a catalog printer in Tulsa, similarly, it would not be in The Creationist Journal or the Jesus is Lord Archeology Review

well i can see you are not objective. i on the other hand would put my discovery in such places as B.A.R. and other Christian publications as many are just as worthy as any secular journal.

wasn't it newsweek that published the ' Hitler dairies'???

Newsweek is not a peer reviewed journal.

I am objective, I look for objective information, you ain't gonna get it in a journal that goes into it with an axe to grind.

I said that the guy ripped off baptist ladies, not that he was one.

Anyway, those affermative studies?