Читать книгу IN THE BEGINNING - Welby Thomas Cox Jr. - Страница 19

Chapter 7

Pseudo-science vs. The Real Deal!

Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, cult archaeology, and spooky archaeology—refers to interpretations of the past from outside the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of unproven, and fabrication of evidence. According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing in the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, "Pseudo archaeology actively promotes myths which are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples." (His opinion and not the authors)

There is no unified Pseudo archaeology theory or approach, but rather many different interpretations of the past which are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community. These include religious approaches such as Creationism when identified as "creation science" which applies to the archaeology of historic periods such as those which would have included the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, and the supposed worldwide flood myth. Some Pseudoarchaeology theories revolve around the idea which prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by many brilliant thinkers and poising the flaming question, “suppose alien life is proven? does Creationism go away quietly?”

Others instead hold there were human societies in the ancient period which were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his book Fingerprints of the Gods (1995). Pseudoarchaeology, has also been manifest in Mayanism.

Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups such as the Jews, the Catholic monks and alternative bible groups creating their own insight into creationism. Fringe archaeological ideas such as arch-cryptography have been embraced by religions ranging from the British Israelites to the Theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those which have been adopted by members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems.

Academic archaeologists have heavily criticized Pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterizing it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments". The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between Intelligent Design theories and Evolutionary Biology by some archaeologists.

Etymology

Various terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole (1980) and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987). "Fantastic archeology" was used in the 1980s as the name of an undergraduate course at Harvard University taught by Stephen Williams, who published a book with the same title. In the 2000s, the term "alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001), Robert J. Wallis (2003), Cornelius Holtorf (2006), and Gabriel Moshenka (2008).

Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" which "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations". They argued the term "Pseudoarchaeology" was far more appropriate, a term also used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such as Colin Renfrew (2006).

Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations.Glyn Daniel, the editor of Antiquity, used the derogative "bullshit archaeology", and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted there were certain terms used for Pseudoarchaeology which were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society".

Characteristics

William H. Stiebing Jr. argued despite their many differences, there were a set of core characteristics which almost all Pseudoarchaeology interpretations shared. He believed, because of this, Pseudoarchaeology could be categorized as a "single phenomenon". He went on to identify three core commonalities of pseudo archaeological theories: the unscientific nature of its method and evidence, its history of providing "simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues", and its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific Ethos of the Enlightenment. This idea that there are core characteristics of pseudo archaeologies is shared by other academics.

Lack of scientific method

Academic critics have pointed out which pseudo archeologists typically neglect to use the scientific methodology. Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudo archeologists "press-gang" the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" which is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma. Different Pseudoarchaeology groups hold a variety of basic assumptions which are typically unscientific: the Nazi pseudo archeologists for instance took the cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan Race as a basic assumption.

Christian fundamentalist pseudo archeologists conceive of the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old while Hindu fundamentalist pseudo archaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists. Despite this, many of Pseudo archaeology's proponents claim they reached their conclusions using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstrable at issue.

Academic archaeologist John R. Cole believed most pseudo archaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works, and they instead believe it to be a "simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle" between contesting theories. It was because of this failure to understand the scientific method, he argued, which the entire Pseudo archaeology approach to their arguments was faulty. He went on to argue which most pseudo archeologists do not consider alternative explanations to which they want to propagate, and which their "theories" were typically just "notions", not having sufficient supporting evidence to allow them to be considered "theories" in the scientific, academic meaning of the word. ⁽It should be noted here that this is the opinion of John R. Cole and no opportunity was given to the pseudo archeologist to respond due to the fact that this organization has no central office.

Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudo archaeologists typically use other forms of evidence to support their arguments. For instance, they often make use of "generalized cultural comparisons", taking various artifacts and monuments from one society, and highlighting similarities with those of another to support a conclusion which both had a common source—typically an ancient lost civilization like Atlantis, Mu, or an extraterrestrial influence. This takes the different artifacts or monuments entirely out of their original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of the utmost importance.

Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudo archaeologists is the interpretation of various myths as reflecting historical events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural contexts. For instance, pseudo archaeologist Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilization represented a cosmic catastrophe which occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE. This was criticized by academic archaeologist William H. Stiebing Jr., who noted that such myths only developed in the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, over a millennium after Velikovsky claimed the events had occurred, and the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.

Opposition to the archaeological establishment

[Academics] have formed a massive and global network through universities, museums, institutes, societies, and foundations. And this immense powerhouse and clearing house of knowledge has presented their dogma of history to the general public totally unhindered and unchallenged from the outside. ... On a more sinister note: now this "church of science" has formed a network of watchdog organizations such as CSICOP and The Skeptical Society [sic] (to name but a few) in order to act as the gatekeepers of the truth (as they see it), ready to come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on all those whom they perceive as "frauds", "charlatans", and "pseudo-scientists" – in short, heretics.

Pseudo archeologist Robert Bauval on his views of academia (2000)

Pseudo archeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing the much larger archaeological establishment. They often use language which disparages academics and dismisses them as being unadventurous, spending all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to challenge the orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In some more extreme examples, pseudo archeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public. When academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists and criticize their theories, many pseudoarchaeologists see it as further evidence which their own ideas are right, and which they are simply being suppressed by members of this academic conspiracy.

The prominent English archaeologist Colin Renfrew admitted which the archaeological establishment was often "set in its ways and resistant to radical new ideas" but which this was not the reason why Pseudoarchaeology theories were outright rejected by academics. Garrett Fagan expanded on this, noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinized to secure their validity ... and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn." Fagan noted which Pseudo archaeology theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.

Conversely, many pseudo archeologists, whilst criticizing the academic archaeological establishment, also attempt to get support from people with academic credentials and affiliations. At times, they quote historical, and in most cases dead academics to back up their arguments; for instance prominent pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, repeatedly notes which the eminent physicist Albert Einstein once commented positively on the 'Pole Shift Hypothesis, a theory which has been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock supports. As Fagan noted however, the fact that Einstein was a physicist and not a geologist is not even mentioned by Hancock, nor is the fact that the understanding of Plate Tectonics which came to disprove earth crustal displacement only came to light following Einstein's death.