Читать книгу IN THE BEGINNING - Welby Thomas Cox Jr. - Страница 25

Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however which critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and which purporting their views in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists. Holtorf highlighted that there were similarities between academic and alternative archaeological interpretations, with the former taking some influence from the latter. As evidence, he highlighted archeoastronomy, which was once seen as a core component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream academics. He also noted certain archaeological scholars, like William Stukeley, Margaret Murray and Marija Gimbutas were seen as significant figures to both academic and alternative archaeologists. He concluded that a constructive dialogue should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists. Fagan and Feder have responded to Holtorf's views in detail, asserting that such a dialogue is no more possible than is one between evolutionary biologists and creationists or between astronomers and astrologers: one approach is scientific, the other is anti-scientific.

In the early 1980s, Kenneth Feder conducted a survey of his archaeology students. On the 50-question survey, 10 questions had to do with archaeology and/or pseudoscience. Some of the claims were more rational; the world is 5 billion years old, and human beings came about through evolution. However, questions also included issues such as, Tutt’s tomb actually killed people upon discovery, and there is solid evidence for the existence of Atlantis. As it turned out, some of the students Feder was teaching put some stake in the pseudoscience claims. 12% actually believed people on Howard Carter's expedition were killed by an ancient Egyptian curse.