Etymology[ edit ] Various different terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole [8] and William H. Stiebing Jr.

Author:Yozilkree Gara
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):10 April 2006
PDF File Size:18.61 Mb
ePub File Size:3.96 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Etymology[ edit ] Various different terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole [8] and William H. Stiebing Jr. Wallis , [12] Cornelius Holtorf , [13] and Gabriel Moshenka Fagan and Kenneth Feder however claimed this term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" that "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations".

Glyn Daniel , the editor of Antiquity , used the derogative "bullshit archaeology", [2] and similarly the academic William H. He believed that because of this, pseudoarchaeology could be categorised as a "single phenomenon". He went on to identify three core commonalities of pseudeoarchaeological 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.

Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudoarchaeologists "press-gang" the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" that is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma. Cole believed that most pseudoarchaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works, and that they instead believe it to be a "simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle" between contesting theories.

He went on to argue that most pseudoarchaeologists do not consider alternative explanations to that which they want to propagate, and that 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.

For instance, they often make use of "generalized cultural comparisons", taking various artefacts and monuments from one society, and highlighting similarities with those of another to support a conclusion that both had a common source—typically an ancient lost civilisation like Atlantis , Mu , or an extraterrestrial influence. 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 organisations 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.

Pseudoarchaeologist Robert Bauval on his views of academia [29] Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing the much larger archaeological establishment. In some more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public. Fagan expanded on this, noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinised to secure their validity In many cases, an a priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail.

Though there is overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions about the past, [37] objective analysis of folk archaeology—in anthropological terms of their cultural contexts and the cultural needs they respond to—have been comparatively few. They argue that the Earth is 4,, years old, with figures varying, depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the , years it is generally believed to have existed.

Archaeologist John R. Cole refers to such beliefs as "cult archaeology" and believes them to be pseudoarchaeological. He went on to say that this "pseudoarchaeology" had "many of the attributes, causes, and effects of religion". However, he has not presented evidence sufficient to impress Bible scholars, scientists, and historians. Answers in Genesis propagates many pseudoscientific notions as part of its creationist ministry.

Archaeological frauds and hoaxes are considered intentional pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally converted to pseudoarchaeology through unscientific interpretation.

Racism can be implied by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to Lost Tribes , Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact , or even extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to the intelligence and ingenuity of indigenous peoples. Practitioners of pseudoarchaeology often rail against academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming that conventional science has overlooked critical evidence. Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which "the Establishment" colludes in suppressing evidence.

Countering the misleading "discoveries" of pseudoarchaeology binds academic archaeologists in a quandary, described by Cornelius Holtorf [42] as whether to strive to disprove alternative approaches in a "crusading" approach or to concentrate on better public understanding of the sciences involved; Holtorf suggested a third, relativist and contextualised [43] approach, in identifying the social and cultural needs that both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and in identifying the engagement with the material remains of the past in the present in terms of critical understanding and dialogue with "multiple pasts", such as Barbara Bender explored for Stonehenge.

The opportune discovery of these tablets caused this story to spread quickly to all Bithynia and Pontus, and to Abonoteichus sooner than anywhere else. At Glastonbury Abbey in , at a time when King Edward I desired to emphasize his "Englishness", a fortunate discovery was made: the coffin of King Arthur , unmistakably identified with an inscribed plaque. Arthur was reinterred at Glastonbury in a magnificent ceremonial attended by the king and queen. Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology[ edit ] The assertion that the Mound Builders were a long vanished non-Native American people thought to have come from Europe, the Middle East, or Africa.

Nazi archaeology , the Thule Society , and expeditions sent by the Ahnenerbe to research the existence of a mythical Aryan race. The research of Edmund Kiss at Tiwanaku would be one example. The Black Egyptian hypothesis — A hypothesis rooted within Afrocentric thought, alleging that Ancient Egypt was a predominantly Black civilization. The Bosnian pyramids project, which has projected that several hills in Visoko, Bosnia are ancient pyramids.





Books by Cornelius Holtorf



Cornelius Holtorf




Related Articles