Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

12/5/2020 Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia
Pseudoarchaeology
Erich von Däniken (left) and Graham Hancock (right) are two of the most widely published proponents of
pseudoarchaeological opinions.
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 datagathering and
analytical methods of the discipline.[1][2][3] 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 fallacy, and fabrication of evidence.[4] According to archaeologist John Hoopes,
writing in the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, "Pseudoarchaeology actively promotes
myths that are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and
the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples."[5]
There is no unified pseudoarchaeological theory or approach, but rather many different interpretations
of the past that are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community. These include
religious approaches such as Creationism when identified as "creation science" that applies to the
archaeology of historic periods such as those that would have included the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark
and the Genesis flood narrative, and the supposed worldwide flood myth. Some pseudoarchaeological
theories revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their
development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Italian author Peter
Kolosimo, French authors Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in The Morning of the Magicians (1963),
and Swiss author Erich von Däniken in Chariots of the Gods? (1968). Others instead hold that there were
human societies in the ancient period that were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis,
and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his Fingerprints of the Gods
(1995). Pseudoarchaeology has also been manifest in Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.
Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such
as archaeocryptography and pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from the British
Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those that have been adopted by
members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems.
Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics,
John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence,
misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments".[6] The
relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship
between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology 1/17
Contents
Etymology
Characteristics
Lack of scientific method
Opposition to the archaeological establishment
Nationalist motivations
Religious motivations
Description
In history
Examples
Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology
Religious motivation
General
The Maya World
Notable books
Notable television programs and series
Legitimate archaeological sites and objects often subject to pseudoarchaeological speculation
Academic archaeological responses
Conferences and anthologies
Inclusive attitudes
See also
References
Footnotes
Bibliography
Academic books
Alternative archaeological books
Academic book chapters
Academic journal articles
Popular archaeological articles
Further reading
External links
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)[8] and William H.
Stiebing Jr. (1987).[9] "Fantastic archaeology" 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.[10]
In the 2000s, the term "alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim
Sebastion (2001),[11] Robert J. Wallis (2003),[12] Cornelius Holtorf (2006),[13] and Gabriel Moshenka
(2008).[14] Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen
because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" that "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive
inclinations".[2] They argued that the term "pseudoarchaeology" was far more appropriate,[2] a term also
used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such as Colin Renfrew (2006).[15]
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",[2] and similarly the academic
William H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms used for pseudoarchaeology that were heard
"in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite
society".[16]
Characteristics
William H. Stiebing Jr. argued that despite their many differences, there were a set of core
characteristics that almost all pseudoarchaeological interpretations shared. 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.[17] This idea that there are core characteristics
of pseudoarchaeologies is shared by other academics.[18]
Lack of scientific method
Academic critics have pointed out that pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect to use the scientific
method. 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.[19][20] Different pseudoarchaeological groups hold a variety of basic
assumptions which are typically unscientific: the Nazi pseudoarchaeologists for instance took the
cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption, whilst Christian fundamentalist
pseudoarchaeologists conceive of the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old and Hindu
fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the
200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists.[21] Despite this, many of
pseudoarchaeology's proponents claim that they reached their conclusions using scientific techniques
and methods, even when it is demonstrable that they have not.[22][23]
Academic archaeologist John R. 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.[24] It was because of this failure to understand the scientific
method, he argued, that the entire pseudoarchaeological approach to their arguments was faulty. 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.[25]
Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudoarchaeologists typically use other forms of evidence to
support their arguments. 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.[17] This takes the different artefacts or monuments entirely out of
their original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of
the utmost importance.[26]
Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudoarchaeologists is the interpretation of various

myths as reflecting historical events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural
contexts.[27] For instance, pseudoarchaeologist Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the myths of
migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilisation represented a cosmic catastrophe
that occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE.[28] This was criticised by academic archaeologist William
H. Stiebing Jr., who noted that such myths only developed in the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, two
millennia after Velikovsky claimed that the events had occurred, and that the Aztec society itself had not
even developed by the 7th century BCE.[27]
Opposition to the archaeological establishment
Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being [Academics] have formed a massive

underdogs facing the much larger archaeological and global network through
establishment.[6][7][17] They often use language which disparages universities, museums, institutes,
societies and foundations. And this
academics and dismisses them as being unadventurous, spending immense powerhouse and clearing-
all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to challenge the house of knowledge has presented
orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In some their dogma of history to the
more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused general public totally unhindered
academic archaeologists of being members of a widespread and unchallenged from the
outside. ... On a more sinister note:
conspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public.[30] now this "church of science" has
When academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists and criticise their formed a network of watchdog
theories, many pseudoarchaeologists see it as further evidence that organisations such as CSICOP and
their own ideas are right, and that they are simply being The Skeptical Society [sic] (to name
suppressed by members of this academic conspiracy.[31] but a few) in order to act as the
gatekeepers of the truth (as they see
it), ready to come down like the
The prominent English archaeologist Colin Renfrew admitted that proverbial ton of bricks on all those
the archaeological establishment was often "set in its ways and whom they perceive as "frauds",
resistant to radical new ideas" but that this was not the reason why "charlatans", and "pseudo-
pseudoarchaeological theories were outright rejected by scientists" – in short, heretics.
academics.[32] Garrett G. Fagan expanded on this, noting how in
the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or Pseudoarchaeologist Robert
arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinised to secure their Bauval on his views of
validity ... and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take academia (2000)[29]
considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn."
Fagan noted that pseudoarchaeological theories simply do not
have sufficient evidence to back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional
archaeologists.[26]
Conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising the academic archaeological establishment,

also attempt to get support from people with academic credentials and affiliations.[33] At times, they
quote historical, and in most cases dead academics to back up their arguments; for instance prominent
pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, in his seminal Fingerprints of the Gods (1995), repeatedly notes
that the eminent physicist Albert Einstein once commented positively on the pole shift hypothesis, a
theory that has been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock supports.[34] 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.[35]
Nationalist motivations
Pseudoarchaeology can be motivated by nationalism (cf. Nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of
the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption to establish the Germanic people as the descendants of the
original Aryan 'master race') or a desire to prove a particular religious (cf. intelligent design),
pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion is
established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail.[36]
Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by pointing to differences in research

methodology, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic
approach to collecting data. 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. However, in this
vein, Robert Silverberg located the Mormon's use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural
nexus[38] and the voyage of Madoc and "Welsh Indians" was set in its changing and evolving
sociohistorical contexts by Gwyn Williams.[39]
Religious motivations
Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeological theories include the young earth theory of some Judeo-
Christian fundamentalists. They argue that the Earth is 4,000–10,000 years old, with figures varying,
depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is
much older than the 200,000 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".[24]
A more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology is the claim of Ron Wyatt to have discovered
Noah's ark, the graves of Noah and his wife, the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel,
and numerous other important sites. 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.[40][41]
Description
Pseudoarchaeology can be practised intentionally or unintentionally. Archaeological frauds and hoaxes
are considered intentional pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally
converted to pseudoarchaeology through unscientific interpretation. (cf. confirmation bias)
An Aryan Supremacist view of History has set itself in the pseudoarcheology of the Middle East in
Contradiction to the Semitic view of Judeo-Christian and Biblical History resulting in Fraudulent
Cuneiform Tablets as Clay Tablets are difficult to date. To Build up a Pseudo History of Babylon the
great. "By 1904, during the early period of cuneiform tablet collecting, J. Edgar Banks, a Mesopotamian
explorer and tablet dealer, estimated that nearly 80% of tablets offered for sale in Baghdad were fakes.
In 2016, Syria’s Director General for Antiquities and Museums reported that approximately 70% of
seized artifacts in the country are fakes."[42]
Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been motivated by racism,
especially when the basic intent was to discount or deny the abilities of non-white peoples to make
significant accomplishments in astronomy, architecture, sophisticated technology, ancient writing,
seafaring, and other accomplishments generally identified as evidence of "civilization". 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[43] 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[44] 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.[45] In presenting the quest for truths as process
rather than results, Holtorf quoted Gotthold Lessing (Eine Duplik, 1778):
If God were to hold in his right hand all the truth and in his left the unique ever-active spur
for truth, although with the corollary to err forever, asking me to choose, I would humbly take
his left and say "Father, give; for the pure truth is for you alone!"
"Archaeological readings of the landscape enrich the experience of inhabiting or visiting a place," Holtorf
asserted. "Those readings may well be based on science but even non-scientific research contributes to
enriching our landscapes."[46] The question for opponents of folk archaeology is whether such
enrichment is delusional.
Participatory "public" or "community" archaeology offers guided engagement.
In history
In the mid-2nd century, those exposed by Lucian's sarcastic essay "Alexander the false prophet"
prepared an archaeological "find" in Chalcedon to prepare a public for the supposed oracle they planned
to establish at Abonoteichus in Paphlagonia (Pearse, 2001[47]):
[I]n the temple of Apollo, which is the most ancient in Chalcedon, they buried bronze tablets
which said that very soon Asclepius, with his father Apollo, would move to Pontus and take
up his residence at Abonoteichus. 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 1291, 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.
Examples
Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology
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.[48][49]
The Kensington Runestone of Minnesota held to prove Nordic Viking primacy in discovery of the
Americas.
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.
The theory by British Israelists that the Hill of Tara in Ireland contained the Ark of the Covenant. They
excavated the hill in an attempt to prove the Irish were part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Piltdown man.
Neolithic hyperdiffusion from Egypt being responsible for influencing most of the major ancient
civilizations of the world in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and particularly the ancient Native
Americans. This includes Olmec alternative origin speculations.
Jovan I. Deretić's Serbocentric claims in the ancient history of the Old World.
Romanian protochronism also uses pseudoarchaeological interpretations; for more pieces of
information, see the Tărtăria tablets, the Rohonc Codex's Daco-Romanian hypothesis, or the Sinaia
lead plates.
The theory that New Zealand was not settled by the Māori people, but by a pre-Polynesian race of
giants[50]
Religious motivation
Repeated claims of the discovery of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat or neighbouring mountain ranges.
Use of questionable artefacts such as the Grave Creek Stone, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone and
the Michigan relics represent proof of the presence of a pre-Columbian Semitic culture in America.
New Age assertions about Atlantis, Lemuria, and ancient root races derived from the writings of
authors such as 19th-century theosophist and occultist Helena Blavatsky.
Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.
Denial of scientific dating techniques in favor of a young Earth age.
General
Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea
The work of 19th- and early 20th-century authors such as Ignatius Donnelly, Augustus Le Plongeon,
James Churchward, and Arthur Posnansky.
The work of contemporary authors such as Giorgio Tsoukalos, Erich von Däniken, Barry Fell,
Zecharia Sitchin, Robert Bauval, Frank Joseph, Graham Hancock, Colin Wilson, Michael Cremo,
Immanuel Velikovsky, and David Hatcher Childress.
Lost continents such as Atlantis, Mu, Kumari Kandam, or Lemuria, which are all contested by
mainstream archaeologists and historians as lacking critical physical evidence and general historical
credibility.
The ancient astronaut theory regarding Mayan ruler Pacal II.
Speculation regarding pre-Columbian contact between Egypt and the Maya.
Speculation by paranormal researchers that an abnormal human skull promoted as the "starchild
skull" was the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or extraterrestrial genetic engineering,
despite DNA evidence proving that the skull was that of an anatomically modern human infant, most
likely suffering from hydrocephalus.
The Maya World
In Maya culture many aspects of the ancient world have been twisted and changed to attract more
attention without sticking to the facts. In the area of Mexico, this twisted history can bring more people
which in turn brings more money for the area, which the Maya people usually do not receive. Many
examples of pseudoarcheology within Maya civilization can be found in literature, art, and film. A lot of
them deal with the 2012 phenomenon and the Maya calendar. On the other hand, Maya culture has
played a very important role in true archaeology. Archaeologists have been able to uncover dig sites that
have furthered our knowledge of the past. Some of these include stone carvings in Tikal that show the
earliest stories of Sihyaj, a large palace in the Yucatán state that was believed to be of the Maya royal
families, and numerous artifacts found beneath the city of Chichén Itzá[51]. These are just a few of the
numerous discoveries that archaeologists have made, and through aerial surveys, tunnel mapping, and
virtual reality, we have almost pieced together what ancient Maya life would have looked like.
A few examples:
- A well-known example of Maya pseudoarcheology is the breakdown of Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal and his
burial. Pseudoarchaeologists have talked deeply about the discovery of Pakal’s sarcophagus lid and the
answers they gained from studying it. Maurice Cotterell writes about this in his book The Supergods.
One of the main draws that Cotterell and pseudoarchaeologists have shown is that the ancient Aztec and
Maya people possessed knowledge beyond our imagination. From being able to “take off in spaceships”
[52], to dealing with complex numbers and equations, these people possessed “godly intelligence”[53].
Their biggest study and answer came from analyzing the Mayan calendar and finding correlations with
our Sun and Earth. He states that “they (Sun, Earth, Mayan Calendar) come close together every 260
days, this agreed with his suspicion that the Mayan numbering system was connected with solar
magnetic cycles” [54]. It is important to note that there are no professionals that back up his statements
and his conclusions are based off insufficient evidence. His work is so controversial and fits into the
category of pseudoarcheology well because it tells of his own findings without any [peer review] and
cross analysis.
- Another example of pseudoarcheology in Maya civilization comes with the conclusions gained from
studying the Mayan calendar. For a little bit of history, the first Mayan calendar, known as the Calendar
Round, appears to have been based on two overlapping annual cycles: a 260-day sacred year and a 365-
day secular year that named 18 months with 20 days each [55]. While the 2012 phenomenon gained
popularity, the world lost the true facts behind it.The Maya calendar also included what were called Long
Counts, these were created by priests at the time and a single cycle lasted 5,126 solar years. From the
time this was created, the end of the solar years landed on December 21, 2012. Ancient hieroglyphs
Tortuguero showed that when this cycle ended, Bolon Yokte, the Mayan god of creation and war would
arrive. Some pseudoarchaeologists took this to mean that the world would end and ran with the idea.
Numerous Maya scholars like Sven Gronemeyer say that it more than likely the creation side would win
over and Bolon would bring a new Long Count that would see the Maya people prosper [56].
- The stone carvings in Tikal that have been super important to archaeologists in order to recreate the
past, have also been used by pseudoarchaeologists to fabricate the past[57]. In reality these carvings have
been used to reconstruct the stories and history of more than thirty dynastic rulers. Some
pseudoarchaeologists though claim that these carvings are of ancient aliens or another form of
extraterrestrial lifeforms. These claims have no fact to them and are just misguided interpretations.
When these claims were thrown around in the early 90’s, the rate of tourism boomed. In this case,
pseudoarcheology had grabbed the attention of people more than the true history.
- Chichén Itzá has been an important staple of archaeology in Mexico for a long time. Archaeologists and
scientists alike are constantly trying to find all of its secrets and clues. Throughout the past few years
there have been many wild claims by pseudoarchaeologists. The passageway beneath the Kulkulcan
pyramid, a part of Chichén Itzá, was found and this is what many pseudoarchaeologists claims are
centered around. The floating belief is that this passageway was and still is a direct lead to the
underworld. There are many possibilities for what this could have been used for, but there are no facts to
back up this statement. Many experts in the field, including Guillermo de And, an underwater
archaeologist who led a few expeditions to uncover Mayan aqua life, believe that the passageway was a
“secret cenote”[58].
All of these examples have many things in common. Typically, in any pseudo related events, real
happenings/actions are twisted to become more pleasing to the imagination. Along with this, in Maya
civilization especially, few people know the exact history.
Notable books
Morning of the Magicians
Chariots of the Gods?
Fingerprints of the Gods
From Atlantis to the Sphinx
Notable television programs and series

In Search of... (1977–1982)
The Mysterious Origins of Man (1996)
Ancient Aliens (2010 – )
America Unearthed (2012–2015, 2019–)
The Curse of Oak Island (2014–)
Legends of the Lost with Megan Fox (2018)
Legitimate archaeological sites and objects often subject to pseudoarchaeological

speculation
Puma Punku at Tiwanaku
Stonehenge
The Great Pyramid of Giza
The Sphinx
Etruscan inscriptions
Easter Island
Teotihuacan
Palenque
Chichen Itza
Machu Picchu
Göbekli Tepe
Zorats Karer a.k.a. Armenian Stonehenge
The Nazca Lines
The stone spheres of Costa Rica
The Chinese pyramids
The Megalithic Temples of Malta
Nan Madol
The Yonaguni Monument
Dogū
Çatalhöyük
Nimrud lens
Ingá Stone
Kalasasaya
Antikythera mechanism
Terracotta Army
Piri Reis map
Academic archaeological responses

Pseudoarchaeological theories have come to be heavily criticised by academic and professional
archaeologists. One of the first books to address these directly was by archaeologist Robert Wauchope of
Tulane University.[59] Prominent academic archaeologist Colin Renfrew stated his opinion that it was
appalling that pseudoarchaeologists treated archaeological evidence in such a "frivolous and self-serving
way", something he believed trivialised the "serious matter" of the study of human origins.[60]
Academics like John R. Cole,[6] Garrett G. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder[2] have argued that
pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past were based upon sensationalism, self-contradiction,
fallacious logic, manufactured or misinterpreted evidence, quotes taken out of context and incorrect
information. Fagan and Feder characterised such interpretations of the past as being "anti-reason and
anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful".[2] In turn, many
pseudoarchaeologists have dismissed academics as being closed-minded and not willing to consider
theories other than their own.[6]
Many academic archaeologists have argued that the spread of alternative archaeological theories is a
threat to the general public's understanding of the past. Fagan was particularly scathing of television
shows that presented pseudoarchaeological theories to the general public, believing that they did so
because of the difficulties in making academic archaeological ideas comprehensible and interesting to
the average viewer.[61] Renfrew however believed that those television executives commissioning these
documentaries knew that they were erroneous, and that they had allowed them to be made and
broadcast simply in the hope of "short-term financial gain".[32]
Fagan and Feder believed that it was not possible for academic archaeologists to successfully engage with
pseudoarchaeologists, remarking that "you cannot reason with unreason". Speaking from their own
experiences, they thought that attempted dialogues just became "slanging matches in which the expertise
and motives of the critic become the main focus of attention."[7] Fagan has maintained this idea
elsewhere, remarking that arguing with supporters of pseudoarchaeological theories was "pointless"
because they denied logic. He noted that they included those "who openly admitted to not having read a
word written by a trained Egyptologist" but who at the same time "were pronouncing how academic
Egyptology was all wrong, even sinister."[62]
Conferences and anthologies
At the 1986 meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, its organizers, Kenneth Feder, Luanne
Hudson and Francis Harrold decided to hold a symposium to examine pseudoarchaeological beliefs from
a variety of academic standpoints, including archaeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history and
psychology.[63] From this symposium, an anthology was produced, entitled Cult Archaeology &
Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past (1987).
At the 2002 annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, a workshop was held on the topic
of pseudoarchaeology. It subsequently led to the publication of an academic anthology, Archaeological
Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misinterprets the Past and Misleads the Public (2006), which was
edited by Garrett G. Fagan.[62]
On 23 and 24 April 2009, The American Schools of Oriental Research and the Duke University Center
for Jewish Studies, along with the Duke Department of Religion, the Duke Graduate Program in
Religion, the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences Committee on Faculty Research, and the John Hope
Franklin Humanities Institute, sponsored a conference entitled "Archaeology, Politics, and the Media,"
which addressed the abuse of archaeology in the Holy Land for political, religious, and ideological
purposes. Emphasis was placed on the media's reporting of sensational and politically motivated
archaeological claims and the academy's responsibility in responding to it.[64][65][66]
Inclusive attitudes
Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however that critics of alternative archaeologies like
Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and that purporting their views
in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists.[67] 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 archaeoastronomy, which was once
seen as a core component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream
academics.[68] He also noted that certain archaeological scholars, like William Stukeley (1687–1765),
Margaret Murray (1863–1963) and Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994) were seen as significant figures to both
academic and alternative archaeologists.[68] He came to the conclusion that a constructive dialogue
should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists.[69] 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.[70]
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, King Tut'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.[71]
See also
Historical revisionism
America Unearthed
Antikythera mechanism
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Babylonokia
Baghdad Battery
Biblical archaeology
Burrows Cave
Flood geology
Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries
La Ciudad Blanca
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Nationalism and archaeology
Out-of-place artefact
Pathological science
Phaistos Disc
Phantom island
Pseudoarchaeology of Cornwall
Psychic archaeology
Pyramid inch
The Space Gods Revealed
Xenoarchaeology
References
1. Holtorf 2005. p. 544.
2. Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 720.
3. Williams 1987.
4. Pseudoarchaeology – Atlantis to Aliens.
5. John Hoopes. "The SAA Archaeological Record NOVEMBER 2019 – Volume 19 Number 5" (http://o
nlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462&p=1&pp=1&view=issueViewer#{%22page%22:4,%22iss
ue_id%22:634462,%22numpages%22:%221%22,%22publication_id%22:%2216146%22}).
onlinedigeditions.com. Society for American Archaeology: 8–9. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
6. Cole 1980. p. 2.
8. Cole 1980.
9. Stiebing Jr. 1987.
10. Wiliams 1991
11. Sebastion 2001.

12. Wallis 2003.
13. Holtorf 2005.
14. Moshenka 2008.
15. Renfrew 2006.
16. Stiebing Jr 1987. p. 1.
17. Stiebing Jr. 1987 p. 2.
18. Such as Cole 1980. p. 5.
20. Fagan 2006b. p. 27.
21. Fagan 2006b. p. 28.
22. Fagan and Feder 2006. pp. 721–28.
23. Harrold and Eve 1987. p. x.
24. Cole 1980. p. 3.
25. Cole 1980. pp. 5–6.
26. Fagan 2006b. p. 26.
27. Stiebing Jr. 1987 p. 3.
28. Velikovsky 1950. pp. 253–254, 269.
29. Quoted in Fagan 2006b. p. 32.
30. Fagan 2006b. pp. 31–32.
31. Fagan 2006b. p. 32.
32. Renfrew 2006. p. xii.
33. Fagan 2006b. p. 33.
34. Hancock 1995. pp. 9–11, 468, 471.
35. Fagan 2006b. p. 34.
36. Arnold, Bettina (1992). "The Past as Propaganda" (https://facweb.northseattle.edu/ccummings/Archa
eology/NSC/the%20past%20as%20propoganda.pdf) (PDF). northseattle.edu.
37. D. Lowenthal (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press.
38. Silverberg, Robert (1968). Moundbuilders of Ancient America. Greenwich: New York Graphics
Society.
39. Williams, Gwyn A. (1987). Madoc: The Making of a Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Ohehir, Andrew (31 August 2005). "Archaeology from the dark side" (https://www.salon.com/2005/0
8/31/archaeology/). Salon.
41. Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism" (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=23o7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223). In Gutjahr, Paul (ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of the Bible in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 223–225. ISBN 9780190258856.
42. "ANE TODAY – 201809 – How to Spot Fake Cuneiform Tablets -" (http://www.asor.org/anetoday/201
8/06/Spot-Fake-Cueiform-Tablets/). Retrieved 10 October 2020.
43. Holtorf, Cornelius (December 2005). "Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative
Archaeologies". World Archaeology. 37 (4): 544–551. doi:10.1080/00438240500395813 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1080%2F00438240500395813). S2CID 18955023 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1
8955023)Debates in "World Archaeology"
44. "We might want to remind ourselves of the truism that every past is the construct of a particular
present-day context" (p. 548.
45. Bender, Stonehenge, vol. 1 Making Space (Materializing Culture) , 1998.
46. Holtorf 2005:548.
47. Translated and notes by A.M. Harmon, 1936, Published in Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek
texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press. This extract transcribed by Roger
Pearse, 2001.
48. Silverberg, Robert (1970). "The Making of the Myth". The Moundbuilders. Ohio University Press.
pp. 29–49. ISBN 0-8214-0839-9.
49. Milner, George R. (2004). The Moundbuilders:Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames
and Hudson. p. 7. ISBN 0-500-28468-7.
50. Strongman, Susan. "Concerns over secret search for giants' bones near Huntly" (https://www.rnz.co.
nz/news/in-depth/409521/concerns-over-secret-search-for-giants-bones-near-huntly). Radio New
Zealand. Radio New Zealand. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
51. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/10/702017075/archaeologists-find-trove-of-maya-artifacts-dating-back-
1-000-years
52. The Supergods pg. 23
53. The Supergods pg.58
54. The Supergods pg. 126
55. History
56. https://scholars.latrobe.edu.au/display/s2gronemeyer
57. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/maya3/hd_maya3.htm
58. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/world/chichen-itza-maya-tunnel-cenote/index.html
59. Wauchope 1962
60. Renfrew 2006. p. xvi.
61. Fagan 2003.
62. Fagan 2006a. p. xvii.
63. Harrold and Eve 1987. p. xi.
64. "The Duke Symposium on Archaeology, Politics, and the Media:Re-visioning the Middle East" (http://
fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-110--0-view-790) (Press release). Duke University. 23–24 April 2009.
65. "Audio of Duke Conference on Archaeology, Politics, and the Media" (https://web.archive.org/web/20
111013191654/http://asorblog.org/?p=252) (Podcast). ASOR Blog. Archived from the original (http://a
sorblog.org/?p=252) on 13 October 2011.
66. "Center for Jewish Studies – Archaeology, Politics, and the Media" (https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/
center-for-jewish-studies/id420501356#ls=1) (Podcast). Duke Center for Jewish Studies iTunesU
page.
67. Holtorf 2005. p. 545.
68. Holtorf 2005. p. 547.
69. Holtorf 2005. p. 550.
70. [Fagan and Feder 2006]
71. Feder, Kenneth L. (1984). "Irrationality and Popular Archaeology". American Antiquity Vol 49(3)
Footnotes
Bibliography
Academic books
Card, Jeb J. (2018). Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 978-0-8263-5965-0.
Cazeau, Charles J. (1979). Exploring the Unknown: Great Mysteries Reexamined. New York:
Springer. ISBN 0-3064-0210-6.
Garrett G. Fagan, ed. (2006). Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the
Past and Misleads the Public. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-4153-0593-4.
Feder, Kenneth. (2010). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology.
London: McGraw Hill.
Harrold, Francis B. and Raymond A. Eve, ed. (1995). Cult Archaeology and Creationism:
Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past. Ames: University of Iowa Press. ISBN 0-
8774-5513-9.
Jeremy Sabloff, ed. (1982). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in
Archaeology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-1395-0.
Williams, Stephen. (1991). Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1312-2.
Wallis, Robert J. (2003). Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and
Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge.
Wauchope, Robert. (1962). Lost Tribes & Sunken Continents; Myth and Method in the Study of
American Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-2268-7635-7.
White, Peter. (1974). The Past is Human. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. ISBN 0-2071-3067-1.
Alternative archaeological books

Hancock, Graham (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Doubleday.
Velikovsky, Immanuel (1950). Worlds in Collision (https://archive.org/details/worldsincollision00veli).
Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Von Däniken, Erich (1968). Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. New York:
Putnam.
Academic book chapters

Fagan, Garrett G. (2006a). "Preface". In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.). Archaeological Fantasies: How
Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Abingdon, UK and New York:
Routledge. pp. xvii–xix.
Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). "Diagnosing Pseudoarchaeology". In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.).
Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public.
Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. pp. 23–46.
Flemming, Nic (2006). "The Attraction of Non-Rational Archaeological Hypotheses: The Individual
and Sociological Factors". In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.). Archaeological Fantasies: How
Routledge. pp. 47–70.
Harrold, Francis B.; Eve, Raymond A. (1987). "Preface". Cult Archaeology & Creationism:
Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past. Iowa: University of Iowa Press. pp. ix–
xii.
Renfrew, Colin (2006). "Foreword". In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.). Archaeological Fantasies: How
Routledge. pp. xii–xvi.
Schadla-Hall, Tim (2004). "The Comforts of Unreason: The importance and relevance of alternative
archaeology". In N. Merriman (ed.). Public Archaeology (https://archive.org/details/publicarchaeolog0
0merr_661). London: Routledge Press. pp. 255 (https://archive.org/details/publicarchaeolog00merr_

661/page/n269)–271.
Sebastion, Tim (2001). "Alternative archaeology: has it happened?". A Permeability of Boundaries?:
New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. British Archaeological Reports.
Oxford. pp. 125–135.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. (1987). "The Nature and Dangers of Cult Archaeology". Cult Archaeology &
Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past. Iowa: University of Iowa
Press. pp. 01–10.
Williams, S. (1987). "Fantastic archaeology: What should we do about it?". Cult Archaeology &
Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past. Iowa: University of Iowa
Press.
Academic journal articles

Cole, John R. (1980). "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory". Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory. 3: 01–33.
Fagan, Garrett G.; Feder, Kenneth L. (2006). "Crusading against straw men: an alternative view of
alternative archaeologies: response to Holtorf". World Archaeology. 38 (4): 718–29.
doi:10.1080/00438240600963528 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438240600963528).
S2CID 162321776 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:162321776).
Feder, Kenneth (1984). "Irrationality and Popular Archaeology" (https://semanticscholar.org/paper/c8
87a3413414fca7b8d57fada07340bc4f7fdc07). American Antiquity. 49 (3): 525–541.
doi:10.2307/280358 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F280358). JSTOR 280358 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/280358). S2CID 163298820 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:163298820).
Holtorf, Cornelius (2005). "Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies".
World Archaeology. 37 (4): 544–51. doi:10.1080/00438240500395813 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0
0438240500395813). S2CID 18955023 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18955023).
Moshenka, Gabriel (2008). " 'The Bible in Stone': Pyramids, Lost Tribes and Alternative
Archaeologies". Public Archaeology. 7 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1179/175355307X243672 (https://doi.org/10.
1179%2F175355307X243672). S2CID 161141006 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161141
006).
Popular archaeological articles

Daniel, R. (1977). "The forgotten milestones and blind alleys of the past". Royal Anthropological
Society News. 33: 03–06.
Fagan, Garrett G. (2003). "Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Far Out Television" (http://www.archae
ology.org/0305/abstracts/tv.html). Archaeology. 56 (3).
Further reading
Garrett G. Fagan, ed. (2006). Archaeological Fantasies. How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the
Past and Misleads the Public. London/New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415305938.
Kenneth L. Feder, Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to The Walam Olum
(Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010). ISBN 978-0-313-37918-5
Robert Munro, Archaeology and False Antiquities (Methuen, 1905; G.W. Jacobs & Co., 1908).
Gregory, Timothy E., "Pseudoarchaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100629014931/http://isthm
ia.osu.edu/teg/hist306/lec31.htm)".
Carroll, Robert Todd, "Pseudohistory (http://skepdic.com/pseudohs.html)". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
"The Eternals, Confusion and Terminology (http://ancientaliensinmassmedia.wordpress.com/tag/extr

aterrestrial-archaeology/)": An article on the popular TV series Ancient Aliens, and the line between
Science Fiction and Science Fact.
"The Territory of Pseudoarchaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/20040408021507/http://cgi.sfu.ca/
~museum/landarch/index.cgi?pseudo)" SFU museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
Feder, Kenneth L. , "Archaeological Institute hosts workshop session on Combating
Pseudoarchaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/20031220014112/http://www.worldagesarchive.co
m/Reference_Links/Combating_Pseudoarchaeology.htm)". Skeptical Inquirer, May, 2002.
West, John Anthony, "An Open Letter to the Editors of Archaeology (http://www.grahamhancock.co
m/forum/westJohn_archeaologyMag.php)". Archaeology, May/June 2003. [Special Section]
Zimmerman, Larry J., and Richard A. Fox, Jr., "Fantastic Archaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0031210204640/http://www.usd.edu/anth/cultarch/cultindex.html)".
"Street Prophets: Pseudo-Archaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/20110206232245/http://www.str
eetprophets.com/storyonly/2011/1/22/115816/281)": A journal on the use of fraud through
pseudoarchaeology.
"Bad Archaeology (http://www.badarchaeology.net)" Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and James Doeser
provide resources for debunking the claims of pseudoarchaeology.
External links
Alternative archaeology (https://curlie.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Archaeology/Alternative/) at
Curlie
Archaeological/Skeptical Criticisms of popular archaeology (http://www.ramtops.co.uk)
Criticisms of alternative geology (https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024703/http://www.hallofmaa
t.com/modules.php?name=Topics;) (scroll down to Earth Crustal Displacement (Pole Shift), such as
pole shifts
The Hall of Ma'at (http://www.hallofmaat.com)
Neohumanism.org (http://neohumanism.org/p/ps/pseudoarchaeology.html)
Bad Archaeology (http://www.badarchaeology.net), common examples of pseudoarchaeology
Archaeology Fantasies (http://www.archyfantasies.wordpress.com), Criticisms of pseudoarchaeology
Archaeology from the dark side, an article in Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2005/08/31/archaeolo
gy/)
Andy White Anthropology (http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog), Criticisms of claims that
'giants' were discovered all over the United States during the 19th Century.
Jason Colavito Blog (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog), Criticisms of cable network television
programs that promote pseudoarchaeology
Seven Warning Signs of Pseudoarchaeology (http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2016/12/seven-warning-signs-p
seudoarchaeology/)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoarchaeology&oldid=992375199"
This page was last edited on 4 December 2020, at 22:57 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site,
you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.

Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/5/2020 Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic

Lack of scientific method

Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudoarchaeologists is the interpretation of various

Opposition to the archaeological establishment

Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being [Academics] have formed a massive

Conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising the academic archaeological establishment,

Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by pointing to differences in research

Countering the misleading "discoveries" of pseudoarchaeology binds academic archaeologists in a

Participatory "public" or "community" archaeology offers guided engagement.

The Maya World

Notable television programs and series

Legitimate archaeological sites and objects often subject to pseudoarchaeological

Academic archaeological responses

Conferences and anthologies

11. Sebastion 2001.

Alternative archaeological books

Academic book chapters

0merr_661). London: Routledge Press. pp. 255 (https://archive.org/details/publicarchaeolog00merr_

Academic journal articles

Popular archaeological articles

"The Eternals, Confusion and Terminology (http://ancientaliensinmassmedia.wordpress.com/tag/extr

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoarchaeology&oldid=992375199"

This page was last edited on 4 December 2020, at 22:57 (UTC).

You might also like