Characteristics Pseudoarchaeology

1 characteristics

1.1 lack of scientific method
1.2 opposition archaeological establishment
1.3 nationalist motivations
1.4 religious motivations

characteristics

william h. stiebing jr. argued despite many differences, there set of core characteristics pseudoarchaeological interpretations shared. believed because of this, pseudoarchaeology categorised single phenomenon. went on identify 3 core commonalities of pseudeoarchaeological theories: unscientific nature of method , evidence, history of providing simple, compact answers complex, difficult issues, , tendency present being persecuted archaeological establishment, accompanied ambivalent attitude towards scientific ethos of enlightenment. idea there core characteristics of pseudoarchaeologies shared other academics.

lack of scientific method

academic critics have pointed out pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect use scientific method. instead of testing evidence see hypotheses fits, pseudoarchaeologists press-gang archaeological data fit favored conclusion arrived @ through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma. different pseudoarchaeological groups hold variety of basic assumptions typically unscientific: nazi pseudoarchaeologists instance took cultural superiority of ancient aryan race basic assumption, whilst judeo-christian fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists conceive of earth being less 10,000 years old , hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe homo sapiens species older 200,000 years old has been shown archaeologists. despite this, many of pseudoarchaeology s proponents claim reached conclusions using scientific techniques , methods, when demonstrable have not.

academic archaeologist john r. cole believed pseudoarchaeologists not understand how scientific investigation works, , instead believe simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle between contesting theories. because of failure understand scientific method, argued, entire pseudoarchaeological approach arguments faulty. went on argue pseudoarchaeologists not consider alternative explanations want propagate, , theories typically notions , not having sufficient supporting evidence allow them considered theories in scientific, academic meaning of word.

commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudoarchaeologists typically use other forms of evidence support arguments. instance, make use of generalized cultural comparisons, taking various artefacts , monuments 1 society, , highlighting similarities of support conclusion both had common source—typically ancient lost civilisation atlantis, mu, or extraterrestrial influence. takes different artefacts or monuments entirely out of original contexts, anathema academic archaeologists, whom context of utmost importance.

another form of evidence used number of pseudoarchaeologists interpretation of various myths reflecting historical events, in doing these myths taken out of cultural contexts. instance, pseudoarchaeologist immanuel velikovsky claimed myths of migrations , war gods in central american aztec civilisation represented cosmic catastrophe occurred in 7th , 8th centuries bce. criticised academic archaeologist william h. stiebing jr., noted such myths developed in 12th 14th centuries ce, on millennium after velikovsky claimed events had occurred, , aztec society had not developed 7th century bce.

opposition archaeological establishment


pseudoarchaeologist robert bauval on views of academia (2000)

pseudoarchaeologists typically present being underdogs facing larger archaeological establishment. use language disparages academics , dismisses them being unadventurous, spending time in dusty libraries , refusing challenge orthodoxies of establishment lest lose jobs. in more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of widespread conspiracy hide truth history public. when academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists , criticise theories, many pseudoarchaeologists see further evidence own ideas right, , being suppressed members of academic conspiracy.

the prominent english archaeologist colin renfrew admitted archaeological establishment set in ways , resistant radical new ideas not reason why pseudoarchaeological theories outright rejected academics. garrett g. fagan expanded on this, noting how in academic archaeological community, new evidence or arguments have thoroughly scrutinised secure validity ... , longstanding, well-entrenched positions take considerable effort , particularly compelling data overturn. fagan noted pseudoarchaeological theories not have sufficient evidence them , allow them accepted professional archaeologists.

conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising academic archaeological establishment, attempt support people academic credentials , affiliations. @ times, quote historical, , in cases dead academics arguments; instance prominent pseudoarchaeologist graham hancock, in seminal fingerprints of gods (1995), repeatedly notes eminent physicist albert einstein once commented positively on pole shift hypothesis, theory has been abandoned academic community hancock supports. fagan noted however, fact einstein physicist , not geologist not mentioned hancock, nor fact understanding of plate tectonics (which came disprove earth crustal displacement), came light following einstein s death.

nationalist motivations

pseudoarchaeology can motivated nationalism (cf. nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of ancient aryan race basic assumption establish germanic people descendants of original aryan ‘master race’) or desire prove particular religious (cf. intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. in many cases, priori conclusion established, , fieldwork undertaken explicitly corroborate theory in detail.

archaeologists distinguish research pseudoarchaeology pointing differences in research methodology, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, , systematic approach collecting data. though there overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions past, objective analysis of folk archaeology—in anthropological terms of cultural contexts , cultural needs respond to—have been comparatively few. however, in vein, robert silverberg located mormon s use of mound builder culture within larger cultural nexus , voyage of madoc , welsh indians set in changing , evolving sociohistorical contexts gwyn williams.

religious motivations

religiously motivated pseudoarchaeological theories include young earth theory of judeo-christian fundamentalists. argue earth 4,000-10,000 years old, figures varying, depending on source. hindu pseudoarchaeologists believe homo sapiens species older 200,000 years believed have existed. archaeologist john r. cole refers such beliefs cult archaeology , believes them pseudoarchaeological. went on pseudoarchaeology had many of attributes, causes, , effects of religion.

a more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology claim of ron wyatt have discovered noah s ark, graves of noah , wife, location of sodom , gomorrah, tower of babel, , numerous other important sites. however, has not presented evidence sufficient impress bible scholars, scientists, , historians. answers in genesis propagates many pseudoscientific notions part of creationist ministry.