A little myth-busting and distinguishing between serious scholarly study...regardless of credentials...and titillating just-so stories and propaganda is certainly worthwhile. Let us not forget, however, that even in professional archaeology lurid tales and discoveries of the first [fill in the blank] commonly fill press releases. I've read more than a few such stories over the years, and the leaps of logic, assumptions, and generally uncritical eye brought to the findings belie characterization as 'professional archaeology.' As funds become scarcer and programs struggle for survival, we can expect to see more such stories.
Archaeology does not have a means of squelching silly and unsupportable claims made to the press, and I'm not suggesting that we should. But those professionals who are in positions to determine eligibility and priorities for funding should insure that they discourage individuals who have made unsupportable claims. One way of doing so is to demand, review, and...where necessary...reject technical reports in which the evidence for such claims are made.
There is nonsense (e.g., ghosts wherever there are shadows and cobwebs, extraterrestrial-constructed pyramids) and there is bad archaeology. Let's keep the two distinct. We need to keep our own house scrupulously clean before ridiculing our neighbors' houses.
James G. Gibb
Gibb Archaeological Consulting
2554 Carrollton Road
Annapolis, MD 21403 USA
443.482.9593
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Skiles" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:15:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Fw: Bad Archaeology
Bad Archaeology
Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.
In short, we are Angry Archaeologists!
Real Archaeology
Archaeology is extraordinarily diverse. From the field technicians knee deep in mud in a Hebridean winter to the Classical specialist examining frescoes on a wall at Pompeii, from the geneticist tracing ancient bovine DNA to the linguist refining our understanding of Maya inscriptions, the range of specialisms and viewpoints is enormous. Nevertheless, there are commonalities of approach and boundaries to that diversity, united by what may be termed 'the scientific method'.
These boundaries are best explained by showing what archaeology is not. Someone who uses explanations that involve unknown civilisations, extraterrestrial contact, the inerrancy of religious texts or the operation of paranormal powers, belongs to a very different intellectual tradition from mainstream archaeology. The orthodoxy - itself a mass of contradictory, competing and often abstruse arguments - generally relegates these other investigators to a 'fringe' or 'cult' status, as a result their claims go unchallenged.
The aim of this site is to explore the main strands of thought within the 'fringe', to explain how and why they are different from orthodox archaeology. Although much of what we have written is aimed at debunking the misconceptions and distortions of the past promoted by fringe writers, we are always open to the idea that they may be able to tell orthodox archaeology something of value. The fringe is interesting and entertaining in its own right; this site can only scratch the surface of such a huge area of human endeavour but we will continue to dig away, exposing Bad Archaeology wherever we find it.
http://www.badarchaeology.net/index.php
|