Sometimes, alarmist stories can get you into trouble and sometimes they
actually lead to exciting discoveries (even if the story teller thought it was
nonsense). My examples are not "historic," but you could easily fill-in the
blanks on some project and make it so.
The first example is a university field crew that over-exaggerated the
discovery of a cluster of hawk bones and made it out in the newspapers "as a
spread eagle religious site" in order to drum up more money from California State
Highways. This tall tale whipped up Native American people, who filed
official complaints to Sacramento and soon caused the Advisory Council to convene a
special night meeting in front of hundreds of excited people. The Calac
family elders testified that the very axis of the earth would tilt if unwashed
people were to dig up an eagle burial site. All the additional testimony simply
inflamed the other speakers. The Advisory Council ordered the archaeology
project to be canceled and a 20+ foot high fill slope be erected over the
so-called eagle ceremonial site. This example of bad archaeology back-fired, but
resulted in actually preserving the site.
The other example is a claim I made on a field survey form that there might
be human remains at a small site east of Interstate 15 in San Diego County. I
suppose I thought this claim on the site form would get the agency's
attention. Well, everyone screamed that I was blowing this tiny little surface site
out of proportion. Long after I left private practice, another consulting
archaeologist tested the site and found human bones. It turned out that my
exaggeration actually proved correct. But in this case, the government agency
ignored the discovery of human bones and the site got bulldozed anyway. Maybe not
bad archaeology, but certainly bad policy.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
In a message dated 2/13/2009 12:58:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
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
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=fe
bemailfooterNO62)
|
