Talk:Pseudoarchaeology/Proposed new version

thumb|150px|right|Von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? was one of the most succesful alternative archaeological publications.

Alternative archaeology, which is also known as pseudo-archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology,cult archaeology or bullshit archaeology, refers to archaeological interpretations of the past that come from outside of the academic archaeological community. They typically involve the use of archaeological data to construct theories about the past that differ radically from those of mainstream academic archaeology.

There is no one singular alternative archaeology, but many different interpretations of the past that are at odds from those developed by academics. Some of these revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligentextraterrestrial life, an idea most notably propagated by Swiss author Erich von Däniken in books such as 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).

Many alternative archaeologies are those which have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological deas such as Pyramidologyhave 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. These include theGreat Goddess hypothesis, which argues that prehistoric Europeans worshipped a singular female monotheistic deity, and which has been propagated by Marija Gimbutas, and the various theories associated with the Earth mysteries movement, such as the concept of ley lines.

Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised alternative archaeologies, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising them as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method and internal contradictions in their arguments." The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.

Etymology
Various different terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. Cornelius Holtorf (2006) used the term "alternative archaeologies" to refer to them, somethign that has subsequently been used by other academics like Gabriel Moshenka (2008). Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder (2006) however claimed that this was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" which "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations." They argued that the term "pseudoarchaeology" was far more appropriate.

Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. John R. Cole (1980) chose to use "cult archaeologies", whilst G. Daniel (1977) used the derogative "bullshit archaeology". Academic Willian H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms used for alternative archaeology that were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society."

Characteristics
William H. Stiebing Jr argued that there were characteristics shared by almost all alternative archaeological interpretations, which allow them to be seen as parts of a "single phenomenon". He grouped these into three main areas: 1) the unscientific nature of its method and evidence, 2) its tendency to "provide simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues" and 3) its tendency to present iteslf as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of theEnlightenment.

Lack of scientific method
Academic critics have pointed out that alternative archaeologists typically neglect to make use of the scientific method. Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, alternative archaeologists "press-gang" the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" which is often arrived at through hunches, intuition or religious and/or nationalist dogma. Despite this, many of its proponents claim that their conclusions have been reached using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstratable that they have not.

Commonly lacking scientific evidence, alternative archaeologists 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, in order to support a conclusion that they both had a common source, which is typically claimed to be either an ancient lost civilisation like Atlantis or Mu or an extraterrestrial influence. Another form of evidence used by a number of alternative archaeologists is the interpretation of variousmyths as reflecting historical events, but in doing so these myhts are often taken out of their cultural contexts. For instance, alternative archaeologist Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilisation represented a cosmic catastrophe that occured in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE. 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, over a millennia after Velikovsky claimed that the events had occured, and that the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.

Anti-archaeological establishment
Alternative archaeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing the much larger archaeological establishment.

Nationalist motivations
Pseudoarchaelogy is frequently motivated by nationalism (cf. Nazi archaeology) or a desire to prove a particularreligious (cf. Intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, oranthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail. {[fact}}

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, objective analyses of folk archaeology, in anthropological terms of the cultural contexts from which they emerge and the cultural needs to which they respond, have been comparatively few, but in this vein Robert Silverberg located theMormon's use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus and the voyage of Madoc and "Welsh Indians" was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by G. Williams.

Pyramidology
The ancient pyramids of Egypt have long been objects of fascination to many westerners, and have "attracted the attention of occultists, mystics and pseudo-scientists to an unparalleled degree."

Academic archaeological responses
Alternative archaeological theories have come to be heavily criticised by academic and scholarly archaeologists. Academics like John R. Cole, Garrett G. Fagan and Kenenth L. Feder have argued that alternative archaeological intepretations 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 alternate archaeologies as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful". In turn, many alternative archaeologists have dismissed academics as being close minded and not willing to consider theories other than their own.

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. From this symposium, an anthology was produced, entitled Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past (1987).

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 alternative archaeological 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.

Fagan and Feder believed that it was not possible for academic archaeologists to succesfully engage with alternative archaeologists, 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."

Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however that critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and that puporting their views in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists. 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. 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. He came to the conclusion that a constructive dialogue should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists.