Pseudoarchaeology: the concept and its limitations

Abstract

The familiar term 'pseudoarchaeology' allows us to categorise and comfortingly dismiss a diverse group of alternative presentations of the past, and reinforce our own professionalism as scholars and scientists. Glyn Daniel regularly denounced the ideas of a 'lunatic fringe' in Antiquity editorials, and contributors to a recent unforgiving book analyse 'how pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past' (Fagan 2006). Other terms like 'alternative' or 'cult' archaeologies describe the same phenomena, and it is appropriate to consider elements of pseudohistory in the same argument. The conventional image is of a clear gap between the knowledge gained through our scholarly and scientific research and thinking, and the illusory pasts and falsehoods created by others. But such a binary division does present

Between Certainty and Trust: Boundary-Work and the Construction of Archaeological Epistemic Authority

“…Academic archaeologists have defined pseudoarchaeology as cult, alternative, fringe, fantastic or bullshit archaeology. They affirm that the different strands of pseudoarchaeology have in common the creation of discourses about the past outside the institutional-academic and commercial archaeological frameworks, usually through the partial assumption of methods, theories and analytic tools drawn from scientific disciplines (Derricourt, 2012). Those are mixed with insubstantial arguments connecting otherwise unrelated cultures and civilisations (either historic or alien), often grounded on fabricated evidence and expressed in romantic terms (Fagan and Feder, 2006).…”

Addressing the Alien in the Room: Why Public Perception is Imperative to the Field of Archaeology

“…A possible appeal of pseudoarchaeology is the apparent certainty and simplicity in theory. Archaeology can take years to form a viable explanation for a phenomenon with no absolute certainty, but there is attraction in a writer who creates an apparently simple explanation for complex phenomenon by suggesting that aliens are a reason, or perhaps Europeans were the first in North America (Derricourt, 2012;Feder, 2006). These theories are often formed with motive, perhaps based on prejudice and racism.…”

Arthur Posnansky, the Czar of Tiwanaku Archaeology

“…In 1910-1912, he published attractive illustrated guides to Tiwanaku and the Islands of the Sun and Moon (Posnansky 1912;see Ponce Sanginés 1994: 33, 180-181;Schávelzon 1996: 354-355). His narrative has continued to find fertile ground with pseudoscientific myth-makers such as Von Däniken (1969) and Hancock (1995), who rely heavily on Posnansky's ideas and scholarly authority (see Derricourt 2012;Fagan 2006). Today, aspects of Posnansky's fascinating and fantastic myth can still be heard on tours of Tiwanaku (Sammells 2012: 302).…”

“…Tiwanaku is featured in websites, books, and television shows, which are usually much better known than archaeological research. Even more objective treatments of Tiwanaku are sometimes organized around testing fantastic possibilities (thankfully shown to be false in many cases), drawing audiences in with the undying mystique of ancient, advanced, and lost civilizations (Derricourt 2012;Fagan 2006).…”