Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pseudo-archaeology around the world


EliPage

Recommended Posts

Hi there-

-I am currently researching and writing my dissertation on the differences between pseudo-archaeological theories and mainstream archaeological understandings-

I have been trying to find some examples of evidences of alternative theories and also want to get some opinions on what people think about the divide between the disciplines. So far I have concentrated my research on ancient astronaut theories and the influence of Erich Von Daniken, why and how pseudo-archaeology has been classified by the people who believe and the people who oppose, and why it is that individuals align themselves with certain theories, religious, academic or otherwise. In general: why people believe in the things that they do?

It would be great if anyone could contribute any data to further my studies, resources of information or personal opinions.

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BIG question. It ultimately ends up with trying to understand why humans believe anything and how they process information. I would suggest a study of the existing work; such as Fagan and others they should be able to give you a good bibliography to select from and an idea/ an inkling to the above.

Simple answer people are irrational, many people believe things for reasons dealing with likes and dislikes and have no scientific basis.

As noted above you have nationalistic, racial and religious influences that cause things to be promoted to support this or that. I would also suggest that you ask this question at 'believer' forums for their view which can be quite entertaining and englightening to their thought processes. I would suggest the Graham Hancock forum "mysteries" or archaeological subjects at David Icke.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Most certainly an interesting topic. The answers won't be found without delving into the psychology of the human mind and behavioral science.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Nationalist archaeology (like the "Bosnian Pyramids") would be interesting to look into.

There's a link to Tera Pruitt's thesis on Authority and the Production of Knowledge in Archaeology (which includes a section on the Bosnian Pyramids) here.

There are also some other studies of this sort - not necessarily about the Bosnian pyramids, but about the idea that perhaps historians and archaeologists should try and engage with proponents of alternative history/archaeology.  

See also Cornelius Holtorf, here and here, discussing what non-archaeologists and others make of archaeology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EliPage said:

Hi there-

-I am currently researching and writing my dissertation on the differences between pseudo-archaeological theories and mainstream archaeological understandings-

I have been trying to find some examples of evidences of alternative theories and also want to get some opinions on what people think about the divide between the disciplines. So far I have concentrated my research on ancient astronaut theories and the influence of Erich Von Daniken, why and how pseudo-archaeology has been classified by the people who believe and the people who oppose, and why it is that individuals align themselves with certain theories, religious, academic or otherwise. In general: why people believe in the things that they do?

It would be great if anyone could contribute any data to further my studies, resources of information or personal opinions.

Thanks!

I would suggest, also focusing on Atlantis . There is a great history of the idea growing away away from what it was originally to encompass all sorts of things .  There is a thread currently  running here that might be good to look into to see where some psychological dynamics have been revealed as to how the believer's mind works.    ... and you would be introduced to the wonderful world of Psychic Archaeology   :)  

Some of it seems like a branch of religion nearly ;   Cayce, Blavatsky, Steiner  - all had religious type followers and organisations. So I would say that the reasons these beliefs develop is similar, in some cases, for the   development and holding of religious beliefs.

.... then there is the Geyser/Pyramid 'theory'  ...... you could use that as a prime example of things run riot !     :)   

Edited by back to earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Atlantis is a central point in this discussion but I would also look at Lemuria which has a specific date of creation and how it became a mythical place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below are some examples, why someone might believe in pseudo archeology.

- Several sources are more persuasive than a single source, especially if they contain different arguments that point to the same conclusion. 

- People assume that information from several sources is likely to be based on different perspectives and therefore worth greater consideration. 

- People are more likely to perceive a source as credible if others perceive the source as credible. The effect is even stronger, if there exist little to no information to assess the trustworthiness of the source. 

- When the volume of information is low, people tend to favor experts. However when the volume of information is high, people tend to favor information from other sources. 

- Repeated exposure to a statement has been shown to increase its acceptance as true. This is also known as the illusory truth effect. 

- When people are less interested in a topic, they are more likely to accept familiarity, brought about by repetition, as an indicator that the information is correct. 

- When processing information, people saves time and energy by using a frequency heuristic, that favors information they have heard more frequently. 

- If someone is already familiar with an argument or claim, they process it less carefully, often failing to discriminate weak arguments from strong arguments. 

-  Low credibility sources manifest greater persuasive impact with the passage of time. While people make initial assessments of the credibility of a source, in remembering, information is often dissociated from its source. Thus, information from a questionable source may be remembered as true, with the source forgotten. 

- Information that is initially assumed as valid but is later proven false can continue to shape memory and influence reasoning. 

- Even when someone is aware that some sources have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct. 

- People are more likely to accept information when it is consistent with other messages that the people believes to be true. 

- People view news and opinions that confirm existing beliefs as more credible than other news and opinions, regardless of the quality of the arguments. 

- Someone who is already misinformed  is less likely to accept evidence that goes against those misinformed beliefs. 

- Stories that create emotional arousal in the recipient (disgust, fear, happiness and so on) are much more likely to be passed on, whether they are true or not. 

- The presence of evidence can override the effects of source credibility on perceived veracity of statements. 

- The appearance of expertise or the format of information, lead people to accept that the information comes from a credible source. 

- Expertise and trustworthiness are the two primary dimensions of credibility. These qualities may be evaluated based on visual cues, such as format, appearance, or simple claims of expertise. 

- When a source appears to have considered different perspectives, people's attitudinal confidence is greater. A source who changes opinion or message, may be perceived as having given greater consideration to the topic, thereby influencing recipient confidence in the newest message. 

https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/780/docs/12_pspi_lewandowsky_et_al_misinformation.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3990250/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49ec/b8731937f59f06c3307cb2741b845cf96edc.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810011002200?via%3Dihub

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-013-0358-x

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5aae/d524beed2234f7c4181d0c5519c27dc6cc7b.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50faacdee4b0dc8c8e2b878b/t/55608e45e4b0cc18bc631b6d/1432391237662/JESP_conspiracy_perspective2014.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/14/1/14/1790085/The-Effects-of-Frequency-Knowledge-On-Consumer

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're going to need to cut the scope of your dissertation way down before it becomes handleable. But, good luck.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PersonFromPorlock said:

I think you're going to need to cut the scope of your dissertation way down before it becomes handleable. But, good luck.

 

Yeah the more I have considered the task it might be a good idea to focus on a aspect of your initial question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah the more I have considered the task it might be a good idea to focus on a aspect of your initial question.

Yeah, cause you could also branch out into historical revisionism which is a whole other can o' worms

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 8:29 AM, EliPage said:

Hi there-

-I am currently researching and writing my dissertation on the differences between pseudo-archaeological theories and mainstream archaeological understandings-

I have been trying to find some examples of evidences of alternative theories and also want to get some opinions on what people think about the divide between the disciplines. So far I have concentrated my research on ancient astronaut theories and the influence of Erich Von Daniken, why and how pseudo-archaeology has been classified by the people who believe and the people who oppose, and why it is that individuals align themselves with certain theories, religious, academic or otherwise. In general: why people believe in the things that they do?

It would be great if anyone could contribute any data to further my studies, resources of information or personal opinions.

Thanks!

Welcome! You can further all of our knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly second Hanslune's recommendation of Garrett Fagan's book Archaeological Fantasies:

https://www.amazon.com/Archaeological-Fantasies-Pseudoarchaeology-Misrepresents-Misleads/dp/0415305934/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1486350121&sr=8-9&keywords=garrett+fagan

It's probably the best book I myself have read on pseudo-archaeology and is very interesting to boot,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Yeah, cause you could also branch out into historical revisionism which is a whole other can o' worms

One of the masters of that is David Rohl. Definitely a very smart guy but I use the term "master" facetiously. The guy is a chronic, aggressive revisionist. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people that appear to be hardwired to reject anything from what they deem to be an authority. That authority might be specific or vague. Examples are a specific country leader or doctors in general. I wish I could connect you to the research article I read on this, but the percentage of the population is significant, around 10% if I recall correctly. These are the people that believe authorities always lie. They reject mainstream health advice, mainstream reports of an incident, mainstream scientific consensus, etc. They identify with those that offer other explanations. They become anti-vaxers, ancient alien believers, cancer comes form modern living believers, 2012 wackos, see black helicopters, and so forth. They are hardwired to believe in these contrarian positions.

The best I could do was this

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

There should be no naming or calling out of specific members as "cranks" or anything else.

Don't make it personal - especially when the member in question is not even here to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, clare256 said:

I recommend that you read "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

I noticed your recommendation, clare256, and decided to check out the book. Here's an Amazon link for other posters who might be interested:

https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487022787&sr=1-1&keywords=Why+People+Believe+Weird+Things

I've done a fair amount of reading on pseudo-archaeology research but hadn't come across this book before. It looks really good. I added it to my Amazon wish list. Thanks for posting the recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2017 at 10:04 PM, kmt_sesh said:

I strongly second Hanslune's recommendation of Garrett Fagan's book Archaeological Fantasies:

https://www.amazon.com/Archaeological-Fantasies-Pseudoarchaeology-Misrepresents-Misleads/dp/0415305934/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1486350121&sr=8-9&keywords=garrett+fagan

It's probably the best book I myself have read on pseudo-archaeology and is very interesting to boot,

Dry academic rebuttals rarely have the narrative flair of a good pseudoscience presentation. Admittedly constraining one's prose to facts limits the conjectures and assertions it is possible for the author to make.

While the conclusions asserted are rubbish, Lloyd Pye did have an entertaining flair in his bigfoot presentations.

That is not to say all fringe authors achieve "entertaining" status. Steven Mehler has a presentation on "Kemetology" that is dry as the Sahara. While the conjectures would still be wrong, he would be better off collaborating with a more polished author (possibly even let someone else give the presentations).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Dry academic rebuttals rarely have the narrative flair of a good pseudoscience presentation. Admittedly constraining one's prose to facts limits the conjectures and assertions it is possible for the author to make.

While the conclusions asserted are rubbish, Lloyd Pye did have an entertaining flair in his bigfoot presentations.

That is not to say all fringe authors achieve "entertaining" status. Steven Mehler has a presentation on "Kemetology" that is dry as the Sahara. While the conjectures would still be wrong, he would be better off collaborating with a more polished author (possibly even let someone else give the presentations).

 

I'm somewhat familiar with Mehler. He's a well-educated person with legitimate training in scientific fields, but is yet another of those who abandoned logic and reason so as to descend deep into the world of woo. The bio on his own website spells it out better than I could.

7797e4410092f9c48fd05affa6962c64.gif

As fr dry academic rebuttals, I must confess I prefer them to the fantastical flotsam of fanatical fringe folly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm somewhat familiar with Mehler. He's a well-educated person with legitimate training in scientific fields, but is yet another of those who abandoned logic and reason so as to descend deep into the world of woo. The bio on his own website spells it out better than I could.

35 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

As for dry academic rebuttals, I must confess I prefer them to the fantastical flotsam of fanatical fringe folly.

 

Perhaps all that time completing academic papers at university bled the creativity out of his writing. Both his book and his videos are rather dull though I think the right person could make the (incorrect) postulations entertaining.

Academics actually adding awesome anecdotes and alliteration to abstract assertions aids alleviating the attitudinal abyss an average person stares into as they peer over the page perusing proven postulations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Perhaps all that time completing academic papers at university bled the creativity out of his writing. Both his book and his videos are rather dull though I think the right person could make the (incorrect) postulations entertaining.

Academics actually adding awesome anecdotes and alliteration to abstract assertions aids alleviating the attitudinal abyss an average person stares into as they peer over the page perusing proven postulations.

That's why we don't have many Carl Sagan, Jaque Cousteau, Isaac Asimov or Neil deGrasse Tyson (whether we like them or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A view from a different angle....

 

We know that 80% of the human race lives next the ocean, near inland seas, and near rivers.  We know that for 80% of human existence the earth has been in glacial maximum with much lower sea levels, hundreds of feet lower.

Looking at these two numbers, what percentage of human archaeology would likely be explorable by us during an interglacial period?  It is a fact that we are basing all of what we know about human history on a very, very, small window of archaeological discovery.  An argument might be made as to whether modern mainstream archaeology, may be considered "pseudo archaeology".

Just a potentialy different angle of approach...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until there was shipping, people didn't much live along the ocean because of the storms you get there.

Rivers were where it was happening. Even after shipping took hold, this was the case - especially for large river, because shipping occurs along large rivers too.

River cultures are the first to get technology from other cultures, owing to this sort of exchange.

I doubt that Archeology has missed much from any interglacial period that they haven't already missed well inland. After all, it's a big world. Nobody knows everything that's there under the dirt.

Harte

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.