You may have come across references to certai subjects being "Cult" archaeology, also called Pseudo-archaeology and sometimes Parahistory. Parahistory is perhaps the best term to sum up this area since para as a prefix implies movement alongside, running parallel, or even going off on a tangent of its own in contrast to the "one true" orthodox way of consensus majority opinion.
In this article I want to look at what's good and bad parahistory and how it differs from orthodox archaeology and history. I'll start with this statement. For me "good" parahistory is that which doesn't get bogged in paranoid accusations thrown back at Academica but focuses on asking interesting challenging questions that stimulate further research by both "UN"orthodox and established archaeologists. It is speculative, sometimes playful and teasing, and helps us from taking standing beliefs too much for granted, or letting theories fossilise into dogma.
Parahistory alas can also be the evolution of legends and folklore into a full "mythos" via the misinterpretation or in some cases the "poetic" interpretation of a few limited artifacts. It can be the false transformation of an artifact into an anomaly which obscures the study of genuine anomalies. However at its best it is speculation about the origin of certain legends and admits the speculation is limited on extrapolation from limited and not merely distorted evidence.
The authors and contributors to Cult Archaeology (1995 p. x) in their preface described Cult or pseudo archaeology, as being characterised by claims about Atlantis or Ancient visitors to North America which "are unsupported by scientific study of the available evidence and furthermore fly in the face of what we do know about the human past."
Other characteristics are the overlooking of the full context of artifact and stratigraphic evidence plus a tendency towards special interpretations of ancient myths and legends, and looking for simple explanations, preferring absolutes - ie the one truth (mine!) Vs academica ( = evil), as answers. Another feature is (p. 3) "the belief of most cult archaeologists that the vast majority of myths are simply distorted remembrances of historical events".
I have cited Feder's List (p. 35) of Common Themes with some personal comments and opinions added below. Be warned some of the observations are just plain cynical and sarcastic and often tongue in cheek!
If there was a technologically advanced culture during the ice age most of the evidence for it - sites, buildings, artifacts are probably buried under hundreds of feet of mud and silt either on the parts of the continental shelf that were above water during the last "full" glacial or in river delatas and valleys that were flooded at the end of the last ice age and have since had their ground levels built up again.
Ever seen a diagram of a geological cross-section of the Nile Valley or read about the problems of excavating Pre-dynastic sites in the Nile Delta? If sites dating to 3500 B.C. are 50 feet down imagine how deeply buried hypothetical sites dating back to 10,500 B.C. would be?
So if you really want to prove there was an Atlantis and don't accept the Atlantis as a memory of Thera's destruction theory then please support your local engineering school or research in deep sonar that can penetrate soil. Archaeologists of all types would love such a device!
A great favourite with thirties pulp fiction - but it was probably invented by Lewis Spence who was the first to mention it and who was also responsible for starting off some very silly speculations about Atlantis.Try to remember he and Lovecraft were not historians!
Pre-Columbian visitation of the "New World" by Celts or Phoenicians
I have mixed feelings about diffusionism as a "heresy". While visits by Europeans and Asians to North or South America were not impossible I doubt they were to the extent of the widespread settlements claimed by Fell and Marx or the Mormons!
One could also add Cryptozoology (which by the way is NOT just looking for the Loch Ness monster but rather the quest for unknown animal species) to this list, along with UFOs and aliens, "X-files", Conspiracies, Ghosts, the paranormal and occult, Astrology etc, and oh dinosaurs surviving to co-exist with humans. Actually some of these might be provable with more evidence if popular BAD pseudoscience writing (of the paranoia sells books variety) had not made the subjects repulsive to most rationalistic scholars.
A Belgian marine biologist, Heuvelmanns, has hypothesised that sightings of several rare mammalian species underly the various sea serpent / monster/"nessie" legends but has regretfully concluded most of these poor beasties are extinct or turned nocturnal and hard to detect thanks to human activities. We probably harassed them out of their traditonal breeding grounds with whaling activities in the 19th centuries, hence the brief increase of sightings, which have now dropped off. Nessie may have been a mammalian analogue of a pleiosaur, a kind of long necked "seal"!
!Here are more characteristics of "bad" parahistory.
(My list)
For instance we have myths about a Great Flood with its cause often attributed to the wrath of the divine in response to human sin. Various legends about floods may be oral memories of historical floods, in Mesopotamia, or during the change of sea levels back at the end of the last ice age or rather glacial period since actually we still are in an ice age. Early chronicles may record floods but history and science looks into what caused them. Regardless of whether the cause was divine wrath or climate change geological processes were still what lead to the result.
Due to solid scientific research we now have evidence for a sudden rise in sea level in the Black Sea area. Legends about floods may have sparked interest in scientists but soil cores - hard boring research provided the evidence. Speculation contributed to it.
!Another problem is the tendency (sigh formal academics do this too!) to read between the lines or far too much into a minor detail in the interpretation of textual evidence. The cause of this is usually over-reliance on secondary references instead of going to prime sources. Always check the original! While researching my Plutarch MA thesis I came across entire theories about Middle Platonism spun out of what often turned out to be a footnote (and a very short one too!) in the original source. And then shudder there were the footnotes on footnotes ...
!Is it valid to develop a hypothesis from textual evidence? Sometimes yes. Homer inspired Schielmann to (re)discover Troy. The Bible's mention of Assyria and Babylonia encouraged the exploration of these areas which lead to the discovery of thousands of years of prior unknown human cultures, those of Mari and the Mitanni and others. Good speculative history points out interesting textual hints about possible sites, finds other scraps of evidence, and asks people to reconsider investigations. For instance textual evidence in Diodorus Siculus implies there was once a temple to Circe in the Roman city on Monte Circeo. This "city" is buried under the foundations of a modern village. There are no traces of it now. However other Hellenistic historians and geographers also insisted that this and many other Italian cities were founded by Mycenaean Greeks, refugees after the Trojan War, not by the later Greek colonists, post 880 b.c. There are very few traces of any Mycenaean era links between Italy and Greece. Archaeologists have tended to downplay these claims but given the multiple layers of occupation we may yet find farther surprises? There is also other evidence for some kind of settlement which I dealt with in my BA Honors thesis on Circe but suffice it to say that discoveries of Minoan style structures on Monte Circeo would delight me and admirers of Ernle Bradford.
!The citing of pseudo- experts is also a problem. Some people are cited as experts without their credentials being checked by their believers or publishers. The worse case of this is Duane Gish's bible college "degree" which turned out to come from a correspondence school run out of a trailer in someone's back yard! A variant on this is the presuming or stating claims of expertise in a field vastly different from that which one actually has a degree in, with hydrologists commenting on evolution theory, or engineers on archaeology, though if the engineer comments on ancient technology perhaps attention should be paid to their claims.
Lets look at the belief rain or sea water caused the erosion marks on the Sphinx. Its remarkable how many people claim to have expert opinions on ancient Egyptian weather patterns, none or few of whom appeared to have studied climatology. Still this particular debate (the age of the Sphinx) could contribute to further studies of desertification and how to prevent it in the long run.
As an admitted amateur I have two comments on this rain issue.
One - I have frequently read that the Giza plateau consists largely of limestone which I seem to remember from high school geology is a soft stone that readily erodes exposed to any water fresh rain or salt?
Two - whether the Sphinx dates back to 10,000 BC or the Pyramid era, perhaps people should be looking more closely at rainfall patterns instead of the dating of tourist attractions or megafloods. It did rain ocassionally in Ancient Egypt. It would only take a few freak rainstorms plus wind erosion to cause erosion marks. Look at the mud brick structures found in the Abydos area or Mesopotamia. In many cases the main reason there's anything left standing is because of the sheer mass of the original buildings!
It would appear many parahistory writers are unaware of fallacies and how to spot them. I've discussed some examples of fallacies used by parahistory. Now to show you more of what to look for I've going to list some common fallacies and invite readers to bear them in mind next time you're reading parahistory of any quality or lack thereof.
The fallacy of Distraction seems quite popular. People often express a false dilemma - implying it's a either - or situation, "either I'm right or they're wrong", presenting two absolutes rather than two alternatives. Often after further investigation one discovers several options or explanations are available.
An old favourite is the appeal to authority misused when the expert is not so. You may see an unnamed authority cited as "it is generally agreed". The ethical thing to do is, in the first case, if you are not an expert in the case, say so at the beginning, or at least clearly state in what (un)related field, and to which degree you do have expertise, and why you 're venturing to express an opinion.
As for the use of generalisations about current theories - try to resist the temptation to generalise and cite at least one name or at least use the subjunctive and say something like "general / consensus / majority opinion at the moment SEEMS to be that ..." Seems NOT IS - A very "Subjunctive" verb - a useful mode of discussing Probabilities along with could, should and would. IS - the Indicative - the Verbal Mood that should be used to express FACTS.
Generalisations are very tempting and rhetorically usefully but too often they turn out to be based on too small a sample or an untypical instance. Use them with caution and be prepared to defend them or support them with examples.
One example is the Faces/Pyramids/other structures on Mars issue. Can you explain why certain photos may or may not be distorted? Actually the thing that bugs me about the Face on Mars claims is that no-one has commented that while the newest shots published may no longer look like a face they still look like ... well its' squared off and reminds me of aerial shots of archaeological sites and if that site was on Earth I'ld mark it off for onsite inspection just to be absolutely certain? Know your science or at least try to read New Scientist or some similar reputable Popular Science Journal at the library if you don't use access to formal resources like a university library or an academic database supported by a university.
The false analogy is another problem. People use metaphors and similes to develop a comparison of unsimilar objects. This can be very playful, poetic and elegant but can also obscure information. Is it adornment or emphasis. Does the image help your argument.? Is it accurate?
Reason is a tool as much as faith. The arts of argument are not just a logocentric male conspiracy of white imperialistic male academica. They are a measuring tool for balance.
!Parahistory is fun but don't use it as a excuse for a fight that turns into a holy war. Don't propagate nonsense on the excuse you're just "playing" either! Write fiction instead!
Support a balanced Middle Way between unimaginative conservative dogmatists and fundamentalists and the wildeyed erratic "alternative" historians who seem to change their belief with each new book! Let parahistory be intelligent speculation thats' stimulating! Please.
Article written by Julie Vaux M. A. Classics March 1999. Converted from html 4 to css/xhtml Nov 2005. Minor revisions were made.
!