"Forbidden Archaeology:" Round 2 is Imminent

1/3/2018

As I gear up to teach field school again this spring, I've just begun thinking about the upcoming fall semester. I'm planning on teaching Forbidden Archaeology again. Buckle yourselves in.

I'm going to make some changes, both topically and in terms of the structure of the course. I think I'd like to have a guest speaker again (the Jim Vieira visit worked out well), but I need to decide on what I'm going to try to cover first. There are numerous choices. I want to keep it fresh but also hit some important, relevant themes. So I'm looking for topics (probably two this time instead of three) that crosscut several dimensions of the social, political, historical, and cultural contexts of fringe claims. This timely article from the Southern Poverty Law Center lays some of this stuff out pretty well.

If you've got any suggestions or ideas, now is the time to voice them. If I can triangulate topic, timeline, and a willing guest, I can work on the fundraising aspect of getting someone to Columbia.

Jack Kessler

1/3/2018 09:13:01 am

There is no end of archaeology in Israel and Palestine showing that the Jews were there and the Palestinians were not. That particular bit of forbidden archaeology denial is maintained not by a fringe group but by the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, the EU, the UN, and the Left generally. I realize it Is much easier to take a stand against powerless fringe groups than against powerful, well-funded ones. But supposedly scholars have some dedication to the archaeological evidence?

Andy White

1/3/2018 02:52:44 pm

Ethnic/nationalist use of "archaeology" is relevant to discuss (in terms of why interpretations of the past matter) but also fairly narrow as far as suspect claims to. The issues I'm interested in go much deeper than particular cases of the geopolitical use/abuse of archaeology.

Jim Svos

1/6/2018 03:28:03 pm

You need to read the "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe to get a realistic look at the Jewish state today. That will provide you with a more honest look at the historic timeline.

E.P. Grondine

1/9/2018 09:05:18 am

God help you if you are trying to work through the Aegean Bronze Age and have to deal with this stuff. Nationalism and religion - too much fun.

nomuse

1/25/2018 07:40:18 pm

Yeah...I've been researching a novel on the Sea Peoples. Every single name Ramses II or III had carved goes into a rabbit hole of wild nationalist claims when you try to chase it down.

Although I suspect it gets even worse when you stray into Northern Europe. Don't even whisper of "celts."

Jim

1/3/2018 06:11:39 pm

As a theme, you could use the various peoples claimed to have come to America before Columbus. Lots to choose from.

Andy White

1/4/2018 05:27:42 am

I did pre-Columbian transoceanic contact claims as one of three topics last time around. There's certainly enough there to spend an entire class on, but I found myself getting worn down by the willful ignorance of proponents resting their claims on the same "artifacts" that have been shown to be fraudulent about a million times now. It's still timely, though, and historically important.

Graham

1/9/2018 06:41:06 am

Did you include the Afrocentric interpretation of American history?

Bob Jase

1/5/2018 11:31:58 am

I caught part of a 'documentary' featuring the Viera brothers yesterday investigating the Dare stones - when did the Roanoke colonists become giants or the Vieras become actual archeologists?

Joe Scales

1/5/2018 07:47:28 pm

To be fair, their stone cutting expertise was helpful in at least affirming that the stones found after the first one were indeed fakes.

Joe Scales

1/5/2018 07:43:49 pm

"This timely article from the Southern Poverty Law Center lays some of this stuff out pretty well."

Newsflash: Idiots believe idiotic things. There are plenty of other idiots who aren't white nationalists or anti-Semites who fall for the Ancient Alien/Fringe History scams.

My advice is to keep politics out of whatever you're planning. If you want it to be educational, that is.

Peter de Geus

1/5/2018 08:19:51 pm

Political ideology, versus current affairs politics per se, very distinctly dovetails to diffusion agendas. It's no different than religious, cultural or psychological ideology as a key component of pseudo activity. They should all be understood and taught in proper context.

Joe Scales

1/6/2018 08:47:26 am

"Political ideology, versus current affairs politics per se, very distinctly dovetails to diffusion agendas."

As it does to association fallacy to smear opposing political ideologies disguised as academics.

Peter de Geus

1/6/2018 10:54:37 am

'They should all be understood and taught in proper context.' Who is smearing who? Did you just suggest that academics smear one political ideology over another to their students? It reads like you just smeared academics for conspiratorial bias. 'Understood' and 'proper context' are reasonably simple to not misinterpret.

Joe Scales

1/6/2018 11:32:37 am

"It reads like you just smeared academics for conspiratorial bias."

Read it again then, in proper context...

Andy White

1/6/2018 12:34:49 pm

Hi Joe.

So your angle for a course like this would be "idiots believe idiotic things"?

We've had this discussion before. None of these fringe ideas was created or is perpetuated in a cultural/social/political/historical vacuum. There's always context, and understanding that context is the really interesting pursuit. If you want to put your your hands over your ears and pretend that Atlantis is not a white supremacist fantasy, be my guest. But that's not what I'll be doing.

Joe Scales

1/6/2018 01:09:37 pm

"So your angle for a course like this would be "idiots believe idiotic things"?"

No. That was simply my angle for criticizing the article that so enamored you which you explicitly set forth as inspiration for the sort of approach you were contemplating for your proposed course. So in fact it would not be my idea for said course; but in a way... yours.

As I know where you're going with this, I wasn't offering a path of where to go, but where not to go. That is if you wish to take your hands off from over your ears.

Andy White

1/6/2018 01:13:45 pm

So you know where I'm going with this before I do? Remarkable.

Joe Scales

1/6/2018 01:21:20 pm

No. I think you knew where you were going with it all along.

Andy White

1/6/2018 01:22:29 pm

And just where is that? I'm genuinely curious what you think you've figured out about my terrifying agenda for this course.

Joe Scales

1/6/2018 01:39:09 pm

Terrifying? Really Professor? None of this is frightening in the least. Simply read your own blog post and what you linked as your inspiration. You played your hand while dealing it.

Heck, what was it, a year and a half ago? You opened things up to suggestion in bringing in a guest blogger here. I joined what I recall was a near unanimous, or maybe in fact unanimous outcry against it. No matter. You did what you wanted to do... and deeply regret it, I'm certain.

Andy White

1/6/2018 01:48:09 pm

Racist currents run though many fringe claims -- it's one of the main reasons why they survive. I would argue, in fact, that you can't understand many of the claims without understanding the racism.

If you're talking about the "stone holes" debacle . . . who cares. I've had several people write guest blog posts. That one didn't happen, but the discussion was educational in several ways. Why would I regret it?

I do have ideas what I'm going to do with the course the next time around, but I haven't settled on anything yet (hence the post). It's boring to do the same thing twice, and it's ridiculous to be satisfied with saying "well, these are all dumb ideas, but we better not discuss where the ideas come from and why people continue to like them because someone might be upset." Reality is reality.

Joe Scales

1/7/2018 07:02:07 am

"Racist currents run though many fringe claims -- it's one of the main reasons why they survive. I would argue, in fact, that you can't understand many of the claims without understanding the racism."

Yet fringe claims are also embraced by entertainers and professional athletes who you might be hard pressed to label as racists. Ignorance is color blind.

So I suppose there you would have my suggestion for a topic. Focus on the celebrities, and why they're swayed by fringe claims and repercussions of same. They certainly have a much greater platform for promotion of these falsehoods than your average white supremacist and our youth worships them. Unless of course you were aiming for more of a political stand against some other target; indirect or otherwise.

Andy White

1/8/2018 06:52:48 am

Okay, so that's one day's discussion. How to recommend I fill up the rest of the course?

Joe Scales

1/8/2018 07:54:43 am

I'm sure you could do better than one day Professor. You could focus on the numerous television networks out there promoting false claims, and the unqualified talking heads/hosts acting outside of any sphere of relevant study. You could also move outside your vacuum of racism as it applies to fringe history and focus more on its commercial pursuits. Take a look at The Curse of Oak Island and its promotion of false claims each and every week; yet, it is often the highest rated cable show on its night of broadcast. Delve into who profits from false historical claims purporting to be educational and how it's becoming more mainstream when supported by celebrities and athletes who often go unchallenged in their beliefs. Why might that be?

Document those on the debunking side of the coin, and how they may better combat fraudulent claims. Maybe bring in someone like Richard Joltes of www.criticalenquiry.org. His Oak Island work alone could fill a syllabus. But how can he complete with one of the highest rated cable shows on television, whose stars have become celebrities themselves?

It's easy to point fingers, claim racism and hope people are swayed by the stigma to more self-actualized consideration of their beliefs. However racism may not be the sort of driving force you believe it to be when these ideas go mainstream. It's certainly not just a "far right" thing as these beliefs cross many spectrums, and wishing to paint it that way will never give you the whole picture; especially in the hyper-political climate we find ourselves in today. Sometimes you simply like the messenger. Sometimes it's all about the money, rather than ideology.

Food for thought.

E.P. Grondine

1/9/2018 09:02:02 am

Hi Andy -

I have already written this guide inside the cult archaeology industry for the students in your course:

http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcasts/Stelle/Documentation/He%20Walked%20Among%20Us%20Part%201.pdf

E.P. Grondine

1/9/2018 09:11:24 am

Hi Joe -

Read my history of tthese folks, get the facts, then opine.
While it is true that "idiots believe idiotic things" there is far more to it than that. As a matter of fact, what you're dealing with here is a coherent delusional framework.

Joe Scales

1/9/2018 05:32:50 pm

No thanks.

E.P. Grondine

1/10/2018 09:36:16 am

You would rather opine without the hard facts of the matter then?

Joe Scales

1/10/2018 10:35:45 am

No, I'd rather not accept the baited language of your own incoherent delusional framework. In other words, I've considered the source.

E.P. Grondine

1/10/2018 05:52:36 pm

Well that is one way of avoiding the hard facts of anything -
care to be more specific?

Do you have trouble with large Native Americans, or with recent impact events?

I need to warn you, I work only with the best people and their work, and grade incompetents I run into. Now do you want to learn the nitty gritty about the fringe, or just pose for everybody?

Joe Scales

1/10/2018 06:32:41 pm

EP,
You haven't even shown an inkling of understanding for any point I've made here. You've mischaracterized the quote of mine and generalized it to suit your own "look at me" sort of disingenuousness. Your language is loaded beyond the capacity for honest discourse. Now you pat your own back and you think I'm the poseur? Please.

Now go grade some papers you pompous ass, doing some poor kid a disservice in all likelihood for not kissing up to you to your required specifications. I for one would never take a class taught by the likes of you to begin with.

Hope that was specific enough for you, as it's all you'll get from me from this point on.

E.P. Grondine

1/11/2018 08:45:00 am

Joe, in as much as I took my time to write up the remarkable history of the current fringe, including the cash and sex, I can safely assert that if you do not take a look at it before opining then you are opining about a matter of which you know not.

The same thing goes for recent impact events, and now "Adena" stature.

I have found that being polite does little good in dealing with various posseurs in any field - it does not work.

It takes an evening to read my history of the fringe, and the worse is that you're out is 3 to 4 hours and it is certain that you will gain a factual basis for an comments or analysis you care to make, which is not a bad use of your time.

While I have the testimony of a lot of irate husbands, I intentionally omitted the names of the victims of Kieninger's sexual predation, and as none of those victims discussed his sexual techniques with me, I could not include them in the piece. But it is still a fun read.

Bill Wagner

1/18/2018 12:09:01 pm

Southern Poverty Law Center ? Really ? You're serious ?

Data is one thing. Interpreting it in light of this or that belief system is quite another. In nearly every case, the data gets hijacked by frameworks of belief extraneous to it, and honest evaluation is crowded out by the ideological point scoring that follows.

You, like any good Boasian, are a vociferous anti-"racist." This is an unquestionable dogma written into the fabric of "anthropology," despite abundant grounds for disputing its veracity, both then and now. This being the case, you are attacking others for being "credulous," while what it boils down to is that their belief (the evil one) simply differs from yours (the good, noble, true and pure one), with neither having a decisive bearing on the data.

Numerous, credible records of seven-foot (+) Andaste skeletons (for one example) can only be ruled out of contention by invoking a belief system in which "this cannot be because it cannot be," which trumps the hand.

You are preaching a belief and calling it science -- as did the Clovis-First fanatics.

Andy White

1/23/2018 08:55:49 am

So you're a defender of racism that believes in giants and thinks scientific anthropology is a liberal conspiracy? Sounds about right.

Bill Wagner

3/10/2018 10:31:55 am

Race-"ism" is a body of beliefs. Objective consideration of race (or genetics or whatever the acceptable referent is this week) is another matter altogether.

"Scientific anthropology," to someone interested enough to be familiar with it but detached enough to see it in the round, is a package deal. It's the attempted application of the scientific method to the study of humans in groups, but only providing the central tenant of its founder (that all people begin life as essentially identical "blank slates" with all differences being solely expressions of social conditioning) is not called into question lest it prove unfounded. This, as it stands, is an oxymoron.

In a nutshell, "scientific anthropology" rules out ever considering whether "race" even might be a factor in human group differences. In this it is profoundly and self-evidently UNscientific.

Methinks the pot calls the kettle black in this one.

Andy White

3/12/2018 07:04:18 am

I believe you are confused. Boas recognized that biology, culture, and language are not isomorphic (i.e., one does not determine the other) and were influenced by history, process, and environment. Human biological variability has a genetic component, but is also influenced by environment (hence Boas' interest in immigrant studies). Boas was strongly reacting to the conceptions of "race" that permeated the science of the day: that human characteristics were unchanging and that races could be "ranked" on a scale of inferior-superior. I don't think he ever said that humans do not vary physically and that that variability is a complex issue. So you're arguing against a straw man.

I encourage you to read his publications from the late 1800's up through the 1930's.

And I am wondering what your definition of "race" actually is? Can you provide one? I believe I have asked you this before and not gotten a response.

Comments are closed.

"Forbidden Archaeology:" Round 2 is Imminent

Archives

Categories