Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Why Archaeologists Should Engage with "Fringe" Notions About the Human Past

12/5/2014

11 Comments

 
Picture
I was recently called for jury duty.  During the voir dire, the defense attorney asked a series of questions designed to ascertain if the potential jurors understood which side had the burden of proof.  He asked if anyone disagreed with the statement that, since the burden of proof was on the prosecution, the defense attorney could simply come to court every day, lean back in his chair, put his feet on the table, and not say a word.  I raised my hand and stated that, if he did that, he would not be doing his job. 

Defense attorney: Why?  The burden is not on me – I don’t have to prove anything.

Me: This is an adversarial system. If the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” your job as a defense attorney is to create that doubt.

Defense attorney: Do I have to call witnesses to do that?

Me: Calling witnesses (or not) is a strategic choice that you make. Whether or not you call witnesses doesn’t change the fact that your role is to create doubt.

Defense attorney: So I should cross-examine the prosecutor’s witnesses? You would like to see a cross-examination?

Me: What would be the point of having an attorney otherwise?

Several people in the courtroom laughed.  The prosecutor used her very first peremptory challenges to boot me (and the other PhD that was there) off the jury.

An aggressive case is currently being made by the proponents of "fringe" ideas about the human past.  By any measure that I can see, the popular acceptance of those notions is growing. 
These ideas are not new: ideas about ancient aliens, giants, Atlantis, New World visits by the Lost Tribes of Israel, the Phoenicians, the Celts, the Egyptians, etc., have been around for a long time. The mechanisms by which these ideas can be shared, however, have changed dramatically in the last few decades.  In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, “fringe” notions about the past were presented mainly via traditional print media (books) and broadcast television.  While many of the “fringe” notions of today include core elements that can be traced back to those presented on programs like In Search of . . . (1978-1982), the internet, social media, and the rise of cable television have together dramatically increased (1) the number of mechanisms available for spreading information; (2) the access of individuals to those mechanisms; and (3) the speed with which ideas can spread. 

It is difficult to overstate the power of social media to facilitate the spread of ideas (both good ones and bad ones) and to allow ideas with very different levels of plausibility to appear equivalent.  In essence, changes in our information infrastructure have created the conditions that allow the narratives of “fringe” notions about the human past to be aggressively presented to the public in a way that has never before been possible.  The proponents of these ideas have seized on the new mechanisms for sharing information and are making their cases.

How should professional archaeologists react to this shift?  One position is that it doesn’t matter:  after all, the cumulative, self-correcting nature of science means that bad ideas will eventually be shown to be false no matter what anyone believes at any particular time, right?  In other words, it would be a waste of energy and resources to present counter-argument to these “fringe” ideas.

I disagree.  As professional archaeologists, I think we have a responsibility to cross-examine.  Just like in a court of law, when you make the choice to leave an argument un-rebutted you risk giving that argument the appearance of legitimacy.  Is it responsible to put your feet up on the table and passively allow the producers of Ancient Aliens, Search for the Lost Giants, and America Unearthed educate the public about what happened in the past, hoping that the argument collapses on its own and goes away someday?

No.

Five of the eight Principles of Archaeological Ethics of the Society for American Archaeology contain the word “public.”  As archaeologists, we are trained to use material remains to construct plausible interpretations of the past:  archaeology is the only branch of science that has access to all aspects of human history and prehistory that are associated with a material record.  While much of the public is fascinated by the broad outlines of our subject matter, it is not well-versed in the body of methods and theory we use.  It is part of our job to educate the public both about how we arrive at our ideas about the past as well as what those ideas are.  Shouldn’t we do this not only by discussing our own work with the public but by paying attention to how the public perceives and weighs non-archaeological ideas about the past?

Yes.

Why does the “court of public opinion” matter?  I’ll give you two examples.

First, ideas about the past are relevant to peoples in the present.  It is not difficult to identify articulations between “fringe” notions of prehistory and some pretty ugly ideas about race in this country.  The white supremacist website Stormfront has discussions about the roles of Celts, Norse, and Welsh peoples in the peopling of prehistoric North America, for example.  The nineteenth century concept of the “Moundbuilders,” with all of its racist baggage, is gaining new currency with the uncritical help of programs like Search for the Lost Giants and America Unearthed.  It neither ethical nor wise to let these messages go unchallenged, especially given the entangled and troubled histories of race, archaeology, and anthropology in this country. 

Second, if you think archaeology is a science that is important and relevant, you should be concerned about how public perception of what we do and how we do it articulates with the growing momentum of “anti-science” in this country.  There is increasing disdain for and/or ignorance about what science is and how it works.  It is our job to make our own argument about what we do, why it is relevant, and why all ideas about the past are not equally credible or plausible.  We should not let proponents of pseudo-scientific “fringe” ideas educate the public about the past.  They will make their case, not ours.    

My primary work is in the American Midwest.  I’ve started spending some of my time and energy engaging with what seems to be the snowballing notion that this part of the world was once inhabited by an ancient “race” of giants.  So far I’ve written three blog posts on the subject: one on double teeth, and two (here and here) on an animal tooth that was misrepresented on Search for the Lost Giants as a human tooth from Denisova Cave.  At least a few others in the Midwest have also decided that they are not going to sit with their feet up on the table while the History channel “educates” the public.  Brad Lepper of the Ohio History Connection has written about the Newark Holy Stone and the Bat Creek Stone, among other things.  Katy Meyers Emery, a graduate student at Michigan State, wrote this blog post about the modified skulls that have been interpreted as the remains of extraterrestrials. 

I’m sure there are more of you out there who have already decided to lean forward instead of leaning back, and I hope that more of you will commit.  It is important.  Public perceptions about the past matter.  Public perceptions about the role of science in crafting plausible explanations of natural and human phenomena matter.  Our responses to the arguments that are being made matter.  We should be responding.


11 Comments
Terry J. Deveau link
12/5/2014 04:32:48 am

Thank you for this blog posting. I strongly agree with what you have written. I am a professional scientist, although I only hold a Master of Science degree, and I work in underwater acoustics modelling. However, I'm also an active amateur archaeologist.

What I would like to add to the discussion that you have started is that not only is it essential for accredited anthropologists and archaeologists to engage in public education to counter unscientific or pseudo-scientific trends and fads in popular culture, but it essential that they take it just as seriously as their other work.

Far too often I have seen, mostly in the historical record, accredited scientists dismiss various unorthodox claims as a hoax, a forgery, a geoform, or otherwise illegitimate, based on analysis or evidence of a nature that they themselves would never accept if it were offered to prove the validity of a claim.

It is if, somehow, they feel the standards of rigor and rules of evidence are less stringent when used to pronounce something illegitimate. I find this very frustrating as it only serves to fuel the unscientific bent of the popular culture, who can tell that a sham job was done to obtain the "establishment" conclusion, and feeds all kind of conspiracy theories.

In my opinion, the standards of rigor and rules of evidence should be even higher before a controversial idea or finding should be ruled illegitimate, than for proving mundane orthodox claims in one's field. If the controversial idea genuinely lacks merit, it should be possible to meet those high standards of rigor in disproving it. And if that is not so easy to do, quickly, then admit to leaving it as an open question for now, rather than offering premature dismissive "probable" opinions.

The popular culture is becoming shockingly and massively unscientific. As scientists, we must do everything we can to gain more public trust, not give the public reason to be suspicious of our motives, sincerity, or integrity.

Reply
Andy
12/5/2014 05:11:44 am

You raise some good points. In my experience, simply shouting someone down or being dismissive or insulting is not a useful strategy. I think it's important to base arguments on evidence and to be able to explain why an idea does or does not fit with the evidence that's available: that's our strong suit.

Reply
Peter Waksman link
12/5/2014 08:07:38 pm

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I am one of those amateurs busily informing the public about archeology that is considered "fringe" by many professionals. My "fringe" idea is to document Indian Burial grounds in New England and that the mound builders were in New England.
Some of the fringe ideas have always been there and always have been worth the attention of professionals, not so the public can be protected from bad ideas but so the archeologist can get up to speed on reality. There are numerous examples of where amateurs led the way.
So, you are absolutely right but it cuts both ways. Hopefully these new media will make archeologists more accountable and better scientists.

Reply
Carl L Johannessen
12/6/2014 05:03:34 pm

Tp be scientific is the highest order of responsibility to the young people who otherwise have to spened tgime relearning data they were taught that was incorredt. That wast is not valid use of time. .

Reply
Curtiss Hoffman
12/6/2014 11:22:09 pm

Thanks for this insightful commentary. While some ideas considered to be "fringe" are truly based upon outmoded racial stereotypes, others are capable of being demonstrated using the sort of empirical evidence that we professional archaeologists require before we will accept them - much as in the analogy of the juridical model you supply. But just as there are crystallized ideas in the "fringe" community, there are also crystallized ideas in the "mainstream" archaeological community. "Clovis First" is a good example of this, and there are still quarters in the profession where this idea is fiercely defended against a growing bulwark of contrary evidence. Another idea long considered "fringe" which Peter Waksman and I have pursued is that the thousands of stone constructions found throughout the eastern seaboard of the USA and Canada are all the work of post-Contact European farmers clearing their fields, and that none of them were built by Native Americans. This opinion, in spite of considerable ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence to the contrary, is held in an unfortunately large number of SHPO offices in the region, to the detriment of the preservation of these sites. Yet it is possible to use the techniques of scientific inquiry (e.g. quantitative hypothesis testing) to examine the distribution patterns of these sites and to demonstrate thereby the statistical improbability that they were all the work of colonial farmers. Yesterday's fringe may become tomorrow's mainstream!

Reply
Andy White
12/9/2014 10:54:35 pm

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. One of the best professors I ever had stressed to me over and over again the idea that "science is a human endeavor." People build their careers investing their time and energy pursuing ideas and explanations, and those are not necessarily abandoned lightly even when there is good contrary evidence. But we ultimately do deal in evidence, and evidence is what overturns ideas ("Clovis first" being a great example).

One of the things that is irksome about the "giants" case is that it is not really presented as a falsifiable argument. If a person could produce an actual gigantic skull with concentric rows of teeth, that would demonstrate that such things do exist. The inability to produce such a skull, however, is explained by giantologists as the result of a conspiracy to suppress evidence. You have to wonder what evidence they would accept to falsify the idea the giants existed?

That's why we're left looking at the only "evidence" there really is: those old newspaper accounts. Can those be proven "true"? They could be verified by finding the bones that go with them (but oh wait, those have all been destroyed). In the absence of the actual bones, we're left having a critical look at the accounts themselves, and that's what I've started doing (or at least trying to do).

Reply
EP
12/10/2014 06:52:31 am

Andy, a humble (though unsolicited!) suggestion: It would be both academically interesting and rhetorically useful to look at other trends in sensationalist news of the 19th-20th century and compare the "evidence" for some fringe claims that are currently unpopular to that for the giants. That would put us in better position to theorize about what makes a given fringe claim popular, as well as present the proponents of the giants with concrete (and potentially hilarious) evidence of their own methodological inconsistency.

A minor critical point: It's not so much that it's "not really presented as a falsifiable argument" as that the gigantologists either refuse to admit it when their theories are falsified, or refuse to respond to this fact by discarding them (instead of complicating them with conspiracy epicycles). In general, the falsifiability criterion doesn't really work when applied to conjectures about unique past events. This isn't a problem particular to fringe theories - you can't really "falsify" the official account of the Kennedy assassination any more than you can a reasonably coherent conspiracy theory.

Reply
David Connolly link
12/11/2014 01:50:07 am

A thought provoking post. and a concept I wrestle with on both BAJR and Past Horizons (with just under 170k followers on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/archstore, you can expect a large cookie quotient) The trouble comes when you have repeated the evidence for the 89th time. Carefully listening to the other view, taking the time to provide counter evidence or argument and then present it in a reasonable way. The result is usually the same... in a predetermined order of name calling, suggesting vehemently you are part of the conspiracy to hide "the evidence" and then onto more abusive and/or victimised wails about fancy book learning/ivory towers and more things in the world than my sort can ever know. Followed up by a rant about why I won't debate... and then the virtual slam of the door as they leave --- never so insulted by the replies to their innocent question about 10,000 year ol pyramids in Bosnia or Giants in America ( see recent World News Report spoof. which is gaining more credibility )

"A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time. ....etc....)

Anyway... the problem is that 2 days later, you have to go over the same "debate" again. You can't argue against the "ah but what if" "negative evidence" My question is do you have the energy to have to go through the same argument with every single person who wants to believe. and sadly will never be swayed from their belief anyway. You would have more luck trying to explain to the Pope that the concept of a higher being is a construct most likely born from a growing awareness in death and the need to provide a shield to protect the human mind from falling into a deep despair that it is all pointless.

Great post !

Reply
Andy White
12/11/2014 02:32:43 am

Hi David,

Thanks for comments. You are right, of course, that no-one has time to have the same debate a thousand times over. I think my goal is to try to win some of the hearts and minds that are somewhat open by showing examples of what the case for "ancient giants" is actually built on. Hopefully people that are really interested in the topic will take some time to think about the things I'm working on rather than just being impressed by the sheer volume of reported "evidence." If you want to link to this blog post from your site, it won't hurt my feelings!

Reply
Kevin Hover link
3/6/2023 03:52:20 am

I have the largest oldest tooth ever found on earth and am looking for a market to sell it

Reply
Tooth buyer
3/6/2023 04:09:33 am

I am interested. Where can I see a photo of the tooth?

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly