This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pseudoarchaeology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
I removed the Kon Tiki reference near the bottom. Mitochondrial DNA testing may indicate that Heyerdahl's theory was wrong, but that doesn't make it pseudo-archaeology. Also, I have yet to see a solid refution of his study of food plants in the Pacific and their interrelation with South American food-plant species... True, he may have been a sensationalist, but that does not necessarily discount the whole of his theories.
Pseudoarchaeology, fact or fiction? I don't believe that all searchers of Noah's Arc or other religious artifacts put their religious perspectives over scientific inquisitions. I hope that some day someone does find proof that the Arc really exists. Better yet somebody finds the Arc of the Covenient. Wouldn't that throw a rock into the gears of science!! I feel that religion although almost impossible to overlook in these searches should be put aside and kept at home. The thought that the bible is a treasure map will only cloud their investigations!!!
I removed the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery from the 'see also' list. They are normal archaeological objects, and not pieces of pseudoarchaeology, as putting them on this page would seem to claim. I also removed the prior text from this talk page, because it was discussion about the subject of the page rather than about the page itself. Andre Engels 18:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have re-added them now - re-reading the page I realized my objections could be solved by putting them directly under 'archaeology' rather than under 'anachronism'. However, regarding the last question, no a discussion page is not for discussion about the subject: See Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for?. Andre Engels 12:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What are the sources for these two comments? Seems like conjecture to me. Piltdown Man may have been just to get a quick buck. Just because people thought the mound builders were gone does not imply prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronjhill ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this paragraph
In a favorite area of pseudohistory claims are made that a major immigrant group of modern North Americans made a "discovery" of the New World before Columbus. Archaeology unearths a temporary Viking encampment at L'Anse aux Meadows. Pseudoarchaeology associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Viking remains in Minnesota.
is a really bad example, or is not phrased very clearly, since the discovery of a Viking encampment (however temporary) does prove that the Vikings discovered America before Columbus did.
That is not the part I am objecting to. The first sentence implies that America was not discovered by the Vikings. The second implies that it was.
I agree that it is badly worded. To me this paragraph says that the claim of pre-columbian discovery of America is pseudohistory, which it is not. I do not think this is the author's intention, either. My attempt at a rewrite: "One example of pseudoarchaeology is the claim of a Norse settlement of North America some five hundred years before Columbus. Although there is clear archaeological evidence of a temporary Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, pseudoarchaeology also associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Norse remains in Minnesota."-- MaxMad 08:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... apart from the fact that I don't think KT is archaeology, I'm not sure it is pseudo-archaeology as such either. You can make the claims about the book and the theories, I think, but the point of KT etc, was to see if such a journey was feasible. It's an experiment, rather than complete evidence.
The Kon-Tiki expedition in itself was not pseudoarchaeology, since it proved its premise that the voyage was possible. On the other hand, Thor Heyerdahl's theories about population spreading from South America to Polynesia have been discredited, with DNA mapping techniques not available at the time of the expedition.-- MaxMad 12:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense:
Archaeologists (and pseudoarchaeologists) schooled in Critical Theory argue that all forms of scientific thought support an ideology of control through which efforts are made to influence society through the exploitation of scientists' status as 'experts'. A relativistic, post-processual commentator might also argue that as there is no such thing as 'truth', and that anyone's view is just as valid as anybody else's. The French philosopher Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality has also led some thinkers to see archaeologists as instruments of the state rather than neutral investigators of the past. The growth of Cultural Resources Management where archaeology is incorporated into the political planning process does little to refute this idea.
I'm a little worried by the implication that critical theory is somehow aligned with pseudoarchaeology. In fact, there is a pretty healthy cohort of critical/Marxist archaeologists who nonetheless practice a scientifically grounded archaeology. Indeed, critical theory has proved a useful avenue for understanding the motivations behind pseudoarchaeological assertions, particularly where those assertions are racist or ideological in nature. A 2004 Charles Orser book, "Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation," is one example.
Also, a number of archaeologists (e.g. Bruce Trigger, Bettinna Arnold) have been examining the statist uses of archaeology (with or without invoking Foucault) for some time, and consciousness of the use and misuse of archaeological knowledge is generally on the rise within the archaeological community. I am not sure that the fact that statism is present in archaeology - it is present in all endeavors undertaken in states - negates utterly the knowledge that it produces. Indeed, the difference between pseudoarchaeologies and "straight" archaeologies are that pseudoarchaeologies begin with a premise (ancient aliens) and go around looking for evidence to support the claim, while scientific archaeologies employ systematic data collection,recursive science practices, falsifiability and peer review as ways to produce knowledge. This paragraph seems to imply however, that the two are equally bogus.
I made extensive changes to the Critics section, mostly in an attempt to keep it NPOV, weed out irrelevent information, and generally improve the flow of the article. I have only a layman's understanding of the debate, but recommendations for legitimate archaeologists don't seem to have a place in an encyclopedia article relating to criticism of and by pseudoarchaeologists. -- 68.126.221.76 06:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
I wish to reference this article and I'd like to know the name of the author. Referencing the article to Wikipedia won't do sorry.
Thanks,
Rick
How is calling archaeologists snobs NPOV?
For example, the statement:
"In a characteristic approach that is symptomatic of many other pseudosciences, an a priori conclusion is established beforehand, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail "
Therefore, if we didn't now know that he was right, Heinrich Schliemann's work at Troy would fit your definition of pseudoscience. Schliemann most-certainly did decide beforehand that he was going to find a city that the scientific world considered as "mythical" before he began work. However, he did find Troy! Yet if he had stopped one spadeful of dirt short of finding Troy he would be labelled a pseudoarcheologist instead of an archeologist.
This is why I think that your definition needs some more clarification.
I purpose that you rethink your definition of "pseudo-" in terms of whether or not the purposed explanation of a historical event follows the scientific method and/or is consistant with logic and currently-known facts.
My own personal concept of pseudoscience is more in terms of the intentional or careless distortion and misrepresention of evidence in order to construct specious arguments that "sound" scientific with the intention of misleading the public.
Schliemann certainly did not adhere to what we now consider best-practice in archeology. However, he did not intentionally mislead the public either. Using the practices of the time, he made and honest effort to solve a mystery.
Actually, I prefer the term "alternative history" for authors like Hancock and Bauval, among others, and I think it has its place. In some respects we could consider works of alternative history as new hypotheses, yet to be tested. The distinction may be only that we do not have the technology or information to test these hypotheses currently. The inablility to test a hypothesis with science neither dispproves nor proves that hypothesis. Instead, in my honest opinion, it means the issue is still on the table for discussion.
AndyBlackard 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Andy Blackard
It seems to me that the accepted terminology used for discussing this topic is jumbled, inconsistent, and probably misleading.
Schliemann seems to me to be precisely what the word "pseudo-archaeologist" *ought* to refer to - someone well-meaning but inadequate.
For the majority of the so-called "pseudo-archaeologists" mentioned in the article, there has always been a suitable term available: liar. It doesn't carry the same connotation of accomplishment that "pseudo-archaeologist" does, but then again, it probably shouldn't. TooManyFingers ( talk) 10:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused by this reason to arbitrarily remove all of my edits being there is nothing to "substantiate". All I did was tone down your obviously biased and rhetoric. This entire page is subjective and one-sided and clearly written with disdain for what is in your opinion psuedoscience. Even something as simple as mentioning Von Daineken and Hancock in the same sentence without a qualifying statement is misleading and discredits some of which you say and only proves what I wrote in the "Critic" section which of course you removed. If you can find a better way to say these things than I did please do, but if anything be fair to both sides. Thanos5150 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
" strictly speaking they are psedeuo archaeology, but can be made it. will explaiin more if needed" i meant it to read, "strictly speaking these 2 are not psedeuoarcheaology, but can be made it by their proponents. will explain more if needed". 12.220.94.199 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have heavily re-written this article, seeing as it was pretty much pap. Unsourced, speculative, POV-ridden and potentially defamatory (labelling certain writers as "commonly regarded as pseudoarchaeologists"... nice one!).
Now I am no fan of conspiracy theories, and consider myself to be a skeptic bordering on the cynical, but that's no reason to support a lousy article. It needs far more cutting back, frankly, but I leave that task to someone else. ElectricRay 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The History section in its current state is a pointless jumble; most of it seems to belong more in the examples section, if it belongs at all. Thoughts? ClovisPt 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I grant that Heyerdahl's theory that the South Sea was peopled from Peru is disproven by genetic evidence. But is it really fair to say that the expedition itself was pseudoarchaeology? I was under the impression that he really did show that Peruvians could have made it to Micronesia with their technology, even though they almost certainly did not. Does anybody have a source here? < eleland/ talk edits> 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
These ideas show that Heyerdahl was wrong about a number of things, but that doesn't make his voyage wrong. He hypothesized that a certain thing had been done, and testing whether it *could have* been done was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate step. Subjecting a wrong hypothesis to good tests is good science; everyone makes a wrong hypothesis from time to time. Demonstrating that great distances can be covered using very basic technology is worthwhile information for everyone to know, even if Heyerdahl himself wanted that information for questionable reasons. TooManyFingers ( talk) 10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The sentence "The theory, commonly held by European settlers, that the mound builders were a long vanished group" (the first example given in the list) is rather problematic, since mound-building activities had in fact largely ceased in the region of the northern half of the Eastern U.S. long before Europeans came into the area. In any case, archaeology as a modern science didn't really exist when the theorizers proposed that the mounds had been built by Phonicians, the ten lost tribes of Israel, the Romans or whoever, so it wasn't "pseudoarchaeology" at the time... AnonMoos ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Our article on out-of-place artifacts has few sources discussing it as a concept, and it may be best merged into this article. Discuss here, please: Talk:Out-of-place_artifact#Sources. Thanks. Fences& Windows 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the entry: Virginia Steen-McIntyre's circular dating on Hueyatlaco warhead, which is under the heading: Unconventional/Scientifically suspect methodology.
It originally read: Virginia Steen-McIntyre's circular dating on Hueyatlaco warheads. The reader would have inferred from this that Virginia herself has indulged in some circular dating. However, the circular dating referred to was Virginia's statement that her findings were rejected not on their failings or merits, but because her critics engaged in circular reasoning. Cynthia was asked to drop an arbitary zero from an artifact dated to 250,000 years ago, making it 25,000 years ago, to fit into the current paradigm about how long man has been in the Americas and non-recognition, officially, of Pre Clovis.
So now the entry reads:
The circular dating of Hueyatlaco spearheads ...
This is because it is the circular thinking behind the dating of the warheads that is pseudoarchaeological, and not the scientific dating methods that were used.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillharley ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't Piltdown Man be more of an example of psuedoanthropology rather than pseudoarchaeology? 64.180.93.200 ( talk) 01:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
An Unexplained Artifact is not necessarily Pseudo-archaeology or Bad archaeology. It is exactly that, an unexplained artifact.
A case in point is the alleged Roman terracotta head found in a Pre-Colombian site in Mexico. Even if it is Roman, it doesn't prove anything more than a one-time contact between the civilizations, such as a storm-driven Roman ship. Or possibly a ship of a different origin carrying a Roman artifact. My vote is against merger of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.50.198 ( talk) 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Biblical Archaelogy was started by pious people who sought to verify the magical elements of the Bible (i.e., signs of a word wide flood, eden, etc). Now Biblical Archaelogy has evolved into a true science. Hopefuly, Mormon Archaelogy can evolve. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the articles, Biblical archaeology is a "branch of the archaeological sciences" whereas Young Earth creationism is a "religious belief" and "pseudoscience". Where do you draw the line between them? The only difference seems to be which books of the Bible they are concerned with. Keith McClary ( talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly object to the way User:Midnightblueowl replaced the entire article with the contents of the former article Alternative archaeology, which is now a redirect to here. There was good information in the original article, which is now lost, for example literature. His complaint about the revert of his replacement that properly referenced information should not be reverted was hypocritical, as some information in the original article was also referenced but simply overwritten and thus deleted by him without salvaging it. Instead, Midnightblueowl should have merged the viable information found in this article into Alternative archaeology, and then moved it here, overwriting the now either duplicated or unreferenced content. I strongly urge Midnightblueowl to conduct a proper merger and salvage referenced and useful content (such as references to literature and weblinks) from the original version of this article, before the replacement. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding this in. Now, I happen to agree, but really, that's a descriptive that I might hear over beers. If there's a reliable source for it, put it in there, otherwise, we're all going to revert it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions
PS. I see that three books are used as references, but short of purchasing and reading them, can someone give us something else reliable? I'd love to see it stay! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with finding Noah's Ark, and making sure it exists based on a theory. Science is about hypothesis, right and finding Noah's ark so that someone may find it, may not be pseudoarchaeology, although it's a waste of time, certainly. I have questions about finding the thing so that. It's not pseudoarchaeology, though that's highly contested. Religious archaeology section is misleading because Biblical archaeology is not pseudoarchaeology and the article seems to be misleading because it is not clear about pseudoarchaeology, which is a pejorative term and this is an opinionated article, if anything. Finding out if something exists to solve a mystery, is not pseudoarchaeology, in my opinion to go find the thing on Ararat. Though trying to find it is an adventure, no matter how much of a waste of time, it may be. I don't think it's pseudoarchaeology to go find out something is there, to find Noah's Ark, that's just my opinion. That one is contested, because it has supporters in mainstream archaeology, though. If a biblical college, does an archaeological hunt, is that pseudoarchaeology if they use legitimate methods? I don't think so. Solving mysteries is not bad archaeology, though Noah's ark uses legitimate methods of archaeology, though bad interpretation of evidence and finding out if something is there, is not pseudoarchaeology.
It's not real clear about PSEUDOARCHAEOLOGY, in my opinion because there is no scientific definition of the time and the term is purely a matter of opinion as if the term is a rebellion against science itself, which I think is complete crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk) 04:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As I've just seen in the latest edits of this page that a correction has been reverted (I wasn't involved): Please assume good faith and look up who the author of the book is instead of reverting to a false assumption. Ken Feder is the author. [6] [7] [8] ... -- Jonas kork ( talk) 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted the change of a few words to the lead that were said to be part of a process of making it more "objective." However, the edits altered some language that is fundamental to the topic. If you'd like to discuss this further, go ahead. Hoopes ( talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The term pseudo- has clear prejudices attached to it. A more balanced title would be "Alternative Archaeology" or "Archaeological Revisionism". [See article Historical Revisionism]. Ripleysnow ( talk) 02:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, I think it would be useful to include television series on the History, Syfy or Science Channels (along with others) that promote these "alternative" interpretations of ancient history. It's one thing for these authors to publish books to argue their views but the fact that broadcast networks produce hours of television programming to present their historical interpretations (about ancient astronauts and such) and pass it off as education, is worth noting. Liz Let's Talk 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of this is absolute nonsense (Ancient Aliens) while other examples are much more plausible (America Unearthed for example). This distinction has to be made if we are going to include television examples. I would agree that Ancient Aliens belongs here. - Cameron, 1/1/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Under "Etymology":
"Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. G. Daniel (1977) used the derogative "bullshit archaeology",[14]"
Other authors have already been used as sources for this term, "bullshit archaeology," which never even used the term. "Daniel 1977" links back to this same "Pseudoarchaeology" page. Someone is pranking this page with this "bullshit archaeology" stuff. It's neither supported by a legitimate source, nor neutral.
Under "Characteristics":
"3) its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of the Enlightenment."
This statement is also not supported by any credible sources. Rather it seems to me that whoever keeps adding in fake claims that reference back to this same page, like the "bullshit" thing above, has an ambivalent attitude towards scientific enlightenment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brscbr11 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a troubling lack of distinction between actual pseudoarchaelogy and legitimate research that draws a controversial conclusion. Currently the category ranges from absolute nonsense "discoveries" relating to ancient aliens on one end to much more logical and plausible work. The latter category includes debate on artifacts with questionable authenticity. An example of this would be the Kensington Runestone. For those not familiar, most of the runological evidence seems to suggest it is a forgery, but geologic tests done on it have seemed to indicate that the carving was not made in the 1800s when the stone was found. To put research on artifacts like this in the same category as complete bullsh*t like that found on Ancient Aliens is a mistake. Remember, under this definition, the search for the ruins of Troy would have been considered pseudoarchaelogy at one point. - Cameron, January 1st, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I generally don't get confused by double-talk, but this one is confusing me. What does this mean?
"Very few people disbelieved the likelihood that Atlantis does not exist."
Does it mean:
"Very few people believed the likelihood that Atlantis does exist."
If so, could the sentence be updated? Also shouldn't it be:
"Very few people believed the likelihood that Atlantis did exist."
70.74.191.229 ( talk) 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Might we want to add in tripe like the "Black Egyptian Hypothesis" to the category of pseudoarchaeology motivated by nationlistic/racist ideology? It certainly seems to hit a lot of the switches presented, and the contention that there's a massive conspiracy to cover up the "blackness" of Egyptians in ancient art smacks of the sort of moonbattery that often occurs in this field. 62.196.17.197 ( talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In section 'Lack of Scientific Method' I see the statement "Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists." Have archaeologists found some definitive way of limiting human provenance other than the oldest reliably datable evidence of presence? I know that those who study genomics have made guesstimates based on mutation rates, but those hardly constitute definitive proofs, and at any rate are not part of the practice of archaeology per se. You may for instance know that a stash of (carbonized) spears ~800,000 years old were recently found at the bottom of a lignite deposit in Germany. My point is, supposing your 200,000 year inference does in fact refer to the oldest evidence now known for homo sapiens, it establishes only a limit that hs can't be any newer than, and can't really establish a limit on how old hs may be. I imagine this is a way of taking a swipe at Michael Cremo, the leading 'Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologist'. It seems out of place in the context of Wikipedia though, and is at best misleading. Jwilsonjwilson ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is great - I ran across What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods which mentions that section in Antiquity Magazine with 9 reviews of fringe books which are here. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello who wrote this article? Can't find a name? An author? Who found out what's written there? where is the "proof"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.93.45 ( talk) 10:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pseudoarchaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hallofmaat.com/maat/index.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The lack of a neutral point of view that is laced throughout this article is embarrassing and in violation of Wikipedia core content policies. See WP:NPOV.
The fact that this article is called "pseudoarchaelogy" alone is biased enough, but the introductory paragraph at least provides a decent opening in that it states that it "refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline." However, after that, there is a clear lack of a NPOV. The article goes on to say that these interpretations "construct scientifically insubstantial theories" and that "[m]ethods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence."
While it is true that SOME scientists with theories outside of the archaelogical do not have data backed by science, that cannot be said conclusively said for ALL of them. The article was edited to soften that language, make it more neutral and make that qualification but it was reverted back at least three times. User:Doug Weller has even proposed protecting the article to prevent this edit rather than discussing this further on the talk page. User:Just_plain_Bill and User:Joe Roe, I welcome your opinions also on how this edit does not further a NPOV and ask why you have reverted the edits on this article.
HocusPocus00 ( talk) 05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It's got a mention but deserves its own section. Some possible sources: - an article on Robert Wauchope's old but excellent book Archaeologists To Ben Carson: Ancient Egyptians Wrote Down Why The Pyramids Were Built What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods Pseudoarchaeology is Aware of Racism, aka Let’s Talk about the R-Word Believe in Atlantis? These archaeologists want to win you back to science with a quote from Ken Feder saying "It's racist to the core Is pseudoarchaeology racist? Pseudoarchaeology: The concept and its limitations June 2012 Antiquity 86(332):524-53 Dangers of Pseudoarchaeology Science Magazine Discusses Pseudoarchaeology and Racism, and I'm in It and the SPLC article Close encounters of the racist kind. Note that we have an article on the author of the Forbes articles, Kristina Killgrove - important as Forbes contributors are necessarily RS. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe worth another section like "Nationalist motivations" and "Religious motivations" if there's enough material... Another idea would be merging both into "Political motivations" and also include the material on racism there. There indeed already are a few existing mentions. — Paleo Neonate – 22:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
I believe that the following should be removed: Slav Macedonian nationalists view that ancient Macedonians were people unrelated to Greeks and that contemporary Slav Macedonians are their cultural, historical and linguistic descendants.[49]
Whilst the source provided claims that, it does speak of ethnic Macedonians using pseudoarcheology to prove this, which is the topic of this Wikipedia article. I believe that this sentence was added by Greek/Bulgarian ultra-nationalists.
Thanks, Dikaiosyni ( talk) 09:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
( Jamesrichards12345 asked me to comment:) I agree that connecting these two passages from Danforth (p. 45–46, Macedonian nationalists have unorthodox views of history, and p. 169, archaeology is used in the Greece–Macedonia dispute) syntheses a conclusion that isn't actually in the source. It's possible for Macedonian nationalist narratives to be "bad archaeology" (cf. Nationalist historiography#Nationalism and ancient history) without being pseudoarchaeology per se. So I support removing the passage about Macedonia unless a more explicit reference can be found. – Joe ( talk) 12:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks -- James Richards ( talk) 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Apparently some editors are not paying attention to the highly debated moniker/title being ascribed to Hancock by academia, and Wikipedia, as a “pseudo” not a “journalist”. See argument on BLP of [ [12]] for relevant arguments. Also reinstate my edits excluding Hancock from this page. Terratian ( talk) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The entire notion of "pseudo-archaeology" has as its fundamental presupposition the idea that the past origins of mankind are already known, and that the definition of pseudo-archaeology is a theory that contradicts known history. This gives mainstream archaeology a religious element. I must conclude that all archaeology is pseudo-archaeology. While archaeologists use science for some of their methods, archaeology is misnamed a science. It is a belief system. Cadwallader ( talk) 13:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
This article reads like a very long complaint, but doesn't offer a single suggestion on why pseudo-archaeological thinking seems to be prevalent or what to do about it.
Part of the problem is, archaeologists are cloistered and inaccessible to the general public, whereas physics and astronomy have popular spokespeople such as Michio Kaku or Neil Tyson that make themselves accessible and explain complex ideas to the layperson.
If the average person wanted to pose a question to an archaeologist, who exactly would they contact and how? There's not a single person in this field that is a household name, or is willing to make themselves accessible for discussion. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I found this [14] but it's old and doesn't have its own sources that would help. It's an rs though I think, and Jason Colavito wrote this at the same time. [15] SPLC [16] New Repuiblic. [17] Doug Weller talk 13:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pseudoarchaeology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
I removed the Kon Tiki reference near the bottom. Mitochondrial DNA testing may indicate that Heyerdahl's theory was wrong, but that doesn't make it pseudo-archaeology. Also, I have yet to see a solid refution of his study of food plants in the Pacific and their interrelation with South American food-plant species... True, he may have been a sensationalist, but that does not necessarily discount the whole of his theories.
Pseudoarchaeology, fact or fiction? I don't believe that all searchers of Noah's Arc or other religious artifacts put their religious perspectives over scientific inquisitions. I hope that some day someone does find proof that the Arc really exists. Better yet somebody finds the Arc of the Covenient. Wouldn't that throw a rock into the gears of science!! I feel that religion although almost impossible to overlook in these searches should be put aside and kept at home. The thought that the bible is a treasure map will only cloud their investigations!!!
I removed the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery from the 'see also' list. They are normal archaeological objects, and not pieces of pseudoarchaeology, as putting them on this page would seem to claim. I also removed the prior text from this talk page, because it was discussion about the subject of the page rather than about the page itself. Andre Engels 18:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have re-added them now - re-reading the page I realized my objections could be solved by putting them directly under 'archaeology' rather than under 'anachronism'. However, regarding the last question, no a discussion page is not for discussion about the subject: See Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for?. Andre Engels 12:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What are the sources for these two comments? Seems like conjecture to me. Piltdown Man may have been just to get a quick buck. Just because people thought the mound builders were gone does not imply prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronjhill ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this paragraph
In a favorite area of pseudohistory claims are made that a major immigrant group of modern North Americans made a "discovery" of the New World before Columbus. Archaeology unearths a temporary Viking encampment at L'Anse aux Meadows. Pseudoarchaeology associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Viking remains in Minnesota.
is a really bad example, or is not phrased very clearly, since the discovery of a Viking encampment (however temporary) does prove that the Vikings discovered America before Columbus did.
That is not the part I am objecting to. The first sentence implies that America was not discovered by the Vikings. The second implies that it was.
I agree that it is badly worded. To me this paragraph says that the claim of pre-columbian discovery of America is pseudohistory, which it is not. I do not think this is the author's intention, either. My attempt at a rewrite: "One example of pseudoarchaeology is the claim of a Norse settlement of North America some five hundred years before Columbus. Although there is clear archaeological evidence of a temporary Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, pseudoarchaeology also associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Norse remains in Minnesota."-- MaxMad 08:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... apart from the fact that I don't think KT is archaeology, I'm not sure it is pseudo-archaeology as such either. You can make the claims about the book and the theories, I think, but the point of KT etc, was to see if such a journey was feasible. It's an experiment, rather than complete evidence.
The Kon-Tiki expedition in itself was not pseudoarchaeology, since it proved its premise that the voyage was possible. On the other hand, Thor Heyerdahl's theories about population spreading from South America to Polynesia have been discredited, with DNA mapping techniques not available at the time of the expedition.-- MaxMad 12:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense:
Archaeologists (and pseudoarchaeologists) schooled in Critical Theory argue that all forms of scientific thought support an ideology of control through which efforts are made to influence society through the exploitation of scientists' status as 'experts'. A relativistic, post-processual commentator might also argue that as there is no such thing as 'truth', and that anyone's view is just as valid as anybody else's. The French philosopher Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality has also led some thinkers to see archaeologists as instruments of the state rather than neutral investigators of the past. The growth of Cultural Resources Management where archaeology is incorporated into the political planning process does little to refute this idea.
I'm a little worried by the implication that critical theory is somehow aligned with pseudoarchaeology. In fact, there is a pretty healthy cohort of critical/Marxist archaeologists who nonetheless practice a scientifically grounded archaeology. Indeed, critical theory has proved a useful avenue for understanding the motivations behind pseudoarchaeological assertions, particularly where those assertions are racist or ideological in nature. A 2004 Charles Orser book, "Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation," is one example.
Also, a number of archaeologists (e.g. Bruce Trigger, Bettinna Arnold) have been examining the statist uses of archaeology (with or without invoking Foucault) for some time, and consciousness of the use and misuse of archaeological knowledge is generally on the rise within the archaeological community. I am not sure that the fact that statism is present in archaeology - it is present in all endeavors undertaken in states - negates utterly the knowledge that it produces. Indeed, the difference between pseudoarchaeologies and "straight" archaeologies are that pseudoarchaeologies begin with a premise (ancient aliens) and go around looking for evidence to support the claim, while scientific archaeologies employ systematic data collection,recursive science practices, falsifiability and peer review as ways to produce knowledge. This paragraph seems to imply however, that the two are equally bogus.
I made extensive changes to the Critics section, mostly in an attempt to keep it NPOV, weed out irrelevent information, and generally improve the flow of the article. I have only a layman's understanding of the debate, but recommendations for legitimate archaeologists don't seem to have a place in an encyclopedia article relating to criticism of and by pseudoarchaeologists. -- 68.126.221.76 06:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
I wish to reference this article and I'd like to know the name of the author. Referencing the article to Wikipedia won't do sorry.
Thanks,
Rick
How is calling archaeologists snobs NPOV?
For example, the statement:
"In a characteristic approach that is symptomatic of many other pseudosciences, an a priori conclusion is established beforehand, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail "
Therefore, if we didn't now know that he was right, Heinrich Schliemann's work at Troy would fit your definition of pseudoscience. Schliemann most-certainly did decide beforehand that he was going to find a city that the scientific world considered as "mythical" before he began work. However, he did find Troy! Yet if he had stopped one spadeful of dirt short of finding Troy he would be labelled a pseudoarcheologist instead of an archeologist.
This is why I think that your definition needs some more clarification.
I purpose that you rethink your definition of "pseudo-" in terms of whether or not the purposed explanation of a historical event follows the scientific method and/or is consistant with logic and currently-known facts.
My own personal concept of pseudoscience is more in terms of the intentional or careless distortion and misrepresention of evidence in order to construct specious arguments that "sound" scientific with the intention of misleading the public.
Schliemann certainly did not adhere to what we now consider best-practice in archeology. However, he did not intentionally mislead the public either. Using the practices of the time, he made and honest effort to solve a mystery.
Actually, I prefer the term "alternative history" for authors like Hancock and Bauval, among others, and I think it has its place. In some respects we could consider works of alternative history as new hypotheses, yet to be tested. The distinction may be only that we do not have the technology or information to test these hypotheses currently. The inablility to test a hypothesis with science neither dispproves nor proves that hypothesis. Instead, in my honest opinion, it means the issue is still on the table for discussion.
AndyBlackard 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Andy Blackard
It seems to me that the accepted terminology used for discussing this topic is jumbled, inconsistent, and probably misleading.
Schliemann seems to me to be precisely what the word "pseudo-archaeologist" *ought* to refer to - someone well-meaning but inadequate.
For the majority of the so-called "pseudo-archaeologists" mentioned in the article, there has always been a suitable term available: liar. It doesn't carry the same connotation of accomplishment that "pseudo-archaeologist" does, but then again, it probably shouldn't. TooManyFingers ( talk) 10:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused by this reason to arbitrarily remove all of my edits being there is nothing to "substantiate". All I did was tone down your obviously biased and rhetoric. This entire page is subjective and one-sided and clearly written with disdain for what is in your opinion psuedoscience. Even something as simple as mentioning Von Daineken and Hancock in the same sentence without a qualifying statement is misleading and discredits some of which you say and only proves what I wrote in the "Critic" section which of course you removed. If you can find a better way to say these things than I did please do, but if anything be fair to both sides. Thanos5150 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
" strictly speaking they are psedeuo archaeology, but can be made it. will explaiin more if needed" i meant it to read, "strictly speaking these 2 are not psedeuoarcheaology, but can be made it by their proponents. will explain more if needed". 12.220.94.199 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have heavily re-written this article, seeing as it was pretty much pap. Unsourced, speculative, POV-ridden and potentially defamatory (labelling certain writers as "commonly regarded as pseudoarchaeologists"... nice one!).
Now I am no fan of conspiracy theories, and consider myself to be a skeptic bordering on the cynical, but that's no reason to support a lousy article. It needs far more cutting back, frankly, but I leave that task to someone else. ElectricRay 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The History section in its current state is a pointless jumble; most of it seems to belong more in the examples section, if it belongs at all. Thoughts? ClovisPt 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I grant that Heyerdahl's theory that the South Sea was peopled from Peru is disproven by genetic evidence. But is it really fair to say that the expedition itself was pseudoarchaeology? I was under the impression that he really did show that Peruvians could have made it to Micronesia with their technology, even though they almost certainly did not. Does anybody have a source here? < eleland/ talk edits> 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
These ideas show that Heyerdahl was wrong about a number of things, but that doesn't make his voyage wrong. He hypothesized that a certain thing had been done, and testing whether it *could have* been done was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate step. Subjecting a wrong hypothesis to good tests is good science; everyone makes a wrong hypothesis from time to time. Demonstrating that great distances can be covered using very basic technology is worthwhile information for everyone to know, even if Heyerdahl himself wanted that information for questionable reasons. TooManyFingers ( talk) 10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The sentence "The theory, commonly held by European settlers, that the mound builders were a long vanished group" (the first example given in the list) is rather problematic, since mound-building activities had in fact largely ceased in the region of the northern half of the Eastern U.S. long before Europeans came into the area. In any case, archaeology as a modern science didn't really exist when the theorizers proposed that the mounds had been built by Phonicians, the ten lost tribes of Israel, the Romans or whoever, so it wasn't "pseudoarchaeology" at the time... AnonMoos ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Our article on out-of-place artifacts has few sources discussing it as a concept, and it may be best merged into this article. Discuss here, please: Talk:Out-of-place_artifact#Sources. Thanks. Fences& Windows 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the entry: Virginia Steen-McIntyre's circular dating on Hueyatlaco warhead, which is under the heading: Unconventional/Scientifically suspect methodology.
It originally read: Virginia Steen-McIntyre's circular dating on Hueyatlaco warheads. The reader would have inferred from this that Virginia herself has indulged in some circular dating. However, the circular dating referred to was Virginia's statement that her findings were rejected not on their failings or merits, but because her critics engaged in circular reasoning. Cynthia was asked to drop an arbitary zero from an artifact dated to 250,000 years ago, making it 25,000 years ago, to fit into the current paradigm about how long man has been in the Americas and non-recognition, officially, of Pre Clovis.
So now the entry reads:
The circular dating of Hueyatlaco spearheads ...
This is because it is the circular thinking behind the dating of the warheads that is pseudoarchaeological, and not the scientific dating methods that were used.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillharley ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't Piltdown Man be more of an example of psuedoanthropology rather than pseudoarchaeology? 64.180.93.200 ( talk) 01:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
An Unexplained Artifact is not necessarily Pseudo-archaeology or Bad archaeology. It is exactly that, an unexplained artifact.
A case in point is the alleged Roman terracotta head found in a Pre-Colombian site in Mexico. Even if it is Roman, it doesn't prove anything more than a one-time contact between the civilizations, such as a storm-driven Roman ship. Or possibly a ship of a different origin carrying a Roman artifact. My vote is against merger of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.50.198 ( talk) 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Biblical Archaelogy was started by pious people who sought to verify the magical elements of the Bible (i.e., signs of a word wide flood, eden, etc). Now Biblical Archaelogy has evolved into a true science. Hopefuly, Mormon Archaelogy can evolve. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the articles, Biblical archaeology is a "branch of the archaeological sciences" whereas Young Earth creationism is a "religious belief" and "pseudoscience". Where do you draw the line between them? The only difference seems to be which books of the Bible they are concerned with. Keith McClary ( talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly object to the way User:Midnightblueowl replaced the entire article with the contents of the former article Alternative archaeology, which is now a redirect to here. There was good information in the original article, which is now lost, for example literature. His complaint about the revert of his replacement that properly referenced information should not be reverted was hypocritical, as some information in the original article was also referenced but simply overwritten and thus deleted by him without salvaging it. Instead, Midnightblueowl should have merged the viable information found in this article into Alternative archaeology, and then moved it here, overwriting the now either duplicated or unreferenced content. I strongly urge Midnightblueowl to conduct a proper merger and salvage referenced and useful content (such as references to literature and weblinks) from the original version of this article, before the replacement. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding this in. Now, I happen to agree, but really, that's a descriptive that I might hear over beers. If there's a reliable source for it, put it in there, otherwise, we're all going to revert it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions
PS. I see that three books are used as references, but short of purchasing and reading them, can someone give us something else reliable? I'd love to see it stay! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with finding Noah's Ark, and making sure it exists based on a theory. Science is about hypothesis, right and finding Noah's ark so that someone may find it, may not be pseudoarchaeology, although it's a waste of time, certainly. I have questions about finding the thing so that. It's not pseudoarchaeology, though that's highly contested. Religious archaeology section is misleading because Biblical archaeology is not pseudoarchaeology and the article seems to be misleading because it is not clear about pseudoarchaeology, which is a pejorative term and this is an opinionated article, if anything. Finding out if something exists to solve a mystery, is not pseudoarchaeology, in my opinion to go find the thing on Ararat. Though trying to find it is an adventure, no matter how much of a waste of time, it may be. I don't think it's pseudoarchaeology to go find out something is there, to find Noah's Ark, that's just my opinion. That one is contested, because it has supporters in mainstream archaeology, though. If a biblical college, does an archaeological hunt, is that pseudoarchaeology if they use legitimate methods? I don't think so. Solving mysteries is not bad archaeology, though Noah's ark uses legitimate methods of archaeology, though bad interpretation of evidence and finding out if something is there, is not pseudoarchaeology.
It's not real clear about PSEUDOARCHAEOLOGY, in my opinion because there is no scientific definition of the time and the term is purely a matter of opinion as if the term is a rebellion against science itself, which I think is complete crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk) 04:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As I've just seen in the latest edits of this page that a correction has been reverted (I wasn't involved): Please assume good faith and look up who the author of the book is instead of reverting to a false assumption. Ken Feder is the author. [6] [7] [8] ... -- Jonas kork ( talk) 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted the change of a few words to the lead that were said to be part of a process of making it more "objective." However, the edits altered some language that is fundamental to the topic. If you'd like to discuss this further, go ahead. Hoopes ( talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The term pseudo- has clear prejudices attached to it. A more balanced title would be "Alternative Archaeology" or "Archaeological Revisionism". [See article Historical Revisionism]. Ripleysnow ( talk) 02:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, I think it would be useful to include television series on the History, Syfy or Science Channels (along with others) that promote these "alternative" interpretations of ancient history. It's one thing for these authors to publish books to argue their views but the fact that broadcast networks produce hours of television programming to present their historical interpretations (about ancient astronauts and such) and pass it off as education, is worth noting. Liz Let's Talk 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of this is absolute nonsense (Ancient Aliens) while other examples are much more plausible (America Unearthed for example). This distinction has to be made if we are going to include television examples. I would agree that Ancient Aliens belongs here. - Cameron, 1/1/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Under "Etymology":
"Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. G. Daniel (1977) used the derogative "bullshit archaeology",[14]"
Other authors have already been used as sources for this term, "bullshit archaeology," which never even used the term. "Daniel 1977" links back to this same "Pseudoarchaeology" page. Someone is pranking this page with this "bullshit archaeology" stuff. It's neither supported by a legitimate source, nor neutral.
Under "Characteristics":
"3) its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of the Enlightenment."
This statement is also not supported by any credible sources. Rather it seems to me that whoever keeps adding in fake claims that reference back to this same page, like the "bullshit" thing above, has an ambivalent attitude towards scientific enlightenment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brscbr11 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a troubling lack of distinction between actual pseudoarchaelogy and legitimate research that draws a controversial conclusion. Currently the category ranges from absolute nonsense "discoveries" relating to ancient aliens on one end to much more logical and plausible work. The latter category includes debate on artifacts with questionable authenticity. An example of this would be the Kensington Runestone. For those not familiar, most of the runological evidence seems to suggest it is a forgery, but geologic tests done on it have seemed to indicate that the carving was not made in the 1800s when the stone was found. To put research on artifacts like this in the same category as complete bullsh*t like that found on Ancient Aliens is a mistake. Remember, under this definition, the search for the ruins of Troy would have been considered pseudoarchaelogy at one point. - Cameron, January 1st, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I generally don't get confused by double-talk, but this one is confusing me. What does this mean?
"Very few people disbelieved the likelihood that Atlantis does not exist."
Does it mean:
"Very few people believed the likelihood that Atlantis does exist."
If so, could the sentence be updated? Also shouldn't it be:
"Very few people believed the likelihood that Atlantis did exist."
70.74.191.229 ( talk) 10:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Might we want to add in tripe like the "Black Egyptian Hypothesis" to the category of pseudoarchaeology motivated by nationlistic/racist ideology? It certainly seems to hit a lot of the switches presented, and the contention that there's a massive conspiracy to cover up the "blackness" of Egyptians in ancient art smacks of the sort of moonbattery that often occurs in this field. 62.196.17.197 ( talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In section 'Lack of Scientific Method' I see the statement "Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists." Have archaeologists found some definitive way of limiting human provenance other than the oldest reliably datable evidence of presence? I know that those who study genomics have made guesstimates based on mutation rates, but those hardly constitute definitive proofs, and at any rate are not part of the practice of archaeology per se. You may for instance know that a stash of (carbonized) spears ~800,000 years old were recently found at the bottom of a lignite deposit in Germany. My point is, supposing your 200,000 year inference does in fact refer to the oldest evidence now known for homo sapiens, it establishes only a limit that hs can't be any newer than, and can't really establish a limit on how old hs may be. I imagine this is a way of taking a swipe at Michael Cremo, the leading 'Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologist'. It seems out of place in the context of Wikipedia though, and is at best misleading. Jwilsonjwilson ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is great - I ran across What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods which mentions that section in Antiquity Magazine with 9 reviews of fringe books which are here. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello who wrote this article? Can't find a name? An author? Who found out what's written there? where is the "proof"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.93.45 ( talk) 10:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pseudoarchaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hallofmaat.com/maat/index.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The lack of a neutral point of view that is laced throughout this article is embarrassing and in violation of Wikipedia core content policies. See WP:NPOV.
The fact that this article is called "pseudoarchaelogy" alone is biased enough, but the introductory paragraph at least provides a decent opening in that it states that it "refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline." However, after that, there is a clear lack of a NPOV. The article goes on to say that these interpretations "construct scientifically insubstantial theories" and that "[m]ethods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence."
While it is true that SOME scientists with theories outside of the archaelogical do not have data backed by science, that cannot be said conclusively said for ALL of them. The article was edited to soften that language, make it more neutral and make that qualification but it was reverted back at least three times. User:Doug Weller has even proposed protecting the article to prevent this edit rather than discussing this further on the talk page. User:Just_plain_Bill and User:Joe Roe, I welcome your opinions also on how this edit does not further a NPOV and ask why you have reverted the edits on this article.
HocusPocus00 ( talk) 05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It's got a mention but deserves its own section. Some possible sources: - an article on Robert Wauchope's old but excellent book Archaeologists To Ben Carson: Ancient Egyptians Wrote Down Why The Pyramids Were Built What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods Pseudoarchaeology is Aware of Racism, aka Let’s Talk about the R-Word Believe in Atlantis? These archaeologists want to win you back to science with a quote from Ken Feder saying "It's racist to the core Is pseudoarchaeology racist? Pseudoarchaeology: The concept and its limitations June 2012 Antiquity 86(332):524-53 Dangers of Pseudoarchaeology Science Magazine Discusses Pseudoarchaeology and Racism, and I'm in It and the SPLC article Close encounters of the racist kind. Note that we have an article on the author of the Forbes articles, Kristina Killgrove - important as Forbes contributors are necessarily RS. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe worth another section like "Nationalist motivations" and "Religious motivations" if there's enough material... Another idea would be merging both into "Political motivations" and also include the material on racism there. There indeed already are a few existing mentions. — Paleo Neonate – 22:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
I believe that the following should be removed: Slav Macedonian nationalists view that ancient Macedonians were people unrelated to Greeks and that contemporary Slav Macedonians are their cultural, historical and linguistic descendants.[49]
Whilst the source provided claims that, it does speak of ethnic Macedonians using pseudoarcheology to prove this, which is the topic of this Wikipedia article. I believe that this sentence was added by Greek/Bulgarian ultra-nationalists.
Thanks, Dikaiosyni ( talk) 09:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
( Jamesrichards12345 asked me to comment:) I agree that connecting these two passages from Danforth (p. 45–46, Macedonian nationalists have unorthodox views of history, and p. 169, archaeology is used in the Greece–Macedonia dispute) syntheses a conclusion that isn't actually in the source. It's possible for Macedonian nationalist narratives to be "bad archaeology" (cf. Nationalist historiography#Nationalism and ancient history) without being pseudoarchaeology per se. So I support removing the passage about Macedonia unless a more explicit reference can be found. – Joe ( talk) 12:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks -- James Richards ( talk) 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Apparently some editors are not paying attention to the highly debated moniker/title being ascribed to Hancock by academia, and Wikipedia, as a “pseudo” not a “journalist”. See argument on BLP of [ [12]] for relevant arguments. Also reinstate my edits excluding Hancock from this page. Terratian ( talk) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The entire notion of "pseudo-archaeology" has as its fundamental presupposition the idea that the past origins of mankind are already known, and that the definition of pseudo-archaeology is a theory that contradicts known history. This gives mainstream archaeology a religious element. I must conclude that all archaeology is pseudo-archaeology. While archaeologists use science for some of their methods, archaeology is misnamed a science. It is a belief system. Cadwallader ( talk) 13:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
This article reads like a very long complaint, but doesn't offer a single suggestion on why pseudo-archaeological thinking seems to be prevalent or what to do about it.
Part of the problem is, archaeologists are cloistered and inaccessible to the general public, whereas physics and astronomy have popular spokespeople such as Michio Kaku or Neil Tyson that make themselves accessible and explain complex ideas to the layperson.
If the average person wanted to pose a question to an archaeologist, who exactly would they contact and how? There's not a single person in this field that is a household name, or is willing to make themselves accessible for discussion. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I found this [14] but it's old and doesn't have its own sources that would help. It's an rs though I think, and Jason Colavito wrote this at the same time. [15] SPLC [16] New Repuiblic. [17] Doug Weller talk 13:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)