Could Kendo Nagasaki smack down Alternative Archaeology?

There’s never enough time. There was a write up of what sounded like an incredibly useful drug in New Scientist recently of a pill that allows you to pull 48 hour shifts with no side-effects which would be a help. I could spend so much more time reading and thinking as well as writing. A week later in the letters section it was pointed out there is a slight side effect. It causes premature death in lab mice, which could be a drawback should I ever want keep mice. Perhaps it’s just as well I’ve forgotten the name of the drug.

The reason I might want to do this is that there are interesting things to read like Cornelius Holtorf’s paper in World Archaeology “Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies”. It’s very good, though the price of $28:32 would seem like a bit of a barrier to any alternative archaeologists. I found it mentioned on the Hall of Ma’at while looking for something else. There is some useful debate there but you’ll have to sift through it because there’s also some posturing of the like I last saw on a Saturday afternoon with my Grancha. The paper argues that an academic smackdown is not a helpful way to engage with alternative archaeology and talks about other ways of engaging with the fringe. Some of the paper I simply don’t follow. For instance he states that “the link between the sciences and state education is inherently undemocratic”. This may be true, but I don’t see why that matters. I may have accidentally left my relativist hat on, but is democracy always a good thing? If I’m being sedated for a heart operation, the last thing I want to hear as I go under is “Right let’s have a show of hands, who thinks the heart is on the left?” I am probably missing the point. Elsewhere he argues that archaeoastronomy has been accepted despite being a fringe subject, using the appointment of Clive Ruggles as professor of Archaeoastronomy at Leicester as evidence. I’m not convinced this is accurate for a couple of reasons. One is that the reason Clive is accepted is because he’s adapted to play the game the archaeologists’ way. Others that haven’t are still ignored. The other is that I’m not sure that many people are reading archaeoastronomical work anyway. John North’s Stonehenge has got excellent reviews from archaeologists and I don’t want to get bogged down in details in this post, but it is extremely positivist in its approach.

On the other hand I think the broad thrust of the paper is correct. Holtorf says that a hostile approach achieves nothing. To take an obvious example Erich von Däniken’s or Graham Hancock’s successes are totally impervious to academic challenges. I’m not sure how useful the extra publicity would be in quashing them. Indeed one of our best sources for ancient philosophy is Hippolytus’s Refutation of All Heresies.

Holtorf also argues peer-review doesn’t improve quality of publication and that academic archaeologists have a lot in common with alternative archaeologists. I don’t think the people he’d like to persuade will accept that. I think an example of what archaeologists have to gain from engaging with alternative archaeologists would be helpful, and there is an example which also tackles the problem of peer-review. The reason I think this is that it helps if you can see beyond von Däniken when looking at the fringe.

An example of the kind of engagement we have is the Wikipedia. Most academics lecturing will say not to cite the Wikipedia as it’s not peer-reviewed. Most students, hearing of an easily accessible encyclopaedia which while not good, might just be good enough, look it up as soon as they’re out of lectures. Each year we could keep up the intolerant approach and each year get another crop of students who couldn’t care less. Another approach would be to look at what anarchy has produced. What could be more of a magnet for alternative archaeology than Atlantis?

At the time of writing the Wikipedia entry for Atlantis is as good an encyclopaedia entry as you would want. It mentions Helena Blavatsky which might sound lunatic, but in terms of the history of the idea and reception of Atlantis it’s extremely relevant. On the page of Location Hypotheses which lists Ireland and Bolivia as suggested locations there’s a sentence “Of course there is always the possibility that is no real location for Atlantis simply because Plato intended the story as an allegory, similar to his story of the cave.” This is an encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone and the result is something that is gravitating towards a similar position to the academics. Academics, it should be noted, publishing in peer-reviewed journals have also suggested Santorini, Helike and Spartel as locations for Atlantis.

When I have time would I have something to gain by contributing? The Wikipedia would gain if I re-wrote some the Greek History sections by getting rid of some of the factual errors and warped ideas in the entries. I would gain by being able to introduce my own factual errors and warped ideas. Students on my courses would be using material that at least I think would be sound. It’s going to get used anyway. If academics engage with it then there’s a free and useful tool as a starting point for essay material. The cost is that researchers will have to justify their edits to the world outside of academia.

Another concept that may need examining is that the academic journal is the ground state of archaeology. It’s becoming painfully obvious that over the next 18 months in the UK the purpose of archaeology will be to produce four peer-reviewed publications of international agenda-setting importance. If we find out something about human activity in the past then that’s a bonus, but it’s prestige that will matter. When a pagan communes with what they hold to be a sacred site this kind of issue really isn’t the main issue.

It might also be interesting for an outsider to examine what it is that raises archaeologists’ ire. It’s common to here archaeologists reminding people that Druids didn’t build Stonehenge. I can’t recall there being a similar urgency among Church Archaeologists to remind people there’s no evidence that God has ever entered the building. There are social factors in play obviously. One group have weird chanting, flowing robes and pungent incense to praise a supernatural being, while the others are pagans.

I think the paper’s really interesting because of the questions it raises. There are lots of directions you can move from this as a starting point. I’m not sure quite how it’s being received because it’s also a threatening paper. It strikes right to the heart of an important question which a lot of archaeologists avoid: “What does Archaeology do for me? Why is my life better for it?” Ok, that’s two questions, but it’s not something that all archaeologists are happy to answer. Someone did if I recall correctly in an SAA bulletin? Not sure, my memory’s going. I’m also pretty certain that Brian Fagan wrote an article about not introducing himself as an archaeologist at parties which I’d like to track down. It might be the same article.

Yes, this is me trying to be quiet. —–