Alternative Archaeology and Ethnic Pride

1/27/2013

I sense that something is changing in the realm of “alternative” history. Since 2009, Ancient Aliens has pretty much dominated the genre, making the ancient astronaut “theory” the most popular of the pseudo-historical claims in the media. But since the program’s move to H2 last year, and the subsequently smaller audience, it seems like emphasis is shifting away from ancient astronauts. Four years was a good run, nearly matching the 1973-1978 high water mark for the first go-round after the In Search of Ancient Astronauts TV documentary. Instead, it seems that “alternative archaeology,” specifically diffusionism, is making a comeback.

I wish I could quantify this, but it’s very difficult to generate hard data to capture the zeitgeist. The best I can do at the moment is to note a few data points. First, according to data described on the Facebook page of Continuum Films, the production company behind H2’s diffusionist program America Unearthed, that program is now H2’s highest rated show, besting Ancient Aliens. (Nielsen does not make this data available because H2 programs do not rank in the Friday top 100, meaning that they have fewer viewers than the 11 AM TNT rerun of Supernatural.) This could be for a number of reasons, though, including the greater number of viewers available at 10 PM, when Unearthed airs, versus 9 PM when Aliens is on; as well as the marked decline in quality in Ancient Aliens this season, which has taken to rehashing old material, often point-for-point.

But looking at my own website’s incoming traffic data, I’ve also noticed a shift from “ancient alien” search terms (those involving ancient astronaut writers or including alien-themed keywords) to diffusionist search terms, including those related to America Unearthed. My three most viewed pages are now discussions of diffusionism, for the first time besting discussions of ancient astronauts.

I wonder if the Maya apocalypse had anything to do with this. It’s too soon to be able to see it reflected clearly in the data, but Ancient Aliens and Erich von Däniken were relentless over the past few years in claiming that “the aliens” were going to return on December 21 (or 23), 2012. (Giorgio Tsoukalos was an exception to the enthusiasm.) The aliens didn’t return, and I do wonder if the dawning realization that the world wasn’t ending as promised affected attitudes. Certainly the reduction of ancient astronautics into jokes about Tsoukalos’ hair, Childress’s nasal whine, and befuddled young starlets’ love of both Ancient Aliens and Tsoukalos did no favors.

As happened in the 1990s, “alternative archaeology” (i.e. diffusionism) succeeds ancient astronauts in the public mind because it seems by comparison much more sober and plausible. Surely, it makes more sense to imagine Phoenician travelers, Atlanteans, or what-have-you rather than alien gods beaming down from the stars.

But as I’ve learned, “ancient alien” believers are much less dedicated to their cause than supporters of alternative archaeology. This is because alternative archaeology is rarely just about exploring the possibility of trans-oceanic travel. (The exceptions are the hyper-diffusionists, who imagine everyone went everywhere, mostly because they think science is an anti-truth conspiracy.) Instead, it is frequently part of a conscious or unconscious desire to appropriate the past in support of one’s own identity or ideology. The clearest example is the way the exact same evidence is brought out to support Afrocentrism and an explicitly “white” lost civilization (Atlantis, Mu, or an unnamed super-civilization). By the same token, the need to delegitimize Native American claims to indigenous status has led to impassioned beliefs in everything from a lost “white” race of Mound Builders to Atlantean, Irish, Phoenician, Roman, Norse, etc. colonies in the continental United States—anyone, as long as they aren’t brown-skinned.

Often, these imagined colonies have a direct ethnic connection to the people defending them, and taken as a whole they are quite clearly an attempt to bolster cultural identity for cultural groups whose history on the land is very thin. Having a precedent that one’s ancestors used to live here means that therefore one “belongs” on the land. Is it really a coincidence that “Norse” adventurers just happened to leave behind artifacts primarily where later Scandinavian immigrants settled? Or that “Irish” adventurers left behind their artifacts and “writing” where Irish and Scots-Irish immigrants lived in large concentrations?

Ethnic pride works in more than one direction, of course. The Danish writer Carl Rafn was quick to attribute most of the mysteries of the New World to Scandinavians, and Olof Rudbeck convinced himself that Atlantis was “really” Sweden, specifically his hometown of Uppsala! Over in Russia, Anatoly Fomenko rewrote all of history to show that Russia was at the center of all time and space, and I have received dozens of messages from Georgia (the country, not the state) trying to convince me that Greek mythology and language was actually a development from prehistoric Georgia. Needless to say, such ethnocentric claims often fail to extend beyond their own country's borders.

I also note that believers bend over backwards to create plausible scenarios where European boats could travel to prehistoric America, but few seem at all interested in whether Pacific cultures with documented sea-faring prowess, like the Polynesians, came to the Americas. And this despite the fact that scientists have actually been studying the real possibility of this Pacific diffusionism! But there is no cultural value to be gained from this for most alternative believers because Polynesians have no cultural connection to their own personal ethnic heritage. It’s not racism in that it’s not driven by an inherent hatred of non-white peoples, but it is a bias in favor of peoples one can claim as one’s own ancestors.

This is why the first thing the ancient Greeks did when they colonized a new land was to imagine which of their ancestral heroes had first visited and claimed it, and it is why the intensity of belief in ethnic-exclusive alternative “artifacts” like the “Norse” Kensington Rune Stone burns so much more fiercely than the relatively mild belief in Atlanteans or aliens.

27 Comments

Thane

1/27/2013 12:33:27 pm

I think you are over-analyzing the shifting interest of the audience.

I've noticed the shift you mention but I attribute it, primarily, to boredom with the Ancient Astronaut "thing". EvD and all the talk of Aliens have been around for so long AND have been popularized globally, you will have a hard time finding anyone who hasn't heard something or other about ancient astronauts. These shows have allowed those with a passing interest to get their fill without cracking open a book or doing any investigation. Now, they have had enough and are looking to move along to the next, bright shiny thing that piques their curiosity.

"America Unearthed" is bringing various "mysteries" to the attention of people who have never heard about them before. This has little to do with racism or the need to prove a "white" super-race or that "whites" were here first and a need to demean native peoples etc.. and more with a, "Oh! I never heard of that before! I wonder what it's all about." reaction.

I recall hearing about the Norse and their expedition to Vineland as a child. There was always something else, other than the official history, that someone somewhere was asserting. I recall the talk to the Chinese being the first to reach North America. Let's not forget Thor Heyerdahl and the Kon-Tiki.....people have always been fascinated by the Ancient Egyptians. People casually wonder if there is anything to it all and will watch a program that will provide them with what they think is information and as long as it's entertaining, they will continue to watch until they are have had enough.

Is there some "ethic pride" at the route of these theories and the desire of some to accept them? Sure! We are talking about humans here. Is there just an interest is being part of learning about something new, outside of the accepted, mainstream theories, histories, proof? Sure! Humans want to always believe they know more than their neighbors and friends who, obviously, aren't hip or smart enough to see beyond what is spoon-fed them.

Give this a year or two (not sure how much content they can milk on these theories) and interests will switch again.

Popular content producers and the cable/TV channel owners are always looking for the next big thing....something different that they can profit from. It's part of the business plan. You need to continually reinvent yourself and your content to appeal to the new interests or be the driver of that interest shift before you lose your audience, who have become bored with what you have been showing them, to someone else.

Sorry if I have been redundant or kicking a dead horse in this post. I am not taking the time to review, edit and refine before posting.

BTW, I had a friend years ago whose family was from Estonia. I learned from him that everything was invented by Estonians first. The Norse got the square sail from them, for example, and if it wasn't for the Estonians, the Norse would never have become the strong sailors they were nor the scourge of the medieval period or have founded Rus. It was eye opening how, without guile, he attributed all major inventions to an Estonian somewhere and sometime in the past.

Jason Colavito link

1/27/2013 12:58:43 pm

You're right that I sort of changed topics midway through the post. The ethnic pride argument operates across time and certainly hasn't changed over the past two weeks. Kensington Rune Stone believers, for example, have been adamant about its reality since the 1800s, and their attitudes didn't change in the past few weeks.

One of the interesting things, though, is that the changes in media coverage of alternative claims, including the boredom induced by the failure of Ancient Aliens' current season, has a real effect on what people believe. If Ancient Aliens continues to decline and America Unearthed to rise, I'm sure we'll see a real uptick in diffusionist belief and a decline in ancient astronaut belief.

1/27/2013 01:19:20 pm

Humans are great that way, aren't they? When I say "great", I mean a mix of fascination and frustration.

"What is old is new again." and visa-versa. We habitually forget our past within two generations or so. As a result, we are fascinated by "discovering" something that was once known or thought-of and forgotten or previously disregarded.

Jon B

1/27/2013 12:50:54 pm

The AAT have enough interesting material to convince an audience for 1-2 hours -- provided a fair dose of suspension-of-disbelief. Watching them milk the same material season after season is like watching a bad recurring SNL sketch get worse over time. In the case of Ancient Aliens, however, they risk not only losing ratings, but losing followers. So hurray for that.

Adam W.

1/27/2013 02:05:40 pm

Anyone with further interest in these ties between (spurious) archaeological claims and racial identity should check out Melani McAlister's book about US media representations of the Middle East, titled Epic Encounters. Fascinating read, and it indirectly illuminates one of my central frustrations (among a multitude) with the H2 Friday night block--the subtle and not so subtle racist assumptions that undergird so many of the claims made by these "experts."

On a different note, thanks Jason for putting my mind at ease that I'm not the only person thinking about these issues in relation to shows like America Unearthed and Ancient Aliens. I'm new to the blog, so I am unaware if you've posted on these issues before. If you have, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction. Thanks!

Adam

1/28/2013 12:07:08 am

Welcome, Adam! Yes, I've talked about this before. I had an article about it in Swans magazine recently: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/of-atlantis-and-aliens.html

I've also posted about racism and ancient astronauts: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/07/ancient-astronauts-and-racism.html

Kean Scott Monahan link

1/28/2013 07:55:15 am

Mr. Colavito,

As an unapologetic defender of American archaeology and debunker of anything or anyone challenging its iron-fisted monopoly on "known facts", you now play the racist card to diminish diffusionist thinking. That betrays a sense of desperation your side is losing public trust, as it should, after, as TIME Magazine observed in their cover story of March 13, 2006, "The Untold Story of Early Man in America."

to wit, "The Clovis-first theory is pretty much dead, and the case for coastal migration appears to be getting stronger all the time. But in a field so recently liberated from a dogma that has kept it in an intellectual straightjacket since Franklin Roosevelt was President, all sorts of ideas are suddenly on the table."

However, your trusted authorities in archaeology largely ignore outside ideas, most having to do with diffusionism, which threaten the institutionalized mindset you so dearly embrace in your blogs. They, too, inoculate themselves. One dismissed me as a racist on Denver TV in December 1984 for proposing ancient Celts with non-indigenous archaeoastronomy and writing found their way into SE Colorado and the Oklahoma panhandle. He was subsequently fired from by his employer for poor manners. But no one's going to fire you from your blog. You've got your storyline and your sticking with it. Now, who's enraptured with their social identity?

The "racist" jacket can cut both ways, sir. In "The Diffusionists Have Landed," (section Whose Race Is It Anyway?) published in the January 2000 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, Rock Sioux tribe member Vine Deloria, Jr., "bridles," according to author Mark K. Stengel, "at what he sees as the reverse racism implicit in the dismissal of all things diffusionist. To him, the mainstream academic position that defends the Clovis-only hypothesis smacks of paternalism. He marvels at the 'isolation of archaeologists today,' and has written, 'I have in the neighborhood of 80 books dealing in one way or another with Precolumbian expeditions to the Western Hemisphere.' These books, he says, range from utter nonsense to some quite sophisticated reinterpretations of archaeological anomolies in light of the new findings. But the archaeological establishment will have none of it, to Deloria's frustration. He laments, 'There's no effort to ask the tribes what they remember of things that happened.' In contrast to the tribes in the area where Kennewick Man was found, he argues, 'numerous tribes to say that strange people doing this or that came through their land, visited us, and so on. Or they remember that we came across the Atlantic as refugees from some struggle, then came down the St. Lawrence River, and so forth. There's a great reluctance among archaeologists and anthropologists to break centuries-old doctrine and to take a look at something new.'"

Of course, when when you're brethren say it's not true or worthy of their time to investigate, they must, of course, be trusted with an unbiased, scientific evaluation, correct, Mr. Colavito?

1/28/2013 08:29:52 am

What part of "It’s not racism in that it’s not driven by an inherent hatred of non-white peoples, but it is a bias in favor of peoples one can claim as one’s own ancestors" confused you? My references to racism referred to historically documented attempts by Victorian racists to use alternative theories for racist ends; most modern practitioners are not racists.

You, however, are exceptionally rude and a wonderful illustration of the fierce passion felt by those who identify with alternative claims and movements.

I can't imagine where you get the idea that I am a Clovis-first proponent. I studied archaeology under one of the excavators of Monte Verde, a confirmed pre-Clovis site. But then you don't really care about my opinions but rather the straw man of the close-minded conspirator who lives simply to oppose you.

If I didn't think these issues were worthy of examination, why would I bother to take them seriously enough to write about? I thought your close-minded conspirators simply wave them away with an arrogant flick of the wrist.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I failed to approach your claims with interest or fairness. To put the shoe on the other foot: You disagree with almost all mainstream scientists; does this mean that you are a diehard opponent of serious inquiry whose close-minded obsession with a single theory has blinded you to all rational inquiry?

To put it another way: Is there anything that would ever convince you that you are wrong? I know what would convince me that Celts lived in America, and that would be the presence of actual European artifacts in a secure, datable context.

1/28/2013 09:05:44 am

Mr. Colavito,

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially considering no archaeologist has heeded repeated calls to conduct digs for portable artifacts, even calls from as prestigious sources as the USGS, in 30 YEARS regarding the Arkansas River Ogham and archaeoastronomy. The reason: it's diffusionist.

Now what about my question to you, are your guys really unbiased? My experience is no. For the most part they follow historical particularism and the directives of their professors to further advance indigenous cultures versus novelties that threaten to undermine the professors' cadre of published journals. Peer Review is there to exclude new ideas, if they even get investigated. And most archaeologists, like it or not, Mr. Colavito, are dead to the topic.

So I'm rude yet you have license to dismiss me as a close-minded conspirator. That's funny. I'm pretty open minded and I respect sciences such as astronomy that are. Archaeology, from my journalistic experience going back years before you were around, is not. I detect a strong close-mindedness by you toward diffusionism and a shallow allegiance to authorities that condemn it. So sad.

Yes, I believe what I believe and I don't need archaeologists who can't see Ogham any more than Caribbean Natives could make out sailing ships, to tell me I'm wrong. American archaeologists are inept at seeing anything but indigenous evidence, all else is trash in their minds. Keep kissing their asses.

1/28/2013 09:12:27 am

Sigh. You're not rude for your beliefs; you are rude because you are making nasty personal statements and treating me with disrespect.

I didn't dismiss you as a conspirator. If you would pause to read what I wrote, you will see that I was rhetorically turning your own words back on you to show that your claims about me lack substance. This may be that highfalutin' elitist learnin' you dislike, but it wasn't an accusation.

There is nothing prima facie impossible about diffusionism; but I'm not convinced by your claims. I'm sorry that you find my lack of agreement to be close-minded, but to be plainspoken about it, dem's da breaks. Not everyone is going to agree on everything.

1/28/2013 10:58:47 am

Mr. Colavito,

As long as you think I'm rude, I might as well be crude, too. Sorry if you find this offensive, but you initiated the tone with some very dismissive remarks sprinkled with unnecessary pejorative adjectives about the Anubis Cave, sight-unseen by you, in related remarks to my posts on your America Unearthed, Episode 5 reviews. If you can't stand the heat, don't flame.

More to the point, you have conveniently ignored the TIME magazine and Atlantic Monthly articles that damn the intransigent mindset of American archaeologists, largely UNTRAINED in anything but the so-called indigenous cultures. It's not just me who sees these truths, it is the mainstream media, as well. Do you have anything to say about that?

The TIME article can be accessed by clicking the circular arrow website link next to my name on this post. The Atlantic Monthly article can be similarly accessed by clicking the same icon next to my name on my first post in this thread, for your convenience.

More to the point, I ask for a THIRD TIME, do you think American archaeologists are unbiased in their viewpoints and their choices of what to investigate and what to ignore? You aren't a very good correspondent if you cannot address the core issues I have raised.

You might be a good blogger, but you are ignoring other journalistic opinions, including mine.

1/28/2013 11:12:45 am

Seriously? If I wanted to ignore and suppress you, I'd delete your comments.

I didn't bother to respond to the Time article complaint because the Time article makes quite plain that archaeologists (a) consider claims, (b) work to verify them, and (c) change their minds when new evidence meets pre-established standards for proof. Vine Deloria has been criticized by many (including me) for the shortcomings in his scholarship, which comes from a different "way of knowing" than science, as outlined by Zimmerman in "Unusual or 'Extreme' Beliefs" in 2008.

In direct answer to your question: No one is without bias, including you and me; but that is why a large number of people work on problems, to help reduce the potential for bias. The difference of views across many different researchers is what allows new ideas to arise and helps to shift paradigms if and when new evidence warrants it. This, however, gets into the "nature of scientific revolutions" argument which is a bit more philosophical than my usual remit.

1/28/2013 11:28:09 am

OK, then, I take your answer as a bit of a concession your troops may be misguided when they consistently show very little in the way of intellectual curiosity. Archaeologists, by nature, are preservationists and preserving the status quo is oh so vital, isn't it?

TIME had a lot more to say than your (a)(b)(c) synopsis, but at least you finally acknowledged the article's existence after bypassing it. You might not like everything it had to reveal about archaeological malpractice and you very well can discount Vine Deloria's remarks because you have many friendly critics of diffusionism to count on to conveniently trash the ideals and personna of scholars such as Barry Fell, but that does not mean you are destined to be correct in the long run. America Unearthed does miss the target, I agree. But sooner or later people are going to understand the Ancients were just as adventurous as New World colonists and NASA astronauts, and though they may have lacked today's GPS technology, they found their way around the world before Columbus and before the Norse and they were frequent visitors to North America. The evidence is there. The would-be authoritative investigators, dogmatic archaeologists are closeted in their Ivory Towers with Peer Review salvos suppressing the concept. When they fail, you won't even recognize why.

1/28/2013 11:55:19 am

Troops? Mine? I'm sure that professional archaeologists would be amused to hear that. You really seem to be playing Hamlet here: "I mistook you for your better."

I again recommend to you Zimmerman's article (and the whole volume it is in) which shows quite clearly that archaeologist worry greatly about the disconnect between their work and the public understanding of it, as well as the difference between the presentation of findings and the construction of narratives about the past.

1/29/2013 04:10:50 am

Jason,

And, likewise, I recommend you read the entire January 2000 Atlantic Monthly article by Mark K. Stengel, of which the Vine Deloria remarks comprise only a couple of paragraphs. There are many more sources you are obliged to debunk, of which I'm sure you will resourcefully pursue to keep the "straw man" of diffusionism in its place per American archaeology.

Glad to see you're fact-checking on a fellow journalist re: John Gooding claims. Can't wait to see you write that I was right!

Link next to my name on this post will take you to another video updating the family of Ogham and archaeoastronomy sites along the Arkansas River and tributaries. There's a pattern of evidence you'll likely find a way to dismiss, as archaeologists certify by refusing to show any intellectual curiosity whatsoever.

John J. McKay link

1/28/2013 04:52:52 pm

To the esteemed Kean Scott Monahan, Sir:

I feel compelled to compose this communication to inform you that your command of the neo-Victorian vernacular is is sadly deficient. While you might be so tragically ill-informed as to believe your pompous grammatical constructions match up to even the most amateur steam punk comics, you are thoroughly mistaken. Would even the most gormless Ninth-Grader imagine Lord Kelvin saying "your guys"? I think not, sir. I think not.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" you say; that is not entirely correct. Absence of evidence is not "necessarily" evidence of absence. That one word difference in composition adds a whole world of difference in meaning. Are TIME magazine, a popular gazette that only barely sets itself apart from the most vulgar tabloid, and Vine DeLoria, a Velikovskian, the best legs you have to stand on? If so, then you stand on legs made of Velveeta Legos. If your hope is that, by citing these less-than-dubious sources, you will cause Mr. Colvito to take pause, because you imagine them to be liberal icons whom Mr. Calvito would never dream of challenging because he lives up to some straw man liberal that you imagine, then you must take pause, because, you, Sir, are wrong.

I am most entertained by your ominous observation that a radio host who challenged you was subsequently fired. Have you thought through the logical consequences of that claim? Do you claim a cause and effect was at work here? Then it is you, sir, who claims to have the upper hand. It is you who claims to have the power to enforce your beliefs on others. It is you who claims an orthodoxy that anyone who challenges must fear for their careers. You have completely surrendered your claim of Galilean rebellion and taken upon yourself the mantle of Papal repression. And who is this Colorado journalist whose career you so gleefully brag about destroying? If you are so proud of harming him and his family, why won't you name him? Do you have a sense of shame about harming your fellow citizens, or is your claim of career destroying power nothing more than a refuse wagon filled with bovine excrement?

As one of Mr. Colavito's unthinking troops, I am your faithful servant,

John J. McKay

Good day, sir. Please do not make me repeat the, now cliched, follow-up to that statement.

1/29/2013 01:01:23 am

JJ McK,

Wow, what a wordsmith art thou!

However, try reading with comprehension my words instead of reinterpreting them to your desire, pre-Victorian or contemporaneous. For example, you gravely distort my words based on your superficial and inaccurate reading, when you ask:

"And who is this Colorado journalist whose career you so gleefully brag about destroying?"

I moderated KRMA-TV's "History or Mystery" videotaped in December 1985 and broadcast early in 1986. Colorado Archaeologists John Gooding and Sally Cole asked to have the opportunity to rebut the ideas set forth in my documentary "History on the Rocks" first broadcast on May 7, 1985. Appearing on the same panel were epigrapher Phil Leonard (who did a cameo at the Anubis Caves on America Unearthed on January 18, 2013 - filmed last equinox) and mechanical engineer Bill McGlone, deceased 1999). Mr. Gooding misbehaved out of the box, declaring the story to be "racist" while Ms. Cole was a polite participant, though also strongly opposed, as most archaeologists then and today continue to resist diffusionism. Plus, they carried the requisite contempt for Barry Fell, as you do with those scholars with whom you oppose. (You and Mr. Colavito are fond of finding ways to discredit and dismiss those with whom you do not agree in the same way I work to dispose of the archaic mindset of today's institutionalized and dogmatic "folks" (pardon my vernacular). You can actually witness an excerpt of John Gooding in action in a brief video vignette on archaeologists behaving badly at http://onter.net/video3.html, accessible by clicking the little arrow icon by my name on this post.

In the end, Mr. Gooding was relieved of his position with the Colorado Highway Department, though he kept his day job as instructor at the University of Colorado, ironically the same higher education facility where Vine Deloria, Jr. taught.

Thank you for displaying for all to see how incorrectly you interpreted my posts. I'm sure this is common when the erudite attempt to silence the meek.

1/29/2013 01:53:30 am

I am undable to confirm your claims about Gooding, so I have put in a call to the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (successor to the Highway Dept.). I will report back when they have responded.

1/30/2013 08:58:48 am

I need to be careful how I say this. A high-ranking source at the Colorado Dept. of Transportation confirms that Gooding left voluntarily and his resignation (not firing) was not associated with the program in question. This source was unable to find any record of racism accusations. The source, however, is not able to make an official statement about this because personnel records are considered confidential and cannot be released without a court order. Even though anonymity wasn't requested, I'm not naming the source to avoid getting anyone in trouble over so outrageous a claim, but this source is very high ranking in the department.

Kean Scott Monahan

1/30/2013 04:33:25 pm

Mr. Colavito,

This is the transcript of John Gooding's opening remarks in "History of Mystery". I have VHS copies that will substantiate this verbatim:

"No, I don't believe I have changed my mind with regard to anything that Mr. Fell may have written. I would like to comment briefly, though, on the program you have just witnessed. I would like to ask you what your journalistic intent is in producing a very cleanly, tightly knit program that uses the use of graphic aids, as you can see on this monitor here that do not interpret the entire piece of rock art, I would like to ask you why it is that this program has a notable lack of variable interpretations which are entirely possible in all of that work. I would like for you to comment on the implicit racism that is brought forward in this program by implying that Europeans were responsible for all of this work. And I'd just briefly like to know why it is you have perpetrated this fabrication on the viewing public of Denver."

Mr. Gooding displayed an arrogant attitude of "know-it-all" that is consistent with remarks in the video clip to which I earlier directed you, http://onter.net/video3.html. Whether his employment severance with the Colorado Highway Department reflects on the public outcry over his behavior on KRMA-TV or not, I know management heard an earful. And I was advised personally, his bad behavior as displayed for all to see led to the demise of his employment, voluntary or not. I did not seek in any way to destroy this man's reputation or career, nor do I believe he was discredited by the archaeologist community as a whole. In fact, I expect many of his colleague cheered him on for his adamant denials of diffusionism.

Mr. Colavito, I don't know that we have anything further to discuss here. Let me just point out that Mr. Gooding is a poster child for intolerance, and should you choose to lob verbal grenades toward evidence while the profession chooses to ignore and not investigate in situ the compelling family of archer-astronomy sites that share the G-R-N Ogham for "SUN" you do yourself no favors, but verify the head-in-the-sand attitudes I have personally witnessed again and again and again. Congratulations on the consistency. I don't expect any change of demeanor, but I will continue to appeal for basic intellectual curiosity and I welcome contact from young archaeology students unafraid of looking at paradigms their aging superiors condemn, sight unseen.

Rocky R Rockbourne

1/29/2013 10:11:45 pm

Hello there, I recently started following your website, largely spurred by having seen an episode or two of America Unearthed and finding myself frustrated with Scott Wolter's combination of wishful thinking and lack of scientific rigor. However, I am also somewhat motivated by the fact that members of my family—notably my dad—have long subscribed to alternative history. And while I think it's not the most common case by far, my family is somewhat religiously motivated in their credulity (as I elaborate below). That being said, I'd like to offer my own thoughts on what motivates at least some people to buy into pseudoscientific approaches to historical matters.

To begin, it should be noted that my family are adherents of a small evangelical Christian group which advocates British Israelism and other bizarre "biblical" racial theories, and in fact make these quite central to their beliefs. I'm sure you know already that British Israelism is a spurious ideology motivated by a need to justify the mission of British (and American) imperialism within a largely Christian social climate. However, I don't think this is the reason my family buys into it, necessarily. My aunt and uncle who have since rejected these teachings have intimated that they got sucked into it by the perceived edginess of the whole thing. I suspect my parents largely got sucked into it for similar reasons. (My siblings and I would inherit these doctrines for "religious" reasons, though I alone among them have had the fortune of breaking the spell of these falsehoods.)

This "edginess" for its own sake seems to engender superstitious and anti-scientific mindsets in my own experience, including persecutions of delusion by mainstream intellectual lines of inquiry. Also, speaking from experience, this kind of mindset seems particularly vulnerable to using this "scientific" substrate of alternative history to empower racial and national biases. My mom has made more than one disparaging remark about the ethnic group and its nation of origin to which she owes her own roots, using language inherited from the jargon of the bizarre alternative histories which my family advocates.

My dad in particular has taken an interest in authors like Barry Fell, because the bizarre methods and anti-establishment tone of Fell and similarly clumsy authors resonate very well with the methods used by advocates of British Israelism (and related racial theories). In my own experience, this is perhaps one of the most damning philosophical arguments against these attempts to rewrite history: the methods of authors like Barry Fell are no better than those of the often openly racist idiots I was familiarized with due to my upbringing.

So yes, as someone who has spent a long time among ducks, you can imagine why alternative archaeology sure sounds like a bunch of quacking to me.

1/30/2013 05:55:26 am

Many religions have "alternative" claims among their tenets; Mormonism and its claims of prehistoric Jewish colonies and continent-wide race wars in America springs immediately to mind.

You're right that whatever the intellectual origins of an alternative belief, those who inherit it later on may not be aware of where it came from or its relationship to objective facts. Over time, the belief simply becomes true because it's what "everybody" believes.

1/30/2013 01:48:26 pm

I'm sure you know and have had to deal with some of British Israelism's uglier spawn such as Identity Christianity and some forms of American Neo-Nazism. The Aryan Nations group in Idaho in the '70s-'90s espoused a philosophy explicitly based on British Israelism. Even the original pre-Nazi form was based on strong Antisemitism. I'm not accusing your family of any of those things, but those are their peers.

Since it sounds like you have left the fold, I'd love to hear more about your experiences and your take on things related.

1/30/2013 09:40:06 pm

Fortunately, I actually didn't have to deal with any open anti-Semites, but that might just not have resonated with the racial prejudices of the proponents my family imbibed their beliefs from. They truly seem to believe these things out of gullibility, perhaps with some appeal to their sense of nationalism. However, quite recently I have wondered whether the most "friendly" version of British Israelism itself wasn't intended to be at least covertly anti-Semitic. My family is more likely stupidly unaware of the association, with the probable exception of my dad who has probably heard it but denied it. That being said, I also think it's a matter of church doctrine that the American Indians were descended from Canaan, apparently cursed to "serve" Israel by keeping North America ripe for the taking. Somehow this is okay because it wasn't actually Ham who saw Noah's nakedness, but Canaan, basically because why else would it mention Canaan so much? This also comes from the same kook who claimed not to be racist while condemning interracial marriage and couldn't emphasize enough that Noah was white. There's also a lot of endtime nonsense in the mix, also attached to the exercise of magically assigning certain biblical personages to modern nations. Though I didn't end up leaving the fold because of these things, I certainly might have had I realized how ridiculous they were sooner. There were just too many reasons to leave even before I discovered real history or real science and had the tools to debunk this nonsense specifically. I certainly have a lot to say on these subjects now, but it's hard to know where to start.

1/31/2013 04:08:45 pm

What I know about the origin of British Israelism is that there were basically two narratives in it's founding. The first was a fairly harmless fairytale about the lost tribes of Israel wandering around and eventually arriving in England. This made the English God's chosen people. The Scots and Irish were questionable and no one ever pays attention to the Welsh. So far, so good. But making the English the true chosen people meant denying that the Jews of the time were the real descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

Skip forward to America and you can see how Old World nationalism and 19th century Antisemitism could be translated into American racism and 20th century genocidal Antisemitism. But this KKK/Neo-Nazi/Asatru is a later development. From what you're saying, the original form survived, which is something I didn't know. Your parents might have had the casual racism/Antisemitism that wasn't uncommon before the '60s, but it doesn't appear to be that they subscribed to the genocidal hatred of the Aryan Nations and others. Do you have any idea of the "genealogy" of their group?

2/6/2013 10:33:10 am

The version my family fell for is a bit of the "harmless" variety with some new additions, namely that the Scots, Welsh, and Irish are also Israelite tribes, just not Ephraim or Manasseh per se, so they didn't receive the main blessings. Other Northern and Western European countries supposedly make up the rest of the 12 tribes, to the point that all that currently occupies the modern state of Israel are the tribes of Judah, Levi, and part of the tribe of Benjamin. My parents can often make statements that are casually racist about all sorts of groups, but oddly enough this does not include the Jews. They may have been born a little too late for that. Perhaps you are familiar with Armstrongism (after Herbert W. Armstrong). That would be the "origin" as far as my family is concerned (though it's evident he sloppily plagiarized earlier racialist authors).

terry the censor

2/6/2013 07:06:32 am

@Kean
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Stanton Friedman uses that bit of illogic to prevent his views from ever being falsified, thus, qualifying them for pseudo-scientific status.

This is okay with Stan's mindless fans, but be warned, other ufologists don't fall for this nonsense.

Kevin Randle, who believes aliens have visited Earth and written many books saying so, refers to this dictum as "propaganda," saying, "It is the last ditch effort to support a concept, idea, theory, or story that has nothing else to support it."
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html

James Moseley, longtime UFO believer and journalist, said: "In truth the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is a strong clue that what was not found does not exist or did not happen, and common sense says go with that until contrary clues show up." (Shockingly Close to the Truth, p 313)