Fringe History and the Divide between Academia and the Public

3/13/2014

This morning I received a strange email from a concerned reader who would like to know why I have criticized ancient astronaut theorists. My correspondent described himself as a blue collar worker and asked if I had a personal vendetta against ancient astronaut theorists because they “have just as much right” to their opinion as anyone else, as though it were right for them to criticize science in vitriolic terms but wrong for me to criticize them on facts. But what I found interesting was a piece of criticism buried in his missive: “Mainstream archeology appears to try to be keeping it all to themselves unless you are willing to pay outrageous sums to hear what they think, which makes it tough on those of us who work normal jobs.”

This isn’t strictly speaking true. Archaeology magazine and National Geographic are not particularly expensive (I believe you can get Archaeology for between $14 and $25 per year), and it is always an option to visit a library to check out books on archaeological subjects of interest. But it does get to an interesting point about perception and outreach, one connected both to issues of social class that divide the public from academics, as well as very real issues with the availability of non-fringe material.

There is a perception that archaeologists are producing material primarily for other academics, not for the broader public. Academic journals are indeed unduly expensive, and for better or for worse most serious books on archaeological subjects come from academic presses, are difficult to understand, and are incredibly expensive. Otherwise, the general reader has few choices, primarily simplistic books that are heavy on photos of treasure (such as those from the National Geographic or Time-Life series), or sensationalistic fringe history books written by enthusiastic but misinformed or biased amateurs. The middlebrow books that once connected scholars to the public through informed science writing have largely fallen away. There are exceptions: 1491 comes to mind, as does Jared Diamond’s output, but these are increasingly rare. This is the fault of the mass market book industry more than anything else. The industry has ramped up output (almost 300,000 titles in 2011, according to UNESCO) while rates of reading have held steady or fallen and reading proficiency has declined for readers under age 65. The result is that publishers are more reliant than ever on blockbuster titles, which pushes publishers toward sensationalism, while most books go unread.

On television, fringe shows outnumber mainstream science shows for similar reasons: Audience fragmentation across growing numbers of cable channels practically demands outrageous sensationalism to attract increasingly small pieces of the audience. (A successful cable fringe series like the top-rated H2 series America Unearthed attracts only around a million viewers.) But this situation leads to the awful condition that for the viewer who is not college educated in history or archaeology, fringe ideas may be the only ones he or she ever sees on TV. And that gets back to the issue of social class, because despite college education levels reaching at all-time highs, only 31% of Americans 25 or older hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, and just 3% a PhD. And even among college-educated Americans, the number who have studied history or archaeology beyond a basic survey course is probably quite small.

And if you are among the 69% of Americans who don’t have a bachelor’s degree, or the 42% who have never been to college at all, you might be more likely to view academics as a tribe apart, or not to recognize the differences between mainstream and fringe ideas.

It’s a vexing problem and one that calls for more outreach from academic archaeologists and historians to present their research and ideas in an accessible way. But this is made difficult both by the pressures of academic life and also by the fact that the public at large lacks the basic foundational knowledge to evaluate claims—mainstream or fringe—thus leaving the audience to judge claims largely on personality and presentational skill.

One of the people who has attempted to bridge that divide between mainstream and fringe audiences is physicist Michael Dennin, who appears regularly on Ancient Aliens. He gave an interview to OC Weekly magazine this week in which he explained why he appears on a show that has such apparent contempt for science and scholarship. He said he remains involved in the show “because I can help put real science into it, and the show raises really interesting questions.” I can’t imagine what those questions would be.

What I found most interesting though, is that Dennin identified himself as a devout Catholic and said he is writing a book, God Is the Ultimate Superhero, that will attempt to marry Christianity with science. Could this be where Dennin finds his interest in Ancient Aliens, seeing in the show a reflection of his own religious interpretation of science? Dennin doesn’t say, but it’s interesting how his involvement with Ancient Aliens reflects the same Christian influence that also led Erich von Däniken to exempt Jesus from the ancient astronaut theory in the 1970s, and his protégés to continue to do so today.

Last week, for example, Ancient Aliens star Giorgio Tsoukalos tweeted that he believes in God, and that this higher power was distinct from the extraterrestrials he believes were mistaken for every other god in human history.

Yes. And no, it's not aliens. ;) RT @mcadams_beth Being an AA Theorist, do you believe in a higher power like God or a creator?
— Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (@Tsoukalos) March 8, 2014

While the God Tsoukalos claims to believe in could be anything from Yahweh to the clockwork god of deism, the ancient astronaut theory seems to exempt Jesus from hypotheses that would otherwise apply equally to Christ and every other divine or semi-divine being in human history. I think it involves an understanding of the audience for fringe history of all stripes, which tends to draw disproportionately from those with no formal training in archaeology and, like all Americans in general, is largely Christian. In America it is just good business to place God in your belief system, even when doing so unduly and undoubtedly complicates your own claims to scientific legitimacy. Why, exactly, do we need aliens if we have God?

63 Comments

Matt Mc

3/13/2014 04:51:25 am

I think another thing that should be mentioned about why these fringe shows are pushed so easy is that advertisers would rather support a show that attracts people who have little education. People who are less formal education tend to be more susceptible to influence from advertising and in turn will purchase or inquire about whatever is advertised. Marking studies have show that people with higher education tend to research more about purchases and make less spontaneous purchases. I know that advertisers would much rather production houses and channels gear all the shows to audiences with High School or lower education simply to increase sales of the products or services.

SilenceDoGood

3/13/2014 05:13:36 am

This is a good point and one that hits on why so many of these shows seem to aim for that demographic of low education viewers who have little interest in digging into the genuine scholarly historical and archaeological material which is probably above their heads....even though magazines like Archaeology and National Geographic easily accessible and written for a mainstream (non-academic) audience. This also hints at why conspiracy theories about government cover-ups and Smithsonian plots to suppress "The Real Truth" about aliens or American history or the Bible appeal to those who feel confused by world events and powerless to change the direction their lives and the world itself are going. Underneath the surface bubbles that anti-intellectual, anti-elite, anti-education mentality that supports the base of working class populism. I think without a doubt this is at least partially at play in all of this and figures into the popularity of shows like Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed as well as the larger conspiracy theory movement in general.

3/13/2014 05:32:51 am

Said better than I could get it out. I don't know if anyone read about the story today that a FOX affiliate in Oklahoma cut out the on reference of evolution from the airing of the new COSMOS by airing a short commercial during the 12 second mention. While it is questioned if this is deliberate of not I can say it is not common that programs are interrupted during broadcast with a commercial for such seemingly targeted times, given people who work in master control (the people responsible for broadcast transmission) make mistakes from time to time this one seems very targeted.

http://aattp.org/oklahoma-fox-affiliate-edited-evolution-out-of-cosmos-by-removing-15-seconds-of-footage-video/

spookyparadigm

3/13/2014 08:00:05 am

Generally agree. While I am sure there are people who would be open to real archaeology and can't get it, and they are indeed who we should be talking to, I disagree with much of Jason's post. Oh, I agree on the class element, to a point. But I think the idea that many adherents in "fringe" beliefs are rationally putting data together, but they only have bad data, simply doesn't match reality.

The entire point is often not to know about the past, but to use aspects of the past to address current grievances and emotional pulls. You can see this when a "mystery" does get solved. Do many fringe adherents suddenly start taking mainstream seriously? No. They either deny it with conspiracy theory, or move onto another "mystery" that allows them to keep the same "anomalous" stance.

It's Forteana in the Gaps.

Jason Colavito link

3/13/2014 08:06:25 am

I think there's a divide between the people who are die-hard fringe believers and/or fantasy-prone personalities and those like my correspondent today who simply lack an easy way of differentiating between mainstream and fringe ideas in terms of quality and evidence. I'm not sure there's a way out of the problem of so many people who believe that academia is a conspiracy to suppress the supernatural and/or paranormal.

You are of course right that much of the appeal of fringe history is its use to fill emotional needs, but I think that applies as well to a number of ideas, not just fringe ideas. Biblical archaeology is a good example of that, where more than a few ideas find acceptance because of emotional ties to religious beliefs.

The Other J.

3/13/2014 09:54:23 am

"Underneath the surface bubbles that anti-intellectual, anti-elite, anti-education mentality that supports the base of working class populism."

I'd be a little careful about that kind of phrasing -- working class does not necessarily equal anti-intellectualism and anti-education. I don't think anyone would classify EvD or Giorgio Tsoukalos as working class.

The outreach is a major aspect of how the broader public is introduced to these subjects, but it's also the kinds of presentations they receive. Someone working the third shift could turn on Coast to Coast any night of the week and be subjected to 3 hours of weird and entertaining emotional appeal, and there's not much of an equivalent to counterbalance that in an interesting way. NPR is too often watered-down milquetoast, and the BBC is too culturally specific for a wider American audience.

However, that doesn't mean those people working class people are just de facto more susceptible to that kind of belief -- if you talk to them about their favorite sports, or fishing, or hunting, some typical working-class pastimes, and they'll have solid arguments for whatever case they're making backed up by empirical data. Typical blue collar bass fishermen will have maps of reservoirs from before they were flooded so they know what the underwater landscape is like. When they hit a good run of bites at a location, they'll record the temperature, humidity, time of day, and weather conditions, because they know if they go back the next year under the same conditions, the fish will again be there in numbers. That's a pretty scientific approach. So it's not like these people are just exceptionally susceptible to emotional appeal and immune to using their intellects; you'd have a hard time convincing someone to back or not back a team's chances in a game based on an alleged conspiracy instead of based on past performances and injuries. You'd have a harder time convincing a hardcore fisherman or hunter to find a spot using astrology.

The problem, it seems, is finding a way to present certain historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects in a way that approaches the entertainment level of either a pastime they enjoy or the weird rage bubbling under a fringe history programming. I don't know what that would be. Maybe neolithic bass fishing, Neanderthal deer hunting, or a game show where competitors have to answer Jeopardy-worthy questions after a physical challenge before they can move on to the next stage. It'd have to combine the intellectual material with the quick-delivery emotional payoff you get from a sport.

3/13/2014 11:45:29 am

@Other J

Aye, and there's the rub! How do you get the masses to tune in to shows that deal with real history and real scholarship and still make it entertaining? I think the History Channel used to be able to do this pretty successfully. I've watched and loved many of their series on the Pyramids, Engineering an Empire, The Dark Ages, Barbarians, etc. Even though these were not rigorously accurate in every sense in the latest theories and discoveries, they gave people a way to access this material in an enjoyable way AND still learn something based on real history. Today those types of shows have fallen away to be replaced by the new spate of fringe history reality shows or shows about lumberjacks and truck drivers. What happened to the REAL history on the History Channel? Maybe this is all just a phase that will burn itself out in time once it has run its course and things will go back to the way they used to be when the fringe history peddlers sold poorly researched, self-published books to a tiny circle of followers.

3/13/2014 12:05:18 pm

@SilenceDoGood

Did you see the series Terry Jones from Monty Python did on barbarians? That had something going for it -- a knowledgeable presenter who was a trained entertainer. There's not much like that around today.

But one that comes close is Horrible Histories. If you can't get the DVD's or stream it, there are loads of clips on YouTube. The comedy ensemble that presents the little clips are smart, funny, and the stuff the present is always interesting -- usually because they take the weirdest stuff and present it in an interesting ancient/modern mash-up way.

One of my favorites was the Ancient Greece Wife-Swap show, where an Athenian family and a Spartan family swapped wives for a week. When the Athenian wife first met the Spartan husband, she asked about his children, and where his son was:

Athenian Wife: And where's your dear son? I believe like us you have a seven-year-old boy.

Spartan Husband: I do. He's out naked in the hills fighting with the other Spartan children.

Athenian Wife: Oh! And when will he be back?

Spartan Husband: When he's fifteen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyW5UYPYYs

Jessica

3/13/2014 05:18:39 am

Sadly this is not a phenomenon that exists solely in America. I have a Masters degree in Medieval Archaeology from the University of York in the UK. While I was living there I did volunteer work, and later paid work, at historical sites that also served as tourist attractions. Quite a large percentage of tourists were mostly interested in the sensational/false history of the sites. On more than a few occasions, I politely debunked some of the tourists' misconceptions of the sites. While some responded well with a 'how interesting, I didn't know that', many became very angry and hostile. One gentleman actually stormed out of the building because I told him a medieval chapel he thought was reserved for lepers was in fact, a private chapel for a wealthy family whose ownership of the chapel was well documented in both the written and archaeological record. It goes to show that those who are 'selling' history to the public don't want to let the truth get in the way of a good story and those that 'buy' this history don't want an academic telling them their favorite t.v personality/author is fallible.

J.A.D

3/13/2014 05:48:02 am

It does look like RICHARD III was the man buried under a car park
close to Bosworth Field at the location where Greyfriars was. I feel
that history has curious twists. The rather rare "X" chromosome of
a female Neville bloodline & the mitochondrial DNA thusly in tandem
with a late 1400s date for the poor guy in the hasty grave with a big
curvature of the spine clinched this identification. There were fatal wounds, all the factors suggest that they found a lost Plantagenet.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2677712/

Himself or Herself = real person

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/richard-iii-faces-final-battle-in-court-1-6494762

3/13/2014 05:58:04 am

John Hawks and staff just taught a really neat anthropology class,
it was online at COURSERA and tackled how DNA testing is changing
how we see our evolution! 20,000 people plus signed up by January
and there were late arrivals. the posting area was fun, I had been in
the top twenty to thirty posters until a week or so ago, and about
300 people may have submitted a 1500 word essay. One's ideas can
be brought current if one's EGO lets you. The beginning was intense
and i found myself learning new things. The top forum people who
also got voted up often had Ph.Ds but often could explain the very
technical things. Online Education in a controlled format beats out
night school or a community college in the day, part-time. It is free!
Some 20,000 of us were a grand experiment for him! John Hawks
took us to dig sites & locations in his lectures, and is good at the
task of interviewing people. Academia often has been snob zoned
but there is hope for a budding Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan to make
the erudite connection to the greater unwashed. I liked the class!!!!!

The Snarkster Strikes Again!

3/13/2014 02:15:20 pm

Now you'd be on to something if that had been a hooked X chromosome!

Martin R

3/16/2014 02:56:52 pm

I recently watched the program about the Richard III discovery, and found its presentation simple yet engaging. Human as well. It was everything AU would like to be. And the program did rewrite a bit of English history - or its aftermath - by using the simple tools of science. Maybe it is a Smithsonian conspiracy after all, one of actual research.

Mandalore

3/13/2014 05:51:34 am

There is certainly a problem in introducing the public to the intricacies of history. However, it should be recognized that this has always been true. In many ways, the Iliad is a sensationalist account of an actual historical event meant to connect with a wide audience. Another good example is the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, which some think was purposely written over the top with information that the author knew was wrong or was making up. (It is very entertaining.)

There is a divide between 'popular' and 'academic' scholarship that is very difficult to bridge. There are certainly attempts to do so through more accessible books, public lectures, and so forth, but the audience for them is self-selecting. In my opinion, the best option is to invest heavily in education, including paying teachers at all levels much more in order to draw in more talent. It is only by infusing young people with a love of learning that will inspire them to put the effort into going beyond pop history.

Plus, better production is needed for some documentaries. There is a show on the Smithsonian Channel on Hittites that is quite informative, but it is kind of dull. Making things entertaining does not necessitate making them sensational, that is just the easiest way to do it.

3/13/2014 06:11:39 am

I don't have the Smithsonian channel because it cost more to get that tier of service. I have watch the recent batch of shows they have made available via Netflix and have really enjoyed them, even the speculative history shows. JAD mentioned the one above about RIchard III lost grave and that was a very interesting episode. I hope they continue in this manner. I also have heard good things about the Military channels show Myth Hunters is quite good at exploring fringe topics, balancing myth and known historical record.

Gunn link

3/13/2014 06:16:04 am

Jason, above: "In America it is just good business to place God in your belief system, even when doing so unduly and undoubtedly complicates your own claims to scientific legitimacy. Why, exactly, do we need aliens if we have God?"

But, many scientists are Christians; many Christians are scientists, for whom evolution is not a hurdle at all, for instance.

Right, we don't need aliens, especially if they are only a delusion, never offering concrete evidence of their existence, like UFO's and Bigfoot, etc. At least we have God on our money, if not in all of our hearts.

Since these alien and UFO things aren't "real," and history is, I think it would be good for your career, Jason, to turn the faucet off on one side and open it more fully on the other, as others have suggested, too.

A side benefit is that you can end up with more time to concentrate on more important matters of actual HISTORY, delving into truthful esoterica not previously appreciated...perhaps....

Prone

3/13/2014 08:10:04 am

But Gunn, I would say that to those who believe in them, UFOs and Bigfoot and the like are exactly as "real" as God is to a Christian. "Abductees", for instance, have had what is to them a very real personal experience which informs their belief in aliens, comparable to someone being born again and having God reveal Himself to them.
We don't NEED God or aliens, since neither offers any concrete evidence of their existence, but people clearly still WANT them. The fact that some people place their faith in lights in the sky instead of a man in the clouds doesn't affect the sincerity of that faith. Some people have God in their hearts, others Greys.
I find the history of UFOlogy fascinating, even though I don't believe aliens are visiting Earth, just like I find Biblical history fascinating even though I don't believe the Bible is literally the word of God.

Gunn

3/14/2014 07:36:23 am

Prone, I would have to respond that unless you experience God in your life, yourself, you wouldn't be able to appreciate how real He may be. The proof of God's existence is meaningful in a Christian who is "walking in the Spirit" and experiencing daily wonders from God.

I hang around this blog because I'm interested in pursuing Truth. I believe God is interested in History, and that He likes to hide things and then reveal them at an appropriate times. Kings search such mysteries out, trying to discover hidden things...perhaps things having originated as speculative things.

For the purpose of this blog, then, I am a Christian King searching for available tidbits of truth and mystery, along with other odds and ends. I find that honest, not-too-fanciful speculations, seasoned with plenty of logic, can work wonders. Maps are useful, too. I really enjoy studying maps.

BTW, I don't take the Bible literally, myself. To me, symbolism, to replace the idea of taking everything literal, becomes self-evident. Jesus spoke in parables, fiction, as renderings of ideas, visual stories as teaching aids...the impressions left behind that many of us strive to live today. Having said this, I'd prefer a sermon on a mount rather than a serpent on a mount, though both can be taken for symbolism.

3/14/2014 08:16:49 am

Well, Gunn, I would simply counter that unless you have been abducted by aliens, you wouldn't be able to appreciate how real they may be.
There is a reason Ancient Aliens is sounding more and more religious as it grinds on; because that is the only way it can survive. It is patently ridiculous as a scientific concept, just like Flood Geology or other Creationist attempts to fit square pegs into round holes, but if it is spiritual then "the proof of aliens is meaningful in an Ancient Astronaut Theorist who is walking with the Space Brothers and experiencing daily wonders from the Annunaki".

Matthew 5:5 famously says "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth". I don't think sincerely referring to yourself as a "Christian King" is particularly meek, do you? I think a little modesty would go a long way to making people more receptive to your theories.

3/14/2014 09:33:04 am

Modesty has nothing to do with facts, right? Also, Kings was used figuratively, of course, applied because there is a place for searching out hidden mysteries...probably those who have time for it, as suggested in the OT. I've become a King since going on SS, you understand.

You may address me as Sir Gunn, alternate to King Sinclair, from now on.

3/14/2014 11:10:56 am

I hope you get that I wasn't all the "sincere" as you might have enjoyed thinking, in calling myself a Christian King. Funny you would latch onto such a notion of sincerity. I dunno. Lighten up? It's only a blog?

Discovery of America

3/13/2014 08:42:26 am

Gunn belongs to the community of believers in the Rosslyn Chapel myths and legends - no more than 3 decades old

3/14/2014 07:44:56 am

Rosslyn Chapel continues to harbor many good mysteries to contemplate, not the least that it represents a good bridge of ideology in the transition from Knights Templar to Masonry. It is a time-capsule of history not yet completely known about. It is not fully understood, by any means...plus, hidden artifacts or wealth are possibilities, not fantasies for fools.

Discover of America, you need to get real about Rosslyn Chapel as you--like me--strive to stay on-subject.

El Snarko

3/13/2014 02:23:14 pm

Unloaded Gunn said "I think it would be good for your career, Jason, to turn the faucet off on one side and open it more fully on the other, as others have suggested, too."

Isn't that a bit patronizing?

3/14/2014 07:57:34 am

patronize 1 treat condescendingly 2 act as a patron toward (a person, cause, artist, etc.) support; encourage 3 frequent as a customer.

1 look down on or upon, scorn, look down one's nose at, talk down to; disdain, demean, put down, humiliate, treat de haut en bas 2 sponsor, support, back, promote, encourage, aid, assist, help, fund, contribute or subscribe to, underwrite, foster, boost. 3 deal or trade with, do or transact business with, buy or purchase from, frequent, shop at, be a customer or client of, go to or attend regularly.

So, am I patronizing Jason. Definitely. Choose your own definition from above. I like to just focus on the word "help."

Nice try El Snarko. Are you patronizing me, and in what way? Negative? I guess with a moniker like yours, you come here with your attitude stated clearly upfront, right? I'm trying to find how you may have contributed here in some way, but you come up lacking. More like El Rotteno. Remember him?

3/14/2014 02:18:43 pm

Yes, by your own definition are are "patronizing".

3/16/2014 05:38:28 am

Well, I guess it can be said that at least you tried to make sense here.

Pacal

3/13/2014 06:27:01 am

I find that a lot of people have the attitude that "conventional" history and archeology is dull. Graham Hancock for example once complained about Archeologists taking out all the mystery and wonder out of certain ancient sites.

What the above attitude indicates, in my opinion is the desire to have childish, "fantastic" beliefs validated and thus ignore reality. Thus Inca stonework must be evidence of stunningly advanced technology and all the work showing that it is conventional, but extremely clever stone working is ignored or denied because that violates the childish fantasy. Thus we get Ancient Astronauts, Lost Civilizations and hyper diffusionism etc. All exciting albeit childish fantasies.

What is particularity interesting about these ideas is not just how childish they are but how banal and dull they are in terms of being explanations for things. They are also old hat, uncreative and stay the same with dull regularity over the years. For example the use of the lost Civilization of Atlantis to explain any number of things, from languages to certain traits.

I find these "fantastic" explanations to be basically dull and boring. They are just so old hat in terms of explaining much of anything. I find the actual work of actual Archeologists and Historians trying to explain stuff much more interesting than the woo meisters regurgitating the same dull nostrums for the nth time.

3/13/2014 07:32:05 am

"What the above attitude indicates, in my opinion is the desire to have childish, "fantastic" beliefs validated and thus ignore reality."

This is precisely why these beliefs almost mimic religious delusions. I understand the desire to find the mysterious and the fantastic in life, but to want, to NEED to see something more beyond what we can detect scientifically with our senses is analogous to why human beings flock to religion. It gives a sense of meaning and purpose beyond the mundane world in which we live and ultimately die. In the case of pseudo-history or myth, it makes what to them would be otherwise dull topics more interesting and appealing to their sense of childlike wonder. After all it IS more interesting to believe in magic and monsters and angels and demons rather than accept the dry scholarly and scientific explanation for things. I admit I am drawn to these things myself, but know enough to concede that these stories and explanations are not the truth at all, but rather the fantasy. Most people don't seem willing or able to do that.

Dave Lewis

3/13/2014 02:29:13 pm

I too am drawn to spooky stuff. I tell people that I love reading about urban folklore though I don't believe any of it.

EagleBarra

3/13/2014 02:56:12 pm

Well said Silence. These are facts I face everyday with various friends, family, etc. I would venture a guess that many more than would admit feel likewise.

3/14/2014 08:50:26 am

Did you catch that word of wisdom, those words of knowledge?

Is this operating out of a gift without repentance?

A nonsensical Greek word is the dreamer's fate as he stumbles towards misty, dream-like water-ways leading to a lost city. Eventually, he will wake up with a smile on his face, having been delivered there by the efforts of a kindly stranger, a Good Samaritan, as it were. For It can't be total nonsense, such a struggle, such a Jacob's Ladder; or is it vanity, all vanity?

Sometimes it means something...you need to figure it out. The dreamer, the receiver knows he is lacking in deciphering ability. Yet, it must fit into something...perhaps an elohenots. What a realization! Truth, the noble cause!

SilenceDoGood, jump back into your moniker; go to sleep; it's your dream-job to count sheep, Dude, as punishment. Count those ones flocking to religion, ONLY, until you wake up...wondering why you feel so exhausted. Then, you will know the true meaning of SilenceDoGood.

3/13/2014 07:32:18 am

B L

3/13/2014 06:40:32 am

I enjoyed this post Jason. Good job! One of your suggestions, consulting a public library for current archaeology news, is becoming increasingly difficult. Government budgets have been slashed since the 2008 financial crisis. If you live anywhere outside of a large metro area chances are good that the public library you use is not buying that much non-fiction any more. Most smaller libraries prefer to buy popular fiction instead to appeal to a wider group of patrons. i think the assumption is that non-fiction subject matter can be found for free on the internet. This, of course, presents its own problems. Many of the armchair-interested that work blue collar jobs have a hard time telling a reputable website from something created and hosted by the enthusiastic fringe. And, frankly, the passion that some of these fringe guys exhibit toward their subject matter can be very contagious.

3/13/2014 06:55:14 am

I distinctly remember being a teenager and going to the local library to look for books on archaeology and discovering that few were newer than the 1960s, some three decades out of date. It's true that a lot of public libraries are ill-served in topics outside of American history and popular fiction, but many will at least have some access to academic journals online. I'd hope that most would at least have JSTOR. And in New York State, residents can sign up with their driver's license IDs to access a selection of library databases and resources online through the NYS Library (though many can only be viewed at the library itself).

KIF

3/13/2014 08:26:31 am

There are people who genuinely cannot tell the diiference between mainstream history and fantasy history because the two are so scientific in their presentation - as one person commented at random on the Tony Robinson documentary "The Real Da Vinci Code". Most people are outsiders, not keeping tabs on what's happening, and only looking in once in a while,

Walt

3/13/2014 09:07:14 am

It's not just archaeologists and historians who overvalue their work. A subscription to The Astrophysical Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering astronomy and astrophysics, is almost $3000/year. Peer-reviewed journals covering information technology are also quite expensive.

3/13/2014 09:11:49 am

And such material is only of interest to history academics

3/13/2014 10:52:40 am

The "right to an opinion" thing bothers me. Opinions aren't worth much more than what they're based on; the supposed inherent right to an opinion doesn't mean much without anything to back it up. (I'm not even convinced we have a "right to an opinion," so much as we have a right to form an opinion. Too often people think they've come up with their own opinion by repeating someone else's.)

Yesterday I listened to an interview with a local politician in Cork, Ireland who was trying to introduce legislation to remove fluoride from the water supply. He kept coming back to "it's a matter of choice" and that those who are against fluoridated water have a right to their opinion. When pushed and directly asked what his scientific basis for that opinion was, he resisted and said he refused to be drawn into an argument about the scientific specifics and questioned the interviewer's right to challenge his right to an opinion. He didn't want to be informed, he just wanted to reflect what he perceived was his constituents' concerns (although it was unclear he was even doing that, and wasn't just trying to make a name for himself through political scare-mongering).

I don't want to get into the easy cliches here about opinions, or that old saw about having a right to one's own opinion but not a right to one's own facts. When people determine that inconvenient facts are simply other people's opinions, we're just not working on the same page. But there is some utility in challenging a fringe claim on the scientific basis for the understanding or what exactly the reasoning is based on. And it's probably important to constantly and consistently point out when speculation and assumption are just that, and not facts upon which a claim can be based. That's the kind of argument we seem to come across most often in fringe theories like ancient aliens and Viking Templar Buddhist Monks from Ireland worshiping Mithras in Oklahoma -- a collection of speculation and assumption that's then presented in the position of facts upon which a larger claim is built.

This blog is does an excellent job of pointing out when a presented fact is actually speculation at best, and often poorly thought-out speculation. Even better, this blog more often than not has an evidence-based alternative to the speculative theory.

So I guess it comes down to establishing a common understanding of what evidence and facts are, and knowing the difference between a fact and an idea. Just because something can be conceived of doesn't mean it's the case.

3/13/2014 12:10:45 pm

Right of Opinion and Freedom of Belief = FIRST AMENDMENT

Another thing - you would lose hands down in a Court of Law for being intolerant and you would get punished in any legal dispute - the believer will win in a court of law

3/13/2014 04:58:24 pm

Well, that's you're opinion...

3/13/2014 07:15:38 pm

Your point? I just don't see that J is denying anyone the right to their opinions. Just how would J lose in a court? On what grounds would he be sued or prosecuted? I am not aware that just being intolerant by itself is a crime. The bottom line is that un-evidenced and or poorly supported opinions can be so labeled. After all J is entitled to his opinion that poorly supported opinion is bad.

3/14/2014 03:31:53 am

Kind of off topic a bit but my dad always said the best part about freedom of speech is that it truly gives a person a barometer on how to tell how stupid a person really is.

And you everyone is entitled to opinions, some are just more educated than others.

3/13/2014 02:52:26 pm

The Other J...Please send me your name, I want to quote you and make sure that credit is factually noted. WELL SAID!

3/14/2014 09:24:03 am

This is very insightful, The Othe J. You say, "Even better, this blog more often than not has an evidence-based alternative to the speculative theory."

But not always, as in the latest case here, where there seems to be plenty of "evidence and facts" that the French were able to traverse water-ways into 1600's Minnesota, while the Scandinavians may not have been able to, without proof, just a few hundred years earlier...even though they were known for their water-traveling abilities.

Yes, The Other J., as you say, "So I guess it comes down to establishing a common understanding of what evidence and facts are, and knowing the difference between a fact and an idea. Just because something can be conceived of doesn't mean it's the case."

Just because something can be conceived doesn't mean it's NOT the case, either, especially when backed up by facts and maps. In my opinion, this blog is not always willing to consider facts and truth, when the conclusions may lead into unknown, speculative, scarey waters.... There is such a thing as blog host bias here, as well as group bias. The bias is against speculation, pure and simple, because this is mainly a skeptic's blog. No hard feelings, this just seems like the way it is here, by inherent design. I can get over it and still participate, but it doesn't make me happy when truth seems to be overtly avoided.

3/14/2014 09:27:10 am

Gunn, the question of a water route doesn't imply anything about who used it. Dedicated Norse *could* for example have walked across Canada to Minnesota should they be so inclined, but that does not prove that they did so. Before you harp on any longer about water routes you need to first establish some kind of evidence that they were actually used.

As I have said before, this material is off topic and should be discussed in the forum.

3/14/2014 11:44:14 am

Jason, my comments aren't off topic, because I'm responding to a comment from The Other J., in which he praises your review and states what this blog does so effectively. I'm disagreeing with that comment, and I backed it up with ample indication of merit for my disagreement.

I've been "harping" on the water-way issue because you've been going out of your way to evade just admitting that you can see a water-way to Runestone Hill. Why can't you simply say, "Gunn, I looked at maps, it's a very simple matter, and yes, I can see a complete waterway to within a few miles of Runestone Hill." See, this now makes it seem all the more likely, right?

No, I don't have to establish that certain water-ways were used...only that they could easily have been used. You don't want to admit to this, which makes you come across as biased.

Talking about host bias to disagree with a favorably comment is not off-subject in this blog, unless you want to be a censor.

3/14/2014 11:50:20 am

I don't quite understand your point, Gunn. Yes, if you really wanted to you could sail to Minnesota from the Atlantic. But you could also sail to Bolivia, or Panama, or the Amazon basin, as some fringe theorists assert that the Vikings and/or Norse actually did. This is the difference between "could" and "did." That was my point: You need to have evidence.

3/14/2014 12:37:13 pm

We're not even at a phase of considering evidence. All I want you to see is that it's easily conceivable that Scandinavians (or anyone else, including the French) could have "not sailed!" to Runestone Hill. Paddling would be required once leaving Lake Superior, Jason, clearly, and not difficult to grasp. I thought it was common knowledge that boats on rivers don't sail, they are paddled or rowed.

I listed every single river needed to get from Lake Superior to Runestone Hill, and you've read my comments to others suggesting that they go to my website to see the Chippewa River route photo tour I prepared a few years ago, proving that the party depositing the KRS had a clearly understandable water-way route in.

What difference does it make? Indeed, it makes it seem all the more likely the the whole KRS story is true, as the route matches up with what is said on the stone, just as the peninsula-island description in the description fits Runestone Hill.

My contention is that you purposely don't want to see the clear water-way because it boosts the credibility of the Kensington Runestone. And since I consider this an act of purposeful bias, I'm trying to call you on it so you can clean your act up. You come across as biased on this single, simple issue, and quite frankly, it seems out of your character. Other people besides myself have suggested this water-way of river travel close to Runestone Hill, but I have gone out of my way to prove it. Why? Yes, because it boosts the credibility of the message of the KRS...something that COULD bother you.

However, now that we have this water-way established, it's only fair to be able to end the purposeful fuzziness about this by also showing how two separate water-ways converge at a place where, strangely enough, there are multiple evidences of medieval Scandinavian presence. Why should this be overlooked? If historians and speculators alike want to find further evidence, what's wrong with pointing out a likely location to zero-in on? That's my message and point...not to block these water-ways here, so you can be the History Truth-Meister we all long for.

Only Me

3/13/2014 02:17:52 pm

There are, granted, few shows that combine science or factual history with entertainment, but they exist. Myth Hunters, Mysteries at the Museum, Castle Secrets & Legends, The Bible's Greatest Secrets and Cosmos are fine examples.

The first episode of Cosmos in particular, was very entertaining. They compressed the 13.8 billion year history of the universe into a calendar year, and it really drove home the point of how short a span in history humanity has existed. Take its presentation that all of human history occurred during the last 14 seconds of the last day on the calendar, or the line, "Jesus appeared five seconds ago; Buddha appeared four seconds ago", IIRC.

One can hope that such programming becomes more popular, but as has been pointed out, TV is very heavily market driven.

charlie

3/13/2014 06:20:34 pm

Well, I was, until I had a career ending injury at work, a blue collar, working class guy. I was a machinist and mechanic/welder. My Dad was very big on making sure I got a good education. He valued getting as much of an education as possible. I also am old enough, 66 now, that when I was in school, we were still taught critical thinking. That is the one thing missing from the school system in the US if not elsewhere. Grade schools and high schools seem to have stopped teaching the young people critical thinking. We were taught to think for ourselves and to question things. Sure, there were certain lessons/subjects where we were basically taught by rote memorizing, but in some subjects we were free to question things and I remember more than a few teachers who told us all that the only dumb question was the one that was not asked.
Some how, at some time, I think it was the early 1970's, schools stopped this and allowed students "rights". The only rights I remember we had in my school days were to obey the teachers and parents or if we didn't there were real consequences. Dad did not tolerate misbehavior in school nor did he accept bad grades. His one requirement was that I get at least a "C". He told me that I was his son and therefore I was at least average, and thus a minimum of a "C" or better. He never gave me any money for better grades, some kids in my class did get cash for higher grades. Dad always told me that my good grades were my payment and my job was to learn as much as I could.
I have always been interested in history and we had an encyclopedia set at home. Yes, it was not new by the time I got to high school, but I did use it and it lead me to check at the library for more information. I suppose I could say I was very fortunate in the Dad was so insistent on education and I have had a life long quest to keep learning. I was probably the only machinist to read science based magazines at lunch and coffee breaks, I know I was at the shops I worked for. Of late, my primary interest in history is the history of the common people. What the life of the blacksmith was like, or the carpenter, wheel wright, etc. We all get the history of the famous people, what about those who really made civilizations, the working classes?
Sorry to ramble on so long, but some of us can distinguish between fringe stuff like the AU and AAT's and real history. Thanks for the information on the magazines you listed. "Archaeology" for only $14 to $25 per year sounds like one I need to check out.
Also, I learn a great deal from your web site. I enjoy the way you write and I really appreciate how you research your posts here. I have some of your books on my "must buy" list.

Cathleen Angel

3/14/2014 03:13:26 am

Take a look at the series titled Rogue Angel. It's pure fantasy that does throw in a lot of facts about archaeology and how it works.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/14/2014 05:54:46 pm

A not insignificant problem that SOME "academics" create for themselves and (half-wittingly) perpetuate is an attitude of arrogance: "Just trust ME … I know MORE than YOU do … " …

This distinctly unhelpful attitude SOMETIMES gets further deeper compounded by use of jargon … *as*if* … "You and I *sniff*sniff* really CAN'T have a meaningful CONVERSATION here … "

3/14/2014 06:41:48 pm

I find your opening statement to be rather ironic. I'm not trying to be nasty, so, please hear me out.

Scott Wolter is a licensed geologist. I can't challenge him in his area of expertise, as I haven't taken a single course in the field. Yet, we have podcasts, radio interviews, etc., where he has gone on the attack against experts in fields he hasn't one semester hour of training to his credit. He isn't an archaeologist or anthropologist, but he is convinced he has some special insight into their areas that they lack. This attitude is similar to your opening statement about some academics.

Now, why is he to be venerated as a hero for challenging these experts, BUT, if someone like me challenges or disagrees with his hypotheses and conclusions, some believe I am only deserving of scorn and ridicule? Why the double standard?

I'm using Scott as an example, only. I won't deny that there are some in academia that see themselves as you say, but you will find examples of those individuals in all walks of life. This divide that exists will only continue to grow as long as both sides continue to define each other, not based on experiences with individuals, but in favor of the all-inclusive "Us" versus "Them".

3/15/2014 02:06:07 am

I find the "Us vs Them" mentality never works for anyone beyond teenagers myself.

3/15/2014 03:04:29 am

Only Me, if I may: a double standard doesn't exist if one recognizes that Wolter purposely focuses on "speculative" material, almost all of which has been "debunked" by the professionals. Notice I didn't put quotation marks around professionals. This is because I, myself, do appreciate the job professionals do...most of the time. There are a few exceptions, as we know.

Wolter focuses on material he sees as being ignored, that he can bring to life a bit for entertainment, yes, and for later debate and study. He makes money doing this. Any scorn seen here for Wolter advocates, in general, reflects an unnecessarily harsh attitude, I think.

The general complaint shouldn't be so much a us v. them thing as it is a matter of attitude when discussing things. I think we can all see the benefits of keeping on open, friendly atmosphere here as we look for history truth--while keeping open minds.

3/15/2014 04:21:10 am

That's why I found Phil's statement ironic. It isn't arrogance if someone does know more than the layperson, because of their education, training and time in the field. The attitude may be arrogant, but that's human nature.

Advanced education was once held as something to aspire to. Now there's a growing idea that "book learnin' " is a bad thing. Popular cable programming seems aimed towards compounding that negative outlook.

I have no problem with speculation. It is a necessary part of inquiry to learn the truth. The problem arises when speculation is presented as fact, while verifiable facts are discarded to sell a story. And these stories sell, partly due to fringe theorists playing their part in cultivating anti-academic belief, while painting themselves as champions of the truth. Those of us who demand more than, "Believe me, because I say so" are vilified, often leading to the Us vs. Them mentality that is so common.

That's why I feel there is a double standard. If scholars and experts are to be questioned, then so should the fringe theorists trying to make a dollar. Arrogance and unhelpful attitudes don't apply only to academics.

3/15/2014 04:36:26 am

Well said Only Me

3/16/2014 06:03:38 am

I agree that we see arrogance from both "sides," and it's unpleasant.

One side is sometimes arrogant BECAUSE their educations entitles them to flaunt their credentials, in their minds, as a matter of pride...but they may sometimes also flaunt and even try to use bogus powers, or use any actual power they may have in a discriminatory way.

The other side sometimes gets haughty or arrogant in response to the "academic" showmanship. The fact of the matter is that both "sides" can contribute to history, or the searching for further history truth.

The sides are distinctly different, yet both can contribute without the attending arrogance. Attitude is everything. Bias is out. Everyone is invited to participate in the search for history truth. Today, we can all become quickly knowledgeable in a subject by the Internet, thanks to Mr. Gore. Times have changed for the arrogant from both sides.

Yes, and we, too, have all been arrogant here, because we have egos to feed while trying to contribute here. Do we need to lighten up, is the question?

Robin

3/15/2014 03:17:12 am

I still can't see why Ancient Astronaut types are dignified with the term 'theorists'. How can their 'theories' be proven or disproven? I think they should be termed 'hypothecists' or 'speculators', even though I know it's far too late for that now.

Varika link

3/15/2014 05:50:44 pm

Ancient Astronaut Sophists would be the best term.

Varika

3/15/2014 05:49:10 pm

Coming a little late to the party here, but...what is Colonial Williamsburg if not archeological outreach? The Gettysburg Historical Tour and battle reenactment every year? Plymouth Plantation? Jamestown Settlement? Heck, the tiny little Wilmington Western Railroad and tiny little Pea Patch Island? Every city you go to has some sort of bus-tour of historical sights of the city.

It's not all on archeologists and how they're "not being accessible." Frankly, if you want my honest opinion, it's on crappy history instruction in school--which is not necessarily a slur on teachers, particularly in this era of "canned curriculums." I always HATED history lessons when I was a kid, particularly since I went in already knowing most of what was being taught (at least in pre-WWI history) and I was always just horrified at how MUCH was left out, to focus on a strict chronology and numbers and dates. There was no understanding of WHY things were happening at all. And as a student teacher in 3rd grade, I didn't find that it was any better now than it was when I was a kid. It's not even taught on a daily basis now, it's every few WEEKS. It's randomly disjointed stories read in isolation in reading classes. People who come out loving history, and thereby caring about archeology, have done it despite the education system, not through it.

I think people want a good story. As a species, we seem to thrive on stories. If people don't perceive history as giving them a good story, they'll look elsewhere--and they'll blame "academia" for not giving them what they wanted, even if that's not where the blame SHOULD go.

3/16/2014 09:14:22 am

I completely agree with "Varika" (above) on the problem with the WAY "history" is presented and taught … (I apologize to "Varika" for giving the *kiss*of*death* …)