IN THE BEGINNING. Welby Thomas Cox, Jr.
Читать онлайн книгу.
in a magnificent ceremonial attended by the king and queen.
Nationalistic pseudo archaeology
The assertion which the Mound Builders were a long vanished non-Native American people thought to have come from Europe, the Middle East, or Africa.
The Kensington Runestone of Minnesota held to prove Nordic Viking primacy in discovery of the Americas.
Nazi archaeology the Thule Society, and expeditions sent by the Ahnenerbe to research the existence of a mythical Aryan race. The research of Edmund Kiss at Tiankai would be one example.
The Black Egyptian hypothesis – A hypothesis rooted within Afrocentric thought, alleging which Ancient Egypt was a predominantly black civilization.
The Bosnian pyramids project, which has projected several hills in Visoko, Bosnia as ancient pyramids.
The theory by British Israelites that the Hill of Tara in Ireland contained the Ark of the Covenant. They excavated the hill in an attempt to prove the Irish were part of the Lost Tribes of Israel which proved to be wrong.
Piltdown Man
Neolithic Hyper Diffusion from Egypt being responsible for influencing most of the major ancient civilizations of the world in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and particularly the ancient Native Americans.
Jovan I. Dereck’s Serb centric claims in the ancient history of the Old World.
Romanian Photochromism also uses Pseudoarchaeology interpretations.
Slav Macedonian nationalists view which ancient Macedonians were people unrelated to Greeks and which contemporary Slav Macedonians are their cultural, historical and linguistic descendants.
The theory which New Zealand was not settled by the Maori people, but by a pre-Polynesian race of giants.
Academic archaeological responses
Pseudo archaeology theories have come to be heavily criticized by academic and professional archaeologists. One of the first books to address these directly was by archaeologist Robert Wauchope of Tulane University. Prominent academic archaeologist Colin Renfrew stated his opinion that it was appalling that pseudo archaeologists treated archaeological evidence in such a "frivolous and self-serving way", something he believed trivialized the "serious matter" of the study of human origins. Academics like John R. Cole, Garret G. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder have argued which Pseudo archaeology interpretations of the past were based upon sensationalism, self-contradiction, fallacious logic, manufactured or misinterpreted evidence, quotes taken out of context and incorrect information. Fagan and Feder characterized such interpretations of the past as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful". In turn, many pseudo archaeologists have dismissed academics as being closed-minded and not willing to consider theories other than their own.
Many academic archaeologists have argued which the spread of alternative archaeological theories is a threat to the general public's understanding of the past. Fagan was particularly scathing of television shows which presented Pseudo archaeology theories to the general public, believing which they did so because of the difficulties in making academic archaeological ideas comprehensible and interesting to the average viewer. Renfrew however believed those television executives commissioning these documentaries knew they were erroneous, and they allowed them to be made and broadcast simply in the hope of "short-term financial gain".
Fagan and Feder believed it was not possible for academic archaeologists to successfully engage with pseudo archaeologists, remarking "you cannot reason with unreason". Speaking from their own experiences, they thought attempting dialogues just became "slanging matches” in which the expertise and motives of the critic become the main focus of attention." Fagan has maintained this idea elsewhere, remarking that arguing with supporters of Pseudo archaeology theories was "pointless" because they denied logic. He noted they included those "who openly admitted to not having read a word written by a trained Egyptologist" but who at the same time "were pronouncing how academic Egyptology was all wrong, even sinister."
Conferences and anthologies
At the 1986 meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, its organizers, Kenneth Feder; Luanne Hudson and Francis Harrold decided to hold a symposium to examine Pseudo archaeology beliefs from a variety of academic standpoints, including archaeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history and psychology. From this symposium, an anthology was produced, entitled Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudo Archeology Beliefs about the Past (1987).
At the 2002 annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, a workshop was held on the topic of pseudo archaeology. It subsequently led to the publication of an academic anthology, Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudo archaeology Misinterprets the Past and Misleads the Public (2006).
On 23 and 24 April 2009, The American Schools of Oriental Research and Duke University Center for Jewish Studies, along with the Duke Department of Religion, the Duke Graduate Program in Religion, the Trinity College of Arts and Science Committee on Faculty Research, and the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, sponsored a conference entitled "Archaeology, Politics, and the Media," which addressed the abuse of archaeology in the Holy Land for political, religious, and ideological purposes. Emphasis was placed on the media's reporting of sensational and politically motivated archaeological claims and the academy's responsibility in responding to it.
Inclusive attitudes
Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however which critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and which purporting their views in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists. Holtorf highlighted that there were similarities between academic and alternative archaeological interpretations, with the former taking some influence from the latter. As evidence, he highlighted archeoastronomy, which was once seen as a core component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream academics. He also noted certain archaeological scholars, like William Stukeley, Margaret Murray and Marija Gimbutas were seen as significant figures to both academic and alternative archaeologists. He concluded that a constructive dialogue should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists. Fagan and Feder have responded to Holtorf's views in detail, asserting that such a dialogue is no more possible than is one between evolutionary biologists and creationists or between astronomers and astrologers: one approach is scientific, the other is anti-scientific.
In the early 1980s, Kenneth Feder conducted a survey of his archaeology students. On the 50-question survey, 10 questions had to do with archaeology and/or pseudoscience. Some of the claims were more rational; the world is 5 billion years old, and human beings came about through evolution. However, questions also included issues such as, Tutt’s tomb actually killed people upon discovery, and there is solid evidence for the existence of Atlantis. As it turned out, some of the students Feder was teaching put some stake in the pseudoscience claims. 12% actually believed people on Howard Carter's expedition were killed by an ancient Egyptian curse.
NOAH’S ARK AND THE GREAT FLOOD
Introduction
In Williamstown, Kentucky, near the Cincinnati Airport (to begin the confusion) a full-scale reproduction of Noah's ark is now open to the public. Claimed to be the largest all-wood structure in the world, it is 155 m (510 ft) long, 26 m (85 ft) wide, and 16 m (51 ft) high, closely corresponding to the biblical dimensions, given in Genesis 6:15, namely 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. The Ark Encounter, like the nearby Creation Museum, is operated by Answers in Genesis (AIG) organization, which promotes a literal young-earth creationist worldview: The Bible is an infallible repository of scientific as well as religious truth. But there