Please note that this site is no longer being updated. For up-to-date versions of the pages, please visit Bad Archaeology.
‘Fringe’ or ‘Cult’ Archaeology
Archaeology is an extraordinarily diverse branch of human knowledge and exploration. From the field technicians knee deep in mud in a Hebridean winter to the Classical specialist examining frescoes on a wall at Pompeii, from the geneticist tracing bovine DNA relationships to the linguist attempting to refine our understanding of Maya inscriptions, the range of specialisms and viewpoints is enormous. Nevertheless, there are commonalities of approach and boundaries to that diversity, mostly connected with what may be termed ‘the scientific method’, the use of naturalistic explanations based on uniformitarian principles (in other words, including only processes that can be observed in the world today). These boundaries are best explained by showing what archaeology is not. Once an investigator of the past begins to bring in explanations that involve unknown civilisations, extraterrestrial contact, the inerrancy of religious texts or the operation of paranormal powers, we can see instantly that they belong to a very different intellectual tradition from mainstream archaeologists. The orthodoxy – itself a mass of contradictory, competing and often abstruse arguments – regards these other investigators as being beyond the pale of its scrutiny for the most part; if these other views are discussed at all, they are relegated to ‘fringe’ or ‘cult’ status.
The aim of this site is to explore the main strands of thought within the ‘fringe’, to explain how and why they are different from orthodox viewpoints and to see what – if anything – there may be of value in these viewpoints. Although much of what I have written is aimed at debunking the misconceptions (and, sometimes, outright distortions) of the past promoted by fringe writers, I am nevertheless open to the idea that they may be able to tell orthodox archaeology something of value. The fringe is interesting and (sometimes unintentionally) entertaining in its own right; this site can only scratch the surface of such a huge area of human endeavour.
What is it?
To understand what makes a particular approach to archaeology part of the ‘fringe’ or a ‘cult’, it is easiest to start by defining ‘mainstream’ archaeology. It is the sum total of all knowledge about the material culture of humanity, a big claim but the only concise way of describing it. Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the human past through material culture, although archaeologists are increasingly arguing that a better definition would be the study of human behaviour through material culture, making it a much broader discipline and one of relevance to the contemporary world. The most important aspect of the discipline is that archaeologists study the physical changes human beings have made to their world. Archaeology looks at the artefacts (the tools, ornaments and other objects), the structures (buildings, tombs and other enclosed spaces) and landscapes (field systems, settlements, communication routes and so on) that people have been creating for the seven million or so years we have been creatures distinct from the other great apes. Archaeologists use a particular set of data that no other discipline uses as a discrete set, although it has significant overlaps with history, anthropology, linguistics, cultural studies, sociology and many other disciplines. The data come from a wide variety of sources, in the form of monuments (unique places such as Stonehenge, or places that are much more commonplace, such as railways), sites (places that are buried and invisible today, such as Star Carr) and artefacts. To deal with their unique data set, archaeologists have developed their own special jargon, just have other disciplines have done. Try the link below for a longer and denser definition!
Why pay it any attention?
It is necessary to spend time examining the claims of fringe writers because their work is very popular and, as a result, influential on many people. Books claiming that space aliens built ziggurats in Mesopotamia, that the Sphinx was carved by refugees from Atlantis or that the hills are alive with mysterious ‘Earth Energies’ sell many times more than conventional accounts of the past. These sorts of beliefs have entered the popular consciousness and deserve to be addressed. Some of them may contain valuable ideas about the past that archaeologists can learn from; others are plainly nonsense and can be refuted by anyone with an open mind.
The success of fringe writers can be judged by their impact on popular culture, particularly fiction, including television and film. Books such as The Da Vinci Code, films such as Stargate and television series such as The X Files draw on the fringe for inspiration and serve to disseminate these ideas even more widely. There is a pressing need for orthodox archaeologists to present a coherent, persuasive and readable challenge to this developing popular consensus about what the past of humanity was like.
How do we deal with it?
The only way to counter the specious claims of the fringe is through better public education at all levels. Archaeology is not often offered as a subject to study at school and although the UK National Curriculum for history mentions archaeological evidence as a source of information about the past, it is left up to individual teachers to decide whether or not to include it. Because most teachers – at any level – have little or no knowledge of archaeology, they are ill equipped either to teach it or to use it within other subjects in the curriculum. This is unfortunate, as it means that most people grow up without any understanding of how archaeologists use and interpret their data, even though most will have visited historical monuments and museums crammed with the basic stuff of archaeology and many more will have seen television programmes on the subject. We know a lot more about the past than the proponents of ‘ancient mysteries’ would have us believe; their success is a direct consequence of public ignorance. To start with, we need to show why these views are wrong. However, we need to go further than that: we also need to show the richness of what is known, that the context of the more mysterious remains goes a long way towards explaining them. This is my own little contribution.
Feedback
I am grateful for feedback, either to correct errors that I have made or to offer further suggestions for the site. Cult archaeology is a huge topic (just like real archaeology) and there are no limits to the bizarre ideas that people come up with. One proviso: if you’re a fundamentalist creationist of any religion, don’t bombard me with emails complaining about my treatment of creationism. Creationism is wrong, it’s easy to prove that it’s wrong, and if you believe in it because that’s what you’ve been taught, your teachers are wrong, too.