Archaeology vs. Pseudoarchaeology

(Photo from Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cuzco)

At the same time that archaeologists were reporting the discovery of a 5500 year-old complex in Peru, another "discovery" in Peru has turned out to be false.

Earlier this year, media outlets in Peru reported the discovery of a lost Incan city deep in the Andes. Initial photos (like the one above) appeared to show carved stone blocks of the kind the Incas used to make cities like Cuzco and Machu Picchu at a place called Manco Pata. There was talk of declaring the site a National Heritage site as well as the possibility of touristic development.

Once professional archaeologists arrived at the site, however, it became clear that these were not artificial structures. There were no accompanying artifacts. There is no sign of tools used to shape the 'blocks,' nor were they arranged to form structures. What are they, then?

The 'blocks' are simply local sandstone that has fractured along right-angled planes. Such geological formations are not uncommon. However, they create great confusion for archaeological amateurs looking for lost cities. Beach rock, another formation that tends to fracture at right angles, has been mistaken for the Lost City of Atlantis. Formations similar to the one in Peru have been found off the coast of Okinawa and mistaken for another "lost city."

Somehow, I don't think this definitive judgment will deter those who are looking for evidence of aliens or Atlanteans. Certainly the possibility of tourist dollars may have led to local over-enthusiasm. Expect to see "Manco Pata" cropping up in pseudoarchaeological literature from now on.

Read More......

Heaven Forbid

Connections, connections. The world of archaeology, and pseudoarchaeology, is a fairly small one. Those of my readers who clicked through the link a few posts back to the 'discovery' in the Gulf of Cambay would have seen a quote by Michael Cremo, who is identified as a 'researcher and author of Forbidden Archaeology.'

Meanwhile, recently I picked up an issue of Atlantis Rising. The title of this magazine tells you just about all you need to know about its contents. If that weren't enough, article titles such as "Was the Ark Electrical" would, I think, be sufficient to brand the periodical as a bit out there. To be fair, not everything in the magazine is bunk -- I'd say no more than 50% is. I picked up the magazine as it looked to be a good source of material on pseudoarchaeology to discuss in this blog. The column that first caught my eye is a regular feature called "The Forbidden Archaeologist" by none other than our Mr. Cremo. He has a website.

It doesn't appear that Cremo has any professional credentials whatsoever. That in and of itself doesn't prevent him from being a good popular writer. As a young field, archaeology has benefitted from the contribution of amateurs far more than most other fields. However, the column in this issue contains a mixture of good data and misplaced credulity that is a hallmark of pseudoarchaeology.

Cremo begins the column with a reference to Plato's Timaeus, the major source for the Atlantis story. Plato tells a story in this dialogue about a trip by the Athenian lawgiver Solon to Egypt. This probably never happened; Solon was a famous wise man to whom all sorts of stories and travels were attributed, much like Albert Einstein in the present day. Plato has the Egyptians tell Solon that their civilization was far older than the Greeks, and that even Greek history was older than the Greeks imagined; this is the intro to the Atlantis story.

Cremo then claims that, like the Egyptians, he will show modern scholars that humans have been in Greece longer than they currently imagine. The starting point is the Petralona skull, discovered in a cave in 1960. This is the oldest recognized evidence for hominids in Greece. Dated to between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago, it is now thought to be a specimen of Homo heidelbergensis. The skull is hard to identify and date because it was found embedded in a stalagmite, without context. A 1981 article in Nature dated the skull between 160,000 and 240,000 years old, significantly earlier than Poulianas put it.

From this firm starting point, Cremo goes off into ever murkier terrain. He brings up a later discovery by Poulianos, the Greek anthropologist who found the Petralona skull. In 1977, near the village of Perdikkas, Poulianos claimed to find a 3 million-year-old mammoth with associated stone tools. If valid, this would be the oldest evidence for hominids outside of Africa. However, this 'discovery' has not been generally accepted by the scientific community. Poulianas never published his finds in an independent scientific journal; the only articles on the topic are in Poulianas' own journal Anthropos, the house organ of his group the Anthropological Association of Greece, which has feuded with the Greek Cultural Ministry. You can find a rather wild rant by Poulianos against the Greek Cultural Ministry here.

I am not an expert in paleoanthropology, so I won't comment on the validity of the Perdikkas finds. However, it is clear that they haven't been properly published, nor are they currently accepted by the scientific community. Simply presenting the information as fact without mentioning any of this is irresponsible, albeit par for the course among pseudoarchaeologists.

Cremo next claims that there is evidence for hominid occupation of Greece and nearby areas as far back as the Miocene. The Miocene ended at least 5 million years ago, so this would put us at a time at or before the split between the ancestor of hominids and chimpanzees. Needless to say, this would upset all of paleoanthropology. What is Cremo's evidence? A paper given at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology in 1872 reporting early horse bones with evidence of human modification, and an article in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute in 1874 reporting carvings on animal bones. That's it -- two articles written over 125 years ago, at a time when knowledge of human ancestors and geology was in its infancy. I haven't been able to get access to these articles (apparently even the library here at Penn has its limits), but the lack of followup calls into question the degree to which these can be used to support any kind of argument. Occam's razor would suggest that the first author was mistaken about the use of tools (this is well before use-wear analysis) and the latter was mistaken as to geological context. At the least, one would have to return to the sites in question and confirm the finds before printing them as fact.

Cremo then drifts off into woo woo land arguing that the Sanskrit Puranas are evidence for human civilization millions of years ago. From fact to questionable to 'evidence' to fiction in three pages -- all in a day's work in the world of pseudoarchaeology.

Read More......

Bad Archaeology Reporting: "Lost" Indian City

I've been poring through the archaeology section of Digg, and found some rather fringe ideas. Many of these sites are pretty stale. One of the linked pages contains an old news story from 2002 that a city older than any known human civilization had been found off the coast of India. What piqued my interest is that the site linked to a BBC article describing the find. If the BBC links to it, it must be authentic, right? Well, no so fast. What we have here is a classic example of both Bad Archaeology and Bad Archaeology Reporting.



A telltale sign of bad archaeology (and reporting of such) is the absence of hard evidence. Upon close inspection, the article has hardly any actual facts at all. First, of course, comes the breathless statement:

The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.

Then we are introduced to the people who made the 'discovery,' who are un-named "marine scientists." Who were these people? Underwater archaeologists? No, below we are told that they were "oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology conducting a survey of pollution"

Then, we are told that debris had been recovered from the site, and carbon-dated to 9500 years ago, which would be thousands of years before the earliest known human cities. What kind of debris? Construction material and sections of walls -- what kind of 'construction material?' No organic material could survive preserved under water for that length of time, so no C14 dating possible. Pottery -- Also not carbon datable. Beads -- usually made of stone and not carbon datable. Human bones and teeth -- these, too, would not survive under water for that long.

Then the article quotes Graham Hancock by name -- a well-known pseudoarchaeologist who claims that the Giza pyramids were patterned after the stars in Orion's belt and are many thousands of years older than currently believed. The link between him and this article immediately calls into question the whole story.

Now, this article may be five years old, but pseudoarchaeology never dies. A quick google search for "Cambay city" finds dozens of articles touting this 'find' as evidence for Atlanteans, super-ancient civilizations, and so on. The Wikipedia article is an amusing amalgam of skepticism and credulity, obviously the work of multiple authors.

A tell-tale warning sign is the lack of any scientific publication, and that the 'artifacts' in question have not been made available to outside investigators. We are simply told that scientific investigation confirmed their authenticity. The fact that the principle investigator is a geologist, not an archaeologist, also triggers alarm bells.

There are some images on Graham Hancock's website, which are underwhelming. Radar images that are proclaimed to show a 'city' and even a 'bathing complex' that look like no such thing. "Pottery" and "beads" that I can attest do not look like any actual pottery or beads I have ever seen, but seem to be compacted ocean bottom sediments. One or two of the 'lithics' might be authentic artifacts, but of course they are not evidence for an ancient city.

Read More......

Ham Handed

Some of you may have heard about the new creationist museum that just opened to great fanfare in Kentucky, built by Ken Ham, a young Earth creationist and general anti-science nut. And while his targets tend to be evolutionists, geologists, and cosmologists, the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old completely contradicts what we know of prehistoric archaeology as well, and the displays of humans riding dinosaurs like ponies about sums up the value of the creationist viewpoint. ClioAudio has a good post about creationism, archaeology, and the argument from design.

Read More......

How to Move Very Big Rocks

One of the oldest arguments used by pyramidiots and other woo woo types to prove that the pyramids and other examples of massive stone architecture couldn't have been made by ancient peoples without futuristic technology is the sheer size of the stones used to build them. This is used to 'prove' that Atlanteans or space aliens must have been involved. This is rubbish, of course, and there have been many experiments conducted to show that the effort involved was not beyond the capabilities of early humans.

The above video is one more nail in the coffin. It shows one middle-aged Michigan man, Wally Wallington, moving huge stones by himself using techniques he developed. I was immediately reminded of Edward Leedskalnin, who over a period of 28 years built by himself a series of huge rock sculptures at his estate in Florida, called Coral Castle. As in the case of the pyramids, this feat has led some to claim that he had special technology or psychic abilities, since no one saw him construct the objects.

Contrary to the narrator in the clip, we can't know that the techniques used by Mr. Wallington were used to construct Stonehenge. It seems likely that a variety of approaches were used (note that one of his demonstrations requires a handy concrete slab under the block). Nevertheless, as an example of what can be achieved with human ingenuity, it is amazing.

Read More......