|
Pseudoarchaeology — also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, or cult archaeology — refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline.〔Holtorf 2005. p. 544.〕〔Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 720.〕〔Williams 1987.〕 These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence.〔Pseudoarchaeology - Atlantis to Aliens.〕 There is no one singular pseudoarchaeological theory, but many different interpretations of the past that are at odds from those developed by persons who know and understand the data. Some of these revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Swiss author Erich von Däniken in books such as ''Chariots of the Gods?'' (1968) and Italian author Peter Kolosimo. Others instead hold that there were human societies in the ancient period that were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his ''Fingerprints of the Gods'' (1995). Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such as archaeocryptography and pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from the British Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those that have been adopted by members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems. These include the Great Goddess hypothesis, propagated by Marija Gimbutas, according to which prehistoric Europeans worshipped a single female monotheistic deity—and various theories associated with the Earth mysteries movement, such as the concept of ley lines. Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments."〔Cole 1980. p. 02.〕 The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.〔Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 721.〕 ==Etymology== Various different terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole (1980)〔Cole 1980.〕 and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987).〔Stiebing Jr. 1987.〕 In the 2000s, the term "alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001),〔Sebastion 2001.〕 Robert J. Wallis (2003),〔Wallis 2003.〕 Cornelius Holtorf (2006),〔Holtorf 2005.〕 and Gabriel Moshenka (2008).〔Moshenka 2008.〕 Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" that "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations."〔 They argued that the term "pseudoarchaeology" was far more appropriate,〔 a term also used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such as Colin Renfrew (2006).〔Renfrew 2006.〕 Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. Glyn Daniel, the editor of ''Antiquity'', used the derogative "bullshit archaeology",〔 and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms used for pseudoarchaeology that were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society."〔Stiebing Jr 1987. p. 01.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pseudoarchaeology」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|