- IJ, MD & YM
129: Archaeology vs Pseudo-Archaeology
An Archaeologist:
An Archaeologist is one who undertakes a scientific and humanistic activity which studies past human cultures through recovery and analysis of material remains, usually referred to in general as the ‘archaeological record'. This consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts and cultural landscapes.
The discipline involves surveying, excavation and eventually analysis of data collected to learn more about the past. In broad scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. It draws upon many disciplines
An archaeological investigation usually involves several distinct phases, each of which employs its own variety of methods. Before any practical work can begin, however, a clear objective as to what the archaeologists are looking to achieve must be agreed upon. This done, a site is surveyed to find out as much as possible about it and the surrounding area. Second, an excavation may take place to uncover any archaeological features buried under the ground. And, third, the data collected from the excavation is studied and evaluated in an attempt to achieve the original research objectives of the archaeologists. It is then considered good practice for the information to be published so that it is available to other archaeologists and historians, although this is often neglected. (*)
A Pseudo-Archaeologist:
This refers to one who undertakes interpretations of the past from outside the archaeological community where accepted data is rejected. These pseudo-scientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or material to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudo archaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence.
Academic archaeologists have heavily criticized pseudo archaeology, with one of the most vocal Australian critics, John R. Cole, characterizing it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments". The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists. (this is a fair statement of difference because there are those that believe everything exists because of a superior being residing in another realm of time and space and another group who believe there was absolutely nothing and all that nothing exploded and here we are. – both are preposterous claims involving extremely high levels of faith with no physical evidence or proof and both based on unproven theory or a personal belief.)
Cole believes the problem with pseudo archaeology is that archaeologists do not do a good job of marketing what they do. In Gosford, Australia, people like Reinard De Jonge, believe there are hieroglyphs carved by Egyptians - which is such an obvious fake; even to the untrained eye, yet is believed by many. "Because they don't have any context, it's easy to make up their back story," says a Sydney-based archaeologist Denis Gojak. A guy was caought there with a hammer and chisel and the carved sections are shallow and sloppy aside from the context and language being wrong. Aside from that, Reinard believes the site to be that of in Nefer-ti-ru, Son of Khufu who is buried there. And people call us mad?
"There's a real passion for stories about the past," he says and this suggests the success of pseudo archaeology means archaeologists need to do a better job at satisfying the public's desire for great stories about the past. He blames his own profession for this as they are useless at fulfilling the public needs for information. Many articles are simply too secret and require registration to view them. Gojak believes Archaeologists and historians can tell stories that are just as interesting and exciting as there is an obvious market there for them to better tell their version of the past. He says archaeologists have an ethical duty to encourage a view about the past that is founded on good evidence.
Gojak doesn’t suggest those that explore pseudo-archaeology are unintelligent. “Often they have a good education, are observers, thinkers and speculators," he says. “But they are just not good at critical evaluation of evidence and that's not just a problem in archaeology. It's a problem in all facets of life."
Our View:
The above is an Archaeologists view and as far as many he refers to, he is almost 100% correct. Few so called 'pseudo's' have any real evidence that is unaltered - only conjecture and theory. That doesn’t mean they are all wrong - just that they are not very scientific in their approach. But the point of the first two headings was to show the thinking of archaeologists and their admission they have not been very good at providing information to the public. That is also 100% correct. Te Papa isn’t even sure what it has in its own collections - we had to tell them. That’s not a criticism of any individual, but acknowledging the lack of research into items they have that don’t fit the mould of accepted 'Maori' artifacts. Hopefully all that is about to change.
It is true that an archaeologist is one who can make theories based on evidence, but only on physical visual evidence supported by artifacts, CD, DNA and other factors that suggest a conclusion; if not prove it conclusively. Just on examining something as simple as rocks, there are issues with some seeing things that are not there, but they want to be there or they really do believe are there. Click this link to see what we mean.
The worst type - The Prodotés Archaeologist:
Many Archaeologists would claim those that have different theories than they do based on evidence at hand are ‘pseudo’. They say 'we are superior because we have the training and we are right'. That might be the case in most standard circumstances. But not all are honest. We at tangatawhenua16 call them 'prodotēs' (ie traitors to their profession). Many people believe that some archaeologists can, and do, cover up certain evidence at times – we have recorded a number of claims of this occurring. One reasonably recent event involves both the specific find of skeleton and artifact. This includes dates, and the names of those involved. These 'professionals', in the end, ordered this remarkable archaeological evidence to be taken away in a steel container because it did not fit the mainstream presentations of Polynesians being here first. The specific comment made, and heard by one there who told the story to us, was that it was a "pre-Polynesan". Yet offcial word is thta Polynesians were here first! Large sums of money are involved in keeping the lid on it - you better believe that one!
Above is a photo of a carved stone bowl found in the 1890’s about 5 feet deep (as stated by the Maori finder) in fern land on a slope of Maungatawa, near Tauranga. No archaeologist can explain its origin and how it came to be five feet underground. A pseudo archaeologist would claim it looks South American. But regardless – it’s not Polynesian, and that is the most important fact. One person we deleted on our old Facebook was insistent it was modern example of Maori art; pre-contact. What is hilarious is that this guy was actually serious in his claim, he actually believed it was a modern interpretation of 'Maori' art, yet even he cannot explain what it was or why is was buried in undisturbed ground some 5' (1.5m) underground! There are idiots everywhere! However, some will say anything to avoid the possibility of a reality they cannot stomach, and to be fair, in their eyes that is an acceptable reaction.
But is this bowl above really evidence of pre-Maori occupation? On its own; no it is not! But it is not the only item that does not fit the Polynesian mould. There are many from all around this country which we have already presented, not the least being tall skeletons (of which no one has produced a modern photo with context of yet) – yet! We say that because we will be. Check out our journey here...
Regardless of what camp you believe someone to be in, there must be sufficient evidence to at least raise the question. For example there is the before mentioned artifact in a NZ museum that defies explanation. The Okehu Tribrach (below) resides in TePapa. They do not know the history of it or its relationship to other items in the world but one staff member approached us after reading our information about it in our website. It is clearly noted in their catalogue. (https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/132527). It is now a well known piece due to our efforts and can no longer be hidden for what it may be, and at least what it isn't - Maori. But they have no suggestion for what it is, where it came from or even where it was found. Either do we yet. It was the collections manager who contacted us because she wanted more information about it. We know the story behind the find because we found the original article from the original discovery - and it was in a Maori burial area. We now have all the archaeological data on the British equivalents from a museum there.
Object 132527 Reg No. ME001215.
You can look up a picture of the item yourself or go to our website to see it:
So here we have an item with a witness statement as to (1) where it was found, (2) when it was found, (3) and how it came to be found, yet sits in the museum as an item in the Taonga (Maori) collection with no description attached to it. It belonged to a collector called John Handly who had many interesting artifacts of Maori origin. Will Te Papa ignore the fact two other examples exist of this type of shape (one almost 99% perfectly) and yet neither of those is in NZ... or indeed the Pacific. There is also one rather stunted version that also existed in Central Otago. See link below.
Therefore, we at Tangatawhenua16 can sometimes have more ‘evidence’ of possible links to this item than the ‘archaeologists’ and researchers (at Te Papa – at this time at least). This is not a criticism (as research takes time), it's just a fact. I've heard the story of someone who had to tell the Auckland Museum of the story relating to a small Chinese figurine in their collection. We did an subsequent article on it as a result. They had no idea it was discovered in an area where no Chinese people had previously been and was located between two Maori pa. But that does not prove it wasn’t dropped by some European who happened to have this Chinese figurine in his pocket while out herding cows in 1860 (think very hard about that one!). Here is the article...
My point is not to suggest that Chinese got here before Europeans or any such thing, or that the Tribrach is a Celtic item (even if it is identical to the only two examples in existence - that are Celtic), but to suggest that we at Tangatawhenua16 can do thorough research and that we do it very well, and that sometimes we discover what many at Museums do not seem to be able to do. On our site we produced the stone bowl, the boomerang, the bow, the hexagonal patu, the tribrach, and many more along with evidence that something doesn’t fit the taught and accepted pattern of original habitation. We've also talked to the only guy who knows the one who found the two giant skeletons on Great Barrier Island. We also have more items to present down the line, for their is much more the public are unaware of. I'm amazed at some of the stories being presented to us by others around the country - actual physical evidence that will astound people will be coming out of the woodwork in a few years. It will blow some minds.
Boom!
So back to the 7'+ skeleton mentioned earlier. This find was well documented and eventually we hope to produce an affidavit and a case where the 'professional' archaeologist involved (who we will not identify just yet), took away a 7’+ skeleton and placed it in a container, and took away to his home a coloured stone object described as an ‘orb’. This was all done in a matter of hours and was supported by an iwi member (who we will also hold back identifying at this stage). Yet, when a kumara pit at the same excavation area was discovered around that time, the site was shut down for two weeks (2 weeks!!!) while they completed a full archaeological investigation. Oh yes, this is a real story and as recent as 2008!
We’ve already stated some archaeologists; under pressure or payment from iwi, do cover up evidence. There are more than you might believe would do such a thing. Those few are real betrayers to their profession, and to the public of NZ. Do you not believe us yet? Well, the case above is just one of seven around the country, and all complicit with both iwi and the so called ‘professional’ archaeologist - one who is most likely hypocritically vocal against those he calls ‘pseudo’ - because he thinks no one can disprove him as he has eliminated the evidence. No, not all I'm afraid. Those complicit in organised cover-ups will be named. People keep coming to us with names and dates and sometimes they provide photos. And the list grows.
Yet there is stronger evidence, and there is more to come. Our task (the dig) involves something that no one else has successfully completed or adequately presented to the public - The second link in this article will reveal that.
