The “Two Types”

Sceptics versus True Believers

There are essentially two types of people: those who want to ask questions and those who want to be told the answers. Despite the protestations of the Bad Archaeologists that they are the ones asking awkward questions of an authoritarian academic orthodoxy, they are completely wrong. Those who raise the questions, who accept that they don’t have the answers, who believe that the past is complex and unknowable in many of its details are predominantly those in the academic orthodoxy. Bad Archaeologists, on the other hand, often claim to have come up with the single answer to explain just about every phenomenon in the past. Their readers regard them as gurus and react angrily when they are criticised by orthodox scholars.

The lure of Bad Archaeology

Bad Archaeologists are also generally very good self-publicists. Their books are published by popular companies rather than the more academic houses, with all the money for advertising that can bring with it. Chariots of the Gods? caught the public imagination in Britain through a Sunday newspaper serialisation; Heaven’s Mirror and Underworld were television series whose accompanying books had less impact. Although archaeological television programming can be hugely popular (Channel 4’s Time Team has been especially successful in raising popular awareness of archaeology), the budgets available often pale in comparison with those spent on promoting fringe ideas. In many ways, this is unsurprising. Few production companies would be willing to invest large sums in a television series dealing with, say, the Bronze Age of southern England in an academically rigorous way: it would be perceived as worthy but dull. On the other hand, a series expounding some controversial thesis – that Atlantis was actually a highly advanced civilisation on Dogger Bank, say – would be more likely to be viewed favourably by many production companies. It would have the advantages of adventure (underwater archaeology), exotic locations (an excuse would be found to film at Giza, Nan Madol and Tikal) and expert-bashing (several eminent professors would be quoted for sound-bites that make them look stick-in-the-mud and unwilling to change their fixed opinions).

Why Bad Archaeology needs refuting

We believe that the time has come to fight back. Our civilisation is increasingly under pressure from reactionary, irrational forces that are profoundly anti-science. The rise of the Religious Right in the United States of America since 1980 has brought into power people whose religious views inform the policies of the world’s only superpower. They allow undue prominence to these minority views and can contemplate a situation where religion plays a greater role in public life than it has done in any western nation for more than a century. Things are looking equally worrying in the United Kingdom: there is a general political consensus in favour of the expansion of ‘faith-based’ schools, where faith is a virtue and questioning it is made very difficult. We are beginning to see a reaction against secular humanism, a reaction that is all too welcome for those on the political right. Yet it is only in those societies where secular humanism has become the dominant outlook that such dissenting voices are tolerated. In the old Soviet régime, in states where strict Sharia law applies, in ‘traditional’ societies, such voices have been given limited expression, if any.

It may seem a huge conceptual leap from the bizarre ideas of an Erich von Däniken to the loss of our freedom of thought and expression, but it is not. It is the mindset that allows the bizarre ideas to become dominant in popular culture, the overwhelming need for authority inculcated in our school-level educational systems that permits a return to authoritarian control of what we are allowed to believe. This is the paradox that we face: our own freedom of belief and thought, our anti-authoritarian culture creates a vacuum of belief, a crisis of faith. And into that vacuum step those with a claim to absolute knowledge, to deeper truths. In an earlier age, such people would have been religious prophets: in the contemporary world, they are the conspiracy theorists, the Bad Archaeologists and the mass-media religionists. Our education system is based on teaching children the so-called ‘facts’ that will help them become useful adult citizens. It is only if these children pass on to university that they are shown that many of the ideas they have been asked to learn are approximations of hypotheses that are much more complex. Even at undergraduate level, many students do not develop the critical faculties that allow them to question the assertions of their tutors. For the majority of the population, questioning fundamental beliefs is not part of their intellectual repertoire.

To us, this is entirely wrong. While there may be things that children need to be taught in a conventional sense – literacy and numeracy are absolute essentials for beginning any education – much of what passes for an education in the humanities and sciences is useless. The National Curriculum introduced in England in the late 1980s teaches history to junior school children through a series of concepts such as ‘invaders and settlers’ that are conceptually flawed at the outset and which do not help them to understand the past of the society in which they are growing up. To teach nine-year-olds about the role of the paterfamilias in the Roman household as if it applied to British history is to teach a falsehood about the reality of daily life in Roman Britain. Its purpose is so transparent that comment is unnecessary.

We need to encourage people of the type who seek answers to accept that not everything can be answered, that it is sometimes better to question ‘authorities’ than to accept what they have to say on trust, that they belong to the species with the most complex and active brain on the planet and that they can – and should – use it. In other words, it is time for them to leave intellectual childhood and enter full maturity.

7 Replies to “The “Two Types””

  1. Bad archaeology is all about, in short, entertainment, fame and money making. And, when it comes to potential riches for the promoters, anything is permissible.

  2. Keith I commend the work you do to provide many the misled masses with hard facts and sound scientific methodology. Your patience and tact are admirable. I agree with much of what you say above, however I would argue that here in the US the far left has caused far worse damage by fostering and strategically manipulating those who are unable to critically think for themselves. Although faith is inherently unscientific and drawn from authority it does have a place in many people’s lives and will always continue to do so. Unfortunately many of the far right do not realize that it has been the pursuit of the truth from great scientists and archaologists such as yourself which provided historic validity to many of our most prized texts. I look forward to exploring your blog further and reading future posts.

    1. I think that one of the greatest problems with leftist thinking has been its embracing of postmodernism. As the movement really began among the failed Parisian revolutionaries of 1968, with Maoist/Leninist backgrounds, the left embraced their completely loopy ideas about the impossibility of actually knowing anything of the world.

      I’m astounded by the idea that there might be a “far left” in the USA, when people who are as socially conservative as Barack Obama get labelled “socialist” by their opponents!

  3. With more than 300 million people there are bound to be some which we here in Europe would call “far left”. However, these may not be much heard about. Also, the United States has no strong Socialist/Labour party. This is the fault of their 19th century judges which actively combated their worker’s unions. It from the later which the Labour parties in other Western countries historically developed. Furthermore, the average American does not seem able to tell the difference between a mixed and a planned economy. That is why Barak Obama is labelled “Communist”.

  4. Rational Wiki have something to say about the American “far left”:

    Apparently, American Reactionaries put that label on everyone strongly disagreeing with them or whose behaviour the condemn. (Contrary to the Reactionaries’ belief condemnation does not make people abandon deviant behaviours.) But the people considered “moonbats” by other leftists bear a clear resemblance the “far left” here in Europe. However, you may have heard more about these:

    Elsewhere on the wiki it has been mentioned that “wingnuts” are “clueless about how society works”. My educated guess is that it means they have never given a thought to the means necessary (primary produce, machinery, manpower) to make all the consumer goods they take for granted. Neither have they ever reflected over the existence of inflation or where the government gets its money from. If so, they may nor realise that the upper levels of every hierarchical organization consist of people as fallible as everyone else. This is why big events can happen without anyone wanting it.

    The far left here in Europe think the elite acts against the interests of the rest of the population. They also think that such actions are intrinsically linked to being members of the elite. Some Americans may have heard about this idea but not much more than that. Those same Americans may have very fragmentary knowledge of anything else than what they are used to. That might lead to such an idea being channelised though what I call “cratienphobia”. If I understand it correctly “cratien” means “rule” in Ancient Greek and “phoibos” means “fear”. So cratienphobia is fear of the ruling. This is a metaphorical phobia like homophobia (fear of homosexuals) or xenophobia (fear of foreigners). Like homophobics and xenophobics, cratienphobics believe their fears to be warranted or even rational. But when irrational people try to imagine rationality the result tend to be quite unrealistic:

    Cratienpobics live in unwarranted fear of an evil government. There certainly are governments which could be considered evil, we use to call them “dictatorships”. However, American cratienphobics live in fear of their own federal government. The current American form of government certainly has its flaws. The most serious one is gerrymandering and the lack of serious alternatives partly resulting from it. This could be connected to the unwillingness to compromise seen at least on the federal level. Since the American constitution presupposes the ability to compromise this means many decisions can’t be made at all. Still, I don’t consider the United States to be a dictatorship because it actually have free speech. Unfortunately, some of the inhabitants don’t realise they have. They also accuse the American federal government for things not even the worst of dictatorships can do.

    1. I will believe America is in the thrall of the far left when I have to fight my school board to keep unicorns, crystals, and black helicopters off the curriculum. Instead, I’m fighting “intelligent design,” American “exceptionalism,” and the rewriting of history to make our past a bit more palatable.

      Then again, in America, you will be accused of leftism if you believe that:
      -unchecked capitalism can lead to corruption at all levels of government,
      -social programs do more good than harm, and
      – all persons deserve the same civil liberties, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

      You are a communist if you don’t mind paying taxes to support transport infrastructure, schools at which you have no children in attendance, and aforementioned social programs.

      But you’re downright unamerican if you don’t want tax cuts for the rich, or tax hikes to buy more bombs.

      I wish I could be there to see what future archeologists and anthropologists make of our detritus.

Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: