I recently read an article in one of the better-known archaeology magazines, American Archaeology, which just didn’t sit right with me.  The article was entitled, “The Peculiar Phenomenon of Pseudoarchaeology,” written by, Kenneth L. Feder.  Although I saw the point Mr. Feder was attempting to make, I also couldn’t help but take a slight offense to his rather elitist way of looking at things. His basic premise seemed to be that anything other than “classical” archaeological theory is simply not acceptable in the world of REAL archaeology.  Anything of a metaphysical, or supernatural, or even imaginative nature has no place inside whatever box Mr. Feder has erected around the science of archaeology.

In his opening statements Mr. Feder, made a point of criticizing the suggestion that perhaps a more advanced alien civilization (as in “from another planet”) had in some way contributed to our own evolution by sharing knowledge with our ancestors.  He also seemed to be making a direct reference to Atlantis or Lemuria, when he clearly pooh-poohed even the possibility of such “splendid” cultures as these as having ever existed.

Well … respectfully … I have a comment to make about such a narrow-minded attitude as is found in Mr. Feder’s way thinking.  It’s the very same kind of attitude that kept the world in the Dark Ages for hundreds of years.  I find it amusing that in an odd sort of way there are those within the scientific community today (not all) who are doing exactly what they themselves have been condemning for years.  They are making personal judgment calls in areas where judgment cannot be made.  They are condemning any theory that is proposed outside of the classical box.  By doing so, they are giving the perception that “it’s my way or the highway” if an archaeologist has the courage to present anything at all out of the norm of what is “acceptable” by those who are already securely locked away in the hallowed, dusty halls of classical research.

How often have we heard a scientist (of any persuasion) express his or her vehement disapproval about how, during the Dark Ages or the Spanish Inquisition, this or that brilliant thinker was condemned for his blasphemous way of looking at the Universe?  These same contemporary scientists will tell you that the reason for this terrible persecution was because the scientists of olden days worked outside the norm of what was considered to be the classical way of looking at things back then and, therefore, they were persecuted by the church or the government or whatever.

Okay … speed ahead a few hundred years.  How is it different today?  Only now the shoe is on the other foot.  It is the scientists who are condemning the creative thinkers!  Mr. Feder’s clear implication is that any talk of ancient Earth cultures being guided by a superior intelligence such as beings from other planets, or from some even more ancient society such as Atlantis or wherever (Lemuria? Mu?) is simply too “far out there” to be believable because there is no classical archaeological proof for such claims. (I would refer him to, “Survivors Of Atlantis, Their Impact On World Culture,” 2004, by Frank Joseph.)

Isn’t that just exactly what they said about Galileo – the poster child of modern scientists everywhere?

And I don’t get it.  Just where is the harm in conjecturing “other possibilities” in ANY of the fields of science – not just archaeology?  In actuality, more and more evidence is being collected, not only for the existence of such places as Atlantis and Lemuria, but for the fact that those mysterious cultures did indeed exist long before the Mayans and the Egyptians, and may have even influenced those later societies in a myriad of ways.  Several credible books have been written recently that offer highly compelling evidence for the reality of such ancient wonder-cultures as these.

To completely “pooh-pooh” these notions and dismiss them altogether simply because they do not fit the tired old mould of what the “chosen elite” deem to be so … is to arrest, try and convict Galileo all over again.

At one point in his article, Mr. Feder mentions a book by another classical archaeologist, Garrett Fagan. The book is titled, “Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public.”

Great title!  But the same could be said about all those “classical archaeologists” out there!  What’s the difference?  Aren’t they doing just what that book title implies?  Aren’t THEY the ones who are really misrepresenting the past and misleading the public by their refusal to bring archaeological theory out of its sacred cloister and into the possibility that there may be much more TO EVERYTHING than meets the eye?  There is much more to this universe than a few tired thoughts from a few antiquated archaeologists who want to pull out the same card that was pulled on Galileo.

The fact is there is much we don’t know about this earth or her distant past.  There is much we don’t know about the planets beyond our solar system and the entire universe for that matter.  To box everything into some tiny little box called classical this, that, or the other, is positively ludicrous in this day and age when knowledge is being written and rewritten at the speed of light … changing every day and every minute.  For scientists to do this is no different than for one religious denomination to condemn another for its inaccurate dogma, when the fact is that neither can prove what they profess.

We 21st century Earthlings may think we’re pretty hot stuff, but in reality we are so immature in our outlook on history that the true danger now lies not in the excited conjectures of so-called “pseudoarchaeologists,” but in the old guard who refuses to think outside the box and thereby stifle the clarity of … who knows what?  … Perhaps a universe of delightful mystery and incredible wonder?  Would that be so bad?

Leonardo Da Vinci surely must have seemed like an absolute kook to his own peers – drawing flying machines and the like.  Flying machines!  How far out that must have seemed back then!  Just as far out as UFO’s are to us today?  It’s a wonder Leonardo wasn’t put to death for such absurd blasphemy (and no wonder he wrote everything backwards!)

Today, the narrow-mindedness of some scientists has the potential of bringing about another Dark Ages if we do not allow the cultivation of a new group of bright, young, imaginative – and dare I say “Metaphysical” – minds that are not afraid to question the clichés.  If we are not free to use our imaginations – to “go where no man has gone before” – we will continue to wallow in the dust and theorem of the past and never experience the dawn of a great and wonderful age that may be just on the horizon.

I sometimes ask myself the question, “What if?”  What if the Dark Ages and the Inquisition had never occurred?  Where would we be today?  Would we be 500 years more advanced?  Instead of clumsy old Space Shuttles would we be flitting about through space in the twinkling of an eye simply by “thinking it so?”  Would we have long ago conquered the endless power of the sun for all our energy needs?  Would we have, finally, put an end to war … poverty … disease?  Just where exactly would we be today if we hadn’t lost so much time in being … so silly.

I am not against classical archaeologists or classical scientists of any ilk.  In fact, I respect them all, and I support them for the wonderful work they do.  I am simply implying that there is room for both the old and the new.  There is room for classical archaeology as well as what I prefer to call “neo-archaeology.”   I am afraid I don’t approve of the terribly derogatory and purposely insulting term “pseudoarchaeology” that is now being used frequently by those of the classical persuasion.  There is nothing “pseudo” about opening ones mind or using ones imagination in seeking answers to questions that no one else has been able to answer either. There is no right or wrong in this area.  Classical archaeology uncovers ancient artifacts and supposes possibilities about those artifacts. Neo- archaeology – does the same thing.  The difference being, that classical archaeology limits its suppositions to a very narrow band of possibilities, and neo-archaeology does not.  (One has only to consider the recent “Clovis Point” controversy to see how limiting – and embarrassing – such thinking can be.  But let’s not bring that up … )

In the now-famous words of the once famous, Rodney King:  “Can’t we all just get along?”  In this case, I believe those are very wise words indeed.  Absolutely nothing is to be lost by allowing new thoughts and ideas to be tossed into the ring with the old ones.  In fact, it is my belief that they will not only compliment each other, but their combined strength might even shed new light on questions that should have been answered centuries ago.