Oh, don't talk to me about Daniken, I've got a degree in archaeology and a bad temper ...
Seriously, the debate about whether or not archaeologists should engage in counterargument against pseudoarchaeologists was a big thing when I was at uni. The general consensus was no, on the grounds that pseudoarchaeologists draw validation from any establishment attention, and attempting to discredit their bullshit only spreads it further. The problem is that pseudoarchaeology offers simpler, more exciting explanations for a generally mundane, often complicated past, so trying to debunk pseudoarchaeology only results in more idiots believing in it, despite the best efforts of archaeologists [some of whom may well have problems bringing their explanations down to the layman level].
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 12:41 pm (UTC)Seriously, the debate about whether or not archaeologists should engage in counterargument against pseudoarchaeologists was a big thing when I was at uni. The general consensus was no, on the grounds that pseudoarchaeologists draw validation from any establishment attention, and attempting to discredit their bullshit only spreads it further. The problem is that pseudoarchaeology offers simpler, more exciting explanations for a generally mundane, often complicated past, so trying to debunk pseudoarchaeology only results in more idiots believing in it, despite the best efforts of archaeologists [some of whom may well have problems bringing their explanations down to the layman level].