I've been reading "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology" by Kenneth L. Feder, and in the introduction to the book he lists a very helpful checklist of sorts to help discern between genuine science and plain hoax or pseudoscience. I think this list is very helpful in the age of the internet, especially with the prevalence of fake news spreading very easily on this site. I urge everyone to utilize this checklist, not just with archeology, but with science claims in general.
--Does the source of the archaeological claim cite "experts" in support of his or her claim, who make polite, innocuous, but otherwise meaningless statements about the artifact or site in question? Just because scientists say a claim is "interesting" and wish the claimant luck in his or her research is not an affirmation of that research. They are just being polite.
--Does the source cite "experts" but exaggerate their own credentials?; for example, is the PhD only honorary or from no known, accredited institution? That's s easy enough to check online.
--Does the source cite "experts" whose credentials are unrelated to the claims being made? Einstein was brilliant, but his fields were math and physics. He is not a relevant expert for claims made about geology or archaeology. Citing Einstein or other well-known scientists in support of claims outside their fields of expertise is problematic. Some people consider me an expert in archaeology. Even if I am, it that does not mean I have any meaningful insights to provide about brain surgery, opera, or automobile repair.
--Does the source cite "experts" whose previous extreme claims are not mentioned or cited?
--Does the source make what appear to be definitive statements about the age of an artifact or site without any supporting data, never telling you how he or she came up with the proposed date?
--Does the source make what appear to be definitive statements about the cultural affiliation of an artifact or site without any supporting data, never telling you how he or she came up with the identity of the makers of the artifact or the residents of a site?
--Does the source claim that the artifact would have taken too much time or there are too many of them to be forgeries? There is no logical reason to be lieve that merely because an artifact was well made, would have taken a lot of time to make, or exists in large quantities it must be genuine. Forgers are often diligent, talented, and hard-working. Don't underestimate them.
--Does the source make assertions about the appearance of an artifact that bears very little relationship to what's actually there? Simply put, if you have to be told that a piece of rock art, a sculpture, or a ceramic pot bears the image of a spaceship, extraterrestrial alien, or dinosaur-if you didn't see that with out that prompting-then in all likelihood there is no image of a spaceship.. extraterrestrial alien, or dinosaur. Trust your own eyes and brain and not the word of someone trying to sell you a bill of goods.
--Does the source preface most claims with phrases like "maybe," "if," "imagine," "could be," or "perhaps" and then present detailed scenarios about an tiquity, all of which require acceptance of the original speculation, which is never tested or proven?
--Beware of the question, "But isn't it possible?" On a broad, philosophical, in finite multiple universe kind of sense, hypothetically, anything is possible. So what? Is it possible that ancient aliens built the pyramids? Well, okay, sure. But it's also possible that in the next five minutes monkeys will fly out of your butt. However, let me assure you that you really don't need to worry too much about possible simian excretions. And the likelihood that aliens built the pyramids is about the same.
--Does the source demand, "Hey, if I'm wrong, let the scientists prove me wrong"? This is a fundamental misapprehension of the scientific method. The burden of proof always falls on those making claims. And, as Carl Sagan phrased it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In fact, I don't have to prove that ancient aliens did not build the pyramids. If you think they did, it's on you to prove that they did, and the evidence bar is going to be very high.
--I love Wikipedia. I often consult Wikipedia as a first step in exploring a topic. Then I check out the bibliographies of those Wikipedia entries to track down the original sources on which the Wikipedia article was based. For example, I am cited in a bunch of Wikipedia entries related to topics I address in this book. That's great, but don't rely on those Wikipedia summaries of what I've said. Scroll down to the bottom of those summaries and check out the origi nal publications on which they are based. Finally, if the source of an extreme claim in archaeology uses nothing but Wikipedia sources, you can safely ignore the claim.
