Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.
Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews
17 Comments
I am so happy to have found your blog. I’d like to see you take a look at Marija Gimbuta’s later work “feminist archaeology” as an example of a good archaeologist indulging in bad archaeology. I am female, and at the time of reading her work, I was an active and enthusiastic pagan. And still rational enough to be appalled by her mixing up religion with science to make unsupported conclusions…. the pagan community embraced these books with the same fervour as Christians embrace those that “prove” Christ was a real person. I have since become an atheist, which is working out well for me, though I do find myself yelling at the Discovery Channel every time they present a psuedo documentary attempting to validate superstition. It is a good time to become a fortune teller, methinks. In fact…you know someone named David, don’t you?
While I accept and approve the motive behind this site, as a result of my personal experiences in anacient sites, I can say that “ley line” energy is real.
I am not saying that ALL experiences and theories recorded are “true”, but I know that amazing things happen to me in such places, and that those things have had a very positive effect on my life journey.
Zen
When you state with confidence that “ley line” energy is real, what do you mean by “ley line” energy? Energy is a well defined physical phenomenon, a measurable force that can be transformed into several different forms (including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, elastic and electromagnetic energy). Does “ley line” energy fall into this kind of defintion? If so, which type of energy is it? How is it manifested? How is it detected? Is it one of the “subtle energies” so beloved of the New Age, that believers insist cannot be detected by the types of instruments that are used to detect the energies recognised by physicists?
Secondly, how do you define a “ley line”? Can they be detected by measuring the “energy” that emanates from them? Are they defined by recognising marker points placed along them in antiquity? If so, which marker points are acceptable? Can they be only prehistoric monuments or is it legitimate to include medieval churches? Crossroads that exist today?
As I say on the main site, there are serious grounds for doubting the existence of ley lines because the alignments do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Tom Williamson and Liz Bellamy published the results of their investigation into them in Ley Lines in Question in 1983, where they demonstrate that many alignments are due to chance and that many longer alignments do not work. The explanation is simple: the method used to find leys has been to use maps and seek out alignments between points, but because all map-making involves distorting the three-dimensional surface of the earth to fit it on to a two-dimensional sheet, the distortion produces measurable inaccuracies between the corners of the map. It is also difficult to understand the logic behind the use of marker points of widely differing dates. Alfred Watkins had originally hypothesised the alignments to be of Neolithic date, as this was the date of the oldest sites on them, which is the reverse of the well established archaeological principle of the terminus post quem, by which something cannot be older than the youngest thing in it. Thus a ley containing crossroads established by early nineteenth-century surveyors enclosing formerly open field systems can be no older than the early nineteenth century. Yet we know the no-one at that time had the faintest notions of establishing a system of alignments that would cover the whole of Great Britain.
The solution used by ley hunters assumes that more recent features replace ancient marks, yet not a single shred of archaeological evidence is ever adduced to support the assertion. Never mind that not one excavated church site has proved to be on top of a Neolithic (or other prehistoric) sacred site, never mind that not one excavated church site has yielded unequivocal evidence for a pagan Anglo-Saxon sacred site. Ley lines were a bad enough idea when Alfred Watkins first suggested that they were Neolithic trackways. In most cases, the sites that are supposed to mark them are not Neolithic and in some cases, they do not even lie on the supposed leys. This is why archaeologists do not accept their existence. However, their adoption by the New Age community and the ascription of spiritual, psychic or ufological meanings to them has taken them out of the realm of archaeology and orthodox science and has made them an article of faith. In doing so, they have been brought into mainstream popular culture in a form that Alfred Watkins would never have recognised. Like so many fringe ideas, they are easily refuted and can be consigned to the dustbin. Unfortunately, their influence has pervaded modern culture and it will take a serious effort to convince the general public that they do not exist, if that can be done at all.
I do not doubt that you have experienced many things in special places. I did as a child and continue to do so as an adult, especially on sites of historic significance. I suspect that the difference is that I regard them as entirely subjective experiences, arising from my imagination and the power of places to affect us emotionally, whereas you ascribe them to a “ley line” energy that cannot be detected in the way that all other forms of energy can be detected, on monuments that cannot be shown to exist.
Hello sir,
I just recently dove head first into bad archeology via the 2012 phenomenon. The Maya and Egyptian fields seem filled with odd new age ideas. I was wondering if in the future you would comment on the situation? I would also love to see a review of Graham Hancock’s Finger Prints of the Gods. As a novice, I have found several basic errors in the book. However, my knowledge of archeology in general is extremely limited. It would please me to hear it from experts in the field. I hope to read more soon!
Thanks greatly and best wishes,
Jason
QUOTE: Never mind that not one excavated church site has proved to be on top of a Neolithic (or other prehistoric) sacred site, never mind that not one excavated church site has yielded unequivocal evidence for a pagan Anglo-Saxon sacred site. ~END QUOTE.
Your “education” has made you stupid Mr Matthews. Like most “Trained” people you are blinkered by the lack of imagination and provable-in-a- laboratory facts. I could, if I thought for one millisecond it would be worth the effort, show you to several churches within a few miles of where I live which are proven to be on pre-christian sites. In fact I would go so far as to say suggest that almost ALL pre-reformation ecclesiastical buildings are positioned on such places. You should get out more, feel the rain and wind on your face, get yourself frightened of the dark – oh sorry, you already are! Well, try walking in a straight line across a muddy field at night in mooonlight, then you might get some inkling of the worlds you scoff at so much in your articles.
I find it amusing how true believers descend into insults when they don’t have a real answer.
Can you name these churches “proven to be on pre-christian sites?” and reveal the evidence that allows you to identify them as such? In reading reports of church excavations, it is very rare to find that there is any kind of religious or ritual activity pre-dating the use of the site of the church. Sometimes they may be built on top of Roman masonry buildings (perhaps because they were used as churches int he fourth century, or were mausolea associated with people considered holy), but I have yet to hear of one set over an Iron Age shrine, for instance, or a pagan Saxon religious site.
Hi,
I don’t know how to get in touch with you more directly, but I wanted to draw your attention on a blatant case of ‘biblical archeology’, therefore, bad archeology, I stumbled upon recently while browsing wikipedia (I know, not a reputable publication, but please bear with me, I’m not a professional). It’s here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_skydisk , in section titled “Nebra Sky Disk, A Record Of The Earth Longest Day?” [retrieved on 2011, January the 29th]. While less impressive than Noa’s ark or other biblical objects chase, the ‘leap of faith’ displayed here is, to put it in your words, quite astounding.
I leave to your appreciation if there is enough material here for an article, a rebuttal or a blog entry – or just silent contempt.
Cheers, and keep up high the standards of true science spirit !
Hi,
Just though I would give you all a heads up- your RSS feed on your website does not connect to this new blog, it’s connected to your old blog. So it’s a bit hard to subscribe to this site on something other then a wordpress account.
Thank you for doing this!
You guys are a joke.
The archaeology police – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
omg – Indiana Jones is poisoning our youth, flash the bat signal – we will not stand for this academic debauchery. WE are the archeo-patrol!!!!!
get a fkn life boys, no – better yet – get girl friends, even if you have to buy them
I love this site! I’ve always been a fan of archeology, and I read just about everything about it that I could get my hands on as a child. As you’ve probably guessed, that also included a lot of less-than-reputable sources, and I was led to believe in all sorts of wacky things. As an adult, I’ve had to look back and reexamine everything I’d spent many many hours memorizing as a child to determine just what was actually true and what wasn’t. I found it very frustrating.
But I still love archeology, Egyptology in particular, and I’ve very much enjoyed reading this blog.
I was recently in a discussion with someone about Exodus and they said that it had to be true because Ron Wyatt discovered the remnants of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. It looks very suspicious to me, but I was wondering if you might be able to comment on that “finding.” Cheers!
Hello i love this site. its exactly what i was looking for. However can i ask you a few more questions? Er- im guessing via email. Im going through a drastic decision and i need help from someone out in the actual field. Please?
If you go to the main Bad Archaeology website, you’ll find a form that allows you to email me. Fire away with your questions!
who died and elected you the authority over who can or cannot write about or do archaeology? so you are tired of those who present their perspective on the past, seems like they are doing exactly what you do, so i guess you better police yourselves and remove your blogs and websites from the internet and all public access. that is if you want any credibility and avoid the hypocrite label.
your opinion on what is or isn’t archaeology is no greater than mine or anyone else’s and i have several degrees in the field.
It’s called “freedom of speech”, Dr Tee.
Why would some have to die to give me the right? Human sacrifice is an odious and barbaric practice.
Congratulations on your “several degrees in the field”, by the way. I hope that you gained some insights into the past from them.
Great to see this site is still going! I was an active member of the forum before that got shut down. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! A breath of fresh air from the tomb as it were. I love John Romer’s little annecdote and I thought Rameses II had a day job that kept him too busy to be a non-existant Jewish king. I have seen his mummy and he is definitely NOT circumcised. There are a few shiny bits on him however, which were probably caused by all that spinning in his grave. Again, thank you.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Archaeology Leave your common sense behind… About Bad Archaeology « The “megaliths” of [...]