2nd February 2012, 10:04 PM
Wax Wrote:Fascinating debate but I would ask Quintaine where he/she stands with those who expound archaeological theories that are quite clearly racist or any other type of elitism that denigrates other groups, Pseudo archaeology has plenty of these (main stream archaeology might be accused of it but in general tries to avoid it). Should we give them the credit you are suggesting or are there some view points that are just "Wrong". There are lines that need to be drawn so Q what are those lines ?
Good question,
From my perspective I think the theories that are racist, smacks of elitism or that denigrates other groups should be tackled, argued against and discredited on a case by case basis whether it comes from the mainstream archeology field or the "pseudo" archaeology field.
What I advocated before was allowing "pseudo" archaeologists to be part of archaeological discussions not prevent them because there's a chance that their theory may be controversial. How does one know a viewpoint before one expresses it? Do we preemtively prevent it? Apart from arguments involving ethics, morality etc who decides that a theory or argument is wrong before debating it?
I don't know what other lines may be drawn except for various codes of ethics which exist already, are not perfect but a start. However, regarding more lines,
Are you advocating that mainstream archaeologists draw these lines, because who will draw the lines for them?: who will guard the guards?
Mainstream archaeology may try to avoid racist or elitest theories but they haven't always been successful. I never suggested giving any of these theories credit I just don't think that all non mainstream archaeological theories should be tarred with the same brush by virtue of not being mainstream.
Why indeed should mainstream archaeologists decide the fate of non-mainstream theories if they persist in calling them "pseudo" archaeologists or false or fake archaeologists?