Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past

by Francis B. Harrold (Editor), Raymond A. Eve (Editor)

UFOs and aliens, unexplained mysteries, religious cults, diffusion, creationism. We are all familiar with beliefs about human life that lie outside traditional scientific boundaries. Notions such as these are considered reasonable by vast numbers of us in the Western world, in our modern “technological” and “educated” cultures. Understanding why this should be so and how we as a society might deal with these widespread pseudoscientific beliefs are the subjects at the heart of this study. The authors—specialists in anthropology, archaeology, sociology, psychology, and history—explore creationism, which claims that there is evidence to support a literal interpretation of the origins of the world and of humanity as narrated in the Book of Genesis, and cult archaeology, which encompasses a wide range of fantastic beliefs about our past. Cult Archaeology and Creationism contains several essays on the history of pseudoscientific beliefs and their current manifestations as well as the results of a unique research project in which students at five campuses across the country were asked about their beliefs and about such background factors as their school experience and religious faith. This expanded edition also includes two new essays, one on Afrocentrism and another that views cult archaeology and creationism in the 1990s and beyond.

199 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1987

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A ‘SOCIAL SCIENCE’ STUDY OF STUDENTS' (AND OTHERS') PERSPECTIVES

Editors Francis Harrold and Raymond Eve are professors of sociology and anthropology (respectively). They wrote in the Preface of this 1987 book, “This book is concerned with unsubstantiated beliefs about the human past, beliefs which can be readily divided into two categories. One category is CREATIONISM, which involved an account of human origins taken more or less literally from … the Book of Genesis… The other category … is CULT ARCHAEOLOGY, which includes… von Däniken’s ‘ancient astronauts, as well as… Atlantis before it sank … or claims that the Romans, Phoenicians, and many other Old World visitors left rock inscriptions all over North America… This book grew from a symposium at the 1986 meeting of the Society for American Anthropology. Its organizers… were concerned enough … to bring together specialists from archeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history, and psychology to examine pseudoscientific beliefs about the past.” (Pg. ix-xi)

Alice B. Kehoe argues that “What [Henry] Morris and his colleagues demand as possible evidence for evolution are ‘transitional or incipient structures, such as half-scales/half-feathers on reptiles/birds.’ [B]ut they should know that it is unlikely that genes could work that way. Actual transitional species … cannot exist in the extreme creationists’ world because the creationists will classify them into one or another species.” (Pg. 18)

Thomas Gray observes, “I think it is clear that students do not in general leave university more skeptical about claims of paranormal phenomena. Even the social science research methodology and statistics that are part of the training for psychology students does not seem to have much impact. Perhaps, however, a university course that specifically dealt with the reliability of the evidence for paranormal phenomena would be more effective in reducing the students’ willingness to endorse belief in unsubstantiated phenomena.” (Pg. 30)

Harrold and Eve note in their article, “Intriguingly… racial background was significantly related to creationism in all three samples. .. Black, Hispanic and Asian students tended to score significantly higher in creationist belief than whites. This finding is somewhat surprising: prominent creationists, from Duane Gish to Jerry Falwell, are invariably conservative or fundamentalist white Protestants, and it is from this sector of the populace that creationism is generally perceived to draw its support.” (Pg. 83)

Laurie Godfrey and John Cole state in their article, “We expected to see a major contract between academic and popular periodical responses to creationism; this we did not find. Despite polls which show [70-80%] of Americans favoring ‘equal time’ for creationism in schools, the popular media showed only about 20 percent of articles or letters sympathetic to equal time… However, contrary to creationist cries of censorship… there was no apparent bias against publishing items favorable to equal time… Despite their numbers they do not rival in content the articles, books, editorials, and news stories critical of equal time. This of course does not mean that there is no constituency for scientific creationism; there is, but it is not manifested in normal publication routes. Creationists publish their own literature… which represent forms of witnessing… [and] public proselytizing, playing upon the emotions and scientific illiteracy of the public at large. They also serve as ritual reassurance for people who seem to demand materialistic evidentiary justification for their religious faith. Creationists’ failure to publish in popular magazines is nevertheless surprising, given the popularity of the issue and the apparent general willingness of editors to cater to popular interests to at least some extent. Despite their public posturing, creationists have not really tried to present a secular case. And despite this fact, they continue to enjoy a fair amount of support from judges and legislators who are convinced that they have demonstrated the scientific legitimacy of their claims.” (Pg. 112-115)

Readers (like me!) who pick up this book hoping to find rational critiques of these ideas will be disappointed; but there is still some interesting sociological/psychological material in the book.

[rat · Rating 4 out of 5]

really interesting beginning and ending, the middle was a bit slow but i understood the necessity of all the data in the end so it's ok............ i love archeology and grew up where cult archeology was constantly on the history channel so being able to get an idea of how the issue was pre-ancient aliens really puts things into perspective as to how this movement really came about and developed. interesting how the point of afrocentrism in cult archeology is almost nonexistent in popular culture now, seems like gender has taken the spotlight over race for controversial or pseudo scientific claims and arguments. hot topics change. the anti-establishment sentiment it seems has only gotten worse which is a bummer.

[Lewis Fisher · Rating 3 out of 5]

im sure in the late 80s this was hot stuff, but seeing the nonsense coming out pseudscientifically in 2023, i wish it was still this simple. still dated tho.