post-processual arcaheology lost scientific cred
HOME slideshow || prequel || teaser || trailer || exploration BC
press release || fact ✓ || library || Ogham explained || commentary
archaeology's embrace of subjectivism betrays it as unscientific
vimeo base || archive video || contact time hop films

The decades-long move toward post-processual archaeology has abandoned Science
Interpretation steers the ship, powered by the winds of subjectivity on a sea of swirling, dogmatic currents.
Archaeology has morphed into a Humanity, dismissive of theories deemed fringe; impartial review be damned.
Imagining peer review powers reserved for PhD. science, archaeology and anthropology dismiss critics unjustly.
Grasp archaeology's revisionist agenda by reviewing 3 online resources, excerpts in green rectangles:
Wikipedia article: Post-processual archaeology
created in the winter of 2002, this article exists by virtue of academic contributors and endorsements
The post-processual movement originated in the United Kingdom during the late 1970s and early 1980s ... influenced by French Marxist anthropology, postmodernism and similar trends in sociocultural anthropology. Parallel developments soon followed in the United States.
Post-processualism was heavily critical of a key tenet of processualism, namely its assertion that archaeological interpretations could, if the scientific method was applied, come to completely objective conclusions. Post-processualists also criticized previous archaeological work for over-emphasizing materialist interpretations of the past and being ethically and politically irresponsible.
For more on archaeology's perceived missions, see Wikipedia article: Archaeological theory, created April 2005 The Politics and Practice of Archaeology in Conflict
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, Volume 11, Nos. 3-4, 2009, 197-213 authors Dominic Perring and Sjoerd van der Linde, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands, presented to Centre for Applied Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, UK. Find excerpt on page 199, lines 5-8
We are unavoidably compromised by the partisan uses to which the past is put, in which the physicality of archaeological remains and historic buildings makes them convenient anchors for claims and counter-claims of cultural ascendancy.
If article does not load, go to and apply the search phrase Archaeology in Conflict.
Archaeology Magazine Debating NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act)'s Effects
"Native Americans and Archaeologists" February 26, 1999
The Archaeological Institute of America, referencing November/December 1994 issue
Clement W. Meighan asserted in "Burying American Archaeology": Indian activists were paid by the state to monitor the excavation and to censor "objectionable" photographs or data appearing in the final report. The activists also insisted that, following an alleged ancient custom, human remains be covered with red flannel until reburial and that no remains, including artifacts, be touched by menstruating women.
Reburying bones and artifacts is the equivalent of the historian burning documents after he has studied them. Thus, repatriation is not merely an inconvenience but makes it impossible for scientists to carry out a genuinely scientific study of American Indian prehistory. Furthermore, it negates scientific work that has already been done, since the evidence on which that work was based is now to be buried.
Larry J. Zimmerman in his rebuttal "Sharing Control of the Past" ¶11 : Involvement of nonarchaeologists puts some control into their hands, and most archaeologists will be reluctant to relinquish control over their research. Who is willing to do this? The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in its ethics code has taken steps to share control with indigenous peoples.
Zimmerman mentions CONTROL in his article's title and thrice within 3 sentences : his clear imperative.
Beware of post-processual poseurs and a deviant pseudoscience crafted to empower dynastic control and unabashed prerogative to stonewall and dismiss any new evidence deemed threatening to their authority.
The closed, archaeo/native partnership controlling the USA's Clovis-only narrative ignores real, culturally diverse sites. In ancient times traders and explorers sailed transoceanicly. America's heartland has abundant Ogham writing in canyon wall rock shelters. One site, complete with a lengthy archaeoastronomical sunrise alignment — see image below — marking the Celtic harvest cross-quarter holiday, is accompanied with a star map captioned Noble Twins, our modern constellation Gemini. Western Europeans memorialized a triple planetary conjunction in August 471 in the Common Era (AD). It is dated, inscribed, American History in southeast Colorado with sunrise markers at Lughnasad, August 7 ± a day, and Beltaine, May 5 ± a day. Watch sunup from the target viewpoint on August 7, 2005 midway through our 3-minute teaser.

diagram of Lugnasad and Beltaine sunrise alignments at Colorado's Sun Temple, copyright Time Hop Films, LLC
WARNING: Raising post-processualism and associated unscientific behavior on archaeology defender Jason Colavito's blog could get you blocked, as I was, following a thread with 2 contentious allies. Here's my posting from December 16, 2017:
Ironic, as well, is Zimmerman rebuts arguments articulated by late UCLA emeritus anthropology professor Clement W. Meighan in his preceding remarks published in Archaeology Magazine's 1999 feature, "Debating NAGPRA's Effects".
I agree with Meighan's arguments; he must be as biased as me on the Colavito blog, out-of-step with majority consensus!
Since I've witnessed first-hand decades of abject disinterest and ridicule by organized archaeology, "post-judiced" is accurate; "biased" is a handy pejorative insult justifying dismissiveness. Let us disagree with civility, shall we?
From the very beginning, archaeology has ignored USGS archaeoastronomy authority Dr. Robert Mark's 1986 remarks upon witnessing Crack Cave's equinox sunrise, in the company of Ogham proponents McGlone, Gillespie and others. Mark can be heard speaking on the Sacred EquinoX library page: "I think that a reasonable case has been made that there's something of interest here that deserves further study and I would hope that it gets that sort of study."
Ask Michelle Stevens, "how many digs have been done in southeast Colorado to rule out Celtic artifacts or habitation sites?" "Bias" applies to her posturing and indifference. When will archaeology consider the evaluations of Celtic linguists who agree with us? Probably NEVER at this rate. Someone needs to point out the professional malpractice and lack of adherence to the scientific imperative to investigate that continues year after year after year.
Sacred EquinoX library - audio excerpt of Dr. Robert Mark

©2020 Time Hop Films. LLC