The SkepticEncyclopedia of Pseudoscience

Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England

THE SKEPTICENCYCLOPEDIA of PSEUDOSCIENCE

Michael Shermer, EditorPat Linse, Contributing Editor

V O L U M E O N E

Copyright 2002 by Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001URL: http://www.skeptic.com, email: skepticmag@aol.com

(626) 794-3119 (phone), (626) 794-1301 (fax)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataThe Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience / edited by Michael Shermer.

p. cm.Includes index.

isbn 1-57607-653-9 (set : hardcover : alk. paper) ebook isbn 1-57607-654-71. PseudoscienceEncyclopedias. I. Shermer, Michael. II. Skeptic.

q172.5.p77 s44 2002503dc21

2002009653

02 03 04 05 06 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an e-book. Visit abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, Inc.130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911

Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper.Manufactured in the United States of America

To James the Amazing Randi,

our hero, colleague, friend, and inspiration

vii

Contents

Introduction ix

Volume One

section 1important pseudosc ientificconcepts

Alien Abductions, Lance Rivers 3

Alternative Archaeology, Garrett G. Fagan 9

Ancient Astronauts, Kenneth L. Feder 17

Animal Mutilations, Andrew O. Lutes 23

Anomalous Psychological Experiences,Chris Duva 25

Anthroposophy and AnthroposophicalMedicine, Dan Dugan 31

Astrology, Geoffrey Dean, Ivan W. Kelly,Arthur Mather, and Rudolf Smit 35

Attachment Therapy, Jean Mercer 43

Ball Lightning, Steuart Campbell 48

Bermuda Triangle, Maarten Brys 52

Biorhythms, Diego Golombek 54

Castaneda, Carlos, Phil Mol 57

Clever Hans, Thomas F. Sawyer 60

Cold Reading, Bob Steiner 63

Crop Circles, Jorge Soto 67

Cryptozoology, Ben S. Roesch and John L. Moore 71

Cults, Steve Novella and Perry DeAngelis 79

Dietary Supplements, Ricki Lewis 85

Dowsing, Steve Novella and Perry DeAngelis 93

Earthquake Prediction, Russell Robinson 95

Electromagnetic Fields and Cell Phones,Steven Korenstein 98

Fairies, Elves, Pixies, and Gnomes, David J. W. Lauridsen Jr. 101

Faster-Than-Light Travel, Roahn Wynar 104

Feng Shui, Jon Puro 108

Geller, Uri, Simon Jones 113

Handwriting Analysis and Graphology,John Berger 116

Hypnosis, Robert A. Ford 121

viii

Ideomotor Effect (the Ouija BoardEffect), Michael Heap 127

Laundry Balls, Roahn H. Wynar 130

Magnetic Therapy, Satyam Jain andDaniel R. Wilson 132

The Mars Face: ExtraterrestrialArchaeology, Kenneth L. Feder 136

Meditation, Juan Carlos Marvizon 141

Multiple Personality Disorder, Scott O. Lilienfeld and Steven Jay Lynn 146

Near-Death Experiences, Susan J. Blackmore 152

Observer Effects and Observer Bias,Douglas G. Mook 158

Out-of-Body Experiences, Susan J. Blackmore 164

Phrenology, John van Wyhe 170

Piltdown Man (Hoax): Famous FossilForgery, Richard Milner 173

Placebo Effect, Geoffrey Dean and Ivan W. Kelly 178

Planetary Alignments, John Mosley 181

Polygraph and Lie Detection, Marc E. Pratarelli 186

Prayer and Healing, Kevin Courcey 190

Pseudoscience and Science: A Primer inCritical Thinking, D. Alan Bensley 195

Reincarnation, Phil Mol 204

Sance, Drew Christie 209

Shamans and Shamanism, Al Carroll 211

The Shroud of Turin, Chris Cunningham 213

Societies for Psychical Research, Drew Christie 217

Spiritualism, Brad Clark 220

Stock Market Pseudoscience, Jon Blumenfeld 227

Subliminal Perception and Advertising,Rebecca Rush 232

Sun Sign Astrology, Geoffrey Dean, Ivan W. Kelly, Arthur Mather, and Rudolf Smit 235

Synchronicity, Christopher Bonds 240

Therapeutic Touch, Larry Sarner 243

Tunguska, Alan Harris 253

Tutankhamuns Curse, Rebecca Bradley 258

UFOs, Barry Markovsky 260

Undeceiving Ourselves, Geoffrey Dean,Ivan W. Kelly, and Arthur Mather 272

Witchcraft and Magic, Julianna Yau 278

section 2investigations from skeptic magazine

Acupuncture, Dr. George A. Ulett 283

Alternative Medicine v. ScientificMedicine, Dr. Harry K. Ziel 292

Atlantis: The Search for the LostContinent, Pat Linse 297

Chiropractic: Conventional or AlternativeHealing? Dr. Samuel Homola 308

| c o n t e n t s

ix

Christian Science as Pseudoscience,Robert Miller 316

EMDR: Eye Movement Desensitizationand Reprocessing, Gerald M. Rosen, Richard J. McNally, and Scott O. Lilienfeld 321

Do Extraordinary Claims RequireExtraordinary Evidence?: A Reappraisalof a Classic Skeptics Axiom, Theodore Schick Jr. 327

Facilitated Communication, Gina Green 334

Homeopathy, William Jarvis and theNational Council Against Health Fraud347

Immortality: The Search for EverlastingLife, Steven B. Harris 357

The Liquefying Blood of St. Januarius,James Randi 371

Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience, Kevin MacDonald 373

Psychotherapy as Pseudoscience, Tana Dineen 384

Pyramids: The Mystery of Their Origins, Pat Linse 397

Satanic Ritual Abuse, Jeffrey Victor 413

Science and God, Bernard Leikind 423

Science and Its Myths, William F. McComas 430

Science and Religion, Massimo Pigliucci 443

Skepticism and Credulity: Finding theBalance between Type I and Type IIErrors, Bill Wisdom 455

Thought Field Therapy, David X. Swenson 463

Velikovsky: Cultures in Collision on theFringes of Science, David Morrison 473

Witchcraft and the Origins of Science, Dr. Richard Olson 489

Witches and Witchcraft, Clayton Drees 499

Volume Two

section 3case studies in pseudosc iencefrom skeptic magazine

The Alien Archetype: The Origin of the Grays, John Adams 513

Anastasia: A Case Study in the Myth of the Miraculous Survival, Tim Callahan 520

Ancient Astronauts: Zecharia Sitchin as aCase Study, Eric Wojciehowski 530

Holistic Medicine: The Case of Caroline Myss, Phil Mol 537

Police Psychics: Noreen Renier as a CaseStudy, Gary P. Posner 547

Pseudoarchaeology: Native AmericanMyths as a Test Case, Kenneth Feder 556

Pseudoarchaeology: PrecolumbianDiscoverers of America as a Test Case,Ronald Fritze 567

Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, James Randi 580

c o n t e n t s |

xPsi and Psi-Missing, Todd C. Riniolo andLouis A. Schmidt 592

Recovered Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome: A FathersPerspective as a Test Case, Mark Pendergrast 597

Recovered Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome: A PatientsPerspective as a Test Case, Laura Pasley 606

Recovered Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome: A PsychiatristsPerspective as a Test Case, John Hochman 615

section 4sc ience and pseudosc iencefor and against

Evolutionary Psychology as Good Science,Frank Miele 623

Evolutionary Psychology asPseudoscience, Henry Schlinger Jr. 636

Memes as Good Science, Susan J. Blackmore 652

Memes as Pseudoscience, James W. Polichak 664

Race and I.Q. as Good Science, Vince Sarich 678

Race and I.Q. as Pseudoscience, Diane Halpern 694

Race and Sports as Good Science, Jon Entine 705

Race and Sports as Pseudoscience, Michael Shermer 714

Science Is at an End, John Horgan 724

Science Is Just Beginning, John Casti 739

The Science Wars: Deconstructing ScienceIs Good Science, Dr. Richard Olson 743

The Science Wars: Deconstructing ScienceIs Pseudoscience, Norm Levitt 750

section 5historical documents

Creationism: Mr. Bryans Address to the Jury in the Scopes Case. The SpeechWhich Was Never Delivered, by William Jennings Bryan 763

David Humes Of Miracles: From An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1758 785

Mesmerism: Report of theCommissioners Charged by the King to Examine Animal Magnetism, Printed on the Kings Order Number 4 in Paris from the Royal Printing House,by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier 797

What Ever Happened to N-Rays? Robert Woods 1904 N-Ray Letter in Nature 822

Scientific Study of Unidentified FlyingObjects, by Edward Condon 826

Epilogue: Let Us Reflect, Michael Shermer 861

List of Contributors 867

Index 879

About the Editors 903

| c o n t e n t s

xi

Colorful Pebbles and Darwins DictumAn Introduction

In a session before the British Associationfor the Advancement of Science in 1861,less than two years after the publicationof Charles Darwins Origin of Species, a criticclaimed that Darwins book was too theoreti-cal and that the author should have just puthis facts before us and let them rest. In a let-ter to his friend Henry Fawcett, who was inattendance in his defense, Darwin explainedthe proper relationship between facts andtheory:

About thirty years ago there was much talkthat geologists ought only to observe and nottheorize; and I well remember someone say-ing that at this rate a man might as well gointo a gravel-pit and count the pebbles anddescribe the colours. How odd it is that any-one should not see that all observation mustbe for or against some view if it is to be of anyservice!

Few thinkers in Western history have hadmore profound insights into nature thanCharles Darwin, and for my money, this quoteis one of the deepest single statements evermade on the nature of science itself, particu-larly in the understated denouement. If scien-tific observations are to be of any use, theymust be tested against a theory, hypothesis, ormodel. The facts never just speak for them-selves. Rather, they must be viewed through

the colored lenses of ideaspercepts needconcepts.

When Louis and Mary Leakey went toAfrica in search of our hominid ancestors,they did so based not on any existing data buton Darwins theory of human descent and hisargument that because we are so obviouslyclose relatives of the great apes of Africa, it isthere that the fossil remains of our forebearswould most likely be found. In other words,the Leakeys went to Africa because of a con-cept, not a precept. The data followed andconfirmed this theory, which is the very oppo-site of the way in which we usually think sci-ence works.

If there is an underlying theme in this en-cyclopediaa substrate beneath the surfacetopography (to continue the geologicmetaphor)it is that science is an exquisiteblend of data and theory, facts and hypothe-ses, observations and views. If we conceive ofscience as a fluid and dynamic way of think-ing instead of a staid and dogmatic body ofknowledge, it is clear that the data/theorystratum runs throughout the archaeology ofhuman knowledge and is an inexorable partof the scientific process. We can no more ex-punge from ourselves all biases and prefer-ences than we can find a truly objectiveArchimedean pointa gods-eye viewof thehuman condition. We are, after all, humans,not gods.

In the first half of the twentieth century,philosophers and historians of science (mostlyprofessional scientists doing philosophy andhistory on the side) presented science as a pro-gressive march toward a complete understand-ing of Realityan asymptotic curve to Truthwith each participant adding a few bricks tothe edifice of Knowledge. It was only a matterof time before physics and eventually even thesocial sciences would be rounding out theirequations to the sixth decimal place. In thesecond half of the twentieth century, profes-sional philosophers and historians took overthe field and, swept up in a paroxysm of post-modern deconstruction, proffered a view ofscience as a relativistic game played by Euro-pean white males in a reductionistic frenzy ofhermeneutical hegemony, hell-bent on sup-pressing the masses beneath the thumb of di-alectical scientism and technocracy. (Yes, someof them actually talk like that, and one reallydid call Isaac Newtons Principia a rape man-ual.)

Thankfully, intellectual trends, like socialmovements, have a tendency to push bothends to the middle, and these two extremistviews of science are now largely pass. Physicsis nowhere near realizing that noble dream ofexplaining everything to six decimal places,and as for the social sciences, as a friend fromNew Jersey says, Fuhgeddaboudit. Yet thereis progress in science, and some views reallyare superior to others, regardless of the color,gender, or country of origin of the scientistsholding those views. Despite the fact that sci-entific data are theory laden, as philoso-phers like to say, science is truly different fromart, music, religion, and other forms of humanexpression because it has a self-correctingmechanism built into it. If you dont catch theflaws in your theory, the slant in your bias, orthe distortion in your preferences, someoneelse will. Think of N rays and E rays, polywaterand the polygraph. The history of science islittered with the debris of downed theories.

Throughout this encyclopedia, we explorethese borderlands of science where theory anddata intersect. As we do so, let us continue tobear in mind what I call Darwins dictum: allobservation must be for or against some view ifit is to be of any service.

Using the Encyclopedia

One important tool in finding the right bal-ance between theory and data or ideas andfacts is a broad base of knowledge temperedwith wisdom in making judgments aboutknowledge claims. Without the facts, you cantjudge for yourself (as television documen-taries often suggest viewers do) in any objec-tive manner. What we hope to provide in thisencyclopedia is a thorough, objective, and bal-anced analysis of the most prominent scientificand pseudoscientific controversies made in thename of science, mixing both facts and theory.The encyclopedia entries are written at a levelappropriate for high school and college stu-dents conducting research in science andpseudoscience, members of the media lookingfor a balanced treatment of a subject, andthose in the general public who desire a highlyreadable yet trustworthy resource to go to forthe most reliable assessments of the most con-troversial and interesting mysteries involvingour universe, our world, and ourselves.

As the subjects span all manner of claimsfrom around the world, audiences and marketsacross the globe will be interested in readingthese volumes. In addition, members of themedia desperately need a reference resourcein order to quickly get their minds around asubject, to book guests on both sides of an is-sue in order to properly set up a debate, and toget just the facts needed for the sound-bitestory that is often demanded in the hecticworld of journalism. Every newspaper, maga-zine, radio, and television producer and inter-

| i n t r o d u c t i o nxii

viewer should keep a copy of this encyclopediaright between the dictionaries and referenceworks on contacting experts.

This two-volume encyclopedia encompassesclaims from all fields of science, pseudo-science, and the paranormal, and it includesboth classic historical works and modernanalyses by the leading experts in the worldwho specialize in pseudoscience and the para-normal. The encyclopedia is heavily illustrated(these subjects lend themselves to both histori-cal and contemporary images), and most en-tries offer a respectable bibliography of thebest sources on that subject from both theskeptics and the believers perspectives, allow-ing readers to conduct additional research ontheir own after learning what the encyclope-dias expert author has had to say on the sub-ject.

To make this encyclopedia original and dif-ferent and to provide readers with a variety ofsubjects and analytic styles in order to prop-erly follow Darwins dictum of getting ahealthy balance of data and theory, five cate-gories of pseudoscience analyses are presentedhere:

1. A-to-Z listings. The Encyclopedia of Pseu-doscience includes an A-to-Z section of subjectanalyses conducted by scientists and research-ers, exploring phenomena such as alternativemedicine, astrology, crop circles, handwritinganalysis, hypnosis, near-death experiences,reincarnation, sances, spiritualism, subliminalperception, UFOs, witchcraft, and much more.These fifty-nine entries are written in astraightforward manner and are of moderatelength and depth, offering some theoreticalfoundation but not to the same extent as thearticles in subsequent sections.

2. Investigations. Articles in this sectionconsist of research investigations carried outby scientists and scholars as originally pub-lished in the pages of Skeptic magazine, re-published and repackaged here for the firsttime. These twenty-three articles are more

than brief summaries of subjects as presentedin the A-to-Z section; they are also skepticalanalyses and include much more extensive re-search and bibliographies. Such analyses areapplied to acupuncture, Atlantis, chiropractic,facilitated communication, homeopathy, im-mortality, and many other topics, and thereare several critical pieces on the pseudoscienceoften found in psychology and psychotherapy.These latter pieces are especially important:although some forms of pseudoscience areseemingly harmlessastrology and crop circlescome to mindother forms can be exception-ally dangerous, particularly those dealing withthe mind and behavior.

3. Case studies. The Encyclopedia of Pseudo-science includes a special section comprisingthirteen in-depth analyses of very specific casestudies originally conducted for Skeptic maga-zine and used here as part of the larger phe-nomena under investigation. For example,three special articles are devoted to recoveredmemory therapy and false memory syndromeone from a psychiatrists perspective, one froma patients perspective, and one from a fathersperspective. Through these case studies, thereader will be given a complete analysis of asubject. The cases will interest both amateursand professionals in a field, and they are idealfor research papers by students or backgroundresearch by scientists and professionals. Jour-nalists and interested readers wanting detailson a case study need go no further than thissection of the encyclopedia.

4. For-and-against debates. The Encyclope-dia of Pseudoscience includes the most originalsection ever compiled in an encyclopedia inthe form of a pro and con debate betweenexperts, allowing readers to judge for them-selves by hearing both sides of an issue. Thus,for instance, Memes as Good Science, by ex-perimental psychologist Susan Blackmore, iscontrasted with Memes as Pseudoscience, bycognitive psychologist James W. Polichak. Evenmore controversially, the study of Race and

xiiii n t r o d u c t i o n |

| i n t r o d u c t i o nxiv

Sports as Good Science, by author Jon Entine,is contrasted with the study of Race and Sportsas Pseudoscience, which I authored. Also in-cluded are debates on evolutionary psychology,on the question of whether science is at an end,and on the science wars. These twelve articles,originally published in Skeptic magazine, havebeen used extensively by high school teachersand college professors around the world assupplemental reading material for students insearch of the terms of a debate on one or moreof these vital and controversial issues.

5. Historical documents. The encyclopediaincludes five classic works in the history of sci-ence and pseudoscience. For example, the firstscientific and skeptical investigation of a para-normal/spiritual phenomenonmesmerismisoffered in the Report of the CommissionersCharged by the King to Examine Animal Mag-netism, Printed on the Kings Order Number 4in Paris from the Royal Printing House. Pub-lished in 1784, five years before the FrenchRevolution, this piece was the first attempt toput to the test (including under controlledconditions) a quasi-scientific phenomenon.What made this report so special was that thetest was conducted by none other than Ben-jamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier.

So, as you work your way through this ency-clopediaeither moving from start to finish or,more appropriately for this genre, skimmingand scanning and plucking out what is neededor wantedremember Darwins dictum thatevery observation must be for or against someview if it is to be of any service. Remember, aswell, the words of wisdom offered by the Har-vard paleontologist who inherited Darwinsmantle, Stephen Jay Gould, in a 1998 essay

entitled The Sharp-Eyed Lynx, Outfoxed byNature:

The idea that observation can be pure and un-sullied (and therefore beyond dispute)andthat great scientists are, by implication, peoplewho can free their minds from the constraintsof surrounding culture and reach conclusionsstrictly by untrammeled experiment and ob-servation, joined with clear and universal logi-cal reasoninghas often harmed science byturning the empiricist method into a shibbo-leth. The irony of this situation fills me with amixture of pain for a derailed (if impossible)ideal and amusement for human foiblesas amethod devised to undermine proof by au-thority becomes, in its turn, a species of dogmaitself. Thus, if only to honor the truism thatliberty requires eternal vigilance, we must alsoact as watchdogs to debunk the authoritarianform of the empiricist mythand to reassertthe quintessentially human theme that scien-tists can work only within their social and psy-chological contexts. Such an assertion does notdebase the institution of science, but ratherenriches our view of the greatest dialectic inhuman history: the transformation of societyby scientific progress, which can only arisewithin a matrix set, constrained, and facili-tated by society.

It is my fondest hope that this encyclopediawill facilitate a deeper understanding of pseu-doscience and in the process illuminate theprocess of science itself.

Michael ShermerGeneral Editor

The SkepticEncyclopedia of Pseudoscience

1IMPORTANT PSEUDOSCIENTIFICCONCEPTS

An alien abduction involves the removalof a human being by an extraterres-trial species for the purpose of med-ical experimentation, crossbreeding, or spiri-tual enlightenment. Many skeptics believethat abduction narratives are related to a vari-ety of experiences such as sleep paralysis anddreams, rather than actual events in the phys-ical world. Persons who claim to have experi-enced alien abduction can be divided into twocategories: abductees (subjects of alien exper-iments who suffer traumatic scarring from theabduction) and experiencers (subjects of alien

experiments who derive spiritual enlighten-ment as a result).

An individuals placement within one ofthese categories shows a correlation with theabduction researcher(s) with whom he or shehas had primary contact. Given that the tool ofchoice used by abduction researchers is hyp-nosis, even in cases in which the abducteeconsciously remembers the experience, thiscategorization of abduction experiences sug-gests to skeptics that researcher bias is thedriving force behind the phenomenon. Mostabduction researchers respond to such criti-

3

Alien AbductionsL A N C E R I V E R S

Children looking at a flying saucer. (The Image Bank)

cism with the assertion that hypnosis, whenproperly and cautiously used, is a powerful toolfor uncovering repressed memories. Other re-searchers point to scars, implantations, and ter-minated pregnancies as objective evidence ofabduction, but they remain unable to providethe medical records necessary to corroboratethese claims. Whether the skeptics or the pro-ponents of alien abduction are correct, whatremains certain is that those men and womenwho report experiencing it have been subjectedto something deeply and personally traumatic.

The use of hypnosis as a tool in abductionresearch dates to the first well-publicized case,that of Betty and Barney Hill. In the earlymorning hours of September 20, 1961, theHills were traveling on U.S. Route 3 near Lin-coln, New Hampshire, when they noticed abright light moving rapidly across the sky. Fre-quently stopping to observe the object, theybecame increasingly agitated as it changedcourse and eventually hovered about 100 feetfrom their car. Barney, who had been standingin the road watching the craft when it ap-proached, immediately returned to the car infear that he and his wife were going to be cap-tured. As they drove away, the Hills heard sev-eral beeping noises from the rear of the car,though they did not see the object again.Later, they noticed that they were unable toaccount for about two hours of their trip(though their frequent stops might explainthis). The following morning, the Hills re-ported the sighting to their local air force base,and after reading the book The Flying SaucerConspiracy, they notified the National Investi-gations Committee on Aerial Phenomena(NICAP). Over the course of the next severalmonths, Betty Hill began dreaming about con-tact with the crafts inhabitants. Finally, in De-cember 1963, the Hills entered therapy withDr. Benjamin Simon for treatment of Barneysincreasing anxiety. Under hypnosis, both Hillsrecounted the story of the unidentified flyingobject (UFO) and their subsequent abduction.

In The Interrupted Journey, John G. Fulleremphasizes the fact that the Hills underwentseparate hypnotic regressions, independentlyverifying each others stories. Fuller is quick topoint out that Barneys story in particular ex-plains physical evidence in the case, such asthe scuff marks on the top of his shoes that re-sulted from being dragged into the flyingsaucer. Yet the details of Bettys physical ex-amination by the aliens suggest that herdreams are the more likely source of the ab-duction scenario. Further, Simon believed thatthe underlying source of the story might havebeen anxiety over the interracial aspects of theHills marriage. Indeed, the removal of skinand hair (sites of racial difference) samplesfrom Betty Hill by the aliens suggests this.Coupled with discrepancies in the story, suchas Betty Hills failure to notice the missing lockof hair after the abduction and the Hills in-ability to find the site of their abduction, thesefactors indicate that the Hill case is more likelythe result of Betty and Barney discussing herdreams and confabulation, rather than the re-sult of an actual abduction.

Despite the publicity the Hill case received,abduction reports remained unusual until themid-1970s, when several questionable abduc-tion stories began to emerge (such as thePascagoula and Travis Walton cases). Then, in1979, Raymond E. Fowler published The An-dreasson Affair, the account of Betty Andreas-sons encounter with an alien named Quazgaa.Andreassons story emerged under hypnosissome ten years after the events described.

According to that story, the Andreasson fam-ily noticed a bright light coming from theirbackyard during a power outage on January25, 1967. Suddenly, everyone present exceptfor Betty Andreasson was paralyzed, and sev-eral humanoid figures entered the kitchenthrough a closed door. Initially identifying thebeings as angels, Andreasson agreed to ac-company them to their ship, where she was es-corted to an upper room. After a brief

| a l i e n a b d u c t i o n s4

cleansing, Andreasson changed into a whitegarment and underwent a battery of exami-nations, finally being shown into a small roomwith several seats. Sitting in one of these, shewas subsequently enclosed in formfitting plas-tic and immersed in a gray liquid. When theliquid was drained away, she was taken on atour of an alien realm, culminating in an en-counter with a phoenix and a feeling of reli-gious ecstasy, before being returned (Fowler1979, 24104).

Although Fowler admits that the case is dif-ficult given Bettys devout Christianity and thereligious symbolism of the phoenix (as a Christfigure), he fails to connect Andreassons Pente-costalism with several other religious symbolsin the story. For example, Bettys mention ofan upper room is a reference to the location ofthe Last Supper (Matt.14:15) and traditionallythe location of the First Pentecost and the de-scent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:12). The whitegarment is reminiscent of the white robesworn by the elect (Rev. 7:9), with immersionwhile wearing this garment being suggestive ofbaptism. Indeed, the Andreasson story closelyfollows the structure of apocalyptic literaturecleansing, testing, baptism, tour of heaven, andrevelation. It was predictable, then, that in alater hypnotic session, Betty would beginspeaking in a strange tongue (Fowler 1979,138) and prophesying ecological disaster.Thus, as a whole, the Andreasson case arguesnot for alien abduction but for a religious ex-perience of the type frequently reported byPentecostal Christians.

Before the 1981 publication of artist BuddHopkinss book Missing Time, stories of alienabductions more closely resembled first-con-tact scenarios. Medical examinations werenonintrusive, involving surface observationand scanning with some sort of machinery.The aliens themselves were benevolent, usu-ally speaking with the abductee and impartingsome sort of wisdom. Missing Time, by con-trast, presents intrusive examinations: anal

probing, deep-tissue sampling that leavesscars, and surgical implantation of unknowndevices using the most gruesome methods andno anesthesia. The aliens themselves emergeas coldhearted beings without regard for thetrauma they cause abductees. Most disturb-ingly, the aliens seem to have been engaged ina longitudinal study of humans, abductingthem multiple times throughout their lives,which suggests some sort of tracking and mon-itoring of their subjects.

Hopkinss first involvement with an abduc-tion case, that of Steven Kilburn, began whenthe two men were introduced during a meet-ing of UFO researchers in Hopkinss home.Like Barney Hill, Kilburn could not accountfor a period of time following a UFO sightingand had been experiencing increasing anxietyever since. At Hopkinss urging, Kilburn un-derwent hypnotic regression to uncover theevents of this missing time, only to discoverthat he had been the subject of a painful alienmedical examination, the exact nature ofwhich is unclear. Although Kilburns hypnosissessions seem to have been relatively free fromleading questions and hypnotist influence,there are several problems with Hopkinss in-terpretation of them, most noticeably in his re-construction of the narrative. As Hopkins him-self points out, Kilburns story emerged not asa full-fledged narrative with a continuous logi-cal stream but rather as a set of discrete epi-sodes in no particular order, necessitating re-construction to make sense of them (Hopkins1981, 61). Without this rearrangement, Kil-burns story has the logical structure of adream, and it is this point that Hopkins missesthroughout his work. For example, HowardRich, another abductee discussed in Hopkinssbook, states during one regression, Its reallyjust a dream . . . its not happening (p. 88).

Hopkins interprets such statements as denialof reality, rather than accepting them at facevalue. However, the main problem with his re-search is his selective use of evidence to create

a l i e n a b d u c t i o n s | 5

a typical abduction scenario against which allother cases are judged. In other words, abduc-tion stories that fit Hopkinss idea of abductionare accepted as real, and those that do not arerejected or are filtered to create an acceptablestory. Given that four of the six cases discussedin Missing Time are identified by the abducteesas dreams, what the book presents are not somuch actual abduction stories as Hopkinssown retelling and reshaping of these stories tocreate an abduction scenario. Science-fictionand fantasy novelist Whitley Strieber came for-ward with his own story of multiple abductionsin 1987 with his book Communion: A TrueStory. Compiled from transcripts and tapes ofhypnotic regressions, personal journals, con-versations with friends, and his own consciousmemories, Communion is perhaps the most de-tailed account of a single abductees experi-ences, and, as with Missing Time (Strieber hada close association with Hopkins at the time),dreams seem to play a significant part in theexperience.

On December 26, 1985, Strieber relates, hewas awakened by a loud noise and then rushedby a small figure. Immediately paralyzed,Strieber was levitated into a ship, where he wasexamined by aliens and implanted with an un-known device before being returned to his bed.Strieber reports that these are conscious mem-ories and were not recovered by hypnosis. In-deed, he is careful to point out that he wasawake throughout this ordeal, thus eliminatingdreams as source material. Yet the incident istypical of sleep paralysis incurred during hyp-nagogic or hypnopompic sleep states. Suchstates are characterized by a sense of beingawake, a painful tingling paralysis throughoutthe body, and a sense of a malevolent presence.It is not unusual for such states to be accompa-nied by nightmares that provide details to ex-plain these sensations. Most important, dreamsoccurring in hypnagogic or hypnopompic sleepare always consciously remembered, as are thestates themselves. Hypnagogic and hypnopom-

pic sleep states are terrifying events, andchronic sufferers can easily find themselves ob-sessively trying to figure out what is happening.

It is in keeping with such anxiety thatStrieber sought psychological help in sortingout his experience, eventually submitting tohypnotic regression as part of his treatment.During these sessions, he began to recall otherincidents in which he had been abductedin-cidents that had been taking place from hischildhood. In each case, the abductions he re-lates have the logical structure of dreams,rather than reality: locations shift rapidly andwithout transition, beings shift identities (in-cluding a feminine figure in white, Carl Jungsanima), and time is distorted.

It is the level of detail provided by Striebersnarrative that causes skeptics difficulty in ac-cepting alien abduction as the explanation forhis experiences. For example, Strieber reportsthat in August 1967, he experienced a periodof missing time lasting approximately twenty-four hours. However, his account suggests thathe was actually abducted three times withinthis twenty-four-hour period. Logically, onehas to wonder why his abductors felt it neces-sary to return Strieber to his home after eachabduction only to abduct him again momentslater. Nor is Strieber able to explain the rea-sons for his multiple abductions, calling intoquestion the motives of the alleged aliens. Hu-man scientists, even those engaged in longitu-dinal studies, rarely find it necessary to con-duct monitoring sessions of their subjects withthe frequency Strieber reports. Although ab-duction researchers are quick to point out thatalien science cannot be compared to humanscience and that the frequency of multiple ab-ductions may be necessary for alien purposes,skeptics continue to argue that this discreditsalien science, since our own science couldlearn more from less frequent contact.

Of course, Strieber is ultimately more con-cerned with the impact of his experiences onhis personal growth than such questions. Over

| a l i e n a b d u c t i o n s6

the course of several books, especially Trans-formation and Breakthrough, he slowly de-taches himself from Hopkinss view of alienabduction as a negative experience and comesto the realization that he has grown in his un-derstanding of himself. So, although acknowl-edging that his initial terror and anxiety wereprobably justified on some level, he concludesthat his increased concern for the environ-ment, as well as his deepened spirituality andconnection with the world at large, are the ul-timate goals of alien abduction. In this sense,Strieber remains unconvinced of the physicalreality of his experience but rather recognizesthat his abductors may have only a spiritualreality. In the final analysis, then, the sourcesand causes of Striebers abduction remain lessimportant for him than the results they yield,even if they are the results of dreams.

David M. Jacobs, an associate professor ofhistory at Temple University, disagrees. LikeBudd Hopkins, Jacobs asserts that the alien ab-ductors have a physical reality and are proba-bly the inhabitants of a planet within our ownplane of existence. And like Hopkins, he seesthe abduction phenomenon as negative, reject-ing positive views of the experience as the re-sult of the abductees need for peace of mindand the infiltration of New Age thought intoabduction research (Jacobs 1998, 208219). Inthe case of some experiencers, Jacobs pointsout, further hypnotic regression (with himselfas hypnotist) can reveal a darker and morethreatening alien agenda than spiritual en-lightenment, converting the experiencer to anabductee, as in the case of Pam Martin (Jacobs1998, 2425). In short, no matter what thehypnotic subject feels about his or her abduc-tion, a negative picture emerges under hypno-sis with Jacobs. For this reason, his methodsare among the most criticized in abduction re-search. And, as in Striebers case, the primitivenature of alien science revealed by his research(especially with regard to genetic experimenta-tion using techniques known to humans for

over a century, such as amniocentesis and arti-ficial insemination) suggests that the source ofabduction narratives is scientifically unsophis-ticated human minds, rather than sophisticatedalien science. Thus, internally conflicting sto-ries and researcher bias result in many skepticsand abduction researchers rejecting Jacobssarguments that the alien agenda is a hybridiza-tion program and invasion.

John E. Mack bears impressive credentialsas a professor of psychiatry at Harvard MedicalSchool and may have the widest influence ofany abduction researcher. In Abduction, hepresents a well-reasoned approach to the phe-nomenon, acknowledging that abduction nar-ratives are potentially the result of his own in-terpretation rather than reported events.However, Mack is convinced of the reality ofalien abduction, though he suspects the ab-ductors are from a spiritual plane. Thus, heignores mundane explanations of the phenom-enon, such as cultural contamination (incorpo-ration of images and stories from the mass me-dia), hypnagogic and hypnopompic sleepstates, sexual abuse or aberration, and dreams.Even more problematic is his focus on thespiritual nature of the aliens, suggesting as hedoes that their primary agenda is enlighten-ment; this raises the question of the necessityof medical examinations, since aliens seem toderive no benefit from them beyond the tor-ture of their subjects. Further, because mostabductees reporting positive experiences pointto fear of the unknown as the source of theirspiritual development, they also derive nobenefits from this part of the abduction. Again,the logic of dreams is at work in the abduc-tions Mack presents.

Mack is not unaware of this logical conun-drum, nor does he ignore those raised by theimpossible physical acts (such as walkingthrough walls and closed doors) that are com-mon in abduction accounts. However, becauseof his emphasis on the spiritual aspects of thephenomenon, Mack concludes not that these

a l i e n a b d u c t i o n s | 7

problems indicate dreams as a source of thephenomenon but rather that dualism and ma-terialism render the Western scientific modelinadequate for the study of alien abduction(Pritchard et al. 1994, 565567). In this way,Mack is able to have his cake and eat it too.For example, he points to scooplike scars onabductees as evidence of abduction, but whenhe is asked to provide medical records show-ing that the scars did not exist prior to the ab-duction experience, he responds by pointingout that abduction research should not seekobjective proof or evidence. It is this confusionof science and philosophy that led Mackspeers at Harvard to conduct an investigationinto his methods (to which he responded,through lawyers, that his academic freedomallowed him to pursue this line of inquiry).

Few publications provide a skeptical look atthe abduction phenomenon, but there are twothat bear mention. Terry Mathesons AlienAbductions: Creating a Modern Phenomenonexamines the major abduction cases from anarrative viewpoint, arguing that the phenom-enon has grown as the result of a developingsecular mythology describing a variety of ex-periences. Kevin D. Randle, Russ Estes, andWilliam P. Cones Abduction Enigma adopts ascientific approach in its study of alien abduc-tion to conclude that a combination of factorsis at work: sleep paralysis, a lack of personalboundaries, sexual-identity problems, and re-

searcher bias. Although the source of the phe-nomenon remains controversial, both bookspresent viable and more prosaic explanationsthan those offered by most abduction re-searchers.

References:

Fowler, Raymond E. 1979. The Andreasson Affair:The Documented Investigation of a Womans Ab-duction aboard a UFO. Columbus, NC: WildFlower Press.

Fuller, John G. 1966. The Interrupted Journey. NewYork: Berkley Medallion Books.

Hopkins, Budd. 1981. Missing Time. New York: Bal-lantine Books.

Jacobs, David M. 1998. The Threat: Revealing theSecret Alien Agenda. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Mack, John E. 1994. Abduction: Human Encounterswith Aliens. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Matheson, Terry. 1998. Alien Abductions: Creatinga Modern Phenomenon. New York: PrometheusBooks.

Pritchard, Andrea, David E. Pritchard, John E.Mack, Pam Kasey, and Claudia Yapp, eds. 1994.Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the AbductionStudy Conference. Cambridge, MA: North Cam-bridge Press.

Randle, Kevin D., Russ Estes, and William P. Cone.1999. The Abduction Enigma. New York: TomDoherty Associates.

Strieber, Whitley. 1987. Communion: A True Story.New York: Avon Books.

| a l i e n a b d u c t i o n s8

The term alternative archaeology (orpseudoarchaeology) is used to denotevarious approaches to investigating theancient past using paranormal methodsand/or pseudoscientific standards of argu-ment. The genre has been around at leastsince the late nineteenth centuryappearingin the wake of real archaeologys greatachievements at that timealthough its rootscan be traced back further into the lore ofsuch movements as Freemasonry and Rosi-crucianism. Its practitioners stand apart fromarchaeologistswhom they deridein thatthey argue for an essentially simplistic pictureof antiquity populated with such wonders aslost supercivilizations, sunken continents,cyclical cataclysmic upheavals, extraterrestrialcivilizers, or psychically attuned priestly rul-ing elites. Alternative authors can also claimto have uncovered hints of heretofore lostancient wisdom that, in its pessimistic form,warns of dire catastrophes threatening hu-manity or, in a more cheerful manifestation,promises worldwide spiritual renewal.

Alternative writers usually have no qualifi-cations in the field of archaeology, yet theyclaim to be revolutionaries who will transformour view of the deep past. They spurn thebroadly scientific method by which real ar-chaeology has painstakingly built up a pictureof that past: namely, the rational analysis ofassociated artifacts, of whatever size and na-ture, found and studied in clearly defined andrepeated contexts. Instead, the alternative

camp relies on a variety of dubious meth-ods (which will be outlined) in support of itscontentions. In such works, the mode of argu-ment is often legalistic and associative, withan abundance of rhetorical questions and in-nuendo, rather than scholarly and probative,that is, mounting a sustained and coherent ar-gument based on verifiable data. Upon suchweak foundations, alternative archaeologistsconfidently raise their towering, yet by nomeans mutually consistent, edifices of fantas-tic possibility.

The Distinction between Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology

Real archaeology is both a practical and aninterpretive discipline. The practical wing in-volves the gathering of physical evidencefrom the past through careful procedures(field surveys, excavation, core sampling, andso on). Once gathered, however, that evidenceremains mute and only speaks when inter-preted with reference to the physical and cul-tural environment that produced it. A wall isjust a wall until it is identified as HadriansWall, when analysis of it reveals much aboutthe organization and deployment of the Ro-man army, ancient military construction tech-niques, Roman frontier policies in the time ofHadrian, and so forth. Since writing has onlybeen with us for the past 5,000 years and

9

Alternative ArchaeologyG A R R E T T G . F A G A N

many advanced civilizations never developedit at all, archaeology must, for the most part,proceed without the insights gained from whatthe culture under study has to say about itself.This makes the job of archaeological interpre-tation all the more painstaking and gradualist,as the new evidence that is constantly beinguncovered often forces old views to be sub-stantially revised or abandoned altogether.Any new and ambitious archaeological hy-pothesis, in order to be convincing, has to do agood job of explaining as much of the evidenceas it can; more important, it must also do abetter job of explanation than the hypothesis itseeks to replace (Renfrew and Bahn 2000).

Nevertheless, the interpretive nature of ar-chaeology leaves it open to charges of not be-ing fact but mere conjecture. This is a verycommon indictment among pseudoarchaeolo-gists and their supporters (e.g., Hancock 1995,1998, 2002). By invoking it, debates betweenestablished and alternative views are presentedas matters of mere opinion. In this way, thepseudoarchaeologists can portray their specu-lations as just another batch of opinions aboutthe past, no more or less provable than theconventional take on such matters. (Funnilyenough, alternative writers also hold the viewthat academic archaeology is a dogmatic or-thodoxy; but if that is so, the dogma is suppos-edly composed of subjective conjecturesbywhat criteria and by what procedures are theconjectures selected either to join the officialarchaeological catechism or to be rejected asheresy? This is never explained.)

As with any science and its pseudo counter-part, the real distinction between archaeologyand pseudoarchaeology lies in matters ofmethod. For even though archaeological hy-potheses must respect the evidence and, togain acceptance, succeed in making goodsense of it through a rigorously rational analy-sis, alternative archaeology suffers no suchconstraints and can range freely and widely. Itcan pick and choose what to present to its

readers; eschew requirements of logic, consis-tency, and (in many cases) prima facie plausi-bility; and speculate endlessly about conceiv-able possibilities soon to be vindicated by asyet uncovered spectacular findsfinds that,disappointingly, never quite seem to material-ize. Conclusions reached by flawed methodsare themselves flawed, and it is this straight-forward observation that invalidates the entiregenre of alternative archaeology, the methodsof which are so deeply faulty as to be entirelyuseless. Therefore, the crux of the issue lieswith procedure and method, and so the rest ofthis entry focuses on these issues.

Pseudopractice

Pseudoarchaeologists are rarely, if ever, en-gaged in the practical side of archaeology inthe field, but occasionally, they do rely ontheir own methods. Use of psychic visions toexplicate the past is a prominent example. Inthe 1920s to the 1940s, the U.S. psychic EdgarCayce (18771945) had some 700 visions con-cerning human evolution and Atlantis. For in-stance, he saw that humanity was originallycomposed entirely of thought, with no corpo-real presencea claim notably difficult tocheck in the physical record. He declared theremains of Piltdown man, unearthed in En-gland between 1908 and 1912, to be those ofan Atlantean colonizer who had found his wayto Britain. His psychic sources, apparently,were unaware that Piltdown man was a man-made hoax, as was revealed conclusively in1953 (see the Piltdown Man [Hoax] entry inthis encyclopedia). (The uncovering of thehoax, by the way, is a testament to the self-cor-recting nature of archaeology.) Cayce furtherpredicted that Atlantis would rise again in1968 or 1969 and that an Atlantean Hall ofRecords would be opened in the 1990s at Gizain Egypt. Cayce also asserted that in a previous

| a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y10

life, he himself had been an Atlantean priestnamed Ra Ta, in which role, rather impres-sively, he had founded ancient Egyptian cul-ture in 10,500 b.c.

Other psychics (notably, Madame HelenaBlavatsky) similarly filled antiquity with ex-traordinary events and marvelous beings.Blavatsky, on the testimony of obscure tabletsfrom Tibet that only she got to see, claimedhumanity had once been astral jellyfish whocame to Earth and founded Atlantis andLemuria (another lost continent, older thanAtlantis); the latter was populated by four-armed, apelike hermaphrodites who laid eggs(for all this, see Feder 2002; James and Thorpe1999; Jordan 2001; Steibing 1984). Needlessto say, none of these claims have been substan-tiated convincingly (though there has beenmuch special pleading by the faithful), manyrun contrary to the observable evidence, andsome (such as Cayces claims about Piltdownman) have been shown to be conclusively

wrong. Psychic visions appear an unsafe basison which to investigate the past. A related psy-chic archaeological method, apparentlymore reasonable than visions, is dowsing. Ex-travagant claims have been made for the effi-cacy of dowsing in locating archaeologicalsites, but the technique has yet to prove itselfas consistently effective as the standard meth-ods of field survey and excavation (Von Leusen1999).

Pseudointerpretation

Unlike archaeological practice (which pro-duces very clear-cut resultsor not, as the casemay be), the process of archaeological inter-pretation is more open to alternative possi-bilities. The picture of the past painted pri-marily from archaeological sources can fairlybe characterized as an amalgam of interpreta-tions or explanatory hypotheses formulated byarchaeologists and ancient historians to makesense of the evidence they have uncovered.Given this, we have two choices. We can con-sider all explanatory hypotheses equally valid,or we can consider some more valid than oth-ers. The former approach leads to a sort of in-tellectual anarchy, in which there is no way todistinguish good explanations from bad ones.In this universe, the claim that unicorns builtthe pyramids using magical powers wouldcarry as much credence as the assertion thatthe ancient Egyptians built them through hardlabor.

Clearly, then, all claims about the past arenot equally valid. The real question thereforeis, How do we distinguish good from bad ex-planatory hypotheses? Genuine archaeologicalhypotheses are fixed by two anchors: account-ability to the evidence (which is to say, all thepertinent evidence, not just convenient partsof it) and rational analysis. Propositions in ar-chaeology, as in any intellectual discipline,

a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y | 11

Prophet and psychic Edgar Cayce.(Bettmann/CORBIS)

cannot be verified by a selective analysis anymore than they can rely on inherently unveri-fiable assertions (such as psychic visions). Inthis respect, archaeology follows a largely sci-entific method: hypotheses are formulated andthen checked for logical consistency and ac-countability against the available evidence;conclusions are provisional on continued sup-port by the evidence; conclusions are con-stantly reviewed in light of new evidence ormore sophisticated modes of analysis; and soon. Hypotheses that withstand such constantscrutiny come to be widely held (and don themantle of fact); those that do not are dis-carded or shelved for possible future consider-ation. This process of interpretation is compli-cated by the substantial gaps in our evidencefrom antiquity. The further back we go, thegreater the gaps. And the greater the gaps, thewider the latitude for competing explanatoryhypotheses. For instance, far less can be reli-ably deduced from cultures that have left usno written evidence than from those that have,and far less can be said about human culturesof 20,000 b.c. than those of 2000 b.c. But suchis the nature of the beast. Ancient historiansand archaeologists are accustomed to livingwith holes in their evidence, with things thatcannot be fully explained, withfor want of abetter termancient mysteries. Their attitudetoward such gaps is to put them aside untilsuch time as new evidence or improved hy-potheses can throw light on them. In the in-terim, they tend to focus on more productivelines of inquiry rather than speculate endlesslyabout that which cannot (as yet) be checked.There is, then, a built-in uncertainty at theheart of archaeological interpretation thatleaves the door open to the notions of alterna-tive archaeologists, who attempt to bypass ap-propriate methods in peddling their pet theo-ries. Instead, they have developed a battery ofmethods and approaches to do so. It wouldbe impossible to survey all of these here, so asample of the most common of the genrescharacteristic procedures will have to suffice

(examples can be found throughout the likesof Hancock 1995 and 1998 and von Dniken1970).

Selective and/or Distorted Presentation of Established Knowledge

Pseudoarchaeological claims are habituallybased on a systematically selective presenta-tion of ancient evidence and on outdated, dis-proven, or long-discredited modern theo-ries. They present specific items from theancient past that seem to suit their claims andignore the rest. They will often assert that mys-teries remain unsolved when, in fact, theyhave long been solved, or they will present asmysterious and poorly understood sites or arti-facts that have long been studied. In addition,such works often range widely over the canonof ancient cultures, from the Egyptians to theMaya to the Khmers to Easter Island (Hancock1995, 1998; von Dniken 1970). Since generalreaders cannot possibly be informed about therecent developments in all of these specializedfields of study, they will be readily convincedby such an apparently impressive body of al-ternative evidence. Invariably, when theclaims are investigated further, more reason-able explanations quickly emerge (James andThorpe 1999).

Reliance on Supposed Anomalies

Alternative archaeologists display an obsessivefocus on odd finds and sites. For this reason,their books usually survey the same material adnauseam, and their fantastic explanations failto throw light on the mass of evidence from theancient past, since they are built on the wrongdata set (that is, the anomalous exceptionsrather than the majority of the evidence). Sincetheir explanations are based on such flimsyfoundations, their work is further characterizedby rampant speculation and wild possibilities

| a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y12

offered to fill the yawning gaps in their scenar-ios. A classic example relates to the huge ani-mal figures and complex patterns inscribed onthe surface of the Nazca Desert in Peru. Wehave very little evidence from the culture thatcreated them (though their construction datesare fixed by pottery finds to between c. 200 b.c.and a.d. 600), so the intended function of thelines remains a genuine mystery to real archae-ologists, although several plausible hypotheseshave been advanced (Aveni 1990). For alterna-tive archaeologists, however, the Nazca depic-tions are landing sites for aliens or encodedmessages from lost Atlantis. Unlike the real ar-chaeologists, the pseudoarchaeologists show nodesire to relate the Nazca lines to the local cul-ture that produced them or to seek obvious orrational explanations for their existence. In-stead, the lines are treated as if they defy anyrational analysis (which they do not), and wildspeculations are offered up as if they were rea-sonable explanations.

Reinterpretation of Specific Artifacts or Entire Sites without Regard for Their Context

Pseudoarchaeologists will often present arti-facts or entire sites out of context to supporttheir claims (as just noted with the Nazcalines). Thus, in recent works, the Sphinx inEgypt (built c. 2500 b.c.) and the city of Ti-wanaku in Bolivia (fl. c. a.d. 100900) are di-vorced from their firmly established historicalcontexts and presented as evidence of a so-phisticated, seeding supercivilization of theera of 10,500 b.c. (though the upper and lowerdates for this great civilization vary in alterna-tive works by as much as 10,000 years). Propo-nents are unperturbed by the complete lack ofany archaeological context for the Sphinx atthis early date or at any time before 2500 b.c.or by the stratigraphically established radio-carbon dates for Tiwanaku that fix its earliestpossible habitation at 1500 b.c. In the face ofsuch objections, a battery of special pleas and

conceivable possibilities is offeredbut no cor-roborating evidence for the extravagant claimsthemselves.

Decoding of Traces of Hidden History or Advanced Knowledge in Ancient Myths or Iconography

Pseudoarchaeologists often lay claim to specialknowledge that has been encoded in ancientmyth cycles and/or imagery. They then claimto decode this knowledge, usually by meansof literal-minded and subjective interpretationbut sometimes (as in the Bible Code) by appar-ently sophisticated means. Naturally, the im-mense complexities in studying and makingsense of the wide range of human mythologiesare not addressed. The more basic method-ological question is, of course, How do weknow that this vital information was intention-ally encoded in myths by the ancients andnot placed there by the imaginations of themodern writers? (Steibing 1984).

Substitution of Speculation for Traditional Archaeological Evidence

Real archaeology relies on artifacts of allshapes and sizes (from pollen grains to entirecities) in forming its reconstruction of the past.Alternative archaeologists habitually cannotoffer a single scrap of such evidence in supportof their claims. They therefore resort to manu-facturing evidence of their own. One way ofdoing so is to reassign monuments from estab-lished cultures to their alternative ones (seethe previous discussion on the Sphinx and Ti-wanaku). Another is to offer what are, inessence, speculations as if they were evidence.For instance, perceived correlations betweenthe position of monuments on the ground andcertain constellations in the sky have beenused to redate familiar sites to vastly earliereras on the basis of the precession of theEarths axis (that is, the apparent movement of

a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y | 13

the stars across the sky in a 26,000-year cycle).The claim is that the stars and monumentslined up most closely at a very early date;therefore, either the monuments were built atthat date or they intentionally commemo-rate it. Either way, the alignments seem to of-fer hard evidence of an early, advanced civi-lization. This so-called method has beenapplied to the pyramids at Giza, the Khmermonuments at Angkor in Cambodia, and someCentral or South American sites (notably, Ti-wanaku). The use of the star-alignment argu-ment is made more effective when combinedwith selectivity of presentation (see the earlierdiscussion), so that only the monuments thatfit are includedthe rest are ignored. Moreworrying, all other pertinent dating evidencefrom the site under investigation is either ne-glected or dismissed. But when there is no in-dication that the ancient culture in questionknew of precession or, in general, sited theirmonuments to map constellations, how can theresearcher be sure that his or her perceivedpattern is historically meaningful and reflectsthe ancient builders intentions rather than themodern writers skill in discerning patterns? Infact, star-map redating is really the substitu-tion of modern speculation (that is, the selec-tive star-monument correlations) for hard dat-ing evidence.

Attempts to Deploy the Authority of Nonhistorical Sciencesto Establish Historical Hypotheses

The star-alignment argument is an example ofthis method also. It attempts to use the hardscience of astronomy and the fact of precessionas the core elements of an alternate pictureof the human past. Similarly, the use of oftentortured mathematics to find significantnumbers (pi, or the earths circumference, forexample) supposedly encoded in the propor-tions of ancient monuments, such as the pyra-mids of Giza, is really an appeal to the author-

ity of numbers in modern culturetheir dis-covery in the monuments seems an incontro-vertible fact to the modern mind. But that thenumbers were intentionally placed there bythe ancient builders is not established by argu-ment or evidence; it is just assumed as a given.The proposition is not tested against compara-ble monuments to see if the alleged encodingof significant numbers is found in all pyramids,for instance; rather, only a select few monu-ments are examined (see the previous discus-sion on selective presentation). Recently, theSphinx has been redated to preposterouslyearly epochs on the basis of one scientists geo-logic opinion that it was weathered by waterand not by wind and sand (Schoch 1999).Since Egypt has been arid at least since 5000b.c., the argument goes, the Sphinx must pre-date the Egyptians and the traditional date of2500 b.c. This, too, is an attempt to co-opt theauthority of a hard science (geology) in sup-port of alternative historical claims. In fact, ge-ology is singularly unsuited as a historical dat-ing tool, since its chronological perspective isvastly deeper than that of human history, andthe rate at which rocks erode has not been suf-ficiently established for this method to be usedas a clock for man-made monuments. Amyriad of other explanations for the erosionpatterns on the Sphinx are available that ac-commodate the traditional, archaeologicallyestablished date for the monument. The so-called water-erosion redating is not necessaryand is yet another example of modern specula-tion being offered up as hard evidence (see thepreceding section) (Jordan 1998).

Use of Innuendo to Undermine the Authority of Academic Archaeology

The flip side of the preceding method involvesthe use of innuendo, which is a cardinal fea-ture of pseudoarchaeological presentation. Al-ternative writers exploit gaps in parts of what

| a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y14

they call the orthodox reconstruction ofevents to undermine the credibility of thewhole: because we dont know exactly how thepyramids were built, everything about themand Egyptology is up for debate; because nobodies were found in the pyramids, their statusas tombs is open to question; and so on. Thedetailed evidence that has led archaeologists toconclude that the pyramids were built by theEgyptians as tombs for their pharoahs either isnot presented or is dismissed summarily asorthodoxy or opinion. The general reader,therefore, is left with a very one-sided view ofthe situation, one that favors the alternativepossibilities over the established view foundedin evidence.

Use of Rhetorical Tricks to Mask a Weak Case

Although all good writing uses rhetorical skillin its presentation, pseudoarchaeologicalworks employ a battery of rhetorical strategiesnot in the service of a coherent argument butas a replacement for it. A possibility is raisedon one page and resurrected as establishedfact a few pages later. Rhetorical questions areused to plant suggestions in the readers headthat cannot be sustained from the evidence orby detailed argument. Much rhetoric is alsodevoted to upbraiding academic archaeologistsas arrogant egoists who are not only closed toany new thinking but also actively seeking tosuppress it by means of a sort of inquisition.What the value to archaeologists might be insystematically suppressing new evidence isnever explicated.

Use of Legal, Not Scientific, Standards of Argument

The founder of modern alternative archaeol-ogy, Ignatius Donnelly (18321901), was alawyer by training; one of its most successfulmodern exponents, Graham Hancock, ex-

pressly likens his task to that of a defense at-torney making the best case he or she can.Lawyers, of course, seek not to find out whatactually happened in any given instance but tomake the best case they can to benefit theirclient. It is habitual for them to seek to limitdamaging evidence presented to a jury (ordownplay its significance), to use any rhetori-cal tricks they can to enhance a case, and toundermine the credibility of powerful oppos-ing witnesses to discredit their testimony. Ar-chaeologists, by contrast, are less interested inwinning rhetorical points and more interestedin interpreting all the evidence to find outwhat happened in the past.

Conclusion

The methods outlined here can be considereddiagnostic of alternative archaeologicalworks. In surveying the history of pseudoar-chaeology, what is most noteworthy is thecomplete lack of progress toward a fuller un-derstanding since Ignatius Donnelly foundedthe genre in 1882. Despite millions of pages ofalternative arguments, we are still not one mil-limeter closer to finding (never mind studying)Atlantis, the great but nameless superciviliza-tion, or the alien civilizers. Instead, alternativepropositions can only be lined up alongsideeach other, none any more verifiable than thenext. This is because pseudoarchaeology offersno hard evidence to work with and thus has nodata against which to check its claims. To date,over forty locations have been proposed forAtlantis, covering most corners of the planet.Future theories will only inflate that total,not solve the mystery. Over this same period ofalternative stagnation, huge strides have beentaken in our understanding of antiquity by realarchaeology, and the picture is constantly be-ing refined by new discoveries.

There could be no clearer demonstration of

a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y | 15

which approach offers the more promising re-sults. It used to be thought that high civiliza-tion arose in one place (usually Egypt or Meso-potamia) and diffused outward. Since WorldWar II and the systematic application of car-bon dating on a global scale, this view has be-come untenable. Rather, the evidence nowtells us that the great civilizations of the pastarose at different times and in different places,under intriguingly similar circumstances.Pseudoarchaeologists refuse to accept this sce-nario. They are all relentlessly diffusionist intheir reconstructions, whether the civilizingsource be identified as Atlantis, a nameless su-percivilization, or outer space. Thus, ironically,their claim to be revolutionizing our view ofantiquity with new thinking is, in reality, acall to regress to a long-outdated model un-supported by the evidence. Alternative archae-ology does not point the way forward; rather, itdirects us backward.

References:

Aveni, A. 1990. The Lines of Nazca. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society.

*Collins, A. 2000. Gateway to Atlantis. London:Headline.

*Donnelly, I. [1882] 1949. Atlantis: The Antedilu-vian World. Rev. ed. New York: Harper.

Feder, K. 2002. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Sci-ence and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 4th ed.Boston: McGraw-Hill.

*Hancock, G. 1995. Fingerprints of the Gods. NewYork: Doubleday. (Second edition in 2001 hasunchanged text but a new introduction).

*. 1998. Heavens Mirror. New York: Crown.*. 2002. Underworld: Flooded Kingdom of the

Ice Age. London: Penguin.James, P., and N. Thorpe. 1999. Ancient Mysteries.

New York: Ballantine.Jordan, P. 1998. Riddles of the Sphinx. New York:

New York University Press.. 2001. The Atlantis Syndrome. Phoenix Mill,

United Kingdom: Sutton.Renfrew, C., and P. Bahn. 2000. Archaeology: The-

ory, Methods and Practice. 3d ed. London:Thames and Hudson.

*Schoch, R. M. 1999. Voices of the Rocks. New York:Crown.

Steibing, W. H. 1984. Ancient Astronauts, CosmicCollisions, and Other Popular Theories aboutMans Past. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

*von Dniken, E. 1970. Chariots of the Gods. NewYork: Putnam.

Von Leusen, M. 1999. Dowsing in Archaeology: IsThere Anything Underneath? Skeptical Inquirer23, no. 2: 3341.

*Asterisked items are examples of alternative ar-chaeological works.

| a lt e r n at i v e a r c h a e o l o g y16

The notion that human antiquity mightbest be explained by reference to theintervention of extraterrestrial alienshas been called the ancient astronaut hy-pothesis. This hypothesis exploded into pub-lic consciousness in the late 1960s, soon afterSwiss author Erich von Dniken began circu-lating a manuscript for a book that would ulti-mately bear the English title Chariots of theGods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. Neitheran archaeologist nor a historian, von Dnikenwas a hotel manager with a long and check-ered criminal past including convictions forrepeated acts of embezzlement, fraud, andforgery.

Von Dnikens manuscript presented a de-tailed argument for the ancient astronauthypothesis, consisting of examples of greattechnological leaps evidenced in the archaeo-logical record that the author argued were in-spired by human contact with extraterrestri-als. Early in 1968, the German publisherEcon-Verlag published his book (titled Erin-nerungen an die Zukunft, or Recollections ofthe Future), with an unenthusiastically smallinitial print run. Surprising many, the booktook off, captivating the publics imagination,selling more than 170,000 copies by Decem-ber 1968, and spurring a plethora of vonDniken sequels, not to mention copycatbooks that essentially repeated the argumentsof the original. By 1989, Chariots of the Gods?had become one of the best-selling paperbackbooks of all time; the cover of the 1999

reprint boasted sales of more than 7 millioncopies. To date, von Dniken has writtentwenty-five books on the subject of ancientastronauts that have sold a combined total ofmore than 60 million copies in twenty-eightdifferent languages (according to his home-page, http://www.daniken.com). His most re-cently published work is Odyssey of the Gods:The Alien History of Ancient Greece (2000),presenting the same essential argument as hisprevious twenty-four books. Currently, atheme park based on the mysteries of theancient world that von Dniken explored inhis books is being planned for Interlaken,Switzerland; it is scheduled to open in late2002 (http://www.worldmysteries.ch/).

Interestingly, though the name von Dni-ken and the ancient astronaut hypothesis be-came synonymous, making the author a fix-ture on the lecture and television talk-showcircuit in the 1970s, he was not the originatorof the idea that the archaeological recordmight evidence the visitation of extraterrestri-als to Earth early in the history of the humanspecies. The actual source for that idea is assurprising as it is revealing. A version of theancient astronaut hypothesis was proposed inan article published in a small technical jour-nal, Planetary Space Science, in 1963, fiveyears before the publication of Chariots. Indiscussing the possibility of intelligent life onother planets, the author of that article ad-dressed the so-called Fermi Paradox, attrib-uted to the physicist Enrico Fermi. Fermi ar-

17

Ancient AstronautsK E N N E T H L . F E D E R

gued that intelligent life on other planets mustbe either rare or nonexistent, for otherwise,Earth would have already been visited or con-tacted by these extraterrestrials.

The 1963 articles author responded byagreeing that extraterrestrials were, in all like-lihood, not currently visiting Earth, but headded that one had to assess the possibility ofsuch visitations within the context of the en-tirety of Earths history. If such a visit had oc-curred at all, it was statistically more likely tohave happened sometime in the past, which isvery long, rather than the historical present,which is very short. The author went on tosuggest, referring to possible ancient contact,that it is not out of the question that artifactsof these visits still exist. In other words, theauthor was suggesting that there might be ar-chaeological evidence in the form of physicalremnants of an alien technology ensconced inthe archaeological or geologic records. Thesource for this audacious suggestionessen-tially the ancient astronaut hypothesiswasnone other than Carl Sagan (1963, 496).

Whether von Dniken was aware of Sagansarticle is unknown (he did not cite it in Chari-ots of the Gods?), but certainly he took theidea that extraterrestrials might have visitedEarth in the ancient past and inspired a virtualancient astronaut industry with books, lec-tures, movies, and television documentaries allbased on this possibility.

Contained within the general ancient astro-naut hypothesis as presented by von Dnikenare three specific assertions:

1. Human biological evolution is the resultof the direct intervention ofextraterrestrial aliens.

2. All over the world, there are ancientworks of artincluding cave paintings,images on pottery, and so onand writtenaccounts among the earliest literatepeoples that can best be interpreted asartistic depictions and written

descriptions by human beings ofextraterrestrial aliens who visited Earth.

3. Great intellectual leaps are indicated inthe archaeological record, particularly inthe form of technological advancementsthat could not have been the result ofsimple human ingenuity. These jumpsare the result of the introduction of newtechnologies by extraterrestrial aliens.

The first of these assertions might well becalled the amorous astronaut hypothesis(Feder 2001). In Chariots of the Gods? vonDniken implied that the biological evolutionof the human species resulted from actual in-terbreeding between extraterrestrial aliens andancient hominids, producing an evolutionaryleap by what amounts to interstellar hybridiza-tion. A few specially selected women, he as-serted, would be fertilized by the astronauts(von Dniken 1970, 11). This is a fascinatinghypothesis, but as Sagan pointed out in an in-terview conducted for the Horizon/Nova doc-umentary The Case of the Ancient Astronauts,a human ancestor could more likely have suc-cessfully mated with a petunia than with anextraterrestrial; at least the hominid and thepetunia evolved on the same planet and there-fore shared a biological connection, howeverremote. The likelihood of two species thatevolved on different planets having combin-able DNA is so minute it is hardly worth con-sidering.

The second assertion of the ancient astro-naut view might be called the inkblot hypoth-esis (Feder 2001). The interpretation of an-cient art or even early historical writings asrepresentations or descriptions of extraterres-trial visitors, produced by ancient human be-ings, is little more than a sort of Rorschacharchaeology: extraterrestrial aliens are seenin images or written descriptions much in theway experimental subjects see clouds, butter-flies, or elephants in inkblots.

For instance, as discussed in The Case of the

| a n c i e n t a s t r o n a u t s18

Ancient Astronauts, von Dniken saw airportrunways in the Nazca lineslengthy, rectilin-ear features produced in the high-altitudedesert of western South America beginning asmuch as 2,000 years ago and ending by abouta.d. 700. According to von Dniken, Seenfrom the air, the clear-cut impression that the37-mile long plain of Nazca made on me wasthat of an airfield! (1970, 17). In other words,to him, the lines resembled airport runways, sothat is what they must be.

It is more than just a little problematic forvon Dnikens interpretation that the so-calledlines are not wide swaths produced with an ex-traterrestrial version of concrete but merelypatterns that reflect a color difference pro-duced by sweeping dark surface pebbles offthe underlying, lighter-colored sandy soil. Noaircraft, extraterrestrial or otherwise, couldland on such a soft surface. The lines are inter-preted by archaeologists as ceremonial path-ways of the ancient Nazca people; they wereused precisely in this way in the fairly recentpast.

One of von Dnikens most notorious exam-ples of the inkblot hypothesis concerns the sar-cophagus lid of the Maya king Pacal (see illus-tration), arguably one of the best-known rulersin Maya history. We know that Pacal ascendedto the throne of the Maya city-state of Palen-que on July 29 in a.d. 615 when he was onlytwelve years old. We know that he ruled forsixty-eight years and oversaw a period of vigor-ous construction of temples, palaces, and pyra-mids at Palenque. And we also know that hedied on August 31, 683. Yet, eschewing the de-tailed historical narrative for Pacal provided bythe Maya themselves in their written language,von Dniken applied his best inkblot analysisand interpreted the bas-relief on the surface ofthe coffin lid as a spaceman working the con-trols of an alien craft. In fact, the coffin lidcontains myriad elements of iconography seenthroughout the Maya world: the quetzal bird,bearded dragons, an earth monster, and a styl-

ized ceiba tree (a species revered by the Maya).Very few of these elements would be expectedin an extraterrestrial spacecraft. And, of course,Pacals mortal remains were found in the cof-fin; not surprisingly, the bones are those of ahuman being and not an extraterrestrial alien.

Finally, the third assertion listed earlier hasbeen labeled the our ancestors, the dummiesperspective by anthropologist John Omunhun-dro (1976). The philosophical underpinningsof this part of the ancient astronaut hypothesisignore or minimize the intellectual abilities ofancient human beings, essentially denying thepossibility that they were able, by the applica-tion of their own intelligence and by the sweatof their own brows, to produce the marvelousachievements in engineering, architecture,mathematics, calendrics, agronomy, and the

a n c i e n t a s t r o n a u t s | 19

Pacals sarcophagus lid at Palenque, Mexico,1976. (Copyright Dr. Merle Greene Robertson)

like that are so clearly reflected in the archae-ological record. Instead, von Dniken and hisfollowers interpret these intellectual achieve-ments as having been inspired by contact witha superior extraterrestrial intelligence.

One of the most egregious and ill-informedexamples of this line of reasoning concernsvon Dnikens interpretation of the history ofancient Egypt. He argued that ancient Egyptsmonumental architecture appeared in the re-gion thousands of years ago without any evi-dence of the development that would be ex-pected if it were the result of humantechnological progression. He also character-ized Egyptian civilization as ready-made andas appearing without transition. The pyra-mids, the Great Sphinx, and the spectaculartemples are, in von Dnikens opinion, gen-uine miracles in a country that is suddenly ca-pable of such achievements without recogniza-ble prehistory (1970, 74).

Such characterizations were breathtakinglyignorant of Egyptian history even when vonDniken wrote Chariots of the Gods? Archae-

ology has revealed a long evolutionary se-quence of cultural development in Egypt, in-cluding the slow adoption of agriculture begin-ning 8,000 years ago; increasing sedentismand a growth in village size along the Nile; in-tervillage competition for land, resources, andpeople; the concentration of wealth in thehands of a few families; an increase in tombsize for the leaders of these wealthy and in-creasingly powerful families; and the consoli-dation of social, economic, religious, and polit-ical power in the hands of a single leader (thefirst pharaoh, whom we know as Narmer) byabout 3100 b.c. (Clayton 1994). And whatabout the single most diagnostic architecturalfeature of ancient Egypt, the pyramid? Here,too, there is clear evidence of a developmentalsequence by which Egyptians perfected thepyramid-making craft over a period of severalhundred years (Lehner 1997). Beginning atHierakonpolis, powerful pottery baronswere buried in large, impressive tombs cut intothe earth, which were then capped by single-story burial structures called mastabas.

| a n c i e n t a s t r o n a u t s20

The Collapsed Pyramid at Meidum. (M. H. Feder)

Mastabas became larger and more ornate untilDjoser, the second pharaoh of the Third Dy-nasty (26682649 b.c.), produced an impres-sive elaboration of this theme, with a series offive such structures of decreasing size super-imposed one on top of the other.

Sneferu (26132589 b.c.), the first pharaohof the Fourth Dynasty, began construction atMeidum of a burial monument that wasplanned as another step pyramid. Toward theend of the project, however, a decision wasmade to fill in the steps in an effort to producea true pyramid with four flat, triangular faces.The pyramid engineers confronted a majorproblem in doing this: Egyptian step pyramidswere far too steep to be readily converted totrue pyramids, and the attempt to do so at Mei-dum was plagued by problems. Severe cracksdeveloped in the pyramids stone facing as a re-sult of subsidence at its base, and it likely wasabandoned because of this. The ruin of thisproject is called the Collapsed Pyramid, thoughthere is no evidence of a catastrophic collapse(see illustration); it is probable that the engi-neers simply walked away from the project andthat much of the polished stone casing was re-cycled in other structures. Sneferu next initi-ated another true pyramid project 40 kilome-ters north of Meidum, at Dashur. That pyramidagain was begun at a very steep angle (about60), and subsidence problems arose oncemore, jeopardizing the project. Rather thanabandoning this attempt, the builders actuallyadjusted the angle of the pyramid surfaces inthe middle of the job, building the upper partof the pyramid at a shallower angle (between43 and 44). This project was successfullycompleted, but because of the change in angle,the pyramid has a decidedly odd appearanceand is accurately called the Bent Pyramid.

Apparently unsatisfied by this midcoursecorrection, Sneferu began yet another pyramidproject in the thirtieth year of his reign. Thistime, his architects designed and built themonument from the beginning with a more

gentle slope and for the first time successfullyconstructed a large, standard pyramidthis isthe so-called North or Red Pyramid. It wasduring the reign of the pharaoh who suc-ceeded SneferuKhufu (25892566 b.c., oftencalled by his Greek name, Cheops)that pyra-mid building reached its zenith with the con-struction of the Great Pyramid, nearly 500 feetin height and consisting of more than 2.5 mil-lion stone blocks.

Clearly, the history of Egyptian pyramid con-struction reflects an evolutionary process, witha sequence of projects revealing false starts,trial and error, and on-the-fly problem solvingtypical of the imperfect process by which hu-man technology progresses (see Pyramid entryin section 2). Mistakes in pyramid building likethose exhibited in the archaeological record ofEgypt would be surprising indeed if thesestructures were built or supervised by extra-terrestrials capable of building starships thatcould cruise the galaxy. This slow process oftechnological development characterizes thearchaeological record of the other early civi-lizations as well, contradicting any hypothesisthat relies on the sudden appearance of so-phisticated technologies in the ancient world.

In underestimating the intelligence and ca-pabilities of ancient people, von Dniken wasnot being original: he was merely updating thelong-discredited, extreme diffusionist view thatcharacterized anthropology in the late nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries. Such hy-potheses are meritless; the archaeologicalrecord clearly reflects the abilities of all an-cient people to progress by their own efforts.There is no evidence for and no need to specu-late about an extraterrestrial source for humancultural development.

References:

The Case of the Ancient Astronauts (television docu-mentary). 1971. London and Boston: Horizonand Nova.

a n c i e n t a s t r o n a u t s | 21

Clayton, Peter A. 1994. Chronicle of the Pharaohs:The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dy-nasties of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames andHudson.

Feder, Kenneth L. 2001. Frauds, Myths, and Myster-ies: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology.4th ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Lehner, Mark. 1997. The Complete Pyramids: Solv-ing the Ancient Mysteries. London: Thames andHudson.

Omunhundro, J. T. 1976. Von Dnikens Chariots:

A Primer in Crooked Science. Zetetic 1, no. 1:5867.

Sagan, C. 1963. Direct Contact among GalacticCivilizations by Relativistic Interstellar Space-flight. Planetary Space Science 11: 485498.

von Dniken, Erich. 1970. Chariots of the Gods? Un-solved Mysteries of the Past. New York: BantamBooks.

. 2000. Odyssey of the Gods: The Alien Historyof Ancient Greece. New York and London: Ele-ment Books.

| a n c i e n t a s t r o n a u t s22

Domestic livestock have sometimesbeen found with seemingly unex-plainable fatal wounds. Often, the an-imals eyes and genitals have been removed.Claims have been made that they were killedand mutilated by unseen malevolent forces.Extraterrestrials gathering specimens, Sa-tanists making sacrifices, government agen-cies up to no good, and strange cryptozoologi-cal animals on a rampage (such as thegoatsucker, also called the Chupacabra)have all been blamed. Claims have also beenmade that the dead bodies show unusualsignssurgical precision cuts or laser preci-sion cuts (this claim has been made by a sci-entist, John Altschuler)and that their bloodhas been entirely drained.

These phenomena have normal explana-tions. For instance, if the animals were killedby predators or if they froze to death, theirbodies may have been eaten by scavengers.The so-called precision and laser cuts couldhave been caused by bites from small teethand beaks, and when the dead animals bodiesswelled and bloated, which is a normal eventin decomposition, the cut lines may havestretched, making them look precise androunded. The maggots of blowflies, eating atthe wounds, could also make them look likeprecision cuts. For these reasons, Altschulersclaims have not been accepted by mainstreamscientists. Beyond that, the claims of bodiesbeing drained of blood are simply not true.Blood dries at body surfaces, and if bodies are

examined in autopsies, blood remains arefound in them. Animal predators and scav-engers, not having our sensibilities, eat softbody parts first, such as eyes, teats, and geni-tals.

When investigators examined the bodies ofsome mutilated animals, they found ordinaryexplanations. In 1975, the Colorado State Uni-versity Diagnostic Laboratory examined tissuesamples from mutilated cattle and concludedthat the animals died from natural causes.Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pathol-ogist Kenneth Rommel, studying New Mexi-can mutilations in 1980, concluded that pred-ators were the cause. Zoologist Ron Magillexamined mutilated creatures in Sweetwater,Florida, in 1996 and found that dogs haddone the deed. In the same year, University ofMiami veterinary professor Alan Herron cutopen a dead goat and showed it had not beendrained of blood; Herron said that bites onthe animal revealed that wild dogs had killedit. Also in 1996, the Puerto Rico AgricultureDepartment found normal causes for the mu-tilation of dead stock.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinaryproof, and the burden of proof is on theclaimant. Yet those who have alleged extraor-dinary causes for animal mutilations haveproduced no extraordinary proofs at all, justordinary phenomena that can be explained byknown causes. Furthermore, the broadcastprograms and publications that make extraor-dinary claims about animal mutilations are

23

Animal MutilationsA N D R E W O . L U T E S

not held accountable. By calling themselvesentertainment shows or by invoking FirstAmendment protections, they can say, quitelegally, whatever they like. Consequently, it isup to the individual to determine if ordinaryexplanations are available, rather than imme-diately believing repeat