archaeology

Kenneth Feder has collected a whooole bunch of examples of funny hoaxes and archaeological misadventure in this curiously good book. Read about the Cardiff Giant scam, the Piltdown man hoax, Noah's ark tomfoolery and fakery, the slippery slope of Creationist craziness, Atlantis Atrophy, the Shredded evidence for the Shroud of Turin, and more!

Feder's volume is interesting, stimulating, and even if you are a well read skeptic, you will probably learn something new. I personally was reminded how easy it is to fool people who want to believe something and aren't moved to investigate or challenge the beliefs they are comfortable with. The gist of the book seems to be that people who rely mostly upon faith can end up believing just about anything, while those who are inclined to question and test new information via logic, scientific methods, and common sense are more likely to actually uncover the facts for themselves, doing away with faith altogether.

Kenneth Feder, apparently a self-proclaimed authority on everything archaeological and areas that are around the fringe, continues his startling pseudoscientific blunders in the new edition of this book. In line with the now-disproven "Clovis-First" doctrine that dominated American archaeologists, Feder has long asserted that all Native Americans came from Asia. Of course, both the "Clovis-First" and Asian origin have been shown to be false beliefs maintained by a purported "science" apparently functioning more like a religion than a science. His book, like Stephen Williams' equally-flawed competitor book, is a fun read, partially because it reads like an absolute authority pointing out how stupid those are who disagree. The fundamental blunders in the book, crossing into the realm of what medical practitioners and juries would call "malpractice," are best pointed out by his references to the psychic Edgar Cayce.
Feder makes several references to Cayce including the assertion that Cayce had "Atlantean texts" that enabled him to "predict the future and effect cures on terminally ill people." Feder lists two references with this assertion giving it an air of authority. In 2001 I asked Feder to check out where these references made that asertion. After a brief time, Feder replied that he "had no idea" whatsoever where these claims were made and couldn't tell me where the idea originated. In brief, Edgar Cayce never claimed to have Atlantean texts and never claimed that he could cure the terminally ill. Like Stephen Williams, Feder blindly quotes from previous skeptics (gullible pseudoscientists blindly following pseudoauthority) without actually verifying facts. Like Williams, Feder makes an inexcusable blunder-either purposefully or from the skeptic's gullibility. That inexcusable blunder is this: Feder believes that Edgar Evans Cayce, author of several books on Atlantis, is Edgar Cayce the psychic. Edgar Evans Cayce was Edgar Cayce's son. Edgar Cayce, the psychic, never wrote books. But Feder asserts that the psychic Edgar Cayce saw "his paranormal abilities fail him terribly" when "Cayce obtained information from another plane of reality informing him" that Piltdown man (Eoanthropus) was from Atlantis. Feder concludes that "Apparently, Cayce's other-worldly sources were not aware that the whole thing had been a fake." The facts about this are simple: Edgar Cayce the psychic never mentioned Piltdown man or Eoanthropus. But in one of (Cayce's son) Edgar Evans Cayce's books he mentioned them. Apparently, Feder's skeptical sources never mentioned to him that they actually couldn't tell the difference between Cayce the psychic and his son. And apparently, actual facts aren't important in Feder's book. What is important is the agenda and religious doctrine being pushed down gullible archaeology students' throats by self-proclaimed authorities. It is likely that in the future psuedoscientific editions of both Feder's and William's books, they will continue the deceptions.

In the very first pages of his substandard work, Mr. Feder tells us how he became interested in archaeological hoaxes. He says that he was reading a book called 'Morning of the Magicians' which unveiled evidence of the paranormal using shoddy science, bad fact-finding, and outright lies. Unfortunately, Mr. Feder is guilty of the same sins he denounces in chapter one.

Admittedly, the content of the first several chapters on revealed hoaxes is interesting and educational, and his sound debunking of psychic archaeology is an excellent example of how skepticism can help us all live a better life free from toll-free 800 hucksters. Unfortunately, this same skepticism dismisses any of the more interesting and plausible theories about how ancient life was lived and apparently gives him license to make false claims about false claims.

In addition to his outright fictions, Mr. Feder plays amateur psychologist when he ascribes motive to the frauds of yesteryear (nationalism or money). Amusingly, he also talks about why today's frauds are as popular as they are. About halfway through the book you suddenly realize that Mr. Feder feels bad that he's white, since he says that most of these myths are the result of racial supremacy. I certainly hope Mr. Feder gets over his whiteness soon, otherwise we may have to tolerate 5/e of this book written entirely in Ebonics.

I am a bit reluctant to point out one of the fictions that I found, as they will undoubtedly allow others to accuse me of being too religious in my motivations for a lukewarm review. However, one of the errors I found relates to the Book of Mormon. Mr. Feder states that this book says that the Moundbuilders were from Israel. The Moundbuilders post-date the alleged timeframe of the Book of Mormon by some 1000 years, so it would be very difficult for it to discuss these individuals. Further, a search of this book reveals no mentions of mounds or Moundbuilders at all. (I will admit there are a few Mormons that think this is the case, but it's certianly not directly mentioned in the book, as Feder represents it). If he can't be careful enough to check this fact during the past four runs of his book, I'll have to use his own skeptical logic to conclude that he's either a bad researcher or a liar, neither of which is a comforting option when the book purports to tell the truth.