In a recent episode of the Simpsons, we are taken back to the 90’s and introduced to Marge’s time at college. As her story unfolds, we are introduced to her history professor, a younger and more lecherous (hopefully) version of Howard Zinn. Every lecture of this young firebrand (who just seems more interested on the effect of his feminist rants on the libido of his freshman students) is focused on the conspiratorial nature of white protestant land owning males in the construction of history.
Now I will plead no contest to the fact that American history, and that of pretty much everything else, has been largely washed over in the image of a single group, though at times it seems to be more a tacit expression of power than an outright conspiracy, this episode lead me to thinking about the broader role of conspiracies in the study of history and archaeology.
Historically, we know that there were conspiracies, and there is documentary proof of such events. Some that come to mind are the various attempts by the CIA to replace Fidel Castro or the plot in 1944 to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
Of course, as one continues, more questionable claims of historic conspiracies arise, such as the various, and notably contrary, theories concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. At this point, one begins to see not only the possibility of a historic event, but a leading system of desires. In this case, many have noted a reluctance to place the power of destroying a beloved presidents in the hands of a single man. It should come as no surprise, that after many years, there has yet to be any good evidence of a large scale conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, which should tell us the likelyhood such a conspiracy actually having existed.
In history, other conspiracies arise as post-hoc explanations, meant to defend otherwise overturned hypotheses. Two clear examples of this come to mind. First, one can think of the supposed crash of a flying saucer in Roswell New Mexico. Since enthusiasts meet only with denial, they claim a conspiracy of silence, which in the end creates an even larger story.
A second example appears in the recent work of Simcha Jacobovici concerning the Talpiot Tomb, which he claims is the tomb of the biblical Jesus Christ, both in a book and a Discovery Channel Special. As many different scholars have pointed out, the Talpiot Tomb housed an ossuary inscribed “Jude son of Jesus”, which disagrees with all prior knowledge of Jesus. This could potentially throw extreme doubt onto the claims made of the Talpiot Tomb. Jacobovici presents the idea of a conspiracy carried out by the early followers of Jesus to hide the son of Jesus. Some have gone so far as to state that the known figure of Jesus’ brother was actually his son, hidden as another family member. Unfortunately for supporters of the Talpiot Tomb, this is just a hypothetical guess, which can offer no support. Instead, like the claims of a UFO conspiracy, this idea is simply an attempt to sidestep obvious contradictions of a favored theory.
Now, the study of history is plagued by a second source of false conspiracy claims, namely the accusations of pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. One of the common claim of individuals who posit alternative history, or unlikely claims of the past, is that the mainstream scholars who argue against their ideas are in fact making these arguments not because of the truth or evidence, but personal vendetta, and that they are united as a single scholarly cabal.
In his book 1491, Charles C. Martin explores new theories of pre-Columbian Native American history. Almost all of Martin’s favored theories are those of new scholars and those that highlight a strong and powerful image of Native civilization. In addressing contrary theories, Martin writes off all arguments against those theories he likes based not on evidence, but on the presentation of disenting scholars as old and outdated, defending an image of European supremacy. Often, 1491 frames these scholars as being a wall attempting to hold onto a united position. This is certainly not a valid reason to disregard the dissent, but it is often the only argument Martin can hide behind.
A similar assessment has been made concerning the argument of Afrocentrist scholars. Individuals, such as Mary Lefkowitz, have found that often the presentation of Afrocentrist theories and education is as being a voice of historical accuracy in light of a united European conspiracy. Dissenting historians have shown many areas of misinterpretation and fallacy in the Afrocentrist position. However, these too often go undressed, when the argument of conspiracy is much easier to make.
The arguments of a conspiracy to hide the truth of Native American greatness or an African origin for modern society seem plausible, because they are based on centuries of European supremacy and the developments of postmodernism, which tell us that historians and archaeologists are influenced by their personal beliefs. However, this does not mean that these claims require any less evidence than others. For instance, 1491 posits that pre-clovis society in the Americas existed, and is being denied by venerable scholars looking to protect their personal beliefs and scholarly credentials. The reality, is that we simply lack sufficient concrete evidence of such a pre-clovis society to make it a broadly accepted paradigm. However, this does not exactly look good or have the adventurous sound of a conspiracy called for in popular mass market books.
Of course, the grandfather of such conspiracy theories, which should serve as evidence of the problems they present, is Holocaust denial. The varied, though mostly bigoted, individuals who claim that the Holocaust did not occur or that its effect was greatly exaggerated, cross the boarder between theories of historic conspiracies and theories of modern scholarly conspiracies. First, they posit that the Holocaust was some how a fabrication, meant to benefit Jews, which of course neglects the many other groups persecuted by the Nazis. When faced with the obvious backlash of historical accuracy, they call scholars and historians part of this conspiracy, a technique that not only absolves them of the pesky necessity for evidence, but throws wood on the fire of their own rewriting of history.
Finally, no analysis of conspiracies would be complete without addressing the ever popular religious and media forms of underground cabals. Recently, in discussions of the Talpiot Tomb and its proposed link to Jesus, I came across a new theory which concerns both. Effectively, the idea presented is that the media, because of a Christian bias, has been actively covering up the “truth” concerning the Talpiot Tomb, namely that it did belong to Jesus Christ. According to the person who developed this idea there is overwhelming evidence concerning the Talpiot Tomb’s use, and because it contradicts the biblical narrative, America’s Evangelical Christians are keeping the truth away from everyone else. This is, of course, completely untrue. Many scholars, likely the majority, are skeptical of the theory, and any reporting of such would simply be accurate. Additionally, it is quite clear that, because it is a wonderfully controversial idea, the media has been doing a wonderful job covering the Talpiot Tomb, giving the truly converted Simcha Jacobovici not only a prime time special and a book, but an entire series, in which he often explores issues related to validating his idea. It should also be noted that the recent scholarly conference on the tomb received worldwide attention, not because of the important work that might have gone on, but because Ruth Gat stated that her husband, former excavator at the tomb, believed it had belonged to Jesus. Somewhat absent from the coverage was the general scholarly opinion that this fifteen year old opinion held little weight.
So, what should we take away from this discussion on conspiracies? That both historical plots and scholarly cover ups require the same evidence as every other claim. While by their nature, conspiracies are often hidden and if successful leave little evidence behind, one cannot create them, simply because they would offer a favored interpretation of history, or defend it. Certainly, there are historic conspiracies, such as the CIA plots to remove Castro from power. There are also scholarly biases, and it is likely that our image of America’s founding fathers is terribly romanticized and overlooks much of what white males wish it to. However, the likelihood of theories such as this, is insufficient to support the Roswell UFO and a hidden scion or to defend Afrocentrism, Holocaust denial, or the Jesus family tomb. In short, whenever you hear of a conspiracy, you should be skeptical, because everyone knows that good conspiracies go completely unnoticed.
Further Reading
Horovitz, David “‘My Husband Knew it Was Jesus’ Tomb‘” in The Jerusalem Post 1-29-2009
Jacobovici, Simcha, and Charles R. Pellegrino. The Jesus Family Tomb The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History. [San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.
Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997.
Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.
Filed under: Archaeology, Archaeoporn, Peer Review, Pseudo-Science, Religion, Talpiot Tomb | Tagged: Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Holocaust Denile, Jesus Dynasty, Jesus Tomb, JFK, Jude, Marge Simpson, Michael Shermer John F. Kennedy, Pseudo-archaeology, Pseudo-history, Roswell, Simcha Jacobovici, Talpiot Tomb, The Simpsons, UFO
Fantastic post.
I had a college professor who was obsessed (not to the point of being unable to effectively teach, but to the point where anything touching on the subject became a fifteen minute rant (amusing, but not helpful)) with Garrison’s theories.
Last summer while working at fires, I read 1491 and found it interesting. The subject of viticulture in the Amazon was inriguing. But I agree with your assessment that the author was more interested in highlighting controversy rather than admitting that the proof was not in yet. He overdoes the thesis, antithesis, synthesis of anthropological research and makes it sound much more combative and ego-dependent than most books on the subject I have read. It was an enjoyable read and kept me awake working 16-hour shifts at checkpoints in the middle of nowhere.
I do have an interesting conspiracy theory, though: another college professor who taught archaeology at my school (Dr. Sargent) had actually written a tongue-in-cheek paper regarding the disribution of Nova Scotia chert throughout the eastern US. He claimed it was done through the domestication of the mammoth to haul large amounts of stone. He claimed that the lack of evidence for the domestication of the mammoth was proof of the domestication of the mammoth (I suspect he went to a Jesuit school) and his logic was brilliantly absurd. He never even tried to publish it, but merely used it as a teaching tool to show that just because someone has a theory, it doesn’t mean the theory is based in reality. I wish I had a copy of it.
Again, fantastic post. I really enjoy your site.
In a general sense I agree with most of your summation. However, I think J.M. Adoviso’s The First Americans better displays the evidence of pre-clovis existence among archeologists. I have not read 1491, so I can’t comment on that text. I can gather the basis of the argument from your post.
The important factor to remember when “theorists” debate the meaning and importance of new information is that these are not necessarily “conspiracies.” Thomas Kuhn writes at length about the nature scientific revolutions, which I also relate to the social sciences. Those who hold a stake (through books, theses, teaching posts, etc.) in an accepted theory are inevitably motivated to defend it. When new evidence appears and threatens to discredit the accepted theory resistance is formed.
In the case of Adoviso, he unearthed a fire pit in an Ohio rock shelter through a routine masters course in stratigraphy. To his team’s surprise some of the charcoal was eventually dated beyond the earliest known relics relating to humans in North America. In the late seventies, Clovis theory was dominant. And, this theory was engineered to account for the rapid depletion of mammals at the end of the last ice age by ascribing these events to “roving bands of hunters.” Evidence unearthed by Adoviso implied that humans may have preceded Clovis by a minimum of 1,500 years. He discovered this evidence by chance. His excavations in Ohio were meant as a teaching exercise for graduate students.
Now, the reason I mention the book is to explain that throughout he accounts the vehemence by which his findings were attacked. Known Clovis scholars accused him of improperly documenting the site, falsifying his records of the dig, and attempted to expose him as a fraud.
The book clearly shows what resistance is within an academic community. The point is that those who are heavily invested into an accepted theory or school of thought often attack those who present new evidence (albeit minute) that threatens to undermine the current paradigm. This has taken place throughout the history of science in fields like astronomy, quantum physics, and chemistry among others.
The question remains, do these actually qualify as “conspiracies?” Not exactly, theories are hinged on the evidence that supports them, you’ve clearly stated this in your post. But, when evidence is presented that potentially undermines a larger theory, resistance from the vested scholars often becomes locked and irrational.
In the case of true conspiracy theories like JFK and 9/11, one must look at the evidence. In the spirit of one’s investments in the given explanation, evidence that undermines it will be resisted vehemently.
On a final note, your statement about good conspiracy theories being virtually unnoticed has a ring of truth. However, an analogy is necessary. Most Americans know that Kennedy was assassinated. Whether by a “lone gunman” or by an elite group of powerful stake holders we may never know for sure. There are many convincing documentaries and books, which attempt to line up exactly who was involved in his murder. However, even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly who took part and how, the average American would simply shrug it off and probably would not care. So, the conspiracy done in plain sight still goes virtually unnoticed.
Thanks for the post.
Thanks for the response.
Kuhn’s work with paradigms is actually something I plan on looking at quite soon.
While there certainly is an open discussion of pre-clovis Native Americans, the verdict is still undelivered, and most sites that are called pre-clovis are questionable enough to where archaeologists cannot yet present it as a definite presence. 1491 is open in both discussing it as a truth, and one actively covered up and fought against by what the author presents as a group of scholars unreasonably in conflict with a controversial idea.
[...] by the way of Marge Simpson! Take a four-fingered look at the very well referenced entry called Conspiracy Theories as Historical Just-So Stories and tell me if you’re not starting to demand as much evidence as Homer demands [...]
[...] the host of the blog, Thaddeus Nelson, however, attributes the word to Bill Dever) which situates this Jacobovici-Talpiot issue among other conspiracy [...]
Perhaps the best answer to the ‘Evangelical Christian Conspiracy to Hide the Truth of the Talpiot Tomb” (ECCHTTT?) is that a large proportion of the Skeptical and Atheist Comunity also looked at the evidence, some people even LiveBlogging the tv show. Almost without exception — and even that is a hedge, since I know of no exception but I didn’t read everybody — they found the show and evidence laughingly absurd.
Of course, if they’d looked at the website first they wouldn’t have been surprised. Along with a number of historical absurdities and Dan Brown-style conspiracies, they would have found the absolutely stunning argument that the child-sized ossuary was evidence that the putative child of Jesus might have grown up to be the ‘Beloved Disciple.’
(Well no, not exactly. The only certain thing we can say about the ossuary is that — unless human physiology has made a major change in 2000 years — the child did NOT grow up to be anyone. Did not grow up at all, in fact.)
[...] bookmarks tagged lecherous Conspiracy Theories as Historical Just so Stories saved by 1 others lkkjooio bookmarked on 02/05/08 | [...]