mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Archaeology World Resources News Search Links to other sites About us 

The following paper is reproduced with the permission of the author
and the journal. It was originally published in 1996 as: Hiscock, P.
1996 The New Age of alternative archaeology of Australia. Archaeology
in Oceania 31(3):152-164. Copyright statement is provided at the
bottom of the page.

The New Age of alternative archaeology in Australia

Peter Hiscock

ABSTRACT

A review of unconventional views of the chronology of humans in
Australia reveals something of the structure and diversity of
alternative archaeology. Alternative ideas on Australian prehistory
are increasingly brought to the public through high volume sales of
magazines and books, and there are indications that such views
currently have a surprising level of popularity. Increasingly these
views are being rephrased to be mystical or New Age in nature rather
than pseudo-scientific. Some of the complexity of any response by
conventional archaeology is discussed.

INTRODUCTION

As we approach the new millennium debates about the origin and
antiquity of humans intensify. Many popular discussions concern the
immediate future, ranging from disagreements about which year marks
the new millennium to the magnitude of social change that will
accompany the Age of Aquarius that is now dawning. As one section of
the community anticipates the emergence of a new social order centred
on spiritual values, another expects the beginning of the destruction
of the world. And just as the approaching millennium raises these
concerns for the future, it also serves to focus interest on the
chronology of humans generally, including our knowledge of humanity in
the distant past. For some discussants the conceivable time depth of
humanity is remarkably long, while for others the span of human
existence is extremely short. Each vision of chronology is accompanied
by a different notion of the nature of human society in the past.
These are old interests, long-standing myths, which have re-emerged
because our calendar registers a particular number. This count-down to
the end of the millennium is marked in 1996 by the 6,000 anniversary
of the world according to the calculations of James Ussher and other
scholars in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This anniversary is
recognised not only by conventional archaeologists but also by many
people with an unconventional view of human chronology. It is the
diversity of these unconventional views that is the subject of this
paper.

As an intrinsic need in our discipline archaeologists pursue an
interest in the establishment of sequence and antiquity. In the years
since Ussher offered his estimate for human antiquity archaeologists
have greatly altered and refined their best estimates for events, to
such an extent that Usshers statements look so wildly improbable as to
be irrational (but see Gould 1993). However many people are engaged in
the construction of images of the past, and a number of these images
make Usshers chronological calculations look conservative. These
endeavours, sometimes collectively labelled as cult archaeology, have
been periodically examined by archaeologists because they claim a
knowledge of the past and that their construction is more real than
the image presented by conventional archaeological research.

On the anniversary of the world, according to one calculation, it is
an appropriate opportunity to examine the current structure and
diversity of unconventional archaeology in Australia and its
implications for any response by conventional archaeology. In keeping
with this theme, the following discussion centres on the
unconventional constructions of chronology, the alternative means by
which knowledge of the past is acquired and the unusual stories of the
past that result. This is a useful device for portraying the variation
in unconventional depictions of the past since the time depth of
different frameworks underpins other aspects of the historical
construction, including the nature and rate of social and
environmental change, and the characters that participate in the
historical dramas that are imagined.

SOME RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

Defining a number of terms can assist in the task of characterising
unconventional views of Australian prehistory. Several authors of
those unconventional views claim to be describing what they label as
the hidden history of Australia. From their view hidden history is a
very different view of the past that conventional science refuses to
acknowledge and hides from the public. It is useful to separate this
inferred past from unconventional archaeology or alternative
archaeology which we can see as the unconventional approaches to
obtaining information about that past. Using this terminology
alternative archaeology is the mechanisms of acquiring the knowledge
from which hidden history is constructed; a dichotomy between approach
and inference sometimes seen amongst conventional archaeologists who
choose to separate the concepts of prehistory and archaeology. This
paper deals with alternative archaeology in Australia and the hidden
history it yields.

With this distinction in mind it is clear that there are not only a
number of different versions of hidden histories in Australia but also
different versions of alternative archaeology. When archaeologists
think of alternative (or cult) archaeology we often think of those
patterns of argument that imitate conventional archaeological process
and language but arrive at outlandish conclusions. Such pseudo-science
phrasing has often been seen in publications advancing the notion that
alien beings visited earth to influence human development, and the
proposition that Ussher was correct in estimating the history of the
earth at a mere 6,000 years as demonstrated by the text of the Bible.
However these pseudo-science forms are only a fraction of the range of
alternative archaeology. Of course other forms of alternative
archaeology have been recognised by conventional archaeologists, but
they have often been labelled as psychic archaeology (eg. Cole
1980:14-15) or something similar, even though such terms fail to
adequately characterise the nature of those arguments. These arguments
that do not ape conventional science are better described as a New Age
form of alternative archaeology.

Technically the term New Age refers to a form of thought and behaviour
rather than a particular time period, and while the adherents of New
Age perspectives expect their views to become dominant in the zodiacal
Age of Aquarius (began 1987) the New Age is not synonymous with that
astrological phase. This principle can be seen in the hidden history
that is often cited by New Age thinkers, in which New Age
consciousness was once more widespread than it is now. For example,
one explanation offered for the current abundance of channeling
(information reception by trance mediums) is that many people acquired
the skill in past lives. Vywamus (1993:50) suggests that

Many of you who are really drawn to channeling have had earlier
training in other times. Perhaps you began in Atlantis or Lemuria
or even before that, and certainly many of you had really quite
sophisticated training in ancient Egypt.

Reference to hidden history in which New Age notions were once common
is often phrased in terms of cycles of feminine and masculine forces
(or energies or powers or principles). Devotees to New Age thinking,
such as Edwards (1993:215) claim that the recent past has been
dominated by masculine forces leading to patriarchy, materialism and
other evils (in which she includes nuclear weapons, child abuse and
capitalism). In much earlier times it is believed that feminine forces
(sometimes referred to as the "Goddess") were dominant, allowing a
life of cooperation and spiritual awareness. Hence Edwards (1993:216)
suggests that "...the New Age invites us to celebrate the re-emergence
of the Goddess..." Discussions of Australian prehistory in terms of
cycles of these mystical forces are now found in the literature
produced by unconventional archaeologists (see below).

New Age thinking is characterised by the quest for synthesis of all
knowledge, incorporating material phenomena but extending to the
non-material, accompanied by growth of personal awareness of what is
perceived to be the intrinsically spiritual and unitary nature of
humans and their environment. These occult truths are, according to
Parrish-Harra (1994:132), "Realities that lie behind the apparent and
are comprehended only gradually as we continue to see the cause side
of life." Because this New Age perspective begins with the presumption
that a deeper non-physical reality (the cause) exists behind any
physical entity, reference to theory testing by close inspection of
material objects is seen as superficial and misleading. Instead the
real nature of the world is typically sought through direct contact
with the non-physical phenomena (via revelation of many forms
including psychic ones such as channeling), rather than indirectly
through an understanding of the material world. In an Australian
context an excellent example is provided in the article by OGrady
(1995), who discusses the mystical nature of spiral rock art motifs
that she believes designate localities where electro-magnetic energy
collects. Discussing art sites in the Flinders Ranges she writes,

Chakras are spirals in the human energy field (Sanskrit, meaning
"wheels"). Little wonder then that our groups chakras attracted
meditation and vision experiences that were rich and mystical.
They included massive "reception" of symbols, and inexplicable
feelings of familiarity with formerly unseen rock carvings, which
researchers are now connecting with similar carvings in ancient
China, Pakistan and Easter Island. Perhaps the oldest in the
world, these are believed by some sources to be pre-aboriginal,
carbon-dated at around 50,000 years old. The group also reported
spirit interaction and even communication with beings in other
dimensions. They seemed to be agreeing with ancient artists who
often depicted the spiral as the key which opens the door into the
next world. (OGrady 1995:22).

This approach to archaeological materials in Australia, while perhaps
extreme, is not isolated, and is seen in other recent publications
(eg. Buchanan 1995; Gavanga 1995; Lind 1995). Such New Age
interpretations of the world are based on the belief that
knowledgeable/aware individuals can be active participants in the
magic that permeates the world and can employ it to interact with the
past. Since this view requires a permanent suspension of
scientifically derived laws, it creates a very different process of
knowing the past, in which time travel or mental communication with
star beings may be equally as important as the recovery of
archaeological objects. As the quote above shows, there is continued
reference to material such as rock engravings and materials analysis
such as radiometric dating, but the sources of knowledge for this
alternative archaeology extend far beyond the mundane approach of
science.

Conventional archaeologists have sometimes implied that New Age
arguments of this kind are unpopular and relatively marginal (eg. Cole
1980:14). While that may have been the case in the 1970s, in Australia
in 1996 it is not clear that such arguments are either unpopular or
uncommon. As the millennium nears, publications on alternative
archaeology appear to display a trend away from pseudo-science
approaches and phrasings, towards New Age forms of investigations and
explanations. Indeed, hidden histories that were previously phrased as
pseudo-science, such as recent creation or alien intervention models,
are increasingly being rephrased using New Age approaches. Examples
are provided below. Consequently a mixture of versions of alternative
archaeology is currently being published, and present a variety of
challenges to conventional archaeology.

PUBLISHING IN ALTERNATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY

In the 1970s Australian audiences flocked to read and listen to von
Daniken (1971, 1972) explain archaeological debris as the product of
human contact with alien astronauts. In recent years the Australian
public has proved a ready market for not only a string of ancient
astronaut books, but a range of other stories of hidden (pre-)history.
A thriving local community of alternative researchers now exists,
producing unconventional interpretations of the past for international
as well as Australian consumption.

One reason for the increased output of alternative researchers, and
hence their higher visibility, is the effective use they have made of
new publishing technology. For example, Stan Deyo advertises his books
about the real meaning of the New Testament and other hidden history
on the World Wide Web (see Appendix 1), apparently with some success,
since 6-9,000 people look at that Web page each month according to
Deyo. Desktop publishing has been employed to produce cheap books
while circumventing any conventional refereeing and the strictures of
traditional publishing houses (eg. West 1995). However, such efforts
would fail if not for the existence of a distribution network provided
by a series of popular journals available through most newsagents.

While researchers into alternative archaeology often portray
themselves as independent and anti-establishment, there are many
instances in which the search for hidden history has been
institutionalised. In these cases specially constructed societies or
foundations serve as the institutional framework for these activities.
For example, the American Ancient Astronaut Society (through its
journal Ancient skies), acts as a focus for the adherents of the
extra-terrestrial intervention model. In Australia the most prominent
institution of this kind is the Creation Science Foundation Limited,
based in Queensland and connected to the Institute of Creation
Research in San Diego (see Plimer 1994). Through its books and glossy
journals, such as Creation ex nihilo, the Creation Science Foundation
pursues its message of the falsity of evolution. Other institutions,
such as the Temple of Yahweh also based in Queensland, also pursue
anti-evolutionary and/or apocalyptic visions of the past.

However, facilitated by the advent of cheap desktop publishing, a
number of popular journals have emerged that are apparently
independent of any such institutions and have also become a central
focus for the construction of hidden histories. The Queensland
magazine NEXUS illustrates this pattern. Billing itself as the New
Times, the editors expressly state that "Nexus is not linked to any
religious, philosophical or political ideology or organisation". But
while it may be true that there is no obvious link to particular
organisations, the content of each volume focuses on miraculous
technologies suppressed by governments (eg. cancer cures, free energy
generators), UFOs and aliens, hidden histories covered up by science,
and the like. In fact these themes reflect a definite political and
philosophical orientation embodied in a second editorial statement:

Nexus recognises that humanity is undergoing a massive transformation.
With this in mind, Nexus seeks to provide hard-to-get information,
so as to assist people through these changes.

This statement reveals two underlying propositions, presumably held by
both contributors and readers. Firstly that the information is
generally reliable and of practical value in charting a course through
inevitable social changes. These social changes must be based on a
less materialist, and more spiritual and metaphysical view of the
world in which psychic communication is as accepted as telephones. The
second proposition is that this more accurate depiction of the
workings of the world is suppressed by existing power structures such
as governments and educational/scientific establishments. One result
of this suppression is the idea that hidden information is hard to
obtain, making a journal such as NEXUS a rare entrance into the true
events of the world.

Similar orientations can be found in editorial statements of other
alternative journals. For instance the Queensland magazine Exposure
claims to be a publication of independent authors providing the facts
not presented by the Establishment, the Melbourne-based New Dawn
announces itself as a "journal of conspiracies and metaphysics", and
the Adelaide-based Golden Age magazine aims to offer "...a 360o
perspective on Truth".

Whatever the philosophical underpinning of such magazines, they appear
popular with the public. While this is not the place in which to
discuss the popularity of these publications, their distribution can
be gauged in two ways. Firstly, sales of these magazines are high,
both on an absolute scale and relative to the circulation of
conventional archaeology journals. For example NEXUS claims to have
sales of 75,000 every two months. A second indication of the
popularity of these magazines is the growth of international outlets
for them. For example, NEXUS has established offices in the UK, the
USA, Italy, and New Zealand, while Exposure has offices in Germany and
the Netherlands. These may be suggestions of popularity, but they are
also indications of the potential market reach of alternative
archaeology, and must serve to encourage the study of the
unconventional views being presented.

CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

As a simple device to give order to the large range of chronological
constructions in alternative archaeology I have defined three
categories of argument visible in publications discussing an
unconventional Australian past. These categories can be labelled
according to their advocacy of 1) a very long chronology for modern
humans, 2) a very short chronology for humans, and 3) time travel as
negating conventional archaeological concerns with chronology. All
three constructions share some features, such a belief that
conventional archaeology is close-minded about the deep truth of the
world, and a tendency to be concerned with the existence of modern
humans rather than the mechanisms by which hominids developed to that
state. Nevertheless, while they share those features they differ in
their basic conception of the length and nature of human antiquity,
and they display some of the variety of approaches to knowledge
acquisition that can be found in current alternative archaeology.

1. Long Chronology

In this framework anatomically and culturally modern humans have
existed for an extended period of time. The most obvious example of
this view is the ubiquitous belief that early high civilisations such
as Atlantis existed in time periods that are unacceptably old
according to the evidence of conventional archaeology. However the
recognition of Atlantis in the terminal Pleistocene is almost
conservative in comparison to other claims of modern humans as present
on earth many tens of millions of years ago.

Acceptance of a high antiquity for technologically advanced and
politically hierarchical societies facilitates images of the past in
which those societies acted out great dramas and settled all parts of
the globe. Much of this hidden history is seen to be part of a
succession of lost civilisations in which survivors of one
civilisation retain much advanced knowledge and gave rise to further
civilisations, eventually leading to the historically known high
societies (in Egypt, China, Mesoamerica etc). Alternative
archaeologists see this extended history of conventionally
unrecognised societies incorporating prehistoric Australia, as
revealed in the kind of evidence described by Paul White (1994:17):

The non-Aboriginal writing and hieroglyphs he found, carbon dated at
forty thousand years, displayed the pilgrimage of other ancient
cultures to this major Power Place on the Grid, that used writing
forms tracing back to the Mother culture through Vedic, Mayan,
Easter Island, etc.

A variant of this notion of the presence of early civilisations in
Sahul is the claim that those societies originated here. An example of
such claims is Gilroys (1995:284) discussion of the stonehenges and
other astronomical stone arrangements he reports from Australia:

By their very appearance, the ancient megalithic formations of
Australia are remarkably similar to but far older than any
megalithic sites of the old European/Asian Earth-worshipping
peoples found beyond our shores. This leads us to the proposition
that in dim antiquity the megalithic civilisation (the earliest
known to mankind), together with its Earth Mother/ Sky Father/Sun
God religion (mankinds first religion), began here in Australia
from where its originators spread out across the Earth.

These and other depictions of a long history for humans insist that
the deep past was remarkably similar to human life in the recent
historical period. These similarities can be expressed in a number of
ways, such as the continued existence of hidden hominids (evolution
may occur, but extinction never does and so all species continue) or
the presence of anatomically modern humans in early geological strata
(evolution, for at least humans, does not occur). Within this concept
of a long chronology at least two distinctive sub-types can be seen in
the alternative archaeology literature:

1. GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY in which the radiometric timescale for earth
history, as established by geologists, is accepted. This time scale,
expressed either in years BP or geological epochs, is employed as the
framework in which to discuss change and/or antiquity of events.
However, while the geological time scale for the environment is
accepted the conventional archaeological time scale for modern humans
is explicitly rejected in favour of claims for astounding dates for
modern (often urban, western) humans. Some of these notions of human
antiquity appeal directly to evidence that is at least phrased in
conventional archaeological terms, while extending known chronology
for humans in Australia beyond that accepted by professional
archaeologists. For example, the general style and tone of
presentation used by Gilroy (1995:173) is very close to that employed
by conventional texts, even though he is arguing for the presence of
Meganthropus or Homo erectus in Australia. Writing of sites near
Bathurst he concludes,

A comparison of the megatools from the six occupation sites soon
showed considerable stylisation in the hand-axes, knives, adzes
and other tools, forming two distinct tool-type culture periods.
These have since been named the "Late" and "Early Phase", the
"Early Phase" being the oldest and most primitive, the "Late
Phase" showing more advanced styles of workmanship. ...the strata
in which the "Early Phase" tools are found date from around 60,000
back to 180,000 years BP. Aboriginal occupation of the Bathurst
region itself dates back at least 50,000 years, so it is obvious
that Aborigines lived side by side with the megatool people.

While this conclusion may seem radical, even more dramatic
interpretations of prehistory are forthcoming from those who deny
evolutionary processes in humans but allow for a geological time scale
(not to be confused with the biblical creationists discussed below).
An outstanding example of this framework is provided by West (1995:54)
in his book, What really caused the Dinosaurs demise?, in which he
writes,

The reproduced pictures in this book, and many more too numerous to
include, demonstrate that evolution is a fantasy and fake,
carefully protected and promoted by those whose interests are best
served. One picture shows a sandal footprint fossil of Cambrian
origin, about 500 to 600 million years old, with a small Trilobite
embedded in the heel!
Trilobites are primitive scavengers of ancient seas of Lower
Palaeozoic and Upper Palaeozoic. See picture of the specimen owned
by the authors, of a fossil found at Mt Isa, about 3 inches long.
There is quite strong evidence that intelligent man lived during
very earliest times, many millions of years ago.
Any fossils which are unearthed and are in direct contradiction to
the evolution theory are rejected solely because they dont fit in
with the beliefs of many scientists.

In these examples, and many other books and articles in the
alternative press, it is humans that depart from the natural processes
of change established by science. Continents move, sea levels rise and
fall, but modern humans remain unchanged throughout. In that sense the
hidden histories that use geological time scales are often
anti-evolutionary, shown by the unwillingness of their supporters to
accept the reality of even local extinctions (thylacines still roam
New South Wales, Meganthropus still lives in the southern highlands,
and so on).

2. CELESTIAL CHRONOLOGY focuses on cycles of terrestrial change
reflecting astronomical cycles. In this framework the absolute
antiquity of the earth or humanity is often less important than the
point in the cycle at which at event happened. In addition the nature
of the cyclical change induces patterning into cultural change, as
human affairs follow astronomical events. A commonly used celestial
framework involves the 25,800 year cycle of precession, in which the
earths rotation axis moves relative to the plane of the Earths orbit.
Within this cycle events are seen to occur 24-26,000 years ago (eg.
destruction of Lemuria), 12-13,000 years ago (eg. sinking of
Atlantis), or 5-6,000 years ago (eg. change from matriarchy to
patriarchy); representing full-, half-, and quarter-cycles
respectively.

Two examples are sufficient to illustrate the kinds of hidden
histories that use this celestial chronology. The first example
explicitly invokes astronomical processes because a star composed of
light-beings (sometimes celestial beings or angels) is said to circle
the earth causing cycles of change. For example, Scallion (1995b)
writes that "Prior to major Earth changes and major shifts in
consciousness, spiritual forces send guidance to prepare us for these
changes...a Blue Star, that moves through the heavens in regular
cycles, such as a comet, except this celestial object is pure
spiritual forces... This same star also visited Earth 12,000 years
ago, to warn the world of the coming of the Flood - the sinking of
Atlantis." Some versions of this model have the light-beings
descending to earth to create humanity, and invoke Aboriginal stories
as evidence for these events:

My Aboriginal teachers relate the extraordinary tale of their origins
as free-living Light beings beyond this dimension, who
materialised onto a Paradise World that was somehow corrupted and
destroyed by Dark Forces. (White 1994:16)

The second example comes from Lawlors (1991) Voices of the first day,
in which the human occupation of Australia reflects the larger cycles
of glaciations, magnetism and the flows of Universal feminine and
masculine forces. According to Lawlor (1991:92) the occupation of
Australia is far longer than allowed by conventional archaeology, and
is tied to the intrinsic rhythms of the earth. He summarises this
prehistory as follows:

The 120,000 years of the Ice Epoch is concurrent with the approximate
120,000 years of Aboriginal culture in Australia. Both of these
are in harmony with the 60,000 years of cultural oscillation that
the ancient Dravidians called the Yugas, a period that extended
from the Golden Age to the Age of Kali.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Illustration of Lawlor's (1991:91) 'cycle of activity' with
which he claims to describe trends in Australian prehistory over the
last 60,000 years.

Figure 1 presents a redrawn version of Lawlors (1991:92) illustration
of his story about the last 60,000 years of this period, showing not
only his dating of events in prehistory but also the underlying cycles
of the Universal Feminine and Universal Masculine which influence both
humanity and nature. In this model he sees the historic period (the
last 6,000 years) as a relatively short-lived and atypical phase in
the cycles of human affairs, which was preceded by a golden age of
creativity in which Aboriginals harnessed the crystalline substances
found in the cells of their bodies to provide energy fields that
enhanced their view of spiritual conditions (Lawlor 1991:376).
Nevertheless, amid these cycles of change Lawlor sees many of the
critical aspects of Aboriginal life as unchanging for more than
100,000 years, including tribal law, respect for women, ritual and
spiritual values.

In many instances these celestial chronologies are also seen as an
indicator of the falsity of evolution as a depiction of change. For
example, Lawlor (1991:91) argues that evolution has been perceived
because only a portion of a larger cycle of activity has been
analysed, thereby creating an illusion of directionality and progress.
As shown in Figure 1 Lawlors model accepts social change, but only as
part of a cycle, and anticipates the return to the generating social
values of the ancient matriarchy in the near future. Almost identical
views of a long-lasting matriarchy replaced by an aggressive
patriarchy during the period of recorded history, and an inevitable
return to the matriarchy in the near future, are described in a number
of sources, such as Sellman (1995:8), who writes,

Extensive archaeological research has verified that 38,000 years ago
humanity worshipped the feminine principle which was personified
in the symbolism of the Goddess...They displayed respect for the
natural cycles of women, and women held exalted roles as
priestesses, leaders, healers, midwives and diviners...All of this
began to change about 5000 years ago when warring tribes from
northern Europe and central Asia descended into western Europe,
the near east and India. They invaded, conquered and destroyed the
indigenous Goddess cultures.

Although these hidden histories may cite archaeological material they
rely more on revelation than on any examination of physical evidence.
As noted earlier, this emphasis on metaphysical explanations and
sources of information are typical of the New Age thinking reflected
in this alternative archaeology.

2. Short Chronology

Since its inception Judeo-Christian mythology has often been tied to
the perception of a short chronology for the world, and the
anticipation of an imminent Armageddon (see Theiring 1993, 1995). Thus
although there is no logical requirement for supporters of a short
chronology to follow that intellectual tradition it is the dominant
pattern. Consequently it is common for the construction of a short
chronology for humans to also be a biblical chronology in which the
true time span of the earth is said to be reflected in biblical
genealogies. In this framework anatomically and culturally modern
humans have existed for only the last few thousand years, usually
about 6,000 years and often with precision as that period since 4,004
BC. This scale, while deriving ultimately from a particular
interpretation of the Old Testament, owes much to the formulation of
James Ussher and other Enlightenment scholars, and has now been
entrenched as a fixed and unassailable time scale by many of the
adherents of a biblical chronology.

For a chronological framework of this brevity to account for visible
geological, palaeontological and archaeological evidence a number of
related arguments are required. Events must be compressed into a small
amount of time (6,000 years), necessitating a rate of environmental
change so rapid that the development of the modern world must involve
catastrophic events (the Flood), and preventing any form of gradual or
long-term change (such as organic evolution). Taken together, and tied
to the unswerving acceptance of literal interpretations of the Old
Testament, these propositions form the view we may label Biblical
Creationism.

Time compression is often achieved by rejecting conventional
geological measurements of antiquity, and arguing that the only
reliable record of the past is the historic literature. This enables
radiometric age-estimates to be replaced by dates derived from the
Bible. An example of this procedure is Snellings (1984) argument that
the silver-lead-zinc and copper orebodies at Mount Isa, normally
thought to be 1,650 million years old, are in fact only 4,000 years
old. His reasons were given as follows,

...Noahs Flood (approximately 4,300 years ago) was the event
responsible for most of the fossils in the earths crust. Thus...
wherever fossils or organic matter representing fossil remains are
found in the geological column the rocks containing the fossils
were deposited either by or after Noahs Flood regardless of their
assumed evolutionary geological age. (Snelling 1984:42).

Using this principle Snelling reduces the age of the ore bodies to a
mere 4,000 years because he can show life to have been present during
the formation of those deposits. In this view the story told by
conventional archaeology is unacceptable: human occupation of this
continent began only 4,000 years ago when Noahs descendants settled,
bringing the distinctive Australian fauna such as kangaroos with them
(eg. Ham 1996). To the supporters of biblical creationism there is no
question of how Sahul was colonised, no investigation of the long
struggle for adaptive success throughout the glacial maximum, no
concern for the human contribution to megafaunal extinctions (they
died in the Flood), and no examination of issues of emerging social
complexity. A drastically shortened history of the world offers no
opportunity to examine any of these issues being pursued in
conventional Australian archaeology, and since there is barely time
for miraculous creation and the catastrophic geomorphic change
associated with the flood there is also no opportunity for
evolutionary change.

Advocacy of a short chronology in Biblical Creationism is so strongly
pseudo-scientific in its phrasing and structure that its adherents
insist, rather misleadingly, on calling it Creation Science. Although
Biblical Creationists accept miraculous events in the distant past,
their adherence to orthodox Christian denial of magic makes them
comparatively immune to encroachment by New Age thinking.
Consequently, against the trend toward New Age views in unconventional
archaeology, the form of alternative archaeology found in Biblical
Creationism continues to pursue pseudo-scientific investigations of
material evidence as a key means of illustrating its literal
interpretation of the Bible.

3. Temporal travel

A third chronological framework is distinctive because it claims that
direct, observational knowledge of the human past remains available,
irrespective of the antiquity of humans being studied. This view
believes reliable knowledge of the past can derive from dreams, past
life therapy, or psychic experiences (eg. Buchanan 1994). In some
instances this knowledge is claimed to come indirectly, such as
information related by some alien or higher being; while in other
instances the authors claim to have actually travelled in time
(physically or psychically) and to be an observer of past events.

In this framework material evidence is often considered both
unattainable and unnecessary, since there are personal observations
that are taken to be inherently superior. These non-material
revelations are typical of the more extreme examples of New Age
investigations in which information about the world is regularly
derived from mystical experiences that transcend material phenomena to
give direct access to the thoughts, actions, and energies of absent
individuals. As an example, in describing a visit to British ruins she
asserts to be King Arthur's castle, Buchanan (1995:45) identifies the
location of Arthurs birth, because

...I felt a particular pull of energy to one spot. It felt like a
vortex of force, with quietness in its centre, as if at that point
heaven and earth were joined, making possible continuous
intercommunication between humans and angels. It was similar to
the feeling I experienced when I sat in a perfectly symmetrical
crop circle. A sense of being in a place where peaceful, powerful
communication between humans and extra terrestrials could occur.

Beliefs such as these relate to a notion that time is bidirectional
and, as in the case of Buchanans (1995) writings, that at least
certain individuals from the distant past, who might be Ascended
Masters still exist and may return physically or energetically.
Removed from the limitations of studying physical material preserved
from the past, the interpretations of the past presented with this
chronological perspective are often both vivid and bizarre from a
conventional viewpoint.

Another manifestation of this perceived bidirectionality of time is
the notion that it is possible to accurately know the future, and that
since ancient people knew the future they created prophetic messages
embedded in objects that have been preserved in the archaeological
record. These messages may be direct and obvious, such as Whites
(1994, 1996) claims that Egyptian hieroglyphs exist in the Hunter
Valley and are a prophecy. Alternatively, some writers see prophecies
more subtly represented in archaeological objects, such as Jeffreys
(1993) claim that the dimensions of the passages within the Great
Pyramid accurately record the history of the world to the present day
and into the future.

EGYPTIANS IN AUSTRALIA: AN EXAMPLE OF HIDDEN HISTORY

As an example of the different images of the past that are constructed
within each of these chronological conventions I have selected a
series of quotes that relate to alternative visions of ancient Egypt
and ancient Egyptians in Australia. This not only provides a common
theme, to highlight contrasts between these views, but reflects the
consistent obsession, mentioned above, with the lost civilisations.
These examples also illustrate some of the broader consequences of
these unconventional chronological frameworks.

With a long chronology for known and early unknown civilisations there
is endless opportunity for alternative archaeology to develop a
picture of migration and diffusion of ideas, including the occupation
of Australia by lost civilisations before and during a period of
Aboriginal occupation (eg. Childress 1995). For example, with authors
variously assigning the Sphinx at Giza to the refugees from Atlantis
over 10,000 years ago or to Neandertals at even earlier times the
chronology of Egypt becomes long and complex (eg. Percy 1996). It is
therefore not surprising that books and articles describe the presence
of dynastic Egyptians in Australia. Indeed, self proclaimed
alternative archaeologists discuss apparently abundant evidence for
Egyptians that they say conventional archaeology has refused to
acknowledge. For example, Paul White (1994, 1996) has reported on a
panel of hieroglyphic engravings on a sandstone rock face in the
Hunter Valley. He and other alternative researchers have no doubt the
engravings are genuine, and see them as consistent with a range of
other evidence including coins, statuary, pyramids and other
engravings (see Childress 1995; Gilroy 1995:246-263). White (1994:18)
describes the Hunter Valley engravings as follows,

I turned on the video camera and walked the last short distance to the
top of the vault. Turning the camera to the wall, there was a half
life-size carving of the Egyptian god Anubis!....The entire wall
was covered with a phonetic script. Even to the uninitiated, this
was clearly Egyptian writing, with many universally recognised
symbols, ranging through ankhs, sphinxes, scarabs, birds and
pyramids - including complete cartouche panels, naming the
reigning Pharaoh of that time period as Khufu, or Cheops, circa
2,600 B.C.
I had been prepared for a few Egyptian characters and had been
thinking about the giant Eye of Horus I had filmed in the desert
the previous year - but nothing like this!

Interpretations of sites such as this, by White and others, occur at
two levels. There is usually a discussion of the objects in a fairly
straight-forward way that mimics conventional archaeological, but
rarely involves any detailed examination of site formation and instead
concentrates on the circumstances of the purported diffusion. White
(1994, 1996) speculates that a mixture of priests, Hebrew and
Egyptian, explored the world more than 5,000 years ago in search of
Mu, the lost Motherland of the Pacific (but known to the Egyptians, of
course). A second level of interpretation is often more metaphysical
and concerned with what is seen to be the deeper reasons for events.
For example White (1994) not only interprets the Hunter Valley
engravings as a historical record, but suggests that their position in
the landscape relates to points of earth energy (known to the
Egyptians, of course) and/or as prophecies left to inform the
knowledgeable (such as alternative archaeologists?). This dual level
of interpretation is typical of New Age influences in alternative
archaeology, but it is the more material interpretation that is worth
discussing at this point. Hidden histories which involve early
non-aboriginal civilisations in Australia imply that some, and perhaps
much of the history and archaeology of Australia relates to those
civilisations. This implication is not lost on many alternative
archaeologists, and notions such as Gilroys (1995:284) create an
Australian prehistory that gives priority to those lost (and
invariably Caucasian) groups of people:

...the first modern Homo sapiens evolved in Australia, eventually
spreading out across the Earth. These humans, it appears, were our
mysterious megalith-builders who developed the earliest form of
civilisation right here in Australia - the pale-skinned (i.e.,
white) "culture heroes", the "old ones" whom the Aboriginal
traditions say preceded them on this continent.

As remarked above the opposite extreme to those long time scales is
the Biblical Creationists insistence on a 6,000 year history of the
world. One of the most remarkable examples of unconventional short
chronology is the temporal shortening of Egyptian history provided by
Osgood (1986:89). He offers a detailed alternative chronology for the
Egyptian region consistent with the tenets of Biblical Creationism.
His construction is founded on two propositions. Firstly, he concludes
that fluctuation through time in the concentration of radiocarbon in
the atmosphere invalidates radiocarbon (and by implication other
radiometric) age estimates. Secondly, while broadly accepting the
conventional culture-history sequence, Osgood constructs a drastically
shorter chronology by reinterpreting the archaeological record in
terms of dramatic spatial variation as well as change through time.
Consequently, he interprets the archaeological record as showing
variation in past socio-economic structure because he argues the
distinctive settlement-subsistence systems (eg. foraging or urbanism,
stone using or metal using) that conventional archaeology would assign
to two or more different phases were actually contemporary but found
in different localities (eg. different valleys). Using this argument
Osgood constructs a rapid succession of cultural phases, as summarised
in Table 1.

Table 1

Osgood's (1986) comparison of 'Evolutionary' and Biblical chronology
for Egypt.

Cultural phase

'Evolutionary' chronology

Osgood's chronology

Dynastic (historic)

<3,000 B.C.

<1,870 B.C.

Chalcolithic

5,000-3,000 B.C.

1,950-1,870 B.C.

Neolithic

8,000-5,000 B.C.

2,100-1,950 B.C.

Mesolithic

10,000-8,000 B.C.

--------

Palaeolithic

2,000,000-10,000 B.C.

2,150-2,100 B.C.

--------

FLOOD

Pre-diluvial

--------

4,000 B.C.???

Conventional archaeologists will immediately see the scale of the time
compression represented in this framework. At one end of this sequence
Egyptian history is reduced to half it's known length (the whole of
the Old Kingdom now missing), while at the other end of this sequence
the entire Palaeolithic period is compressed into a mere 50 years (ie.
one or two generations). This abbreviated Palaeolithic makes sense to
Biblical Creationists because it represents only the period in which
humans rebuilt their social and material world after the catastrophe
of the Flood. A rapid and dramatic rise of historically recorded urban
centres and complex social systems is often seen to be a consequence
of the new capacities of the survivors of the Flood, who were
intelligent in contrast to their predecessors. For example, Yahweh
(1993:37) writes in this vein that,

All the evidence shows that the expeditious appearance of high
civilisation was synonymous with the spreading of the Adamites on
the earth. Adamic man is conscious man, thinking man, spirit man
or human.

Such an Adam theory of Biblical Creationists (providing a remarkable
contrast with the Eve theory of conventional archaeology) is directly
related to the constraints of the short time scale on which they
operate.

However the more important implication of this view is that with a
vision of such a short chronology there is no possibility that humans
gradually evolved or colonised and lived in Australia in the distant
past. Instead it is held that historical residents of Australia must
have been brought here after the Flood. Hence, while this Biblical
Creationism is not inherently opposed to the visitation of Australia
by Egyptians or other people from high civilisations it is
automatically opposed to the conventional reconstruction of Australian
prehistory. For example, Plimer (1994:208) quotes a typical Biblical
Creationism statement that

...the Aborigines are not and never have been evolutionist. It also
demonstrates that they have not been in the land for 40,000 or
more years, that they came here after the time of Noahs Flood and
brought with them their memories of Creation and the Tower of
Babel. These memories are vividly preserved in their Dreamtime
stories.

Quite different images of the past are presented by advocates of the
time travel framework. One of the better examples of this framework is
the recent article by Scallion (1995b), in which he claims to travel
through time at will and communicate with an all-knowing creature
called the monad that resides within him. Scallions purported ability
to visit the past provides him with descriptions of events in the
past, while he uses his internal dialogue with the all-knowing entity
to obtain a deep understanding of the reasons behind historical
events. In one of his temporal travels Scallion (1995a) described the
construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza thus:

I found myself being drawn into the vision, so that instead of it
being an optical experience where I was viewing an event, I had
become part of the scene I was watching. I had travelled back to
the time of construction. I was there!
...In the air was a large cigar-shaped flying machine which
resembled a hot air balloon. Cables hung down from the craft to
anchor-points below. Workers dressed in white kilts, with cloth
hats extending down to shoulder length, were removing stones from
cradles that were housed below the craft. The activity reminded me
of todays helicopters that can transport heavy materials in
cradles supported by cables.

The noteworthy point about propositions such as this is not that an
unconventional past is imagined, for this can be readily tested by
conventional archaeology, but the concept of a reliable body of
knowledge based upon dreams, visions and internal dialogues. As noted
above, such an approach to knowledge acquisition is intensely personal
and often used to describe unusual and minor events that are not
easily examined by conventional archaeology. More importantly, within
this conceptual system priority is given to spiritually/psychically
derived information, and typically there is a rejection of any
suggestion that examination of material evidence would constitute a
valid or adequate test of the more metaphysical descriptions or
explanations that have been obtained. For instance, a common theme
linking Egypt and Australia is the claim that Australian
archaeological sites (including the purported buried
pyramids/stonehenges) and locations of significance to contemporary
Aborigines are positioned on Power Places on the Earths biomagnetic
energy grid, as are Egyptian monuments such as the Giza pyramids.
White (1994:16) describes this pattern thus,

All over the world we find the remains of pyramids and temples
sprawled across the landscape like some ancient scientific
instrument, placed on a precise geometric Grid pattern worldwide.
This invisible energy web also ties in with known areas of
anomalies in gravity and space-time, like the Bermuda Triangle,
the Four Corners area in Nevada, Maralinga in South Australia,
etc.

For New Age investigators an understanding of this sort of invisible
causal force is necessary for comprehending both archaeological
materials and what they perceive to be the real human past.
Information about these metaphysical patterns can only be obtained
through unconventional means, as explained by White (1994:17),

Stone circles and standing stones litter the Australian country-side,
as much as England and Europe, marking the interconnecting energy
pathways that undulate snake-like through the landscape. Local
researchers can locate such structures in the forest using simple
dowsing rods. Aboriginal shamans smear their hands with
metallic-oxide red ochre, to feel the invisible flows that define
special energy points, portals and sacred places.

The clear implication of these notions is that past humans, and the
materials they left behind, were responding to metaphysical forces
such as power grids, and that since these forces are recognised by
alternative archaeology it is therefore superior to the limited
materialistic version of the past offered by conventional archaeology.
Hence, this framework, even more than the long and short chronologies,
constitutes a challenge to the method of conventional science-based
archaeology.

WHAT IS THE RESPONSE OF CONVENTIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY?

To conventional archaeologists these alternative images of the past
may seem bizarre at best and deranged at worst. However, it would be a
mistake to assume that non-professionals will necessarily dismiss
hidden history, even though those ideas might seem obviously ludicrous
to trained scientists. It is well known that faith in science is often
based on unscientific, even irrational, arguments (see Feder 1984;
Gray 1987; Kehoe 1987). Such arguments can equally be used to reject
scientific thought and to bolster notions of alternative archaeology.
Cole (1980) and others have explored the parallels between alternative
archaeology and cargo-cults or other religious movements. These
parallels are perhaps stronger now with the increased prominence of
New Age notions than they were in the early 1980s. And the imperative
for a response to these notions of hidden history is all the stronger
because of their apparent popularity. As described above it is clear
that the Australian audience for hidden history is enormous, and while
it is hard to gauge the depth of belief all indications suggest that
many people find one or more of the unconventional constructions both
attractive and plausible.

Although Cole (1980:16-17) has presented an elaborate classification
of reactions to hidden histories, there are only three different
responses (oppose, support, do nothing) and in practice silence (do
nothing) may be tantamount to support in the public view (cf. Feder
1984:536). Again our inability to measure the level of cult belief in
the Australian community means that the success or failure of past
responses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, to not respond at all
would be to surrender the opportunity to limit the impact of the
massive publication output and related marketing programs of
alternative researchers, publishers and institutions. As noted above
the utilisation of new modes of information delivery (internet,
desktop production and so on - see Appendix 1 for a selection of Web
sites), together with an aggressive marketing strategy, allow
alternative archaeology to be more influential than it may have been
previously. In this context the default option of ignoring the
creation of hidden history may facilitate its passage into public
acceptability, and there is an obvious advantage in the active
opposition to these alternative stories.

Indeed archaeologists have often opposed the proliferation of
unconventional images of the past. For example, when Erik von
Daniken's chariot of popularity drove through the 1970's,
archaeologists were quick to combat the misunderstandings and false
statements he propounded. This was done by using the same mass media
mechanisms, books, radio and television that von Daniken used to
proliferate his fanciful notions. Australian audiences flocked to read
and listen to von Daniken explain archaeological debris as the product
of human contact with alien astronauts; and in reply Australian
archaeologists played a public role in combating these unscientific
views (eg. Hennessy 1973; White 1974).

More recently scientists have focussed their attention on Biblical
Creationists and the creationists efforts to destroy acceptance of
evolutionary theory (eg. Plimer 1994; Price 1987, 1990; Ritchie 1991,
1992a, 1992b). Researchers leading this counter-attack have been
geologists and physical anthropologists, although archaeologists have
continued to play a less prominent role, such as combating creationist
views in undergraduate courses. While Plimers (1994) successful and
intensely personal attack on the leading figures in Australian
Biblical Creationism has probably been influential, its strategy may
be difficult to apply to all unconventional archaeology. A common
explanation for the persistence of creationism is that the public is
hoodwinked by a small number of individuals who are skilled in
misinformation and keen to make a profit (eg. Plimer 1994; Price
1990). This may well be the case, as Plimer so persuasively argues,
but accusations of self-interest could be leveled at many parties
including scientists and a theory of manipulative leaders seems
incapable of explaining the totality of alternative archaeology. While
such a criticism may explain the motives of some popularisers of
unconventional ideas it cannot account for the adherents to
alternative archaeology (although some might claim gullibility and
ignorance of science can) and fails to recognise that even though the
hidden history may be erroneous it can be a component of genuinely
held views by both Christians and non-Christians, leaders and
followers alike. If these notions of alternative archaeology are part
of a broader belief system, then debunking individuals may have little
impact on the system of thought.

Critiques of both the alien astronaut and the creationist versions of
the past have shared a number of features, including a sophisticated
and informed evaluation of the material evidence cited, an examination
of the logical connection of propositions in their arguments, a
rigorous comparison with competing explanations, and an appreciation
of the wider implications of the arguments. This reference to the
scientific method has generally been effective because of the way
alien astronaut and Biblical Creationist arguments have feigned
scientific approaches. By showing that those hidden histories are not
based on the empiricist/positivist, rational methodology of science,
their claims to a reliable insight into the past can be convincingly
denied.

As effective as this approach has been on pseudo-scientific
reconstructions of the past it will be less successful in combating
New Age versions of the past, including variants of both creationist
and extra-terrestrial models which have often repositioned themselves
with a non-scientific orientation. Many alternative images of the
past, as depicted above, are less susceptible to the conventional line
of attack because both the process by which knowledge is acquired and
the explanations for the perceived past are purposefully
non-scientific. This follows from the New Age belief that science is
an inadequate way of knowing a world in which magical events exist.
Consequently arguments that an application of the scientific method
offers an improved understanding of the world may not be persuasive
unless those arguments are accompanied by an attack on notions of
metaphysical processes of the like of magic. Hence the strategy used
by conventional archaeologists to debunk alternative images of the
past will need to be integrated with wider program that deals with a
broad range of extra-ordinary means by which alternative
archaeologists claim to know the past. Predictably many archaeologists
may be unprepared to engage in debate about non-archaeological issues
of this kind, but neither can archaeologists presume that scientific
archaeology will maintain its level of public support without a strong
and vigorous response to the claims of alternative archaeology.

In contrast to a response that strongly opposes the approach and
claims of alternative archaeology, there is a response which
explicitly or implicitly supports the construction of such views of
the past. Support may be expressed in a variety of ways, including
opinions that we should be open minded, that it impossible to combat
alternative archaeology, that alternative archaeology in correct in
its opposition to establishment science, and that we cannot condemn
the thinking of people using different cultural frameworks (see Cole
1980:17). While few, if any, professional archaeologists in Australia
express belief in the types of unconventional archaeology dealt with
in this paper, the published rhetoric of post-processual archaeology
has sometimes included both an explicit condemnation of science and an
advocacy of extreme cultural relativism. This conjunction of a
post-modern ethic of anti-science and extreme relativism has normally
been used to argue in favour of a diversity of depictions of the past,
and its power to argue for a diminution of depictions is less clear.
Certainly post-processual researchers cannot oppose hidden histories
using the strategy of processual archaeology described above, since
their own investigations are not always constrained to ...the rules of
empiricist/positivist discourse, rational method... (Shanks and Tilley
1987:23). Indeed, post-processual condemnation of the scientific
establishment, rejection of scientific method and adoption of a
value-committed archaeology, in which archaeologists should question
the established socio-political order, are all points of similarity
with alternative archaeology itself.

In particular, a strong criticism of all these forms of alternative
archaeology may be difficult for at least some Australian
post-processual researchers because of their emphasis on an extreme
form of cultural relativism. For example, this emphasis has yielded
statements such as the one from Burke, Lovell-Jones and Smith
(1994:17) that

...some aspects of archaeology may well remain irrelevant to
Aboriginal people (especially the traditionally-oriented) who have
their own perfectly valid view of how the world is constructed.
And why should Aboriginal people be badgered to accept a
scientific interpretation of their own cultural material? As
Morphy (in prep:5) argues, a multiplicity of indigenous views only
presents a problem if it is assumed that there is an ultimate need
for a single correct position to emerge. In our view, consensus is
often nothing more than a contemporary variant of habitual
European appropriation.

Applied uniformly to all views espousing a non-scientific
reconstruction of the past this position may make it impossible to
reject, and persuade others to reject, those which conventional
archaeological investigations show to be an incorrect reading of the
evidence.

If that is the case, and a large range of folk mythologies are to be
accepted as depictions of the past equal to that of conventional
science, this will exaggerate the challenge to Aboriginal views that
at least some post-processual researchers perceive to emanate from
scientific research. Many unscientific views will be not only mutually
untranslatable, but also mutually exclusive. In particular, many of
the views of the hidden histories dealt with in this paper deny not
only scientific interpretations of the past, but also some current
Aboriginal ones. In addition to the earlier descriptions one further
example can illustrate the claims for non-Aboriginal and
pre-Aboriginal occupation in early times:

Modern archaeological dating techniques demonstrate that our
aborigines have occupied Australia for at least 50,000 years, and
evidence is coming to light of even earlier stone-age people who
preceded them! (Gilroy 1991:28).

Furthermore, many forms of alternative archaeology contain opinions
that are antithetic to the pluralist ideal of the post-processual
position. For instance, Biblical Creationism cannot permit
non-biblical views to prevail, on the grounds that such views are the
work of evil. Presumably this places adherents of extreme cultural
relativism in the position of having to accept these views as valid
and justifiable within their social context, or else develop criteria
by which various models of the past can be selectively rejected. It is
at least partly for this reason that recent theorising in archaeology
has refocussed on the need to go beyond plausible or appealing stories
about the past, or even an appreciation of their derivation in
contemporary society, and to assess those constructions in light of
our understanding of the archaeological record (e.g. Kohl 1993:15;
Stark 1993:98-99; Murray 1993:112-113; Sherratt 1993:127). To the
extent that reference to a detailed and sophisticated description of
the archaeological record constrains our interpretations, it also
prevents conventional archaeologists accepting all views of the past
and the development of radical relativism (Wylie 1993). In this view,
and contrary to the premise of radical relativism, it is reference to
the archaeological record that serves as at least one of the criteria
by which models of the past can be selectively rejected. For that
reason it remains necessary to critique views of the past, including
the hidden history produced by alternative archaeology, in terms of
both their social context and conformity with archaeological evidence.

CONCLUSION

In recent years Australian archaeologists have been occupied with a
number of pressing political issues. Amid the numerous debates in
which conventional archaeologists have been engaged there has been
comparatively little discussion of unconventional archaeology and the
degree to which it may have increasingly encroached on the public
understanding of archaeology. Alternative archaeology has presented to
the public a wide range of hidden histories, arguing that these are
the real stories of the Australian past and that science intentionally
denies these histories the acknowledgement they deserve. While some of
these hidden histories result from research that imitates the process
of science, increasingly they are a product of mysticism embedded in
New Age thinking. Significantly, this paper has noted that alternative
archaeology of all kinds has an increased publication output and that
there are indications of significant popularity of some of these
visions. In view of these circumstances it may be that in the longer
term archaeologists will benefit from greater consideration of the
nature of alternative archaeology, the hidden histories it produces,
and the social context in which it is generated.

References

Buchanan, J. 1994 A matter of remembering. Southern Crossings
14(3),42-43.

Buchanan, J. 1995 To linger between worlds... Southern Crossings
15(1),44-46.

Burke, H.,C.Lovell-Jones and C.Smith 1994 Beyond the
Looking-glass: some thoughts on sociopolitics and reflexivity in
Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology 38,13-22.

Childress, D.M. 1995 Lost cities of ancient Lemuria and the
Pacific. Adventures Unlimited Press, Stelle, Illinois.

Cole, J.R. 1980 Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and
Theory. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3,1-33

Edwards, G. 1993 Living Magically. A new vision of reality.
Piatkus Publishers, London.

Feder, K.L 1984 Irrationality and popular archaeology, American
Antiquity 49(3),525-541.

Gavagna, S. 1995 Pilgrimage and its power. Southern Crossings
15(2),51-55.

Gilroy, R. 1991 Man-Apes of eastern Australia. Part 1. Nexus
2(5),25-28.

Gilroy, R. 1995 Mysterious Australia. Nexus Publishing, Mapleton,
Queensland.

Gould, S.J. 1993 Fall in the House of Ussher. In S.J.Gould Eight
Little Piggies, pp,181-193. Jonathon Cape, London.

Gray, T. 1987 Educational experience and belief in Paranormal
phenomena. In Harrold, F. and R, Eve (eds) Cult archaeology and
creationism. Understanding pseudoscientific beliefs about the
past, pp.21-33. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Ham, K. 1996 Kangaroos, dinosaurs and Eden Creation ex Nihilo
18(2),16-18.

Harrold, F. and R, Eve (eds) 1987 Cult archaeology and
creationism. Understanding pseudoscientific beliefs about the
past. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Hennessy, B. 1973 Archaeology of the ancient Near East. In B.
Thiering and E.Castle (eds) Some trust in chariots, pp.7-12.
Bailey Brothers and Swinfen Ltd, Folkestone.

Jeffrey, J. 1993 Pyramid prophecies revealed. New Dawn 19,17-24.

Kehoe, A.B. 1987 Scientific Creationism: world view, not science.
In Harrold, F. and R, Eve (eds) Cult archaeology and creationism.
Understanding pseudoscientific beliefs about the past, pp.11-20.
University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Kohl, P.L. 1993 Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, The
dangers of a new scholasticism). In N.Yoffee and A.Sherratt (eds)
Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, pp.13-19. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridges.

Lawlor, R. 1991 Voices of the first day. Awakening in the
Aboriginal dreamtime. Inner Traditions International Ltd,
Rochester, USA.

Lind, J. 1995 Beyond the Dreamtime. Southern Crossings
15(2),34-37.

Murray, T. 1993 Communication and the importance of disciplinary
communities:who owns the past? In N.Yoffee and A.Sherratt (eds)
Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, pp.105-116. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

OGrady, A. 1995 Australian Earth vortex safari. Southern Crossings
15(1),20-22.

Osgood, A.J.M. 1986 A better model for the stone age. Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal 2,88-102.

Parrish-Harra, C.E. 1994 The new dictionary of spiritual thought.
Sparrow Hawk Press, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

Percy, D.S. 1996 The face of the Sphinx revealed - the Great
Sphinx not built by humans. Exposure 2(6),16-19.

Plimer, I. 1994 Telling lies for God. Reason vs Creationism.
Random House, Sydney.

Price, B. 1987 The bumbling, stumbling, crumbling theory of
Creation Science. Catholic Education Office, Sydney.

Price, B. 1990 The Creation Science Controversy. Millenium Books,
Sydney.

Ritchie, A. 1991 The Creation Science controversy - a response to
deception. Australian Biologist 4(1),16-23.

Ritchie, A. 1992a The Festival of Light, Noah and a Flood of
nonsense. The skeptic. Winter, pp.23-24.

Ritchie, A. 1992b Defending Science against Creationism. The
skeptic. Winter, pp.24.

Scallion, G. 1995a Visions and voices at the great pyramid. Nexus
2(26),59-61.

Scallion, G. 1995b The Blue Star. The Earth begins to change.
Silver Cord Magazine 7(9),50-51.

Sellman, S. 1995 Sacred feminine path to POWER. Conscious Living
31,8-11.

Shanks, M. and C.Tilley 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity
Press.

Snelling, A.A. 1984 The recent, rapid formation of the Mount Isa
orebodies during Noahs Flood. Ex Nihilo 6(3),40-46.

Stark, M.T. 1993 Re-fitting the "cracked and broken facade": the
case for empiricism in post-processual ethnoarchaeology. In
N.Yoffee and A.Sherratt (eds) Archaeological theory: who sets the
agenda?, pp.93-104. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thiering, B. 1993 Jesus the Man. Bantam Books, Sydney.

Thiering, B. 1995 Jesus of the Apocalypse. Doubleday, Sydney.

Von Daniken, E. 1971 Chariots of the Gods? Corgi, London.

Von Daniken, E. 1972 Return to the Stars. London: Corgi.

Vywamus 1993 What is Channeling? In G.Phillips (ed.) The New Age
Primer. Spiritual tools for awakening, pp.43-60. Light Technology
Publishing, Sedona, Arizona.

West, J. 1995 What really caused the dinosaurs' demise? A question
of increasing gravity. Veritas Press, Bundaberg.

White J.P 1974 The past is human. Taplinger Publishing, New York.

White, P. 1994 In search of ancient secrets. Nexus 2(19),16-20.

White, P. 1996 The OZ-Egyptian enigma. Exposure 2(6),20-26.

Wylie, A. 1993 A proliferation of new archaeologies: "Beyond
objectivism and relativism". In N.Yoffee and A.Sherratt (eds)
Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, pp.20-26. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Yahweh, Y.B. 1993 Battlefield Earth. The search for Adam. New Dawn
17,34-37.

You are visitor to this site. 

COPYRIGHT

Copyright in Archaeology in Oceania rests with the University of
Sydney. The University will permit, without the need for specific
authorization or payment of fee, photocopying of
i) single copies of individual papers or sections of Archaeology in
Oceania for the private use of individual researchers;
ii) single copies of individual papers or sections of Archaeology in
Oceania for library reserve or short-term loan use;
iii) multiple copies of invidual papers or sections of Archaeology in
Oceania , provided that such copies are taken for non-profit making
institutions for educational use within that institution only.
This consent does not extend to copying for general distribution,
advertising, or promotional purposes, the creation of new collective
works, or resale.
Author: Peter Hiscock, Dept. Archaeology and Anthropology
Feedback: peter.hiscock at anu.edu.au.
Date Last Modified: Thursday, 1-May-97
URL: http://artalpha.anu.edu.au/web/arc/resouces/cult/aocult.htm