Allure of pseudohistory

[Epictetus]

What is the allure of pseudo-history? Fairly often things pop up here about ancient British myth – the Britons or Celts or Druids or King Arthur or lost legions – that are portrayed as fact. This revisionist movement isn’t only British, either: here in Finland one can find a lot of old Finnish folklore repackaged as “rediscovered history,” with mighty Finnish kings ruling the peninsula prior to the coming of the Swedes. I’m sure that other countries have similar experiences.

It's not new, either. Think of the Romans claiming descent from Troy or Dion's attempt to make the Romans Greek. Back then the line between myth and history was blurred or nonexistent, though. Today standards are, or should be, different.


It seems nationalistic in origin, and must meet some deep-seated need among its adherents. But it seems odd to me. Real history, or myths portrayed as myths, have always been more appealing to me than an unholy mixture between the two.

What do you think?

[jkaler48]

Too connected to modern politics for discussion not to stray into that area not allowed here.

[Epictetus]

It's tied to current political issues? I didn't realise that. I don't think that is the case in Finland, for example.

[Medicus matt]

A lot of pseudhistory is based on conspiracy theories or alleged 'hidden knowledge that THEY don't want you to know about'.That's the appeal; that we're finding out something that's been hushed up.
It appeals to some peoples' notion that there are forces in the world that conspire to keep them in their office cubes rather than fulfilling their full potential is master of the world. It's easier than accepting the facts of their own life.

[Jona Lendering]

I am currently writing about pseudoscholarship, a sequel to my book on common errors. I think it is not pseudoscholarship itself that is alluring. The problem is that official scholarship is unattractive.

If you want to give scholarship back to the taxpayer, you can do it in two ways. You can try to bring up the people to a higher level by explaining what you are doing. The puzzles are often sufficiently interesting, so this is feasible (as a matter of fact, it is how I make a living). The other way is to simplify things. This is what the universities are doing. Never forget that those notorious books to explain Antiquity through Asterix, were initiated at a university.

If your curiosity is not stimulated, and all you receive is rubbish, pseudoscholarship becomes attractive.

***

Another point is the definition of pseudoscholarship. I distinguish six categories of poor information.

1. Real pseudoscience, which ignores the laws of phsyics and is based on poor textual criticism;
   
2. outdated information or interpretation;
   
3. logical errors;
   
4. incorrect understanding of correct information;
   
5. political or religious contamination;
   
6. exaggeration.
   

Category #2 is rapidly expanding, because of the internet. Category #1 is not really important any more. Compare it to ufology. It´s not what it used to be.

[Epictetus]

This is very interesting, Jona. You mention the supply, but I was curious about the demand for it. The demand comes from a segment of the public, correct? Someone wants it, or else it wouldn't be produced. What do you think about this?

[Jona Lendering]

I think there is only a general, undefined demand for historical knowledge. That means, if people would find good books, they will read them. But the universities do not produce good popularizing books. The demand is there; quack historians fill the lacuna.

[Nathan Ross]

In Britain at least there's a long tradition of tolerance and almost respect for pseudohistory. It comes from the (supposed) national love of amateurism and eccentricity. Whiskery gents digging up their estates (there's a connection here with aristocratic privilege too) and discovering 'evidence' of the lost mead-hall of King Arthur and Boadicea, or the lost magic runes of the Druids, or whatever, go back a long way. The idea that you can speak authoritatively without any of those fancy elitist qualifications, or foreign-sounding titles, appeals to those who favour wayward inspiration over method.

This sort of thing had been on the wane, I think, but the internet has given it a massive boost. Huge amounts of source material are now available to all, often without the critical apparatus and scholarly methodology that would point out the basic problems in interpretation. Now anyone can set up a website and bamboozle the public with their theories.

In both cases I think the appeal is the same - a sense of participation. While real history involves a lot of hard work, collaboration and probably quite limited results, a bit of internet-trawling and some pondering can result in instant 'genius' :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

This sort of thing had been on the wane, I think, but the internet has given it a massive boost.

From the mail sent to Livius.org, I get a different impression. True pseudoscholarship used to play a role, but it diminished over the past years. I get no letters about Atlantis and pyramids any more. On the other hand, there's a rapid increase of misunderstandings based on outdated information. I don't know what this means.

[Dan D'Silva]

I think it's that many people, for whatever reason, let their hearts rule their heads in what would ideally be evidence-based studies like history. My ancestors should have been the conquerors and the builders of civilisation, ancient people should have shared my modern values, or just there should still be room for fantasy and amazing undiscovered things in the grownup world.

I think Jona's right that real historians don't do such a good job of communicating to the public what's really known and what's really debated, but even if they did, I'm not sure mundane truth would prove quite as popular as pseudohistory that appeals to emotions.