Pseudoarchaeology (sometimes calledfringe oralternative archaeology) consists of attempts to study, interpret, or teach about the subject-matter ofarchaeology while rejecting, ignoring, or misunderstanding the accepteddata-gathering and analytical methods of the discipline.[1][2][3] Thesepseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to strengthen the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use offallacious arguments, and fabrication of evidence.
There is no unified pseudoarchaeological theory or method, but rather many different interpretations of the past which are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community as well as with each other. These include religious philosophies such ascreationism or "creation science" that apply to the archaeology of historic periods such as those that would have included the supposed worldwideflood myth, theGenesis flood narrative,Nephilim,Noah's Ark, and theTower of Babel. Some pseudoarchaeological theories concern the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development byintelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Italian authorPeter Kolosimo, French authorsLouis Pauwels andJacques Bergier inThe Morning of the Magicians (1963), and Swiss authorErich von Däniken inChariots of the Gods? (1968). Others instead argue there were human societies in the ancient period which were significantly technologically advanced, such asAtlantis, and this idea has been propagated by some people such asGraham Hancock in his publicationFingerprints of the Gods (1995). Pseudoarchaeology has also been manifest inMayanism and the2012 phenomenon.
Many pseudoarchaeological theories are intimately linked with theoccult/Western esoteric tradition.[4] Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such asarchaeocryptography andpyramidology have been endorsed by religions ranging from theBritish Israelites to thetheosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those that have been adopted by members ofNew Age andcontemporary pagan belief systems.[citation needed]
Academic archaeologists have often criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the major critics, John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments".[5] The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship betweenintelligent design theories andevolutionary biology by some archaeologists.[6]
Various terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by some people such as John R. Cole (1980)[7] and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987).[8] "Fantastic archaeology" was used during the 1980s as the name of an undergraduate course atHarvard University taught by Stephen Williams, who published a book with the same title.[9] During the 2000s, the term "alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001),[10] Robert J. Wallis (2003),[11] Cornelius Holtorf (2006),[12] and Gabriel Moshenka (2008).[13] Garrett F. Fagan andKenneth Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" that "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations".[2] They argued that the term "pseudoarchaeology" was much more appropriate,[2] a term also used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such asColin Renfrew (2006).[14]
Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations.Glyn Daniel, the editor ofAntiquity, used the derogative term "bullshit archaeology",[2] and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms used for pseudoarchaeology that were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society".[15]
Pseudoarchaeology can be practised intentionally or unintentionally.Archaeological frauds andhoaxes are consideredintentional pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be converted to pseudoarchaeology unintentionally by unscientific interpretation. (cf.confirmation bias)
A type of pseudoarcheology of the Middle East has created a pseudo-history of Babylon, in contradiction to Judeo-Christian and Biblical history, resulting in the production of fraudulent cuneiform tablets, as clay tablets are difficult to date. "By 1904, during the early period of cuneiform tablet collecting, J. Edgar Banks, a Mesopotamian explorer and tablet dealer, estimated that nearly 80% of tablets offered for sale in Baghdad were fakes. In 2016, Syria's Director General for Antiquities and Museums reported that approximately 70% of seized artefacts in the country are fakes."[16]
Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been affected by racism, which can be suggested by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to ancient Egyptians, HebrewLost Tribes,Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or evenextraterrestrial intelligence rather than toindigenous peoples.
Practitioners of pseudoarchaeology often criticise academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming that conventional science has ignored critical evidence.Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which "the Establishment" colludes in suppressing evidence.
Cornelius Holtorf states that countering the misleading "discoveries" of pseudoarchaeology creates a dilemma for archaeologists:[17] whether to attempt to disprove pseudoarchaeology by "crusading" methods[clarification needed] or to concentrate on better public knowledge of the sciences involved. Holtorf suggested a third method[18] involving identifying the social and cultural demands that both scientific archaeology and pseudoarchaeology address, and identifying the engagement of present people with thematerial remains of the past (such asBarbara Bender explored forStonehenge).[19] Holtorf presents the search for truth as a process rather than a result and states that "even non-scientific research contributes to enriching our landscapes."[20]
William H. Stiebing Jr. argued that despite their many differences, there were a set of common characteristics shared by almost all pseudoarchaeological interpretations. He believed that because of this, pseudoarchaeology could be categorised as a "single phenomenon". He then identified three main commonalities of pseudeoarchaeological theories: the unscientific nature of its method and evidence, its history of providing "simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues", and its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of theEnlightenment.[21] This idea that there are common characteristics of pseudoarchaeologies is shared by other academics.[22]
Academic critics have stated that pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect to use thescientific method. Instead of testing evidence to see what hypotheses it satisfies best, pseudoarchaeologists force the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" that is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma.[23][24] Pseudoarchaeological groups have a variety of basic assumptions that are typically unscientific: theNazi pseudoarchaeologists for instance used the cultural superiority of the ancientAryan race as a basic assumption, whilst Christianfundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists conceive of the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old andHindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the speciesHomo sapiens is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists.[25] Despite this, many of pseudoarchaeology's proponents claim that they gained their conclusions using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstrable that they have not.[26][27]
Academic archaeologist John R. Cole believed that most pseudoarchaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works, and that they instead believe it to be a "simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle" between contesting theories.[28] It was because of this failure to understand the scientific method, he argued, that pseudoarchaeological arguments were faulty. He then argued that most pseudoarchaeologists do not consider alternative explanations to that which they want to propagate, and that their "theories" were typically just "notions", not having sufficient evidence to allow them to be considered "theories" in the scientific, academic meaning of the word.[29]
Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudoarchaeologists typically use other types of evidence for their arguments. For instance, they often use "generalized cultural comparisons", using various artefacts and monuments from one society, and emphasizing similarities with those of another society to conclude that both had a common source—typically an ancient lost civilisation likeAtlantis,Mu, or an extraterrestrial influence.[21] This takes the different artefacts or monuments entirely out of their original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of the utmost importance.[30]
Another type of evidence used by a number of pseudoarchaeologists is the interpretation of variousmyths as representing historical events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural contexts.[31] For instance, pseudoarchaeologistImmanuel Velikovsky claimed that the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central AmericanAztec civilisation represented a cosmic catastrophe that occurred during the 7th and 8th centuries BCE. This was criticised by academic archaeologist William H. Stiebing Jr., who noted that such myths only developed during the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, two millennia after Velikovsky claimed that the events had occurred, and that the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.[31]
[Academics] have formed a massive and global network through universities, museums, institutes, societies and foundations. And this immense powerhouse and clearing-house of knowledge has presented their dogma of history to the general public totally unhindered and unchallenged from the outside. ... On a more sinister note: now this "church of science" has formed a network of watchdog organisations such asCSICOP andThe Skeptical Society [sic] (to name but a few) in order to act as the gatekeepers of the truth (as they see it), ready to come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on all those whom they perceive as "frauds", "charlatans", and "pseudo-scientists"—in short, heretics.
Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being disadvantaged with respect to the much larger archaeological establishment.[5][6][21] They often use language that disparages academics and dismisses them as being unadventurous, spending all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to challenge the orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In some more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of a widespreadconspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public.[33] When academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists and criticise their theories, many pseudoarchaeologists claim it as further evidence that their own ideas are right, and that they are simply being harassed by members of this academic conspiracy.[34]
The prominent English archaeologistColin Renfrew admitted that the archaeological establishment was often "set in its ways and resistant to radical new ideas" but that this was not the reason why pseudoarchaeological theories were rejected by academics.[35]Garrett G. Fagan expanded on this, noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinised to secure their validity ... and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn." Fagan noted that pseudoarchaeological theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.[30]
Conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising the academic archaeological establishment, also attempt to get endorsements from people with academic credentials and affiliations.[36] At times, they quote historical, and in most cases dead academics to strengthen their arguments; for instance prominent pseudoarchaeologistGraham Hancock, in his seminalFingerprints of the Gods (1995), repeatedly notes that the eminent physicistAlbert Einstein once commented positively on thepole shift hypothesis, a theory that has been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock endorses. As Fagan noted however, the fact that Einstein was a physicist and not a geologist is not even mentioned by Hancock, nor is the fact that the present understanding ofplate tectonics (which came to disprove earth crustal displacement) only became accepted generally after Einstein's death.[37]
Pseudoarchaeological theories have come to be much criticised by academic and professional archaeologists. One of the first books to address these directly was by archaeologistRobert Wauchope ofTulane University.[38] Prominent academic archaeologistColin Renfrew stated his opinion that it was appalling that pseudoarchaeologists treated archaeological evidence in such a "frivolous and self-serving way", something he believed trivialised the "serious matter" of the study of human origins.[39] Academics like John R. Cole,[5]Garrett G. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder[2] have argued that pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past were based upon sensationalism, self-contradiction, fallacious logic, manufactured or misinterpreted evidence, quotes taken out of context and incorrect information. Fagan and Feder characterised such interpretations of the past as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful".[2] In turn, many pseudoarchaeologists have dismissed academics as being closed-minded and not willing to consider theories other than their own.[5]
Many academic archaeologists have argued that the spread of alternative archaeological theories is a threat to the general public's understanding of the past. Fagan was particularly scathing of television shows that presented pseudoarchaeological theories to the general public, believing that they did so because of the difficulties in making academic archaeological ideas comprehensible and interesting to the average viewer.[40] Renfrew however believed that those television executives commissioning these documentaries knew that they were erroneous, and that they had allowed them to be made and broadcast simply for the hope of "short-term financial gain".[35]
Fagan and Feder believed that it was not possible for academic archaeologists to successfully engage with pseudoarchaeologists, remarking that "you cannot reason with unreason". Speaking from their own experiences, they thought that attempted dialogues just became "slanging matches in which the expertise and motives of the critic become the main focus of attention."[6] Fagan has maintained this idea elsewhere, remarking that arguing with supporters of pseudoarchaeological theories was "pointless" because they denied logic. He noted that they included those "who openly admitted to not having read a word written by a trained Egyptologist" but who at the same time "were pronouncing how academic Egyptology was all wrong, even sinister."[41]
At the 1986 meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, its organizers,Kenneth Feder, Luanne Hudson and Francis Harrold decided to hold a symposium to examine pseudoarchaeological beliefs from a variety of academic standpoints, including archaeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history and psychology.[42] From this symposium, an anthology was produced, entitledCult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past (1987).
At the 2002 annual meeting of theArchaeological Institute of America, a workshop was held on the topic of pseudoarchaeology. It subsequently resulted in the publication of an academic anthology,Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (2006), which was edited byGarrett G. Fagan.[41]
On 23 and 24 April 2009, TheAmerican Schools of Oriental Research and theDuke University Center for Jewish Studies, along with the Duke Department of Religion, the Duke Graduate Program in Religion, theTrinity College of Arts and Sciences Committee on Faculty Research, and theJohn Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, sponsored a conference entitled "Archaeology, Politics, and the Media," which addressed the abuse of archaeology in theHoly Land for political, religious, and ideological purposes. Emphasis was placed on the media's reporting of sensational and politically motivated archaeological claims and the academy's responsibility in responding to it.[43][44][45]
Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however that critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and that purporting their opinions in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists.[46] Holtorf emphasized that there were similarities between academic and alternative archaeological interpretations, with the former being influenced by the latter. As evidence, he emphasizedarchaeoastronomy, which was once considered as a component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream academics.[47] He also noted that certain archaeological scholars, likeWilliam Stukeley (1687–1765),Margaret Murray (1863–1963) andMarija Gimbutas (1921–1994) were formerly considered to be eminent by both academic and alternative archaeologists.[47] He came to the conclusion that a constructive dialogue should be begun between academic and alternative archaeologists.[48] Fagan and Feder have responded to Holtorf's statements in detail, asserting that such a dialogue is no more possible than is one between evolutionary biologists and creationists or between astronomers and astrologers: one is scientific, the other is anti-scientific.[49]
During the early 1980s, Kenneth Feder performed a survey of his archaeology students. On the 50-question survey, 10 questions had to do with archaeology and/or pseudoscience. Some of the claims were more rational; the world is 5 billion years old, and human beings came about through evolution. However, questions also included issues such as,King Tut's tomb actually killed people upon discovery, and there is good evidence for the existence of Atlantis. As it resulted, some of the students Feder was teaching gave some credibility to the pseudoscience claims. Twelve percent actually believed people onHoward Carter's expedition were killed byan ancient Egyptian curse.[50]
During the mid-2nd century, those exposed byLucian's sarcastic essay"Alexander the false prophet" prepared an archaeological "find" inChalcedon to prepare a public for the supposed oracle they planned to establish atAbonoteichus inPaphlagonia (Pearse, 2001):[51]
[I]n the temple of Apollo, which is the most ancient in Chalcedon, they buried bronze tablets which said that very soonAsclepius, with his father Apollo, would move toPontus and take up his residence at Abonoteichus. The opportune discovery of these tablets caused this story to spread quickly to allBithynia and Pontus, and to Abonoteichus sooner than anywhere else.
AtGlastonbury Abbey in 1291, at a time whenKing Edward I desired to emphasize his "Englishness", an alleged discovery was made: the supposed coffin ofKing Arthur, identified helpfully with an inscribed plaque. Arthur was reinterred at Glastonbury with a magnificent ceremonial attended by the king and queen.
Pseudoarchaeology can be motivated bynationalism (cf.Nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption to establish the Germanic people as the descendants of the original Aryan 'master race') or a desire to prove a particular religious (cf.intelligent design),pseudohistorical, political, oranthropological theory. In many cases, ana priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is performed explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail.[52] According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing for the magazine of theSociety for American Archaeology, "Pseudoarchaeology actively promotes myths that are routinely used in the service ofwhite supremacy, racializednationalism,colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression ofindigenous peoples."[53]
Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by indicating differences of research methods, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic approach to collecting data. Though there is overwhelming evidence of cultural associations informing folk traditions about the past,[54] objective analysis of folk archaeology—inanthropological terms of their cultural contexts and the cultural desires to which they respond—have been comparatively few. However, in this vein,Robert Silverberg located theMormons' use ofMound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus[55] and the voyage ofMadoc and "Welsh Indians" was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by Gwyn Williams.[56]
Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeological theories include theyoung Earth theory of some Judeo-Christian fundamentalists. They argue that the Earth is 4,000–10,000 years old, with claims varying depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudoarchaeologists believe that theHomo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years it is generally believed to have existed. Archaeologist John R. Cole refers to such beliefs as "cult archaeology" and believes them to be pseudoarchaeological. He said that this "pseudoarchaeology" had "many of the attributes, causes, and effects of religion".[28]
A more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology is the claim ofRon Wyatt to have discoveredNoah's Ark, the graves ofNoah and his wife, the location ofSodom and Gomorrah, theTower of Babel, and numerous other important sites. However, he has not presented evidence sufficient to impress Bible scholars, scientists, and historians. The organizationAnswers in Genesis propagates many pseudoscientific notions as part of itscreationist ministry.[58][59]
Pseudoarchaeology can be found in relation toEgyptology, the study ofancient Egypt. Some of this includespyramidology, a collection of pseudoscientific beliefs aboutpyramids around the world that includes thepyramids in Egypt and specifically theGreat Pyramid of Giza.[60]
One belief originally published byCharles Piazzi Smyth in 1864 is that the Great Pyramid was not built by humans for thepharaohKhufu, but was so beautiful that it could have been crafted only by the hand of God.[61] Though Smyth contributed to the idea of the Great Pyramid not being created originally by Khufu, this belief has been further propagated byZecharia Sitchin in books such asThe Stairway to Heaven (1983) and more recently byScott Creighton inThe Great Pyramid Hoax (2017), both of which argue thatHoward Vyse (the discoverer of Khufu cartouches within the Great Pyramid) presented the earliest evidence that the Great Pyramid's builder[62]) faked the markings of Khufu's name. However, Sitchin's research has been challenged as beingpseudoscience.[63][64] Arguments against these theories often detail the discovery of external texts on papyri such as theDiary of Merer that detail the construction of the Great Pyramid.[65]
The theory the Egyptian pyramids were not built as tombs of ancient pharaohs, but for other purposes, has resulted in a variety of alternative theories about their purpose and origins. One such pseudoarchaeological theory is from Scott Creighton, who argues that the pyramids were built as recovery vaults to survive a deluge (whether that be associated withflood geology or theGenesis Flood Narrative). Another alternative theory for the purpose of the pyramids comes from known pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, who argues that the pyramids originated from an early civilization that was destroyed by an asteroid that also began theYounger Dryas period. A third common pseudoarchaeological theory about the Egyptian pyramids is that they were built byancient aliens.[66] This belief is sometimes explained for why the pyramids supposedly appear suddenly in history. However, this claim is challenged by Egyptologists who describe an evolution of pyramid designs frommastaba tombs, to theStep Pyramid of Djoser, to the collapsedMeidum Pyramid, to Sneferefu'sBent Pyramid, ending with Khufu'sGreat Pyramid.[67][68] Many alternative beliefs have been criticized as ignoring the knowledge, architectural and constructive capabilities of ancient Egyptians.[67]
Another pseudoegyptological belief is that of thecurse of the pharaohs, which involves a belief of imprecations being directed against those who enter the tombs of mummies, and pharaohs.[69] These curses often include natural disaster or illness or death for those who have entered the tomb.[70] One of the most influential iterations of this theory comes from the discovery ofKing Tutankhamun byHoward Carter in November 1922.[71] Several deaths of those present at the excavation have been attributed to a curse, including that ofLord Carnarvon who died as the result of an infected mosquito bite,sepsis, andpneumonia slightly more than four months after the excavation.[72] There were also claims that all lights in Cairo went out at the moment of Lord Carnavon's death. However, skeptics believe that reporters overlooked rational explanations and relied on supernatural legends.[70] In 2021, mummies discovered mostly from theNew Kingdom period were to be paraded through Cairo during a transference for study. However, several events occurred, including a ship blocking theSuez Canal and accidents involving several members of the crew. Many claimed these were the results of a pharaoh's curse,[73][74] however, EgyptologistZahi Hawass dismissed the claims as random tragedies.[73]
Some pseudoarchaeologists speculate that Egypt had contact with theMaya civilization beforeColumbus reachedthe Bahamas in 1492.[75] Part of these arguments stem from the discovery of nicotine and cocaine traces found in various mummies.[76] The argument is that plants producing these were not known to exist outside the Americas, although Duncan Edlin found that plants containing bothnicotine andcocaine existed in Egypt and therefore could have been used by ancient Egyptians.[77] Another argument against possible contact is that there is a massive body of literature in the form ofhieroglyphics from ancient Egypt, however ancient Egyptian scholars never noted contacting the Americas in any of the texts that have been found.[77]
Another argument in favor of contact between ancient Egyptians and Mayans is from claims of similarities of art, architecture and writing. These theories are explained by authors such as Graham Hancock inFingerprints of the Gods (1995) and more recently by Richard Cassaro inMayan Masonry.[78] These similarities commonly mention creation of pyramids, use of archways, and similarities in artwork of the divine.[79] Arguments such as these claim an association between ancient Egypt and Maya through either a transatlantic outing that brought Egypt to the Mayas or through a shared origin in both civilizations (either inAtlantis orLemuria).[80]Voyages of the Pyramid Builders (2003) by geologistRobert Schoch argues that both Egyptian and Maya pyramids result from a common lost civilization. However, ancient historianGarrett Fagan criticized Schoch's theory on the grounds that it demonstrated ignorance of relevant facts and that it did not explain variations in appearance or how various civilizations' pyramids were built.[81] Fagan also describes known research by several archaeologists about the development of various civilizations' pyramids that was not used or addressed by Schoch's theory.[81]
For Egypt-related pseudoarchaeology, there are a variety offlood-related theories, many of which relate to the BiblicalGenesis flood narrative or other flood theories. Scott Creighton claims that knowledge of a coming deluge (which he refers to as "Thoth's Flood") generated the idea of building pyramids as recovery vaults from which civilization could rebuild.[82] Another fringe theory relating to this is theSphinx water erosion hypothesis, which claims that theGreat Sphinx of Giza's modern body appearance is caused by erosion due to flooding or rain.[83] This theory, which has been perpetuated by Robert Schoch who claims the Sphinx was built between 5000 and 7000 BCE, has been criticized by Zahi Hawass andMark Lehner as ignoring Old Kingdom societal evidence about the Sphinx and being flawed in citing specifics about a possible erosion.[83] Currently Egyptologists tend to date the Sphinx sometime about 2500 B.C., approximately the reign of the pharaohKhafre for whom the Sphinx is commonly attributed.[84]
Many aspects ofMaya civilization have inspired pseudoarchaeological speculation. In Mexico, this history can bring more people which in turn brings more money for the area, which theMaya peoples usually do not receive. Many examples of pseudoarcheology pertaining to Maya civilization can be found in literature, art, and movies. Many of them have to do with the2012 phenomenon and theMaya calendar. These are often referred to asMayanism, a collection ofNew Age beliefs about Mayas and Maya religion and/or spirituality. That said, Mayan culture has long been a subject of scientific archaeology. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence that has furthered our knowledge of the past. Some of these include stone carvings inTikal that show the earliest stories ofSihyaj Chan Kʼawiil II and materials recovered fromChichen Itza.[85]
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| History | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method and theory | |||||||||
| Sub-disciplines |
| ||||||||
| Lists | |||||||||
