Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[BAJR]

I am trying to return this to some less heated discussion.

the discussion is this.

Pseudo Archaeology begins with a belief (usually in some form of Alien intervention/Ancient Forgotten Technologically Advanced Civilisation / Great Sea Journeys from America to Egypt / Templar Secret / Bloodline ) I can't think of pseudo Archaeology starting from a point of view of this is the available evidence - and yes you are right to flag up the fluidity of truth in archaeology -

As PP says...

quintaine - you seem to be missing the point
an archaeologist will by nature try to understand the history of a propounded theory and test a new evidences and models against that theory - in a kind of scientific way. sometimes an archaeologist will be at odds with a prevailing orthodoxy and this can be both interesting and stimulating.
a crank will propound a theory that dismisses prevailing models without domonstrating an understanding of accepted orthodoxy and this is worthless crap
one day a crank will get lucky and get something right but mostly we will laugh at them and tell them not to waste our time

I have asked three times now for an example of pseudo-archaeology pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge. No answer.
I have asked also if you can answer the post that cites "the Ancients" as if they are a real people. (that was a bit cheeky of me I grant)
I do like to put myself in another persons shoes and try and argue the reverse to what I do, but here I find it difficult to comprehend.

Take the Bosnian Pyramid.
It is either is or it is not. agreed.
the evidence of geologists, archaeologists and common sense (no really! a pyramid that is over twice the height of the great pyramid nope!)
So where did it come from this theory? Did it come from a collection and analysis of existing data that pointed to a super civilisation that had previously been missed?
The answer is no. it just appeared and everything found is fitted into the story. The Tunnels, even a cobble from a field. (oh, sorry, an egg of immortality crated by the ancients

[video=youtube;BRi2z1qUPVo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRi2z1qUPVo[/video]

The depressing thing is (and you brought this up) they make the money, because they do tell a nice story. and we struggle to do that, even when pushed... often the best we can come up with is a gladiator graveyard. - (even that was based on some shred of evidence)
We can't make up crystal pyramids, we can't (or should not) create super civilisations or even alien landing pads. simply because they don't exist. This does not burden the pseudo archaeologist. and that is the great difference

We at least try to collect evidence and interpret as opposed to having a theory and then looking for evidence.

You may feel you are asking for a more lenient approach to the pseudo archaeologist (independent researcher) but I still ask why. As far as I can see, 100% of these researchers have not proven anything.

Unless you can correct me.

do you think there is an archaeologist out there in the commercial sector who, at one point or another, was not "urged" to dress a theory with appropriate finds (or lack of them) by the company that employed them?

Usually the opposite. " We want in here in 3 days... hide that Viking Longship - think of the paperwork " is a more likely response - just kidding by the way