Holly Lasko Skinner's HIT PIECE on MINIMINUTEMAN
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses an ad hominem attack on Milo Rossi, known as Miniminuteman, by Graham Hancock's contributor, Holly Lasko Skinner. Rossi is criticized for not being a 'pseudo archaeologist' as defined by the speaker in a previous video. The speaker refutes Skinner's claims, arguing that Rossi's self-acknowledged lack of field experience does not equate to pseudoarchaeology. The video clarifies the definition of pseudoarchaeology, emphasizing that it is about incorrect methods, not titles or qualifications, and highlights the importance of understanding the scientific process in archaeology.
Takeaways
- 😀 The video script discusses an attack on Milo Rossi (Miniminuteman) by Graham Hancock's contributor, Holly Lasko Skinner, on Hancock's website.
- 📚 Milo Rossi is known for his critique of the Netflix show 'Ancient Apocalypse', which has gained significant viewership online.
- 🔍 Skinner's article is criticized for misunderstanding Milo Rossi's stance on self-identifying as an archaeologist due to his training and experience.
- 🎓 Rossi expresses discomfort in labeling himself as an archaeologist without having been on a dig, indicating the importance of practical experience in the field.
- 🤔 The video aims to clarify the definition of pseudo archaeology, emphasizing that it's about incorrect methods, not just qualifications or titles.
- 📖 Skinner's interpretation of 'pseudo' is challenged, with the suggestion that her definition focuses too much on qualifications rather than scientific methodology.
- 👨🏫 The video script argues that anyone can interpret the past using material remains, but doing so without scientific rigor makes it pseudoarchaeology.
- 🧐 Skinner's attempt to label Rossi as a pseudo archaeologist is refuted by pointing out that a single mistake or error in analysis does not equate to practicing pseudoarchaeology.
- 🔗 The script highlights the importance of using primary archaeological data and scientific methods in analysis to avoid pseudoarchaeology.
- 📝 Rossi's admission of making a mistake in his video about the Baghdad Battery is contrasted with the behavior of a pseudo archaeologist, who would not admit errors.
- 💬 The video concludes by emphasizing that the label 'pseudo archaeologist' applies to those who commonly violate the principles and methods of archaeology, not just those who make occasional mistakes.
Q & A
Who is Milo Rossi, also known as Miniminuteman?
-Milo Rossi, better known as Miniminuteman, is a content creator known for his series debunking Graham Hancock's Netflix show 'Ancient Apocalypse'.
What was the main argument in Holly Lasko Skinner's article against Milo Rossi?
-Holly Lasko Skinner argued that Milo Rossi is a pseudo-archaeologist based on his inconsistent statements about being an archaeologist and his alleged lack of proper archaeological training.
How does the video creator respond to Skinner's claim that Rossi is a pseudo-archaeologist?
-The video creator refutes Skinner's claim, explaining that Rossi’s methods and self-description do not align with the definition of pseudo-archaeology as outlined in the creator's previous work.
What is the definition of pseudo-archaeology according to the video creator?
-Pseudo-archaeology is defined as the practice of mimicking archaeology while violating its principles and methods. It involves failing to collect necessary data, neglecting experiments, and not testing hypotheses properly.
Why does the video creator disagree with Skinner's definitions of pseudo-archaeology?
-The creator disagrees because Skinner's definitions focus too much on qualifications and titles rather than on the methods used. Pseudo-archaeology is about incorrect methods, not just the lack of qualifications.
How does the video creator justify Milo Rossi's use of the term 'archaeologist'?
-The creator justifies it by explaining that Rossi, although initially uncomfortable with the title due to his lack of fieldwork, has the training and has likely adjusted his self-identification over time.
What is the significance of the Baghdad Battery example in the video?
-The Baghdad Battery example illustrates how Rossi made mistakes in his research, but these errors do not constitute pseudo-archaeology. The creator argues that making mistakes is different from consistently using incorrect methods.
How does the video creator address Skinner's argument about pseudo-physicians?
-The creator clarifies that being a pseudo-physician, like a pseudo-archaeologist, depends on using incorrect methods, not just on the person's self-identification or giving advice without claiming the title.
What is the creator's stance on making errors in archaeological practice?
-The creator believes that making errors does not automatically make someone a pseudo-archaeologist. Acknowledging mistakes and correcting them is important, and consistently using correct methods is what matters.
What can viewers do to support the video creator's channel?
-Viewers can support the channel by becoming patrons on Patreon for as little as $2 per month, making one-time donations through YouTube's Super Thanks, or sharing the creator's free e-booklet, 'Why Ancient History Matters'.
Outlines
🔍 Introduction to Controversy
The video invites viewers to subscribe for content on ancient cultures and addresses a recent controversy involving Graham Hancock's contributor, Holly Lasko Skinner, who criticized Milo Rossi (Miniminuteman). The speaker plans to correct misunderstandings from Skinner’s article, particularly her argument that Rossi is a pseudo-archaeologist.
🧐 Clarification on Archaeology Titles
The speaker examines Skinner’s argument regarding Rossi’s self-identification as an archaeologist. Skinner claims Rossi contradicts himself by saying he is and isn’t an archaeologist. The speaker clarifies Rossi’s statement, showing that he feels uncomfortable claiming the title due to lack of field experience, despite his training.
📚 Defining Pseudo-Archaeology
The speaker critiques Skinner’s definitions of pseudo-archaeology, arguing they miss the essence by focusing too much on qualifications rather than methods. Skinner's definitions are deemed inadequate, and the speaker emphasizes that incorrect methods, not titles, define pseudo-archaeology.
🤔 Examining Methodological Errors
The speaker responds to Skinner's critique of Rossi's interpretation of the Baghdad Battery. Skinner claims Rossi's errors make him a pseudo-archaeologist, but the speaker argues that making mistakes is different from practicing pseudo-archaeology. Rossi’s willingness to admit mistakes further differentiates him from pseudo-archaeologists.
🙏 Support and Conclusion
The video concludes with a call for support through Patreon or YouTube donations. The speaker also offers a free e-booklet, 'Why Ancient History Matters,' and provides a link for viewers to download and share it. The video wraps up by reinforcing the true definition of pseudo-archaeology.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Graham Hancock
💡Miniminuteman
💡Pseudoarchaeology
💡Holly Lasko Skinner
💡Scientific Method
💡Ad Hominem
💡Ancient Apocalypse
💡Archaeological Methods
💡Historical Interpretation
💡Carbon Dating
Highlights
Graham Hancock's contributor attacks Milo Rossi, known as Miniminuteman, for his critique of Hancock's Netflix show 'Ancient Apocalypse'.
Milo Rossi's series is the most-watched critique of 'Ancient Apocalypse' on the internet.
Hancock acknowledges Holly Lasko Skinner's ad hominem article against Rossi.
Rossi does not identify as an archaeologist due to lack of field experience, despite having academic training.
Skinner's article is criticized for misunderstanding the definition of pseudo archaeology.
The importance of distinguishing between the methods of pseudo archaeology and legitimate archaeological practice.
Skinner's definition of 'pseudoarchaeologist' is critiqued for focusing on qualifications rather than methodology.
The Oxford dictionary's definition of pseudo archaeology is presented and defended.
Pseudo archaeology is defined by incorrect methods, not merely the imitation of archaeology.
The debate over whether someone making claims about the past using material remains is performing archaeology or pseudoarchaeology.
Skinner's argument that Rossi is a pseudo archaeologist due to an alleged lack of scientific method in his work.
The distinction between making mistakes and engaging in pseudo archaeology when discussing historical artifacts.
Rossi's admission of error in his 'Baghdad Battery' video contrasts with the behavior of a pseudo archaeologist.
The importance of using primary archaeological data in analysis, as opposed to secondary sources.
Skinner's critique of Rossi's methodology in his 'Baghdad Battery' analysis is discussed.
The difference between pseudo archaeology and the legitimate interpretation of archaeological data.
The final clarification that pseudo archaeology is about methodological violations, not titles or personal claims.
An invitation to support the channel through Patreon or one-time donations on YouTube.
Promotion of the e-booklet 'Why Ancient History Matters' for further reading and sharing.
Transcripts
For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations, please subscribe.
Last month, one of Graham Hancock’s regular contributors posted an article
on his website that attacked Milo Rossi, better known as Miniminuteman.
Most of my regular viewers know who he is. His series debunking Ancient Apocalypse, Hancock’s
Netflix show is, I think, the most-watched critique of Ancient Apocalypse on the internet,
so it is no surprise that he is now being attacked personally by Hancock’s cadre.
Hancock posted a link to Skinner’s ad hominem article, saying: “Thanks
to brilliant freelance researcher Holly Lasko Skinner, who I've worked with for many years,
for looking into this phenomenon at a time when my energies have been focussed elsewhere.”
Since Skinner’s article refers to me numerous times, using my words to attack Miniminuteman,
and misunderstands things that I have said, I think I ought to correct the record.
In this video, I want to look specifically at Holly Lasko Skinner’s argument that Milo Rossi
(Miniminuteman) is a pseudo archaeologist according to my definition. He isn’t.
I made a whole video defining what pseudo archaeology is, and if you haven’t seen it yet,
I recommend watching it. I made the video, because I noticed there was a great deal of
misunderstanding about what pseudo archaeology is. To make it as clear as I possibly could,
I even included illustrative skits to drive the point home. Skinner watched it, and it went over
her head. I realize it is possible that she is motivated not to understand it, but it
also is possible I still wasn’t clear enough. So I hope this video will rectify that situation.
Skinner spends the first part of her article showing that
Milo currently calls himself an archaeologist. Then she refers to a livestream that I did in June
of 2022 in which Milo appeared, and he said this: “I don’t know what to label myself as, because it
would make me feel like a fraud to say that I am an archaeologist when I have like a training in
it – I haven’t been out on a dig, you know, so it’s like I don’t want to claim that,
when in reality that title requires a lot of, you know, research and a lot of time
and investment to say that. So I’m just like “I’m Milo, I talk about this stuff, you guys know I’ve
been researching it, you know, my whole life, I’m a researcher. But you know, I don’t feel the need
to like make up some title to try and make myself sound like, you know, I know better than I am.”
So here Milo says that he doesn’t feel comfortable calling himself an archaeologist. Skinner
concludes that there is a contradiction. She writes:
“As evidenced in Chapter One, Milo Rossi aka Miniminuteman is on record stating that:
He is an archaeologist; He is not an archaeologist,
because he hasn’t been adequately trained; If he were to call himself an archaeologist,
he’d feel like a fraud.” Did you catch the mistake? She writes
that Milo said he is not an archaeologist, because he has not been adequately trained. Is that what
he said? Let’s play the clip again. “I have like a training in it – I
haven’t been out on a dig, you know.” He said it would make him feel like a fraud to say
he is an archaeologist when, although he does have the training in it, he hadn’t been out on a dig.
This is her first major blunder.
I expect that since our livestream, Milo considered that there is more to being an
archaeologist than simply being out on a dig, and so he changed his mind about calling himself one.
I do know that when he was in field school, it was during COVID, so they had to replace hands-on work
in the field with data work. It was good enough for the school, but not good enough for Skinner.
She then makes an argument about what she thinks a pseudo archaeologist is. She does this by looking
up the word “pseudo” in the dictionary. Then she extrapolates. You might wonder,
if she was simply going to use the dictionary, why didn’t she just look up “pseudo archaeology”? It
could be because she didn’t like the definition. The Oxford dictionary defines pseudo archaeology
as “a broad spectrum of largely unconnected topics and approaches which misapply, misinterpret,
and misrepresent archaeological material in a non‐scientific and often speculative
way.” I think that’s a fine definition. She probably disagrees, so she made her own.
Here is how she extrapolates from the word “pseudo.”
By logical deduction, a preliminary definition of a ‘pseudoarchaeologist’ is, therefore:
An inauthentic (“not genuine”), fake archaeologist – someone who
calls themselves an archaeologist when they lack adequate qualifications or training (a “sham”);
Her first definition is inadequate, because it focuses on the qualifications or training,
rather than on the methods, and it is the methods
that determine whether someone is a pseudoarchaeologist.
Someone who calls themselves an archaeologist to make it seem like they’re an authority on
archaeology when they’re not (“pretentious”); The second one describes a mere poser or imposter,
which is not what a pseudo archaeologist is. The opposite of a real archaeologist,
who possesses the title ‘archaeologist’ because they not only possess adequate qualifications or
training but also follow the scientific method that the discipline prescribes;
The third one comes the closest to getting it right, because it at least includes the method,
but it puts too much emphasis on the title. Someone who imitates or resembles an archaeologist
by applying methods to human material remains that are unique to archaeology practice,
rather than another practice like history or environmental science.
In the last one, I object to the term unique. Various disciplines have overlapping practices.
It is the combination of the methods that make it part and parcel of archaeology, not the fact that
it is employed only in archaeology. So I would change the word “unique” to “instrumental.” But
then it still doesn’t say what the pseudo part of it is. It requires more than imitating an
archaeologist to be a pseudo archaeologist. You need to do the archaeology wrong.
I don’t think any of these captures the essence of what a pseudo archaeologist is.
Then she talks about my video on the definition of pseudo archaeology,
and she says I contradict myself. First she refers to this clip:
“Now, what if a person formulates a hypothesis and devises a model, but fails to collect all the
necessary data, neglects to conduct experiments, and doesn’t test the hypothesis against more data?
Is that person practising archaeology? If they fail to perform all the steps,
no. They can be great at the speculative phase of archaeology, the creative part of it.
They can dabble a bit in the data, even doing a small measure of analysis on a small number of
artefacts. But if their data collection falls far short of what is needed for the subject,
or if their experimentation is sorely lacking – in other words, they don’t even come close
to performing the necessary work – they are not practising archaeology. They are,
in fact, doing pseudoarchaeology.” And then she compares it to this clip:
“Someone might say, “Well, it can only be called pseudoarchaeology if the person is claiming
to be doing archaeology. What about cases when a person is drawing conclusions without
ever calling themselves an archaeologist?” If the person is making claims about the past,
using material remains as evidence, they are performing the same function as an archaeologist,
just as a person who offers medical advice is performing the same function as a physician.”
I don’t see any contradiction between my two statements, but what does she say about it?
This statement about the functions of an archaeologist begs two questions:
Is it true that if a person makes claims about the past using material remains as evidence,
they are performing the same function as an archaeologist, by default?
The answer is that it depends on how they are using the material. So, for example,
if someone examines tool marks on a piece of stone in order to determine what kind of tool was used,
this is behaving as an archaeologist. Or if someone uses the stratigraphy of a site to
draw conclusions about the relative ages of the material remains there, this is behaving as an
archaeologist. Or if someone uses archaeoastronomy to determine the age of a site, this is behaving
like an archaeologist. Or if someone carbon dates some object in order to determine its age, this is
behaving like an archaeologist. (Yes, all of these are practices within the field of archaeology.) A
pseudo archaeologist might do one or more of these things. It’s just that, in the process of doing
these things, they violate scientific principles. Is it true that if a person advises someone about
a medical matter, they are performing the same function as a physician, by default?
In other words, is a person who isn’t a physician and who medically advises
another who’s suffering with a medical condition, by default a “pseudo-physician”?
The answer is the same. It depends on if this person is using tools and materials
in a way that mimics that of a physician. Or is a person who isn’t an archaeologist and who
makes claims about the past using material remains as evidence, by default a “pseudoarchaeologist”?
Again, it depends. If they are doing archaeology correctly, then they are not
a pseudo archaeologist. But if they are violating scientific and archaeological principles while
doing so, then they are a pseudo archaeologist. Remember what I said in the clip above.
They don’t merely have to imitate archaeologists. In my example, I said they also fail to collect
all the necessary data, neglect to conduct experiments and test the hypothesis against
more data. A pseudo archaeologist only imitates an archaeologist on the surface. They don’t
actually do the archaeological work properly. …Of course not, because the prefix ‘pseudo’
is more nuanced than that, and so are the definitions of ‘archaeologist’ and ‘physician’.
You see, the problem here is that she is continuing to use a stipulative definition
of pseudo archaeology, discarding the commonly accepted meaning in favor of an altered use,
one that breaks up the term into its constituent parts, to support her case.
If a person calls themselves a physician or pretends to be one when they’re not,
then they’re no doubt a “pseudo-physician”, because they’ve not been trained to follow
the methods and processes undertaken by qualified physicians, and they’re
deceiving the person that they’re advising. No. That is not what a pseudo physician is,
and this is strange because I gave an example in the video of a pseudo surgeon,
and it is very clear that it has nothing to do with what the person calls themselves. It has to
do with their methods only. If the person attempts to treat someone medically, and they use the wrong
methods, only then are they a pseudo physician. If, however, it’s already known that the person
is not a physician, or if they state “I’m not a physician, but this worked for me,
so you could explore it as a possibility,” then they’re not a “pseudo-physician”,
they’re someone who’s giving medical advice. That’s right. If no attempt is made to
treat the person, or prescribe medicine to a person, then they are not a pseudo physician.
In a similar vein, the scientific method that Dr Miano states archaeologists must abide by to
practice archaeology rather than pseudoarchaeology – formulating a hypothesis, devising a model,
collecting data, conducting experiments and testing the hypothesis with more data – is
not the same function as interpreting the past by using results obtained by archaeologists.
On this she is correct. Simply relaying to someone else what archaeologists have already found is not
engaging in pseudo archaeology. But I would add that the interpretation of archaeological data is
part of the profession of archaeology. And if one dismisses the interpretation of archaeologists in
favor of their own interpretation, which ignores the archaeological method for interpreting data in
favor of a personal method for doing so, this could be construed as pseudo archaeology. For
example, if archaeologists provide a set of carbon dates, and someone else picks and chooses which
carbon dates they wish to believe and dismisses other ones, not based on scientific method,
but on personal wishes, this person is engaging in pseudo archaeology and pseudo science.
She continues, “As explored earlier, interpretation of the past without scientific
experimentation is an art, humanity or social science, and can be undertaken by historians or
journalists as well as archaeologists (historians interpret the past more often than the present,
whereas journalists interpret the present more often than the past). Dr Miano,
who possesses the title ‘ancient historian’, is qualified to interpret the past for this
very reason. According to his logic, he’d be a ‘pseudoarchaeologist’ otherwise.”
I generally do not interpret archaeological data. I allow the archaeologists to do that,
because they know what they are doing. I simply relay what they have found to others.
Have there been instances where I disagree with archaeologists over an archaeological matter? I
don’t think so. There have been instances where I favor one interpretation over another when the
jury is still out, but I have never said I know more than archaeologists about archaeology. If I
did disagree with archaeologists, and I violated archaeological principles to come up with an
interpretation different from theirs, then yes, you could say I was doing pseudo archaeology.
She continues: “Logic follows that if a person doesn’t claim to, or attempt to, obtain results
from human material remains, which is exclusively the job of an archaeologist, and instead claims to
interpret the past by using results obtained by archaeologists, they’re not practising
fake archaeology, but something else, and the label ‘pseudoarchaeologist’ should not apply.”
That doesn’t follow my logic. If a person uses pseudo archaeological methods,
they are not practicing “something else.” They are practicing pseudo archaeology.
Now she attempts to apply her logic to Miniminuteman. “If, however, a person does
claim to be an archaeologist, yet they have not followed the scientific method prescribed by the
institution of archaeology that distinguishes it from other disciplines like history or journalism,
then they could justifiably be referred to as a pseudoarchaeologist (a “fake archaeologist”).”
This whole idea of “distinguishing it from other disciplines” is irrelevant, because archaeology
uses scientific methods from other disciplines. But notice here that she is arguing that if you
don’t follow the method, even once, you can justifiably be called a pseudo archaeologist.
And she tries to use me as an authority on this point, by clipping this statement of mine:
“…If a person reaches a conclusion that is in harmony with the mainstream consensus of history,
but doesn’t engage in the process scientifically, that person is doing pseudoarchaeology. The word
pseudoarchaeology has nothing to do with whether a theory is correct. It’s not what that matters,
it’s the how. And so, measuring an object poorly or incompletely,
failing to take into account all the evidence on the subject and drawing far-reaching
conclusions from it is pseudoarchaeology.” She then gives the example of Milo’s video on the
Baghdad Battery, and then shows how archaeologist Dr. Brad Hafford corrected him on a few points.
She draws this conclusion:
“In other words, Rossi assessed the artefacts poorly and failed to take all of the necessary
information on the topic into account, thus creating a confusion of information,
and an incomplete and inaccurate analysis of the topic. Such is
Dr Miano’s statement about what constitutes ‘pseudoarchaeology’.”
Holly should think about what she is saying a little bit more. Does she really believe that
archaeologists cannot make errors, or if they do, they are no longer an archaeologist, but a
pseudo archaeologist? Or is she merely saying that I think that? Well, I don’t think that.
To use myself as an example, I am behaving as a historian when I do
history by using the historical method. I am behaving as a pseudo historian when
I do history by violating the historical method. In fact, someone can rightly say,
“You are doing pseudo history in that instance.” They wouldn’t really call me a pseudo historian,
though, unless this was what I commonly do. Similarly I wouldn’t call someone
a pseudo archaeologist unless they commonly practiced pseudo archaeology.
But I question the very idea that Miniminuteman was doing pseudo archaeology at all in this case.
There is a difference between making mistakes and doing fake archaeology.
Nevertheless, Skinner tries to make it seem that way:
“To summarise Dr Hafford’s main criticisms of Rossi’s interpretation of ‘the Baghdad Battery’
(albeit in more direct language than his own): Rossi does not find enough evidence to suggest
that the artefacts could have been batteries, because he did not look for,
or use, the archaeological (primary) data and instead uses spurious secondary sources;
Since Rossi failed to use the archaeological data, he misunderstood the artefacts;
Since Rossi misunderstood the artefacts, he misrepresents the leading interpretation by
archaeologists, which is – contrary to Rossi’s claims – sufficiently evidenced;
Rossi misinforms his viewers about the artefact and various interpretations of it.
In other words, Rossi’s data collection falls far short of what is needed for the subject,
and he doesn’t come close to performing the necessary work. Such is also Dr Miano’s
definition of what constitutes pseudoarchaeology.” Keep in mind here that this Baghdad Battery
information was difficult to find. The subject matter is not well-documented,
and I commend Dr. Hafford for digging deep and finding what he could. But Skinner really tries
to make it sound like Miniminuteman’s sins were egregious, even listing it as four points. He
not only didn’t find the evidence, he failed to use the evidence he didn’t find, and he
misunderstood the artifacts because he didn’t find the evidence, and he also misinformed his viewers
because he didn’t find it. She’s just listing the same one problem in four different ways.
But in none of this did he actually practice pseudo
archaeology. Not finding information is a mistake. It’s not pseudo archaeology.
Another thing she doesn’t take into account is whether someone acknowledges an error,
or whether they stick to their guns. In this case, Rossi admitted he made a mistake. This generally
is not the behavior of a pseudo archaeologist. That’s pretty much all I wanted to say about the
matter. Skinner misuses my words, but I expect this was simply because she didn’t understand
them, and a motivation to smear Miniminuteman may have been a factor as well. But I hope,
dear viewer, that I at least helped to clear up any misunderstanding that you may have had,
if you did have any. Pseudo archaeology has nothing to do with what someone calls
themselves. It is about mimicking the practice of archaeology while violating
its principles and methods, and someone is a pseudo archaeologist if they do this commonly.
Thank you for watching. If you like what this channel is doing and would like to help support
it, you can become a patron for as little as $2 per month at patreon.com/worldofantiquity. Or if
you want to give just a one-time donation, you can do that here on YouTube as a Super Thanks.
You might like my little e-booklet, Why Ancient History Matters. It's designed to persuade people
that the subject is important, even in the modern world. You might also wish to use it
to help spread the word, so feel free to share it with someone you know. It's free for anyone who
wants it. I've left a link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy.
Catch you later.
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)