Holly Lasko Skinner's HIT PIECE on MINIMINUTEMAN

Summary

The 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:00

🧐 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.

10:06

📚 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.

15:07

🤔 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.

20:08

🙏 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.

Keywords

💡Graham Hancock

Graham Hancock is a well-known author and journalist who writes about ancient cultures and lost civilizations. In the video, Hancock is mentioned as having contributors who attack other researchers, such as Milo Rossi, and his work, particularly the Netflix show 'Ancient Apocalypse,' is a focal point of critique.

💡Miniminuteman

Miniminuteman, whose real name is Milo Rossi, is a content creator known for his videos debunking pseudoscientific theories about ancient civilizations. The video discusses how Rossi has critiqued Hancock's work and has been attacked in return by Hancock's supporters.

💡Pseudoarchaeology

Pseudoarchaeology refers to theories or practices that misinterpret or misrepresent archaeological data without adhering to scientific methods. The video aims to clarify what constitutes pseudoarchaeology, arguing that it involves more than just improper methods; it includes presenting conclusions without proper scientific backing.

💡Holly Lasko Skinner

Holly Lasko Skinner is a freelance researcher mentioned in the video for writing an article that attacks Milo Rossi and misuses the video's creator's words. The video critiques Skinner's arguments and definitions related to pseudoarchaeology.

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method is a systematic process for gathering data and testing hypotheses. In archaeology, it includes formulating hypotheses, collecting data, conducting experiments, and testing against additional data. The video emphasizes that proper archaeological practice must follow these steps to avoid being labeled as pseudoarchaeology.

💡Ad Hominem

Ad hominem refers to attacks on a person's character rather than their arguments or ideas. The video mentions Skinner's article as an example of ad hominem attacks against Milo Rossi, undermining his credibility rather than addressing his arguments.

💡Ancient Apocalypse

'Ancient Apocalypse' is a Netflix show created by Graham Hancock that explores alternative theories about ancient civilizations. The video critiques this show, highlighting Rossi's efforts to debunk its claims and the backlash he received.

💡Archaeological Methods

Archaeological methods include techniques and processes used by archaeologists to study human history through material remains. The video discusses how pseudoarchaeologists often misuse these methods, leading to incorrect conclusions about the past.

💡Historical Interpretation

Historical interpretation involves analyzing and explaining past events based on available evidence. The video contrasts legitimate historical interpretation, which follows scientific principles, with pseudoarchaeology, which often relies on speculative or unverified methods.

💡Carbon Dating

Carbon dating is a scientific method used to determine the age of organic materials. The video uses carbon dating as an example of proper archaeological practice, contrasting it with pseudoarchaeological approaches that may selectively use or dismiss such data.

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.