America Unearthed

While there are a fair amount of people who watch this show who aren't scientists, and accept conjecture and speculation as fact, I argue that there is a larger percentage of those who watch who are educated and understand that what is presented ISN'T fact, and instead theories. I don't think you're garden variety "e-tard" is going to watch a show about archaeology or archaeoastronomy on the History Channel, so most of the people watching will understand that whatever topic is presented is simply another theory to perhaps answer some of those questions that are still out there.

I don't remember Scott Wolter coming out and saying "This is ALL fact, and that I've discovered the holy grail!" He's simply presenting new theories and ideas, and trying to connect them to already existing thoughts on the various topics. I don't think he thinks he knows it all, or that he is discovering these grand items, and that he will be the next Howard Carter.

What he thinks he is, is someone who has a sincere interest and appreciation for the sciences, and that instead of answering some lingering questions, is asking some new ones. With our understanding of the sciences growing at an almost exponential rate, there are questions we didn't even realize we had until some new discovery has been made, leading us to formulate newer and updated ideas.

So in the end, lay off people. Scott Wolter is doing some amazing work, and deserves the accolades he receives - maybe not for the work he's presenting, but for asking more questions than he answers, and bringing history alive. There are a great many people who are now that just little bit more educated about archaeoastronomy, runes, underwater archaeology, history of DC or a great deal of other things.

I've watched every episode of America unearthed. After reading some of the reviews posted I feel Scott may be correct when he says if certain discoveries do not fit the current paradigm of main stream beliefs that discovery or theory is dismissed as garbage. What I categorize as fringe science has always interested me. I know for a fact our history is flawed to the point I feel history should be taught as theoretical not fact. Let the student research and form their own opinions. My research leads me to believe Christopher Columbus did not discover America and he does not deserve a holiday. That being said, I believe we do not know everything about this world or this country by any means. So how can anyone dismiss one mans theories on his quest to find the truth? Sure he is pushy and on the arrogant side and he does have an agenda - that aside he does raise some very interesting questions and offers what I feel are some very logical theories of the history of this country. My main concern with this show is he does not ask enough questions. As a retired police detective with 32 years experience I tend to look at most situations with a different eye. As an example, when Scott was in Oklahoma I believe looking at cave drawings of what he believed to be a bull as seen in Egyptian petroglyph's - I was curious as to the history and geography of the cave purported to be from the 2nd or 3rd century. That's nearly two thousand years ago. How is it possible the astoarchology (sp) explained in this cave still be present after all this time? Did the cave weather over the years? I would think the answer would be yes but that question was never addressed. My questions regarding Oak Island in Nova Scotia would be how did ancient people dig the hole that deep with simple digging tools? The water table on that island must be very high and I feel the hole would fill with water after about 6-10 feet. So how was it possible for that hole and the purported booby trap holes dug allowing ocean water to fill the cave at approximately the 200' level( I believe) constructed. Those questions need to be addressed in my opinion. It makes sense to me the knights Templar could have passed on their quest to the masons. Why not, is there proof this did not happen? I don't think so - therefore I do not discard hypothesis from anyone without proof it is wrong. Open your minds to the possible until it becomes probable then open your minds it may be true.

I give this show a 3 just for some entertainment value, but maybe I should give it something lower for being so misleading. History and archaeology are full of mysteries and conflicting theories, as they should be and all of these should be examined openly. I have the most OPEN of open minds and am willing to belief that civilization is FAR older - by thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, than is currently believed.

That said, I watched the show last night about an alleged "Englishman" being buried in the desert with a runic gravestone and all the furor Wolter created around this. Pure codswallop. I know something about runes, not enough to read the inscription itself, but enough to know that these were probably not Anglo Saxon runes, but Nordic runes, and even if they were Anglo Saxon - Englishmen had stopped using runes in favor of the Latin alphabet by the 12th century (after the Norman conquest. No one would have used these. If someone had gone to all the effort of carving out that inscription (his buddy was carrying a chisel around with him?), it would have been in Latin alphabet (as we use now) in Old English or in Latin (Latin most likely as it was the universal tongue).

And then to go to England to allegedly hunt down this Hurech was ridiculous - there was no evidence tying Peter de Hurech to some alleged body in the American desert. While some Englishmen did use surnames at that time (my own family has an ancient surname in Yorkshire), most people did not and just went - as someone said, by Christian names or nicknames.

The episode presented no proof of any of the allegations and was as realistic as Tolkien's hobbits. It is a shame that the HISTORY channel is presenting this bunk under its auspices and giving the merest conjecture and speculation, the lustre of legitimate archaeology. This is especially bad as so many young people watch these shows and don't know any better. We need to re-learn the value of PROOF.

One episode of this program, purportedly discussing the connection between the Maya and the Creek Indians of Georgia, was enough to convince me of the abject wretchedness of this also-ran. It doesn't take one very long to conclude that Scott Wolter is jumping onto the conspiratorial bandwagon. His problems are (1) he knows next to nothing about archeology; (2) his "evidence" is beneath ridiculous; and (3) the "experts" he interviews are patently non-expert. His examination of a purported Maya site in northern Georgia begins with some ominous verbiage about The Government (ooh!) refusing to allow him to access the site--although they posed no objection when he later flew over it and mapped it with LIDAR. He offers up a random pile of stones as evidence that talented architects constructed ceremonial cairns and temples and what-not--even going so far as to suggest that well-known Mayan sites in Mexico and Guatemala, in fact, looked like mere piles of rocks until archaeologists (!) came in to reconstruct them, apparently stone-by-stone. We next examine a boulder with the most primitive circles and dots-within-circles carved into it (quite poorly carved, though the glyphs incised in legitimate two-thousand-year-old Maya monuments and stelae are remarkably sharp) and conclude--along with an "expert" in Mayan archeology--that it represents a star map and a comet impact and such. (Most entertainingly, the putative university expert in Mayan archeology is entirely ignorant of the correct pronunciation of Chichen Itza.) Lord have mercy, what next? Oh, yes: we see the vaguest of ridges on the top of this boulder and are told that they are "cupules" (I think he meant "cupolas," but the expert archaeologist didn't question the term: he was evidently bluffed out by the lesser expert who vociferated more loudly. We next examine a putative Georgian artifact that supposedly resembles yonder Mayan artifact and--after being told that they're "almost identical" (which they're not)--we learn that they represent a shaman, which is interesting, given that shamans are a feature of animist religions and do not occur in Mayan culture. (The image looked like Xipe Totec or Itzamna or some deity but, alas, was whisked away before the viewer could collect a solid gawk at it.) Please, PLEASE do yourself a favor and find another way to spend sixty precious minutes of your life that can never be recovered.

I have read many historians as well as historical fiction authors (who do loads a research on the time, place and people about which they are writing) who would agree with the show's host, Scott Wolter, that North America was visited by Europeans long before Columbus. I would even go so far as to say that the historical establishment may frown on new theories that contradict prevailing thought, discouraging exploration into new or existing finds with a new viewpoint in mind. Not that long ago two "amateur" archeologists set about looking for a settlement long stated as fact by the establishment as being impossible to have existed in North America. What they found was proof of Vikings living in North America 500 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the Viking Settlement of L'anse au Meadows. Viking colonization is now the new "fact" that the establishment says can't be disputed.

That being said, this show takes the anti-establishment mantra to a whole new level, inferring that if the establishment is against it, they must be hiding something, and therefore the host's contradictory viewpoint must be true. I would have loved to see a much more thorough (and impartial) synopsis of relevant research in the areas being featured on the show, as well as more hard science to back up the claims being made. I am especially confused by the lack of technical information and hard data coming from the host when delving into his "specialty," forensic geology. I am also disappointed by the lack of background information given on the groups of people being credited with creating much fawned-over artifacts. For instance, a whole lot is known about the Freemasons, if one is willing to look, that could shed a lot of light on the development of our society in its early formation.

Here is the crux of the dilemma. Is the show designed to bring understanding, or is it purely entertainment. I don't think it is really doing either, although I think Wolter would disagree with me. The "me against the establishment" angle gets old pretty fast, and the show is way too fuzzy on hard evidence. History is very interesting, so much so that you don't need to "jazz it up" to make it entertaining. Do good, solid research, and you will have me glued to the set.