These are ways in which archaeologists try to escape from uncomfortable evidence when their dominant paradigm/mind set is threatened, and when new evidence makes it likely that they might actually have to do some extra work, learn some new things, and unlearn some old ones. 1. Appeal to authority. "We already know all that we need to know about the subject, so anyone trying to challenge 'what the standard reference books say', is automatically off-limits, and should be treated with the highest suspicion." 2. Describe the information as "old news", even if short of the dogma defender him/herself, nobody else have really heard about some item of evidence. "This subject has been dealt with many times in the past already, and we're terribly tired of it by now". 3. Affect indignation. "How dare you suggest that archaeologists may not be doing their job with utmost competence?" "Are you attacking our whole profession?" 4. Set up straw men. Misrepresent your opponents' arguments, and then refute your own misrepresentations conclusively and with great flair. 5. Snow them with your expertise, real or imagined. Focus on the weakest and/or irrelevant elements of the opponent's argument, so that the whole thing can be nitpicked into oblivion. 6. Question competence of opponents. Also label your opponents, and use personal attacks freely. You can call them names like "kooks," and "fanatics". In contrast to those kooks, the defenders of the established dogma are so much more "competent and reasonable". 7. Cast suspicion on the motives of critics of the official view. "They only do it for money and/or to get publicity, and/or to please the TV crowd." Of course the proponents of the official dogma never place any importance in academic rewards, influence, and honors. They are motivated by disinterested search for the truth only. 8. Employ circular reasoning with abandon. For example, "Competent professional authorities always investigate all important evidence. So if they did not report about Subject X, therefore there's nothing there to report, and so this evidence is not important and/or it does not even exist!" 9. Require that the skeptics provide the complete solution to some difficult historical problem. "If you don't have a complete solution, that means the problem itself does not exist. So why worry about it?" 10. If it might have been then so it was. Overload your posts with wouldas and couldas. Postulate a lot of improbable events to explain troubling evidence that doesn't fit the existing paradigm. Also known as the logical fallacy of special pleading. 11. And if everything else fails, openly misrepresent the evidence, and hope that nobody notice. Written by Yuri Kuchinsky.Click here to go one level up in the directory.