Despite the frequent and exuberant proclamations of the pseudoarchaeological communities that the larger archaeological institution is out to get them, that archaeologists spend time and money covering up schemes the pseudoarchaeologists have “discovered” to protect their careers,  archaeological academia puts very little time and value on addressing or debunking pseudo archaeological. In fact, academics can be seen as frivolous or insipid for spending too much time entertaining or debunking hoaxes when they could be working on legitimate archaeological sites, within legitimate archaeological frameworks. There are very few grants out there that will give you money to prove something polite society knows is wrong, wrong. What pays is largely new ideas, new explorations, not papers or research that go over well-tread territory. 

Although archaeologists dedicated to debunking and educating about pseudoarchaeological ideas tend not to gain acclaim or money for their efforts, the effort itself is worthwhile and deserves attention. It’s important for archaeology to confront pseudoarchaeology because pseudoarchaeology itself is anti-archaeological, and works against the knowledge and pursuits of archaeology. Without confronting the agents that work against them in the public consciousness, archaeology faces massive roadblocks in public understanding of their work, both by laypeople and, in some cases, the places that provide them with funding. Pseudoarchaeology paints a negative image of both the archaeological communities and intellectuals as a whole. The conspiratorial, victimizing tone pseudoarchaeologists take manifests in a call for the public to distrust archaeologists and anyone deemed part of the “elite.” Furthermore, pseudoarchaeology often contains or sets its roots in racist or nationalist concepts, which threaten not only objective science, not only archaeology but us all.

Since a core tenant of archaeology is already public archaeology – sharing knowledge, making archaeology accessible, and educating the public – it feels only natural that debunking and educating people on the logical flaws and pitfalls of pseudoarchaeology should be a necessary part of an archaeologists’ job and a pursuit of the archaeological field as a whole. Likewise, the way to attack pseudoarchaeology and confront and counteract pseudoarchaeology. The archaeological community should, ideally, attack this broadly, in much the same way that this class has – by overviewing the tactics of pseudoarchaeology and educating the public on what makes pseudoarchaeology not only illegitimate but dangerous. Much as this class has done, it is the role of the archaeologists to educate the public in a variety of venues – in schools, in museums, on online forums. This education should cover not only the issues with pseudoarchaeological claims but details about legitimate archaeology and the scientific method. Show how the two methods logically differ and demonstrate the power of the system we have. Furthermore, education should extend out to people in positions of power – the government, funding sources, people who could be deceived, manipulated, and taken advantage of. These people should be educated on the rhetoric people in pseudoarchaeological and pseudoscientific communities use – the ways they pass themselves off as legitimate, and ways of spotting these disguises and verifying credible, legitimate projects. All of this, of course, requires a focus of funding on public archaeology that informs the public and works against pseudoarchaeology.

Individual archaeologists, along with being involved with the field’s efforts to combat pseudoarchaeology, have unique responsibilities and ethical obligations. For their own benefit, as well as the benefit of the public, archaeologists as individuals should become aware of pseudoarchaeology in their field and the important players. Knowledge is power, and being aware of who is legitimate and who is what, and what their various motives are, is important in opposing pseudoarchaeology and avoiding being taken advantage of, being used to legitimize bad research.