Blog 5

I will start this post by explaining that it only makes sense to answer yes this question. In no way does it seem right that we allow pseudo archaeologists to continue their work. Part of their work includes convincing the public about all of the great work they are doing and what it means. It is not healthy for us as an educated society of people to have information as such floating around, and it will only continue if we do not put a stop to it. I will not say that this would be an easy task, because it won’t. Our ability of free speech perpetrates the problem, that things like conspiracy theories will always arise, and the invention of computers and social media as a result also speeds up these processes. I am not saying this to speak badly about free speech, I love that we have the ability to use this, but it is of course a problem in this case. Social media will of course always have its nooks and crannies, where people can post just about anything they want, and worldwide, I am not sure how that could ever be curbed. Nonetheless, archaeologists themselves could begin their own “attack” on all these pseudo archaeological claims. Because there are so many different claims that exist in the world, it is sort of hard to think about how it should be gone about. Do archaeologists worry about the Pyramids and who built them, or smaller things, like Bigfoot and if he exists? The problem is that things like the Pyramids are not things that we know 100% about. There is still mystery to them, questions that we have just not been able to answer. It would make sense if archaeologists addressed pseudo archaeologist giants (like Graham Hancock and Erich von Daniken) directly in publications or in presentation. These types of people are in charge of pseudo claims, they will hold just as much notoriety that any publicized and famous archaeologist would. 


Another thing that would encourage the death of pseudo archaeological claims would be to clear up the shrouds of mystery that surround archaeology. It seems as though the whole field of archaeology is kind of hidden, and not always acknowledged or given a good stage to present itself. These days, it seems like new archaeological finds are never portrayed correctly. When I see things related to archaeology on Facebook or Twitter or what have you, that the article they are posting just do not fit the picture. The writing is not clear, and it does not thoroughly do the finds justice. Archaeologists need to continue to be up front about that they know, what they find, and what this all means. Do not allow for people to jump to conclusions and answer things on their own. The allowance of speculation causes for conspiracy theories. We can’t let archaeology be in the dark, it needs to be upfront and clear about what is happening in the field these days.

One thought on “Blog 5

  1. I agree that the only acceptable answer to this question is yes – especially after spending a whole semester studying these kinds of ideas, it’s hard to support the other side of the argument in any way that seems ethical. I agree with your point about freedom of speech and I think that it’s important to bring up in this situation (personally, I find the First Amendment fascinating because of the assumptions it makes, the implications it has, and the court cases that further defined it). The influence of technology on pseudoarchaeology (and every aspect of our lives) is another important piece of the puzzle. In a world where anyone can anonymously air their opinions to an audience of billions, pseudoscientific ideas (and their nefarious underlying assumptions) can gain a dangerous amount of traction in a short amount of time. Also, considering the vastness of the internet, the unobserved, unregulated corners allow people to build echo chambers for ideas that are anti-scientific, racist, or otherwise violent.
    I feel that pseudoscientists conceptualize science (and scientists) as a process that claims to deliver 100% of the truth, 100% of the time. They become disillusioned with this straw man when they see a piece of evidence that seems to “disagree with the established narrative” or “necessitate the rewriting of history”, and therefore begin to work against the whole system, when in reality, true science only makes the conclusions that the data allows. I’m not sure exactly what the next best steps to combat pseudoarchaeology are, but I think that demystifying archaeology as a whole would help a lot.

Comments are closed.