I believe that it is undoubtedly an archaeologists responsibility to address the issue with pseudoarchaeology and pseudoarchaeologists. One must be careful with this, though, because nowadays, information is so easy to access, and there are so many sources of it, that people can read different variations of the same gist of information over and over, in different contexts and from different perspectives. Information is now spewed digitally and through word of mouth in sort of a way that mimics the telephone game that we might have played as adolescents. The source of information starts out as, say, the conclusions that an archaeologist claims to be true, based on their findings. Once spread and repeated throughout time, the stories will vary and change, based on who is regurgitating the story and/or evidence claims. Therefore, I believe that only archaeologists who make a specific claim based on their own archaeological findings, have the right and should contest against a pseudoarchaeologist with an alternate view of the same topic. In doing so, it is ensured that no one person is spewing false knowledge at anyone else, and no claims of falsity will be made without the innate knowledge that one archaeologist has to argue with. In order to argue against one’s “false” claim, the person choosing to argue against the claim must make certain that they are in the correct standing themselves, and have not obtained information from elsewhere other than first-hand experimentation or evidence. If the person choosing to argue against the pseudoarchaeologist does not have first-hand evidence or conclusional data, a way that the two could go about proving a theory would be with something that is testifiable. An archaeologist can state that a pseudoarchaeologists claim is discounted based on the fact of it being unverifiable or unfalsifiable. If there is no clear evidence that the pseudoarchaeologist can prove or show, then an archaeologist with a verifiable or falsifiable claim can stand up against him. However, in my opinion, the argument against the pseudoarchaeologist should only be made by an archaeologist of the same study. I believe this because if one is not an expertise on a topic, why make a claim against another that denotes themselves as an expert? I believe this goes for lots of different factors of life, and not just the area of archaeology. Since pseudoscience relies mainly on claims that are not falsifiable, as well as lacking to possess a systematic approach to the hypothesis of a theory, it wold be easy for an archaeologist who is able to present these things things when contesting, to discount a pseudoscientifical theory. Standards of procedure for this archaeologist to prove a theory require the scientific method to be applied, and bias to be controlled or eliminated through randomization, sampling procedures, blind studies, or other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, should be documented for and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools when verifying reputable data. When making the decision in which one chooses to contest a presumed false claim, it should be fairly easy for an archaeologist to spot, as many Pseudoarchaologists exaggerate and contradict themselves.