Professionally, individuals of any field should combat misinformation in their given realm of expertise. To allow inaccurate information would not only discredit their field, but their individual credibility would be affected. This is true for any field, specifically ones that conduct research, perform studies, and interact with the public have a professional duty to counteract misinformation in their respective area. Job sectors of all fields suffer from implicit bias, however it’s equally as important to address this as it can undoubtedly impact the way professionals interpret any evidence, data, or recordings they may encounter or produce themselves.

In particular, archaeologists have a duty to their colleagues, their fields, themselves, and the peoples they study to portray and record accurate, non-biased information and observations. It’s especially important for archaeologists to combat misinformation because the information can easily be miscontextualized and twisted to fit specific narratives that can harm communities directly or indirectly. However, it’s important to note that this responsibility doesn’t only fall on archaeologists, but on those that also spread the information (or misinformation) like the History channel or Discovery channel. These channels not only host pseudoarchaeologists, but widely distribute the theories they push with little to no disclaimers about the credibility or accuracy of the so-called experts or their theories. When misinformation is widely dispersed, it can lead to misinformed actions that can, and often have, result in serious consequences. In addition to the consequences posed on the current-day parties involved, it essentially removes credibility to the ancestral parties. As Colavito explains using Native American mistreatment due to pseudoarchaeology, “their achievements reassigned to almost literally every other people on earth” (2015, “”American Antiquity” Reviewing Pseudo-Archaeology”, para. 4) and facts were merely background noise in comparison to “ideaological justifications” whe seizing Native lands. The issue only mounts when it becomes widespread public opinion, or belief, that can catapult theories into dangerous actions.

The shows we consume as a public seem to be transitioning their focuses onto pseudoarchaeological theories, hosting a plethora of “experts” who share opinions on fields they don’t have expertise in. The History channel aired the first episode of “Ancient Aliens” in 2010, now with over 80 episodes and 7 seasons and even gained enough popularity and viewership to warrant a spinoff show, “In Search of Ancient Aliens” (Holly, 2015, p. 615). This public intrigue into pseudoarchaeological claims demonstrates a strong interest in the origins of humans and the timelines documenting the many cultures developed over time, however it seems the interest ends at the truth. As Holly explains, the popularity in “genuine” archaeological books most likely stem from school/course requirements (2015, p. 615).

Because the specific field of archaeology is heavily reliant and influenced by context of the archaeological site, the peoples that inhabited the site, and the current archaeological record, it’s often easy to misinterpret such information or to interpret the information incorrectly in order to maintain a narrative or history, even if the evidence directly (or indirectly) challenges previously held beliefs. This results in the public receiving contradicting information and records which can cause public opinion to become black-and-white, with extreme views rising from the confusion, as evidenced in modern time with the COVID-19 pandemic. The misinformation and contradicting statements spread to the public caused mass divide that’s spilled into vaccinations (though this has been a long-fought argument before the COVID-19 pandemic) and public safety policies.

However, many people fall within the intermediate realm of opinion. While they may entertain some pseudoarchaeological claims, they most likely view them with a skeptical eye and simply partake in discussions involving pseudoarchaeological claims as “what ifs”, with some leaning more or less into the legitimacy of such explanations. Holly identifies people who fall within the intermediate opinion as “the guy on the airplane” and asserts this demographic should be archaeologists and anthropologists target audience (2015, p. 616). Since there’s a high public interest in archaeology and its corresponding fields, archaeologists can pivot their publications and journals to “listen to them [the public] and address their interests and questions too” (Holly, 2015, p. 616) to oppose misinformation outlets like the History and Discovery channels.

Archaeological records are essentially reflections of how modern-humans view and understand their ancestral counterparts and so archaeologists have an ethical duty to provide non-biased, accessible, and meaningful works for the public.

Holly Jr., D. H. (2015). Talking to the guy on the airplane. American Antiquity, 80(3), pp. 615-616. http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp364-fs21/files/2012/08/s13.pdf DOI: 10.7183/0002-7316.80.3.615

J Colavito. (2015, June 17). “American Antiquity” Features Special Section Reviewing Pseudo-Archaeology. Retrieved from https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/american-antiquity-features-special-section-reviewing-pseudo-archaeology#comments