Archaeology Actually

Kia ora, It has certainly been an eventful last few weeks!  Last month I participated in an excavation at Tinshemet Cave, a Levantine Middle Palaeolithic archaeological site located in central Israel. The Arabic name for the site is Mugh â ret al-Watwat ('Cave of the Bat'; Stekelis 1942 ), for reasons illustrated in the following video: As a (very basic!) background to the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic (the cited sources provide additional detail for those that are interested): The Levant is a region comprising of roughly the modern countries and territories of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. The Levantine Middle Palaeolithic spans a period from around 250,000 - 45,000 years ago ( Nishiaki and Akazawa 2018 ; Shea 2001 , 2003 ). The fossil record shows that during this period both Neanderthals ( Homo neanderthalensis ) and early anatomically modern humans ( Homo sapiens ) were present in the Levant. The archaeological signature of this region and per

Kia ora, A couple of posts back I talked about what pseudoarchaeology was. As the combining form 'pseudo-' implies, it is essentially 'false archaeology'.  Pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past are based on data that has been 'cherry-picked' (i.e. selectively sampled) to support a particular pre-determined conclusion. What's the harm in a bit of pseudoarchaeology?  The fact that pseudoarchaeology is intellectually dishonest, and widely perpetuates inaccurate information about the past is in itself a reason to challenge it.  The Ancient Astronaut 'theory', discussed in my earlier post , is one prominent example of pseudoarchaeology. It has gained a strong foothold in popular culture thanks to the hugely successful TV show Ancient Aliens, which in turn was inspired by an earlier outlet for the idea - Erich von Däniken's bestselling book, Chariots of the Gods? While these may just be a bit of a ( meme-worthy ) laugh to some, t

Kia ora, In my last post to this blog , I noted that one of the key differences between archaeological and pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past is that established archaeological interpretations are the result of inductive reasoning  (i.e. conclusions are built from the 'bottom-up', based on (all) the available data), while pseudoarchaeological interpretations rely on data that has been selectively sampled to support the claims that are being made.  That's not to claim that archaeological interpretations are never wrong! But there is an important distinction that needs to be made between blatantly biased data selection and/or manipulation leading to incorrect interpretations (that is, pseudoarchaeology) and an interpretation that proves to be incorrect as a result of additional research and new data. Many areas of Oceania, for instance, are largely archaeological ' terra incognita ' (unknown land) and it is expected that as these areas are explored

Kia ora, In light of the heightened profile of pseudoarchaeology in the popular media recently, I thought I would write a bit on this blog about what pseudoarchaeology actually is and why it's a bad thing.    What is pseudoarchaeology? Archaeology (as I have previously discussed in this blog ), is the study of past human societies through the material remains that those societies left behind. I have previously alluded to some of the careful  data gathering practices and analytical methods that have become widely established in the discipline  for very good reasons . Pseudo is a combining form meaning "false", "pretended", or "unreal", used in the formation of compound words such as pseudoarchaeology.   Pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past are not based on these widely accepted data gathering practices and analytical methods, yet give the false impression of being so.    As noted by archaeologist  David S. Anderson  in a great tw

Kia ora, Today (25th April) is ANZAC Day (ANZAC is an acronym for Australian & New Zealand Army Corps), an official day of commemoration in New Zealand and Australia of the sacrifices made by our servicemen and women (past and present). The day itself is the anniversary of landings by the allied forces of the First World War on the beaches of the Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey, in 1915.  As noted elsewhere :  "In the wider story of the First World War, the Gallipoli campaign made no large mark. The number of dead, although horrific, pales in comparison with the death toll in France and Belgium during the war. However, for New Zealand, along with Australia and Turkey, the Gallipoli campaign is often claimed to have played an important part in fostering a sense of national identity." It may surprise many to hear that archaeologists have been actively involved in the investigation of the campaigns of twentieth century wars. For example, some World War II archaeology that I