Archaeology Actually

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