Pseudoarchaeology: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Part 2)

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, there are others who take it very seriously. More than half of respondents to a 2017 Chapman University survey of paranormal beliefs in the United States of America agreed with the statement that "Ancient advanced civilisations, such as Atlantis, once existed", and more than a third agreed with the statement that "Aliens have visited Earth in our ancient past". Interestingly, this was higher than the proportion of respondents who agreed that aliens had visited in modern times, hinting at the influence of Ancient Aliens and similar shows.

Image sourced here.

 

Ideas such as the Ancient Astronaut 'theory' are actually rooted in racist colonial-era ideas. Cited case-studies are overwhelmingly disproportionate in considering the amazing achievements of non-European ancient civilisations, as well as the ancestors of those subjugated by later European colonialism, as requiring alien intervention. After all, the belief that these people were "primitive" and in need of outside direction went someway towards justifying colonialism.

Ancient Astronauts and other pseudoarchaeological ideas continue to provide an outlet for racism (in many instances, politically-motivated), covertly or overtly. To give one example here, right-wing "white nationalist" groups in the USA have embraced a fringe theory in archaeological circles known as the Solutrean hypothesis, which suggests a European origin for the makers of Clovis tools, the first recognized stone tool tradition in the Americas, based on apparent similarities between Clovis spearpoints and spearpoints produced by the Upper Palaeolithic Solutrean peoples of southwestern Europe. Claims that the Solutrean settlers were subsequently wiped out by the ancestors of today's recognised Native Americans are attempts to undermine Native American ancestral land claims and their legitimacy as a historical victim group. However, as Dr. Jennifer Raff of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas explained in an article in The Guardian earlier this year, the available evidence (when considered as a whole, and not just 'cherry-picked'), suggests that the Solutrean hypothesis is unlikely to be true.

"White nationalist" groups in the USA have embraced the fringe Solutrean hypothesis because it allows them to rob indigenous people of their legitimacy as a historical victim group. Image sourced here.

This is not a problem limited to the USA. In New Zealand, which has a similar history of European colonialism, a fringe movement has for a number of years now been pushing the idea that the country's first human inhabitants were white Europeans, who were wiped out by the "war-like" Polynesian Māori. As noted in the linked article, not only is there a lack of credible evidence to support such claims, but leading proponents of this idea have demonstrable connections to far-right organisations with a political agenda to undermine Māori land claims as well as their legitimacy as a historical victim group - sound familiar?

I believe that pseudoarchaeology is no longer an issue that will go away by archaeologists simply ignoring it in an attempt to avoid legitimising these ideas by creating the appearance of a debate. In fact, ignoring it could also play into the hands of pseudoarchaeologists, who often claim the existence of deliberate conspiracies to suppress "the truth". As I noted in my last post, one strategy for more effectively countering pseudoarchaeological claims is for archaeologists to be more open about our own methods and approaches to understanding the past. This way the public will be better equipped to judge the merits of an archaeological approach compared to a pseudoarchaeological one.

Thanks for reading!

A reminder: If you are on Twitter, you can follow the likes of ArchyFantasies, David S. Anderson, Steph Halmhofer, and Jens Notroff for more pseudoarchaeology debunking.