Hi Dr. Anderson, thanks so much for joining us for this AMA.

In my experience as a moderator of this subreddit, we often get questions about ancient monuments and their "real use," e.g., what was Stonehenge really for, and such.

In particular, our readers ask a lot of questions about Göbekli Tepe. I realize your research is in Central America, but I was wondering if you have come across speculative writings about Göbekli Tepe and could speak to the particular fascination that people have with that site.

Thanks!

Hi Dr. Anderson, thanks for doing this AMA.

I have two questions today. The first is, why do Afrocentric claims that Native Americans were influenced by African civilizations prior to 1492 or that Africans are the true Native Americans resonate with so many people today? I have some people go so far as to say that the Atlantic slave trade never occurred and they cite a lack of existing slave ships as proof. The mental gymnastics some of these people go through to support their ideas are Olympic worthy. The most frustrating part of interacting with these people is their refusal to read anything that contradicts their ideas. They are convinced there is a cover-up of some kind to distort history. In my own attempts on social media to point out the racism of these claims and their similarity to past Eurocentric claims (lost tribe of Israel, for example) the message falls on deaf ears. My second question is, should I continue to bother trying to debunk these Afrocentric claims? And if so, do you have any suggestions as to how I can better debunk these claims?

Thank you again for joining us and I look forward to your answers.

While a lot of the public discussion of history and archaeology feels like it's undergoing a steadily worsening crackpottification, have you noticed any similar changes within the disciplines?

The bulk of my own experience has been a few terms of TAing where I ran into some pretty hair-raising credulity from some of the students (and a third of my MA cohort - in history! - refusing to believe in the moon landings!) but that was awhile back and not over a long enough period to see a trend.

I'm just wondering if people continuing to work on subjects like that at more advanced levels are running into problems with the new blood (students, newly-minted researchers, layfolk working on sites, etc) with regards to various pseudologies that might not have been as much of an issue in the past. Is committing to a discipline on a degree or professional level mostly reliable for keeping that out of the way, or have things been waltzing through the reality filters more often lately?

What is the craziest or funniest pseudoarchaeological claim that you've been asked about directly? How did you respond?

How do you convince people who believe in psudo-history/archeology that they are wrong? Is it even possible?

In my corner of the world, Korean ultra-nationalism has been an issue, with Koreans attempting to appropriate the culture/history of their neighboring nations, such as claiming that Chinese inventions were actually Korean inventions, that the Mongols were actually Koreans and so the Mongol conquests were actually Korean conquests, that Koreans introduced the Yoshino Cherry Blossom tree to Japan instead of the other way around, that Koreans were the original Asians and thus the purest race, etc.

Logic doesn't seem to work. Evidence doesn't seem to work. Discussion doesn't seem to work. A few people like that might be unavoidable, but when the majority of people in a nation believe in these kinds of nationalist rhetoric, it makes it difficult to have normal relations with that country.

It seems to me that a lot of belief in pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology comes from a sort of second-option bias, where a person finds out that parts of the "official" narrative are incomplete or misleading, then turns to "alternative" theories ("Aliens did it, and the government is covering it up!").

As someone with a background in ethnography, I've seen this in a lot of marginalized communities, which you touch on a bit in your response about Afro-centrism. I was wondering if you had any thoughts as to how to bring people who may be rightfully distrustful of mainstream academia due to past abuses into the fold. I'd imagine that you've run into some of these issues during your work in Central America, where indigenous rights issues can be quite contentious, and archaeological work on culturally important sites and areas can be seen as problematic.

Do you ever feel that entertaining those questions, even indirectly, validates them at all?

What is the best thing Archaeologists can do to improve conversations with the public? It seems that being an expert isn't enough - in fact that feeds into pseudoscientific conspiracy.

What can we do?

How universal is having a segment of the population accepting of/flirting with pseudoarchaeological claims in contrast to a majority affirming the scientific evidence? (That is, a few people are believers, more are skeptical, and most are laughing at them). Like--Is there a South African version of Ancient Aliens? Do some of India's Hindus think there is evidence of the gods' chariots in medieval Irish archaeological sites?

is pseudoarchaeology basically as old as archaeology? With the rise of scientific archaeology and its prestige, were there people right away adopting the veneer of its methods to prove their pet hypotheses? (Like pseudoscientists trying to prove the Earth was flat around that time, or calculating which type of whale could have eaten Jonah for him to survive.)

How much impact do the pseudoarchaeological works of James Churchward or August le Plongeon have on the perception of your field?

Dr. Anderson,

in popular culture, the great amount of diverse peoples of Mesoamerica seem to always be reduced to Aztecs, Maya and Incas, arguably due to the fact that these three built up somewhat sizable areas of influence.

What in your view as someone who studied early Maya civilization made the Maya rise above the minor Mesoamerican states and establish a somewhat dominant position (at least until the European arrival)? In what aspects did the Maya succeed in which comparable groups in the Yucatan peninsula failed?

Thank you for doing this AMA.

How do you feel about the pervasiveness of pseudoscientific shows on History Channel etc, and how do you think this affects common knowledge and understanding of actual science and scholarship, if at all?

What is the most outlandish example of pseudoarchaeology you have come across?

Thank you for this AMA. My grandma and uncle are really into ancient aliens, and I always felt their arguments underestimated human ingenuity and steadfastness. That being said, how much evidence would an ancient alien theorist need to sway you into thinking a non-human intelligence aided in the creation of an archeological site?

How do you feel about the Giorgio Tsoukalos memes?

How often do you encounter “crossover” between different strains of pseudoarchaeology - say Afrocentric and ancient aliens? Are these proponents usually isolated or do they interact st all?

How often does Pan-Turanism (the whole "everything comes from the Turks" thing) come up in Pseudo-History/Archaeology? What are the dominant "theories" Pan-Turanists express? How is it most easily refuted?

As a scholar of the Huns I have to deal with these people all the time, but as someone so grounded in the science of Hunnish origins/etc. it's hard to come up with an effective rebuttal.

I was in college when Barry Fells' America, BC came out, and as a New Englander, I was captivated by it and it made me want to go out into the woods to search for ancient artifacts. Years later, I was so disappointed to learn that it was completely debunked.

Some of this pseudo archaeology can stoke the imagination and contribute to a lifelong enthusiasm for science in general, but it seems to me it can have other side-effects as well.

Do you think the proliferation of such stuff on the History Channel and other venues contributes to the seeming growing distrust in science in general, and for that matter, in politics?

Ta'c léehyn, sepehitemenew’eet Anderson. Ta’c ’ee páayn. Qe'ci'yew'yew. Íin wen'íikise Kyle. Íin Nimíipuu.

(Good day, Dr. Anderson. It is good you joined us. Thank you. My name is Kyle and I am Nez Perce.)

I enjoyed reading your response here regarding the time you've spent among Indigenous descendants and working to not force your perspective onto them. However, after reading your other response here, I am curious: how do you accommodate for Indigenous understandings and interpretations within your work and within the "debunking" of various claims?

As an Indigenous person myself (though not from the Mesoamerican regions) and an aspiring scholar, I often encounter the claims stemming from Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism, but I am also constantly defending the Indigenous side of many aspects due to our often marginalized status. Part of this is often the establishing of validity for Native perspectives and conclusions about our origins and working to make academic fields such as history and archaeology more inclusive of Indigenous voices. In your experience, how have you handled such instances where Indigenous voices have a perspective to bear on research and projects and how do you believe your field(s) handle it in general?

What are your thoughts on Indiana Jones? Good for your field of archaeology? A shame and embarrassment? Tell us how you really feel.

I grew up in the era of Eric "von" Daniken and his "ancient astronauts" pseudo-science, which I see is still around. I grew disillusioned by his crap when I did the research and found out that almost everything he cited as "evidence" has been debunked. It also became increasingly obvious to me that the central thesis of "ancient aliens" fans was "our ancestors were too stupid to pile one rock on top of another, therefore Aliens Did It".

How much pseudo-archaeology appears to be driven by racism and classism? i.e., "I refuse to believe that Those People/a bunch of savages could have built something so impressive/created great art/predicted eclipses so well/etc, therefore Aliens Did It, or their elites were really the Last Descendents of a Lost Advanced Civilization, etc".

Hello and thank you for this AMA. Please tell us what is your take on Gobekli Tepe and the scenario of dr. Graham Hancock ?

What recent archeological discovery have surprised you the most and why?

Do you see any connection between these pseudohistorical claims and ancient myths? Do claims of aliens stole my cows fulfill the same purpose?

Was there any specific pseudoarchaeological case that made you interested in it?

Are there any historical examples of what were considered to be pseudoarchaeological theories that were then proven to actually be true? So a case where the consensus was, generally, that this was probably a load of bunk, but then someone found actual evidence to support it?

What are some books or sources you would recommend for those interested in the development and/or debunking of pseudoarchaeological claims?

I grew up Mormon. I was wondering how often you get people claiming that they were ancient Israelites? And how do you deal with their claims?

Of all the psuedo theories you have come across which one do you believe has some validity to it?

Have you ever read Arysio Santos' 'Atlantis: the Lost Continent Finally Found' and if so what are your thoughts? What are your thoughts on why so many Atlanits-type myths are scattered thoughtout the world. For example Plato's 'Atlantis' is oddly similar to the Aztec's 'Aztlan' Both described as very ancient places.

I think "popular history" can be useful for bringing history to a broader audience, but even with 'serious' BBC documentaries, and the like, there is always the danger of straying from the facts and spreading a biased version of events. I think it is often hard to draw the line.

I can understand that journalists may be tempted to write a quick piece about their pet historical theory, but there are cases which defy comprehension, like Gavin Menzies and his obsessive idea about the Chinese naval exploration that was supposed to have discovered the new world even before Columbus. What is it that drives a person to dedicate the better part of his life to a crack-pot idea like that?

How often do you find your work directly conflicting with religious beliefs? Do you experience pushback when you have to broadcast that there may not be any evidence for their religious legends? And specifically, have you ever had to deal with archeologists from the Mormon church trying to prove the stories in the Book of Mormon?

Was Schliemann a pseudo-archeologist or just a bad one? How about Arthur Evans? Schliemann (from my reading around) destroyed far more archeology than he discovered. Evans, I feel was a serial fantasist.

Dr. Anderson, I have a Master's degree in history with a focus on U.S. History but I was also interested in ancient history. I've tried in a few of the ancient civilization classes to discuss possible reasons so many civilizations used pyramids for religious purpose. Unfortunately even in post graduate work I found discussions of this always led to Ancient Aliens.

So my question is, what are your thought as to why so many civilizations built pyramids.

My thoughts include that prehistoric men, prior to migration out of Africa, may have had a shared religion developed around a Sky-god and pyramids are somehow related to those ideas, that it's just a solid building design that would be an obvious choice to people wanting to build large scale monuments with a certain level of technology, and that it's just a coincidence.

Anywho, what are your thoughts.

Not sure if I am allowed to ask this or not but what is your opinion on Graham Hancock? How does his work/claims compare or stand up to what you have studied?

Thanks so much for doing this!

Something that continues to surprise me is how certain books have become classics ("Fingerprints of the Gods," "Chariots of the Gods," "They Came Before Columbus") and endured nearly 50 years now- a time during which archaeology has undergone multiple paradigm shifts. Somehow, this "canon" has endured the transition into the internet age, and perhaps even been strengthened by it. Website after website pops up on reddit that are rehashes/rip-offs of these books' talking points, often including scanned photographs. What role has the internet played in the creation and proliferation of psuedoarchaeology?

Have you ever been to the Bigfoot museum in Portland Maine? Thoughts?

Second, what do you think drives people to go to extreme lenghts in trying to find things like Bigfoot or aliens in the past?

What impact did the publication of "Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past" have on the archaeological and other related fields? Was there largely a skeptical and/or cool reception, or were people more willing to investigate and/or believe its claims to see if the Erich von Däniken was on point?

What are your thoughts on the Mosquitia civilization? In general, how much stock do you put in Lidar surveying of areas that have been barely or not at all investigated on the ground? I imagine in the coming decades, we'll see it used more extensively in the Amazon, and they will probably find something of interest, and then we'll get news stories about how El Dorado has finally been found.

There is a persistant fascination with civilizations that "disappeared", (i.e. Angkor, Maya, etc.) , how do we best explain why these claims aren't accurate to people who may not have a background in history?

Hi Dr Anderson,

How difficult is it to change a well held belief within the archeological community? I have heard of anecdotal evidence that says it can become impossible to change our views on history due to statis quo.

When it comes to the spread of pseudo-archaeological ideas (or for that matter any pseudo theories) do you think that having much of actual academic research being hidden behind paywalls makes educating the public more difficult?

Dr. Anderson,

My husband has told me that they've found evidence of actual, ancient airports in either a Mayan or Incan city (he couldn't remember which civilization). Is this true, and if so, why is this information not further spread?

Were you able to leverage the interest in the Maya due to the 2012 nonsense into a positive education experience for the public, or were you just on damage control the whole time? More broadly, what is the strategy for reaching people who want to learn but have the wrong ideas ingrained?

Thank you! This is great advice, and lucky for me i love archaeology more than any other subject & know in my heart that its my true calling. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer, its so nice to have a professional's perspective and opinion.

Hi, Dr. Anderson! Thank you so much for doing this! I have two questions: First, how could the Stonehenge society structure itself to work on building something for 12+ years? Second, what's your take on the Malta structures and their assumed sound/frequency properties?

Can you recommend a single source created by reliable authors that discredits what you considera junk/pseudo archaeology?

As a graduate student in psychology, one of my fascinations is bizarre belief systems. I regularly watch the programming on GAIA because I find the effects it has on its followers fascinating. Anyway, on one program, images of an Egyptian staff are shown that had what appeared to be a pterodactyl head on the end. Do we have any historical record of Egyptians finding these fossils and implementing them into their folklore and art?

Hello! This isnt really a question about psuedoarchaeology but rather about a career in archaeology. I am an undergraduate archaeology student about to graduate in 6 months and i would love to have some tips on archaeology graduate school. I feel like i have so many interests its impossible to narrow it down to one! Most grad schools ive applied to only include focused curriculum on one subject and ultimately, it makes me feel like i have to choose my career path all at once. I love the classic Maya like you! But i also love museology, illustrative archaeology, and paleoenvironmental archaeology... i guess i just wanted to know how you came to focus on your specialties? Does it have to be established before i even graduate? I dont want to go too far down one path and risk closing off the way to another. Any tips would be appreciated! Thank you

I'm curious about two things:

1. Have you seen any criticism within the profession relating to your debunking of pseudoarchaeology. E.g. That you should not be doing it.

2. In your work on pseudoarchaeology do you notice cross-over with other people who work to understand or debunk different pseudoacademic claims. E.g. Is work from historians who debunk Holocaust denial useful to you?

Hey Dr. Anderson

What’s a case or study that we may not have heard about? I’ve watched a lot of Ancient Aliens but what’s something you don’t see or hear touched on too often? Thanks for the time

Are you familiar with the Mavor/Dix work in American archaeastronomy? If so do you have any opinions on it as it relates to archaeology and pseudo-archaeology?

Hi Dr. Anderson. I am just a casual watcher of Ancient Aliens. I've read through some of your comments pertaining to authenticity, and I do have a question. How did people from so long ago make things that they didn't have the technology for at the time?

I've always been fascinated by the idea of pre-Colombian contact with the new world. With "evidence" like the Viking expeditions further south than Vinland, the Kensington Stone, Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki voyage, and even the idea of chickens being transported across the Pacific being bandied about, what's your take on that portion of psuedoarchaeology?

How widespread was the phenomenon of Red Ochre burials in paleolithic cultures? Do you feel there is some kind of connection - that Red Ochre burials are a shared cultural tradition with a common origin - or is this happenstance?

What do you make of Robert Sepeher, his books, "Gods with Amnesia" and "Species with Amnesia" and his Atlantean Gardens blog? I'm especially interested in what you make of how he connects world mythology to conspiracy theories.

So atlantis is debunked despite being mentioned by plato? In protoindoeuropean At-lendh-eis is 'to go (a year)-land frozen(or misty)'. That is pretty much a map to where Atlantis is (or was). Every legendary paradise comes with a seed of truth.