Jens NotroffMost absurd take in this pseudoarchaeology set-up may be the accusation that "mainstream archaeology" is simply ignoring important sites and finds - while those narratives at the same time unashamedly exploit the year-long work and research of archaeologists at these very sites.
Solvejg Nitzke@jens2go that is so annoying and yet, apparently, so effective (did my phd on the Tunguska-Event and tons of conspiracy theories and conspiracy leaning novels use that "strategy")
Totally Assyrious@jens2go Can I just say that I *hate* how many of us have accepted their label of "mainstream archaeologist" without a fight? Hancock and his ilk AREN'T archaeologists at all -- we should not be ceding ANY legitimacy to them by giving them even an inch on that front.
These people are basically all either grifters and/or tinfoil-hat-wearing wackos, and we should absolutely refuse to benefit their cause by labeling them as anything more "serious" than that.
(I'm an extremist on this one, but I don't even think we should gift them the term #pseudoarchaeology -- it's yet another term we use that confuses non-specialists who don't know we mean "bullshit pretending to be archaeology" because we clothe the term in needlessly ostentatious Latin. Just call them the "absurd bullshit" they are and leave it at that, don't give them anything more.)
Aecernist@s3nnacherib @jens2go while I have absolutely no time for Hancock et al, I'm wary of any attempts define who is or isn't an archaeologist. It looks like more of the old gatekeeping of the field.
@Aecernist @jens2go In what way is it "gatekeeping" to say that these fraudsters are not archaeologists and are not doing archaeology? Is it "gatekeeping" to say that a passenger on an airplane should not be calling themselves a "pilot" if they don't do shit to help fly the plane?
If Hancock actually had a role on a dig, helped out on some survey, or worked in a lab or something then it'd be one thing; at least he'd have *some* claim to being actively involved in the field. But as it stands I fail to see how it's "gatekeeping" to say that the guy isn't an archaeologist when he literally does nothing to contribute to the study of the past except profit off of racist "ancient aliens" bullshit.
@Aecernist One more thought: I'm all for having valuable discussions about gatekeeping in the field as a rule... when you're not talking about bad actors like this. But Hancock and these other shitbirds who are masquerading as "archaeologists" to sell racist narratives about the past are a different matter.
If it's "gatekeeping" to tell those racist motherfuckers with no actual archaeology background that they're not welcome to steal the trappings of legitimate research in order to sell dangerous narratives that fuel the anger of the global far-right white supremacist movement and give the fascists a fantasy version of the human story to latch onto, then I'm perfectly okay with keeping that particular gate, thanks. Those people can go fuck themselves.
@s3nnacherib I agree with everything you say here, except where you deny it's gatekeeping. If you are writing about archaeological sites, as Hancock does, it's archaeology as far as I'm concerned. As a field we need to try to understand why his racist and wrong misinterpretation of other other archaeologists work is so popular, not hold ever tighter to "our" information.
@Aecernist Coincidentally enough, @chaco_arch just posted a paper about that to Mastodon earlier today: http://www.michelle-turner.net/uploads/6/2/0/6/62067479/preprint_not_saying_it_was_aliens.pd
Yes, gatekeeping is a complicated issue. And you're absolutely right that we should not curate EVERY perspective, or even the vast majority of them.
But when it comes to demonstrably harmful, white supremacy-aligned narratives like the one Hancock is selling, I do think we have to make an exception. I know some might not agree with this, but I think we have an obligation to assist contemporary archaeology's antiracist and anticolonial missions by not ceding any sort of "legitimacy" to those malicious narratives.
Now I don't personally see that as "gatekeeping"... but if it is, then so be it. It's still the right thing to do in the case of malicious actor like Hancock.
Martin Dennehy@s3nnacherib @Aecernist Gatekeeping doesn't inherently have to be a bad thing. It's gatekeeping to say that homeopaths aren't practicing medicine, or not letting me do the hammer throw at the olympics and I don't see anything wrong with that. Someone could get hurt. And what Hancock is doing here is definitely harmful
@Marrhorse @Aecernist Yep, I tend to agree with you there (no big surprise, I know). I think it becomes kind of a Slippery Slope argument to say that you can NEVER shut down a harmful narrative that plays off of archaeology without that escalating into unacceptable gatekeeping behavior.
Yes, we need to check ourselves to not shut out underrepresented voices and engage in the kind of archaeological gatekeeping that was a hallmark of the Bad Old Days of the colonial era past. But at the same time, the insidious Graham Hancocks of the world are NOT underrepresented, and we really don't need to grant them respect or consideration of a "legitimate" discourse. And for my money, these two things need not be mutually exclusive.
Anyhow, just my two cents FWIW.
Thomas Westgard@s3nnacherib @Aecernist what you’re describing is identical to Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, I think. You’re just applying the paradox to a specific field whereas he spoke more broadly.
John Shirley@s3nnacherib @jens2go you are correct!
Kenny Feder@jens2go Funny right? They know about G.T. because “mainstream” archaeologists like you have excavated and published, but then claim mainstream archaeologists ignore the site. Wut? A pic of one of the pillars is on the cover of my textbook. Are we diabolically clever, hiding stuff in plain sight? Or do we suck at hiding stuff?