Pseudoarchaeology Panel Proposal for ASOR

As readers of this blog know, I’ve been playing around with pseudoarchaeology a good bit lately. I’ve vacillated a bit trying to figure out whether I want to write a short book or perhaps just a series of articles on pseudoarchaeological ideas in the Black and African American community.

A few earnest colleagues suggested that perhaps it would be best for me to start with something like a conference paper rather than running before I was sure I could walk. This seems like reasonable advice, and as a happy coincidence, my colleague Kevin McGeough was interested. He has done some brilliant work on both the 18th and 19th century foundations for contemporary pseudoarchaeology in Victorian era mysticism and the role that archaeology plays in film. 

Here’s the draft of our ASOR workshop proposal. We’re interested in moving the conversation surrounding pseudoarchaeology from debunk and dismiss to contextualize and understand. 

Contemporary Perspectives on Near Eastern And Mediterranean Pseudoarchaeology

Despite decades of debunking, pseudoarchaeology remains evergreen. A recent documentary series devoted to yet another pseudoarchaeologcial expedition to prove the existence of Atlantis provoked yet another chorus of outrage from archaeologists. Atlantis, in particular, appears to attract perniciously persistent perspectives anchored in Victorian racism and colonialism. At the same time, it is clear that Atlantis continues to fascinate 21st-century audiences not because of their deep attraction to Platonic rhetoric, but because it also offers a way to think about the consequences of catastrophic climate change. In general, pseudoarchaeological sites, artifacts, and explanations continue to resonate with contemporary challenges including race, identity, forced migration, millenarianism, and globalization.           

In light of the ongoing relevance of pseudoarchaeology, this workshop seeks to situate specific pseudoarchaeological phenomenon in their intellectual, historical, social, and even archaeological context by considering the following questions:

1. What are the intellectual, social, political, and material contexts for pseudoarchaeology?

2. How have pseudoarchaeologists responded to normative archaeological arguments, methods, epistemologies, and institutions?

3. How have pseudoarchaeological ideas circulated? What genres, media, and institutions create space for pseudoarchaeology?

4. Have disciplinary efforts to debunk or critique pseudoarchaeology benefited or harmed the disciplinary archaeology?

5. How does the growing appreciation of the plurality of archaeologies create new space within the discipline to recognize and learn from pseudoarchaeological traditions? 

For this workshop, presenters will briefly describe one pseudoarchaeological case study and answer those five questions directly. These brief presentations will provide the foundation for an open discussion in the remainder of the workshop.