Pseudoarchaeology is Aware of Racism, aka Let’s Talk about the R-Word.

FB_IMG_1545763410384.jpg

I repeat, Pseudoarchaeology is aware of racism.

They’re not entirely sure when something is racist, or why archaeologists call them out on it constantly, but they know it’s a thing that exists and it’s probably bad.

Why do I say this? The two most visible personalities in alternative archaeology/history right at this moment are probably Scott Wolter and Graham Hancock. As many know, I watch and read their shows/book and review them critically. It’s actually part of my thesis, so I guess they both get what they claim they ultimately want, recognition by the academic community. Just not the way they wanted.

To be clear I am not calling Wolter or Hancock (or anyone here) a Racist. What I am saying is the things they write/say/do are racist, probably unintentional, and need to be examined and criticized.

Both Wolter and Hancock have had their claims about archaeology/history critiqued and the racist parts pointed out to them over the years. I’ve watched both men develop their ideas, reacting to the criticism. Of course, there is the initial outrage (“I’m not Racist!”), who wants to be called a racist? But then, both of them tried to adapt their theories to make them less racist, and both have completely missed the point.

I’ve watched both carefully police their language over the years to not mention color or nationality as much as possible. But the mentioning of Blacks or Whites isn’t what makes what they say and sell racist. It’s the implications of what they’re trying to push as correct history. Both men have an idea about how culture got to and developed in America. Granted Hancock’s is a little more world-encompassing, but it’s still the basic, “Super Father Culture brings civilization to lesser people, mostly non-whites.”

For Wolter, it’s his strange Celtic-Viking-Templars, for Hancock it’s his psychic lost civilization of all-gods. It doesn’t matter who they are though, because the idea is the same, this mysterious group came to America and bequeathed all culture and society to the unfortunate clueless people already here, who then worshiped them as gods/heroes. Both theories completely ignore or erase native accomplishments and reassign them to the father race. And if you don’t see the issue there, we need to talk.

What’s been most interesting to me over the years is watching these two, and others like them, try to correct for the racism of their ideas, without changing their actual ideas. They think just changing the words they use will erase the implications, but miss the greater issues with their arguments. Then, when called out on it, they both do what can generously be called Virtue Signaling to try and show that *they* aren’t racist themselves.

The thing that struck me the other day reading Hancock once again get upset over his misconceptions of Native American and Archaeologist relations (there are issues, just not the ones he’s on about), is that they don’t see or understand their own racism. We can point it out to them all day, it won’t matter. Neither man thinks they are capable of being racist. Wolter even goes as far as to do the whole “I have Native American Friends” thing and Hancock just constantly tells us how angry he is for Native Americans (then dismisses their whole history in a handwave).

I don’t doubt that Wolter has friends in various tribes, or that Hancock is really upset. But that isn’t a pass to then turn around, treat all Native Americas as one amorphous group of people, or break them down into “advanced” and “primitive” societies based on arbitrary traits that really just reflect how little either man understands about archaeology and culture.

The only good thing about this is that it opens up the discussion of racism in and around archaeology.  Archaeology and anthropology have very dark origins and history. It’s ugly sometimes, and those of us in the field not only learn about this, we’re taught to counter it as much as we can. The sad truth is, we’re still very white, male-dominated, eurocentric fields.

Are things getting better? Yes, definitely. Could they be a whole lot better than they are, Absolutely!

Reading Hancock and watching Wolter, as frustrating as it is, opened my eyes to the reality that is both the public perception of archaeology and reminds me of the issues we still have to correct for in our own field. It also reminds me that we as professionals can’t have these discussions in the dark, away from public eyes. That’s how we got here in the first place, checking out of public discourse and letting pseudoarchaeology take control.

We need to take our narrative back, we need to be real, and we need to counter things when we see them.

Now I’ll get off my high horse and go get ready to watch Wolter tell me how the Phoenicians were the first Europeans in America.


We’re on YouTube again!

If you’d like to support the Podcast or site, consider donating to us on Patreon or buy us a  Ko-Fi. Either option helps us out.

Check out Jeb Card’s new book Spooky Archaeology :
Myth and the Science of the Past

And Ken Feder’s new book Archaeological Oddities: A Field Guide to Forty Claims of Lost Civilizations, Ancient Visitors, and Other Strange Sites in North America

Grab a t-shirt or coffee mug from our Swag Store on Zazzle.

Be sure to subscribe to the podcast on the blog and like and share us where ever you can.

You can follow us on twitter @ArchyFantasies, or look us up on Facebook. You can reach us by email at ArchyFantasies@gmail.com.

Contact us below or leave a comment.

10 thoughts on “Pseudoarchaeology is Aware of Racism, aka Let’s Talk about the R-Word.

Add yours

  1. G’wan, the Chinese were the first Europeans in the New World. That’s the real Chinese not the modern imposters who are actually the ten lost tribes of Atlantis in Israel.

  2. Racism is not exactly the issue. Its the simple fact that Wolter , is a Freemason. Freemasons, whether you want to believe it or not are known to be complete liars. The secret they want to keep “close to the vest” is that they worship Lucifer. No, this is not a conspiracy theory! Its a known fact. The writings of Albert Pike clearly state this in his book Rules and Dogmas. Other Freemasons such as Manly P. Hall have literature stating that Freemasons worship Lucifer above all other well known deities. When you go to look at who has written most history, it is Freemasons. Most popular historical figures that have been written about have been Freemasons. The occult runs deep and so do the lies.

  3. Then there’s the double reverse racism of self-proclaimed experts who say “Archaeologists MUST listen to the Native American oral tradition”, the implication being that “the oral tradition” is perfect, accurate, and unchanging and further that “the oral tradition” of Native Americans currently living in Place X is relevant; to the archaeology being done. An easy counterexample it that the Cherokee oral tradition is not relevant to the Plains Indians. Other groups of Native Americans have moved around throughout history and the people who live in Place Y might have supplanted earlier inhabitants, who in turn supplanted even earlier inhabitants.

  4. Did you read Graham’s latest; “America Before?” He explicitly states he disagrees with the (apparently) racist view that a former culture of white people brought over moundbuilding to Poverty Point, Cahokia, etc. Doesn’t that kinda negate your entire thesis/life’s work of ostracizing these two guys (seems creepy and obsessive btw)…Shouldn’t you probably and actually read the work of the people you’re trying to ostracize, instead of just claiming you do? Just saying….

    Also, a race of tall redhead white people apparently did ‘help’ the moundbuilders. They enslaved Easter Island, the natives of which eventually managed to mutinize, and they lived in nearby villages to the various NA moundbuilding cultures and even challenged them to various sports (such as chunkey in Cahokia).

    This doesnt belittle NA accomplishments, the earthworks in N America and the Melanesians in the Amazon are astounding. I doubt this race of tall white people helped to build these, if the Ho Chunk and Winnebago stories are anything to go by the ‘giants’ weren’t very peaceful and eventually died out as the years went on. Probably an antediluvian bloodline that barely skirted past the Younger Dryas and eventually succumbed to poor population for various circumstances. Most NA tribes are the first to tell you they didn’t actually build the mounds, but upon finding them began to use them as burial sites. Thus, say, Mound 72 at Cahokia and the mass mortuary theater sacrificial burials with Thunderbird beads. The archaoeastronomy skills of whoever built these sites is astounding regardless of whodunnit.

    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Cahokia/Cahokia1.htm

    https://www.earthancients.com/?portfolio=freddy-silva-the-missing-lands

    https://www.earthancients.com/?portfolio=graham-hancock-america-before
    https://www.earthancients.com/?portfolio=adam-stokes-giants-of-ancient-america

    1. “the (apparently) racist view that a former culture of white people brought over moundbuilding”

      I just want to leave this here.

      Also your comment just reinforces my points.

      1. nah it effectively negates them actually. if anything the Native stories tell of a time when a horrible race of white people were every bit as war focused as certain NA tribes like the Pawnee. Even in the aftermath of Cahokianl, nobody seemed to miss the violence that took place there.
        Im just gonna leave this here: you are racist and weirdly obsessed with two people on a stalker level and are creeping everyone out. Please stop.

      2. Reply directed at “Connor,” but no reply option was available on his most-recent post.

        [you are racist and weirdly obsessed with two people on a stalker level and are creeping everyone out. Please stop.]

        I’m not sure what you could possibly mean about her being “racist” unless you consider it so to point out that White folks didn’t do everything.

        As to the other part, the bizarre “stalking” allegation — in context you seem to be talking about Wolter and Hancock. Debunking is not the same thing as stalking. Debunking these hurtful and demonstrably incorrect is a highly necessary activity.

        -An Anonymous Nerd

  5. As I said, it would help your case if you actually read what Graham has wrote lmao. Youll find he doesnt at all subscribe to the tall redhead whites theory.

  6. This comment:

    “Also, a race of tall redhead white people apparently did ‘help’ the moundbuilders. They enslaved Easter Island, the natives of which eventually managed to mutinize, and they lived in nearby villages to the various NA moundbuilding cultures and even challenged them to various sports (such as chunkey in Cahokia).”

    OMG that is some of the funniest hash I’ve ever read and it is completely bogus And your comment about “Melanesians” in the Amazon is hilarious. But you go on to do one better with ” antediluvian bloodline”!! And then there are “giants”!!!

    I suggest you read more than Thor Heyerdahl about Easter Island. you might also want to update yourself about the genetics of Native Americans.

    Has for Hancock and Wolter. They have done an excellent job of making themselves ridiculous with no one’s assistance. Then again they both have fantasized about a vast conspiracy of Academics to “supress” the “truth”. Wolter’s fantasies about Templars alone are fall on the floor funny. And I can remember when Hancock was boosting 2012 ravings. The vast majority of serious Scholars ignore those two and for good reason.

    1. lmao obviously you havent kept up with genetics. Yep, Melanesians etc have significant dna in Amazon tribes, and there is nothing your 10years out of date knowledge can do about it

Leave a Reply to Nathaniel Wilson Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: