Module 11 Contents

This module covers two major topics that intersect with each other: 1) Ethics in archaeology
concern issues of how the past is used and who controls the past in terms of material culture
and the narrative of history. 2) Pseudoarchaeology and fraud are realms where the
archaeological past is appropriated for entertainment, attention, profit. Misinterpretations of
the past are presented as plausible alternatives to audiences willing to suspend critical
thinking. You'll have the opportunity to explore both, and an Extra Credit Assignment is
available based on this module!

eadings: Chapter 11:

Module Contents

 Past as Scientific Evidence or Cultural Heritage?

 Past as Commodity?
 What is Pseudoarchaeology?
 Science and Pseudoscience (PPT)
 Archaeological Fraud
 Anatomy of a Hoax (PPT)
 Ancient Aliens (PPT)
 Quiz 11 Link I will handle this
 Discussion Link

Past as Scientific Evidence or Cultural

Heritage?
Regarding the material remains of the past, ethical issues abound. Who owns
it? Who controls it? How should it be used? There are and always have been many
stakeholders, including descendant populations, archaeologists, landowners,
museums, and nations. Generally speaking, the trend over the past century, and
particularly over the past few decades, has been towards building greater protections
for the archaeological sites themselves.

Additionally, the U.S. has come to terms with the reality that archaeological remains
on U.S. soil were not the remains of long-gone peoples. Native Americans who are
the descendants of these people had been pointing out for decades that items on
display in museums and stored in university labs were often the remains of their
ancestors or sacred objects not meant to be seen or used by others.

So in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, otherwise
known as NAGPRA, was passed. According to this law, any time human remains are
found in an excavation, they must be reported to appropriate groups. Additionally,
material culture that belongs to living cultural groups must be returned. As such,
many native groups have since received human remains and grave goods that have
been in storage or museums, many of which have been reburied according to
traditional rites and ritual.
Above: Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan reburial of 4 sets of remains and 762
funerary objects in 2014.

NAGPRA is not without its detractors. Some scientists and scholars would rather see
archaeologists study any and all artifacts, including human remains. These tend to be
scholars with questions about the ancient peopling of the New World, for example,
who feel that questions about the earliest human migrations merit scientific study
before other considerations. There are also many Native American groups who
choose to collaborate with archaeologists as well, participating in archaeological
investigations in order to learn more about their own pasts.

However, many high-profile cases have arisen that have pitted native groups against
scientists, including the 1996 discovery of ancient human remains in Washington
State, known as Kennewick Man that we studied earlier in this course. The local
Umatilla tribe argued that according to NAGPRA, they had the right to rebury the
remains. The U.S. Army Corps, who control the land where Kennewick Man was
found, initially agreed to return the remains. However, a group of scientists, some
from the Smithsonian Institution (who we were introduced to in an earlier module),
argued that the remains, dating back over 8,000 years, were too old to be directly tied
to the Umatilla and that furthermore, they showed traits that they felt may be
indicative of Asian ancestry, not Native America. They insisted that the value in
studying these ancient bones outweighed the tribe’s claim.

After many years of protracted lawsuits, a 2004 judgement was ruled in favor of the
scientists. The Smithsonian published a news release (Links to an external site.)
stating "Kennewick Man Finally Freed to Share His Secrets." Subsequently, intensive
studies (including DNA analysis) then confirmed that Kennewick Man was not of any
clear Asian origin, but most closely related to modern Native Americans of the Pacific
Northwest. After this determination, the bones were finally returned (Links to an
external site.) to Native American tribes for reburial. The Smithsonian, which had
argued so strongly for control over the bones, proclaimed (Links to an external site.)
"Over 9,000 Years Later, Kennewick Man will be Given a Native American Burial".
For further reading, Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology and the Battle for
Native American Identity.

A few years ago, human remains found decades ago in La Jolla, Southern California
were caught up in a similar controversy. The question of who owns the past came
front and center again in 2012, with Scientific American editors (Links to an external
site.) opining that the bones should be released in the interest of science, while Native
American groups saw a new attack on NAGPRA and their right to repatriate their
ancestors (Links to an external site.) (links optional).

Broadly speaking, what is at stake is who has the power to decide? Should scientific
inquiry always be privileged over all else? What about the rights of indigenous
peoples, many of whom have been subject to cultural genocide and disempowered
for centuries? What do you think?

Past as Commodity?
Archaeological sites have often been at risk of looting or destruction because of the
value of the items within. The market for those items ultimately drives the
looting. And the tradition of looting has deep roots. Unlike countries like Mexico,
Greece, or Italy, sites on private lands are not explicitly considered "national
heritage"--they do not enjoy protection under the law unless human remains are
found. Please read about the tragic looting at Slack Farm in Kentucky that spurred
the creation and implementation of NAGPRA. In sum, looters paid a landowner to
essentially destroy a large site along the Ohio River dating to the Mississippian
culture. Thousands of artifacts were destroyed and hundreds of burials were
unearthed and tossed aside. Details of the site itself were obliterated. We do not
know what became of any artifacts that may have been removed and sold.

Above, top: Slack Farm after illegal exacavations. Above, bottom: Native
American groups hold yearly rituals to commemorate the looting of over 400
graves.

In some ways, the destruction of archaeological sites can be traced to the places we
typically associate with protecting rare antiquities--the museums. Watch this brief 2
minute video that illustrates how this is so evident:

https://youtu.be/4SSVRByUZYI

Many times, however, the illegal artifact trade continues in plain sight. In May 2016,
Native American groups protested a French auction (Links to an external site.) where
dozens of sacred artifacts were up for sale. France is not subject to the same laws
regarding the sale of antiquities, and the sale took place, despite emotional pleas to
halt it. Individual collectors have been the bane of archaeologists for a long
time. Ultimately, the high prices that artifacts can bring, often on the black market,
fuels much of the looting that destroys sites and removes artifacts from their context.

Auction house Sotheby's Catalogue

One major issue has been the rise of online sites such as eBay. Ebay is a massive site
of commerce, with over 16 million items for sale to the highest or lowest
bidder. Among the highly assorted items for sale, many are objects that have been
excavated, and the ethical aspects of this trade are, at best, uncertain. Some items
may have been legally excavated, depending on their place of origin in the country or
in the world, although many other items have unknown origins. And undoubtedly
some are looted from sites that are currently protected by law, either preservation
legislation or private property law. And looting is clearly at odds with the goals of
archaeology as well as ethical principles. Beyond the ethics of acquisition, this brings
to mind the larger issue of what the “value” is of archaeological materials. For the
archaeologist or for the descendant community, value comes from context and from
cultural significance. On the open market, capitalism defines value using very
different parameters.

Interestingly, a side effect of the rise of eBay has been an increase in the production
of high quality fakes, which has had a chilling effect (some say) (Links to an external
site.) on the market for illegal antiquities!
Above: Replica Moche ceramics created by artisans at San Jose de Moro, Peru.

What is Pseudoarchaeology?
Pseudoarchaeology is simply archaeology or archaeological interpretations done through the
lens of pseudoscience. It is based on faking results or interpretations, on purpose or
accidentally. In some cases, it is meant to promote a hoax or titillate an audience, earn money
or provoke people. In other cases, people truly believe their own interpretations and cherry-
pick data that support it. It relies on bad-faith uses of science but often has a lot of popular
support (just see how many "alternative" archaeological interpretations you see
online!). Pseudo-archaeologists often say they are exposing academic archaeologists, placing
themselves in opposition to the "establishment". In order to understand the nature of
pseudoarchaeology a little more, please review this brief blog post (Links to an external
site.). For a longer treatment, Wikipedia's page (Links to an external site.) is comprehensive.

Many pseudoarchaeologists invoke theories involving extraterrestrials. While we may not yet
know exactly how Stonehenge was created, there are some very good theories based in the
natural, tangible world. Visit the English Heritage website (Links to an external site.) for
more information (optional).

With the rise of cable television shows such as Ancient Aliens, Legends of the Lost,
innumerable fringe websites, and conspiracy theories in general, there are more people than
ever that are consuming pseudoarchaeology. On the positive side, it appears that people are
interested in the past; on the negative side, people are much less likely to think critically.

The following PowerPoint presentation will take you through some key critical thinking
questions to ask when assessing claims about the past (or any claims for that matter). These
are from archaeologist and professor Kenneth Feder, author of Frauds, Myths and Mysteries:
Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. (If you're interested, it's a great read.) You'll be
able to use this information to assess some claims yourself in an Extra Credit assignment,
should you choose!

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology by Kenneth L.

Feder, 10th edition, Oxford University Press. 2019

Archaeological Fraud
When people outright lie about discoveries, create fake sites or artifacts, or make an argument
about an interpretation in bad faith (knowing it is incorrect), this constitutes archaeological
fraud. And it is far too common. There is a thin line between those who knowingly commit
fraud and those who "consume" pseudo-archaeological content. The two following
Powerpoint presentations will illustrate two different cases. The first is the case of the Cardiff
"Giant"--a so-called petrified giant "discovered" in Cardiff, New York in 1869. How anyone
truly believed this was real is rather amazing. The second presents the writings of Erich von
Däniken, promoter of the idea that the ancient world was directly contacted several times by
ancient aliens. His 1968 book, Chariots of the Gods?, would go on to inspire countless
websites and cable television shows. Is this really just entertainment, or is there any danger to
these ideas? Your task is to review these both with a critical eye.
Above: The "Cardiff Giant" is exhumed from a well site in upstate New York, 1869.

Above: A film version of von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?" was released in 1970. It was
nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Film.

Ultimately, some of the dangers of "pseudoarchaeology" are not simply that some people are
duped. The dangers are that archaeological evidence ends up being used to promote harmful
ideas: nationalist, extremist, ethnocentrist, racist.