Could This Be. . . Disinformation?

Header Image: From “Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection.”

I want to briefly talk about a somewhat subtle method of spreading disinformation. This is not something that is unique to pseudoarchaeology, but I’m discussing it in that specific context. It’s known as “Just Asking Questions” (JAQ) and I say that it’s somewhat subtle because on the surface it can appear as though a curious person is asking genuine questions about archaeology. Because of that, it has often gone overlooked and that is exactly what makes JAQing disingenuous. The person who is ‘just asking questions’ is counting on that overlook.

Just Asking Questions is a rhetorical method in which speculative, alternative, and even straight up disinformative claims are phrased as “could it be. . . ” and “is it possible that. . .” style questions rather than confident statements. You might also see vague statements, rather than clear questions, along the lines of, “it is possible that. . .” and “this could be. . .” All of these are designed to poke holes in the reader or viewer’s mind about the, archaeological in this context, topic at hand, so that those holes can be filled with the alternative claims that the proponent is trying to convince their audience of. The person asking questions is not doing so because they are uncertain of something. It is the opposite – they are certain of their claim and they want to take their audience along with it.

JAQing acts as a shield that protects its users from accusations of disinformation or criticism, e.g. “I’m not saying [that], I’m just asking questions about it.” Framing alternative or disinformative narratives or claims as questions rather than outright assertions also adds a whiff of legitimacy to the alternative claims being proposed and shifts the burden of proof onto critics to prove that the claim is untrue, rather than the burden of proof falling on the proponent’s shoulders to prove that what they are saying is true or even plausible. JAQing is often paired with repeated reminders that the proponent is not an archaeologist (or sometimes they’ll refer to themselves as amateur archaeologists). These reminders act as another shield from criticism, in which the proponent tries to inoculate themselves against informed criticism or review of their proposed claims by reminding their critics, and audience, that they are “not an archaeologist.” Instead, they are simply an interested person/journalist/amateur who is free from concern for their reputation or unburdened by archaeological orthodoxy and are “just asking questions.” Therefore, they are not subject to archaeological criticism.

The irony, of course, is that in most cases pseudoarchaeological proponents are desperately seeking approval, peer review, and legitimization from formal, or “mainstream,” archaeologists, despite their apparent dislike of archaeologists. Look at, for example, the few times when an archaeologist participates in a television show or social media conversation or book interview and casts a positive or agreeable light on the alternative claim. These archaeologists are pedestalled as being brave, “open-minded” individuals, as opposed to the “closed-minded” and hostile archaeologists trying to stifle the conversation. This, of course, serves as another distraction – by focusing the conversation on those who are claimed to be trying to control, censor, or shut it down, another avenue opens for the alternative narrative to travel and take root. If the audience is told that archaeologists are critical in order to stop questions from being asked of their expertise, and an audience opens social media and sees archaeologists being critical, that goes a long way to affirming that the alternative narrative might be the truth and its proponent is legitimized. This too is not just limited to archaeologists – when Indigenous people have voiced concerns about the ways their histories are being manipulated into alternative theories, they too have been accused of being closed-minded and controlling (see two images below for recent examples).

One of the biggest dangers of JAQing is that it can be used to soften disinformation into a more tolerable format and blur the lines between reality and fiction, which enables it to be spread further through an audience that may be turned off from more overtly disinformative statements. In pseudoarchaeology, JAQing under a label of “entertainment” has enabled pseudoarchaeology to spread easily through popular media spaces, such as social media, video streaming, television shows, books, websites, etc. There are noted connections between viewing paranormal, documentary, and reality television, including pseudoarchaeological shows, and higher levels of belief in related alternative claims and fringe phenomenon. Furthermore, popular media adds legitimacy to alternative claims and bolsters fringe beliefs, which has been connected to the use of the JAQ method. As Joane Braune (2023:168) noted, an audience “can laugh their way into believing.”

Another concern about using JAQing to soften disinformation is related to how harmful values can be read into pseudoarchaeological narratives. Now, of course not everyone who creates or consumes pseudoarchaeological content does so for nefarious or malicious reasons. Pseudoarchaeology is, however, popular in malicious spaces such as white supremacist and neo-Nazi spaces, where white supremacist and neo-Nazi values are read into pseudoarchaeological claims. Whether or not the claim was intended for those purposes. In a recent book chapter I wrote, I included quotes from two white supremacist extremists who talk about how they use pseudoarchaeological content from books and a Netflix series to recruit new adherents to their worldviews. And they talk about how the subtle nature of pseudoarchaeological claims makes them easier to share with possible recruits because their white supremacist values are not upfront and overt. So their recruits can be eased into “racialism,” as one person called white supremacy, rather than possibly turned away from the get go. As one of the two individuals stated, pseudoarchaeology “lacks the stigma of being right-wing.”

As I said earlier, I wanted to keep this brief so I’ll close down here. The next time you find yourself watching a show or reading a book in which the presenter or author proclaims themselves to be going against mainstream archaeology, consume that content with a healthy grain of salt in mind (critical consumption, of any content, is a good thing). Take note of how many “could it be?”, “is it possible?”, etc. questions are posed regarding the possibility of the claims being proposed, how many suggestive and vague statements are made, and how often you’re reminded of the oppositional position of the proponent (that they are not an archaeologist or that archaeologists will disagree/censor/shut down conversations, etc. with them). Those are all signs that the presenter or author may be attempting to pull the wool over your eyes and in that case there is one crucial question that should be asked – “Why?”

References and Suggested Reading

• Barkun, Michael. 2013. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Barkun, Michael. 2015. “Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge.” Diogenes,62(3–4): 114–120. https://doi .org/ 10 .1177 /0392192116669288.
• Benyera, Everisto. 2018. “Colonialism, the Theft of History, and the Quest for Justice for Africa.” In A. Nhemachena, T. V. Warikandwa, and S. K. Amoo (eds.), Social and Legal Theory in the Age of Decoloniality: (Re-)Envisioning Pan-African Jurisprudenc ein the 21st Century, 121–164. Bamenda: Langaa RPCIG
• Braune, Joan. 2023. “Ancient Aliens down to Earth: Conspiracy Theories, Antisemitism, and ‘Anonymous Authority.’” In M. Stoetzler (ed.), Critical Theory and the Critique of Antisemitism, Critical Theory and the Critique of Society Series, 155–174. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Brewer, Paul R. and Barbara L. Ley. 2021. “Fringe Science.” In Science in the Media: Popular Images and Public Perceptions, 193–212. New York: Routledge.
• Colwell, Chip. 2024. Digging Into an Ancient Apocalypse Controversy from a Hopi Perspective. SAPIENS. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ancient-apocalypse-national-parks-hopi-tribe/.
• Costopoulos, Andre. 2024. Should Real Archaeologists Appear on Pseudo-Archaeological TV Shows like Ancient Aliens and Ancient Apocalypse? ArcheoThoughts, https://archeothoughts.wordpress.com/2024/10/11/should-real-archeologists-appear-on-pseudo-archeological-tv-shows-like-ancient-aliens-and-ancient-apocalypse/.
• Danesi, Marcel. 2023. Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
• Diaz Ruiz, Carlos and Tomas Nilsson. 2023. “Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42(1): 18–35. https://doi .org/ 10.1177 /07439156221103852.
• Halmhofer, Stephanie. 2024. Manufacturing History: Atlantis, Aryans, and the Use of Pseudoarchaeology by the Far-Right. In C. T. Conner, M.N. Hannah, and N. J. MacMurray (eds.), Conspiracy Theories and Extremism in New Times, 53 – 82. Lexington Books: Lanham.
• Harper, Nick. 2020. “No, You’re Not ‘just Asking Questions.’ You’re Spreading Disinformation.” Minnesota Reformer. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://minnesotareformer.com /2020/12/17/no-youre-not-just-asking-questions-youre-spreading-disinformation/.
• Kite, Suzanne. 2021. “‘What’s on the Earth Is in the Stars; and What’s in the Stars Is on the Earth’: Lakota Relationships with the Stars and American Relationships with the Apocalypse.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 45(1):137–156. https://doi .org/10.17953/aicrj .45.1.kite.
• Stise, Robert, James Bingaman, Aysha Siddika, Wyatt Dawson, Ashley Paintsil, and Paul R. Brewer. 2023. “Cultivating Paranormal Beliefs: How Television Viewing, Social Media Use, and Podcast Listening Predict Belief in UFOs.” Atlantic Journal of Communication, 1–14. https://doi .org /10 .1080 /15456870 .2023 .2187803.