I wanted to take a moment and inform the Ancient Artifact Preservation Society (AAPS) that it seems to have forgotten to include Frank Joseph (formerly Frank Collin, founder of the National Socialist Party of America) in the video promotion it produced for its upcoming "Conference on Ancient America."  While Joseph is on the poster for the event, his presentation (unlike the other thirteen on the program) wasn't included in the video.  Surely it's just an oversight, as Joseph is a well-known figure in the "fringe" history world.

Or maybe it wasn't an accident.

Both the AAPS and Ancient American Magazine (a co-host of the event) embrace hyperdiffusionism, arguing that similarities in cultural attributes (such as technology, architecture, religion, etc.) are attributable to "diffusion" from one culture to another: similarity indicates a common source. Embedded within hyperdiffusionism is the assumption that ideas and traits diffuse outward from "higher" cultures to "lower" ones.  

The idea that societies and "civilizations" can be progressively ranked on some scale of achievement (and the technological differences between those societies are the result of inherent biological constraints) was relegated to the garbage can of bad ideas by early twentieth century scientific anthropologists. It got tossed out not because it was politically incorrect, but because it was factually wrong. The notion of "progressive social evolution," used by European colonial powers to justify the subjugation of indigenous peoples around the world, unfortunately, didn't die off completely.  The German Nazis embraced it along with hyperdiffusionism as part of their program to use prehistory to support their racist and expansionist agenda and propaganda (see this 1990 paper by Bettina Arnold). Hyperdiffusionism remains alive today, not-so-subtly submerged in all kinds of nonsense claims about Atlantis, white gods, a "megalithic culture," etc. Not surprisingly, in most cases it is "white" cultures that are put forward as "higher."

The AAPS video pitch includes, among other things, an offer of free conference registration for "active students and teachers."  In typical Xplrr fashion, they also throw in typos for no additional charge:

"History Hunters From Around The Globe Meet In Michigan. THIS IS BIG and IF YOU want the TRUTH about HITORY then this is the place to be."

What kind of "truth" are they peddling? I'm not familiar with the work and ideas of many of the people speaking at the AAPS conference, but I would be very surprised if classic hyperdiffusionism isn't an important component of many of the presentations. That's what makes it interesting that the one presenter of the bunch who has actual, high level ties to organized Nazism is absent from the AAPS video. Where is Frank Joseph?

As I've written before, belief systems matter when you're operating outside of a scientific framework.  When ideas and evidence are not subject to attempts to falsify, when you think you already know what the answer is and you're content to pick pieces that seem to help you complete the puzzle, you're not doing science. And you're not going to be producing any "truth" that will withstand scrutiny. In that case, what you believe is very important to the story you're telling. 

If I was a high school teacher trying to get my students interested in ancient history . . . I wouldn't touch this thing with a ten foot pole. Imagine trying to explain to the principal why you encouraged your students to go listen to the founder of the American Nazi Party talk about his interpretations of prehistory. What a nightmare. Maybe that's why Joseph isn't in the video.

Pablo Benavente obtained these great images of the Friocero Sword (Sword 15) from the sword's owner. There are a lot of things to look at here in comparison to the other swords.  Unfortunately for me, I don't have time to do a close inspection right now.  I thought the best thing to do would be to just make the images available so that those of you out there in Swordgate land can have a look. Enjoy! 

And now the semester really begins. This is the first full week of classes and at some point I'm going to have to get my act together and start leaving myself time to pack a lunch in the morning.

The website that we'll build during the Forbidden Archaeology course is up and running here. That site is where the student blog posts and projects will go, though there is still quite a bit of time before those will begin being added. I created a section of the site called "Synopsis of Activities" which I plan to use to post a blurb about each day's class. I'm not planning on writing a blog post every time the class meets, but it will be helpful, I think, to provide a summary about what's going on both for our benefit here and for yours. Who actually ever reads the syllabus, anyway?

Jim Vieira has made his arrangements for air travel, and as far as I know everything is moving along as scheduled for his visit. I'm looking forward to meeting with Vieira and I think it will be a lot of fun to have him interact with the class. He and I have never met before and have only spoken on the phone once. If I understand our email exchanges accurately, his visit will involve at least some consumption of malt liquor and, possibly, heckling a Trump rally if we're able. While I'm not yet sure about all that, I do at least know what time I'm supposed to pick him up at the airport. 

I've cashed out the now-irrelevant Scott Wolter travel fund. With the blessing of those that donated, I'll roll that money over into the fund I set up to support Vieira's travel. Vieira is paying for his own air travel and I've got the hotel covered on my end (through a very generous local gift), but I'll still need to feed him something, I'm expecting, and there will probably be some other out-of-pocket expenses.

This morning was the first meeting of my Forbidden Archaeology course. I had the students (n = 18 in attendance today) anonymously fill out simple "pre-course" questionnaires to help me gauge something about their level of familiarity with the various non-mainstream claims about the past that we'll be discussing. It was one of the first things I did other than turn on the lights and make sure I was in the right classroom. In other words, my blathering didn't influence them at all. Here are some of the results.

They're Not Watching What's on The History Channel

Each student described his/her familiarity with four television programs (America Unearthed, Ancient Aliens, Search for the Lost Giants, and the classic In Search Of . . .) using an ordinal scale going from "I've never heard of it" to "I've seen every episode." Ancient Aliens was the clear winner in terms of familiarity, with over half of the students reporting that they'd seen at least one episode. Several students had heard of America Unearthed and Search for the Lost Giants, but only a few reported actually watching an episode. Almost as many students reported familiarity with In Search Of . . . (which ended production in 1982) as with Search for the Lost Giants. 

It's pretty clear that the students in the class aren't watching what's on The History Channel. These results are consistent with informal polls I've taken in my classes in the past. Asking for a show of hands of "who has watched this?" and "who knows about this show?" has produced little positive evidence that these programs are penetrating into traditional college-age markets. I just don't think people in their twenties are paying much attention to them. 

Most of Them Have Heard of Atlantis, but . . .

I gave the students a list of some things that we'll be discussing over the course of the semester, asking them to simply circle the ones they were familiar with. Not surprisingly, Atlantis was familiar to most of the class. Downhill from there, the majority of the students had heard of the Knights Templar (not necessarily in connection with current "fringe" claims about them, however) and the "Mound Builders." Recognition of terms connected to giants was at less than fifty percent. A smattering of students had heard of some of the terms associated with current claims for pre-Columbian transoceanic contact. Lemuria and OOPArt struck out completely.

So that's where we're starting. It doesn't look like this group of students has paid a lot of attention to the stuff on TV, and most of them are not familiar with many of the basic ideas and things we'll be discussing. I'll be interested to find out what they find compelling (or not, as the case may be) about engaging with the various claims we'll be talking about.

Next week we'll be talking about science vs. pseudoscience, how archaeology can be done as a science, and what constitutes archaeological evidence. And I'll be giving them a whirlwind 45 minute tour of the "mainstream" view of human prehistory and history, from hominin origins 5-7 million years ago to the Industrial Revolution.

My Forbidden Archaeology class will have its first meeting this Friday morning. As usual, I've waited until almost the last minute to attempt to finalize the syllabus. But that attempt has now been made, and I still have a day to spare. Go me. 

As anyone who has ever created a syllabus from scratch knows, there comes a point when the rubber meets the road and you have to cease thinking vaguely and start nailing down the specifics. I've still got a few more nails to drive in (you'll notice some "TBA's" in the day-by-day readings, and I'm still working on a couple of additions to the guest list), but this is more or less what we'll be driving this semester. Yes, I know I'm mixing metaphors. It's been a long day. One of my kids woke me up at 2:30 and then again at 3:30 and I wasn't able to get back to sleep afterwards. 

I got several offers of guest participation that I won't be able to fully capitalize this time around. If you emailed me about the class and I haven't gotten back to you yet, I sincerely apologize. As I've mentioned before, the students will be writing several blog posts. I hope that several of you that I was not able to include as formal "guests" of the class will perhaps be willing to work with one or more students individually. I'll be in touch!

Finally, I'm sure some of you out there will, for whatever reasons, be unhappy with what the students will be reading. And I'm sure some of you will tell me about it. Keep in mind that I did not chose readings to provide "answers." I chose them to illustrate points, show contrasts, spark questions, and provoke arguments. While we will be discussing and dissecting some of the readings quite closely in class, others are there simply for background. I'll learn a lot about what works well and what doesn't as I get to know the students and we work our way through the course.  

Stay tuned!

This is going to be a short blog post just to pass on an interesting and important story that I became aware of this morning through a post in the Cultural Resource Management Group on LinkedIn. The story involves a legal dispute over the investigation and destruction of a protected prehistoric effigy mound that is located atop commercially valuable sand and gravel deposits. The mound, the last surviving component of the Ward group in Dane County, was designated as a protected burial location under Wisconsin's 1985-1986 burial sites preservation law (statute 157.70). This 2014 piece in Indian County provides a good deal of background.

One of the issues in play is the determination of the presence/absence of human remains in the mound. The mound was designated as a burial site based on what is known, in general, about effigy mounds (i.e., that they usually contain human burials). As far as I can tell, there is no direct, site-specific evidence of the presence of human remains in the mound. The owner of the land on which the mound is located, Robert Shea of Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc., alleges that the designation of the site as a burial location is therefore incorrect. Shea points to the results of a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey that did not demonstrate the presence of human remains as evidence that human remains are absent, and argues that he should be allowed to destroy the mound to quarry what's beneath it. Shea's case has apparently now become an issue in the Wisconsin Legislature, where new legislation is being crafted to circumvent the burial sites preservation law (watch this video on YouTube and check out the handy pdf from August 2 available on this Facebook page).

Last week, my answer to the question "how many blog posts discussing banjos will you write in August?" would have been "zero." Today marks number three. That shows you just how hard it is to predict the future.

This is going to be a short one. I wanted to follow up on the yesterday's discussion of who "invented" the banjo. The banjo display in the Museum of Appalachia states that "the Sweeney brothers of Appomattox, Virginia" made the first five-string banjo in this county -- in 1831." Joel Sweeney was a minstrel performer who popularized the banjo among white audiences.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Sweeney is being credited with "inventing," since African American banjos that pre-date Sweeney had the same basic design as the "modern" five-string banjo: a membrane stretched over a skin, a stiff neck, and several strings, one of which was a "drone" string. Was it that Sweeney used a wooden frame instead of a gourd? Or that he used a fretted neck? Or that he standardized the five-string arrangement (African American banjos had a varying number of strings)?

If we're going to give Sweeney credit for making the first banjo in the country because he used a wooden frame instead of a gourd, it seems like we should also give credit for creating a new instrument to whoever made the bedpan banjo, the toilet seat guitar, and the horse jaw fiddle that are also on display in the museum.

This painting titled "The Old Plantation" (attributed to John Rose, ca. 1785-1795) shows an African slave playing a four-string (fretless?) banjo on a South Carolina plantation.  The banjo appears to have a stretched membrane and a short drone string. As far as I can tell, it's the oldest depiction of a banjo in North America.