Tiwanaku: Fantasy and Archaeological Realities

            Earthquake damage  (Facebook)             

Tiwanaku (Spanish: Tiahuanaco or Tiahuanacu; Aymara, according to Bernabé Cobo: Taypi Qala, meaning “stone in the center”) is a major pre-Columbian archaeological site in western Bolivia, near the southern shore of Lake Titicaca, approximately 70 kilometers from La Paz. It is one of the largest and most significant archaeological sites in South America. The remains of the ancient city, which cover around 4 square kilometers, include monumental architecture, finely carved megalithic blocks, and decorated ceramics. The complex includes several major architectural complexes: the Semi-Subterranean Temple, Kalasasaya, Putuni, Chunchukala, Kherikala, Kantatayita, and the Akapana pyramid. Further to the southwest lies the monumental site of Pumapunku, famed for its intricate stonework. At its peak around AD 800, Tiwanaku is estimated to have supported a population of 10,000 to 20,000 people. There is a large area of ancient occupation under the modern settlement, geophysical surveys of the area between Puma Punku and Kalasasaya have revealed the remains of numerous buried structures — including foundations, water channels, terraces, residential compounds, and gravel walkways.

Tiwanaku was first recorded in written history in 1549 by the Spanish chronicler Pedro Cieza de León. The chronology of Tiwanaku has been the subject of considerable revision. From 1910 to 1945, Arthur Posnansky, an Austrian-born amateur archaeologist based in Bolivia worked on this site and his meticulous documentation, including maps, drawings, and photographs, remains a valuable record of the site in the early 20th century. He published his work and conclusions in his multi-volume work Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man (). On the basis of his survey and archaeoastronomical observations, together with supposed geological correspondences, Posnanski claimed the site was between 11,000 and 17,000 years old. As research on this site progressed, this dramatic misdating, unsupported by stratigraphic or material evidence, was later dismissed by scholars due to the new information becoming available

Scientific understanding of Tiwanaku’s origins has advanced significantly since Posnansky’s time. In the 1970s, Bolivian archaeologist Carlos Ponce Sanginés suggested that the site was first occupied around 1580 BC, based on early radiocarbon dates (and this is a view still echoed in some Bolivian publications and museum displays). However, since the 1980s, scholars have dismissed these early dates as unreliable. The current scholarly consensus, supported by calibrated radiocarbon dating and the absence of earlier ceramic styles, places the founding of Tiwanaku during the first or second century A.D.

Tiwanaku’s rise began in the early centuries of the first millennium AD, and between approximately AD 375 and 700, it developed into a thriving highland city. Its growth was fueled by a sophisticated agropastoral economy and long-distance trade, allowing it to become a major political, economic, and ceremonial centre in the Andes. A vast irrigation network covered over 80 square kilometers, supporting crops like potatoes, quinoa, and maize. Tiwanaku dominated the Lake Titicaca basin and parts of modern-day Bolivia and Chile.

Around 1000 AD, the civilization appears to have collapsed abruptly, most probably due to a prolonged drought that crippled food production. The population dispersed into nearby highlands, and Puma Punku seems to have been abandoned before its construction was complete.

Labelled map of Tiwanaku  (Lonely Planet Guide Bolivia).
Pumapunku off map to SW of museum

Pumapunku
Apparently one of the most important parts of this complex, Pumapunku is a collection of plazas and ramps centered on the Pumapunku platform mound located southwest of the Kalasasaya Temple in the Tiwanaku complex, its name in Aymara means “The Gate of the Puma.” 

Puma Punku is a terraced earthen platform (167 x 117 m) faced with massive stone blocks. The mound’s core consists of clay, while its edges were filled in some areas with river sand and cobblestones. The monumental complex on top of the Puma Punku platform mound includes a walled courtyard to the west, a central esplanade, a terraced mound with megalithic stonework, and an unwalled western court.  These structures deteriorated or were destroyed long ago, and now only ruins remain of this feature. Our understanding of the site is limited by the damage caused by looting, stone quarrying, and natural erosion. 

Archaeological work has identified three major construction phases, along with later repairs and modifications. In its prime, Puma Punku is thought to have been a striking ceremonial site, decorated with polished metal plates, brightly colored ceramic and fabric ornamentation and in its heyday was used by elaborately dressed elites and priests adorned with exotic jewellery.

The age of the Pumapunku complex has long been debated. Radiocarbon dating of deep organic layers by archaeologist Alexei Vranich produced an estimate of around 440 AD (calibrated to 536–600 AD). Excavations revealed that the complex's foundations — made of clay, sand, and gravel — rest directly on sterile Pleistocene sediments, with no evidence of earlier pre-Andean cultures beneath the site.

Von Alexei Vranich - https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-018-0231-0 Reconstructing ancient architecture at Tiwanaku, Bolivia: the potential and promise of 3D printing, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77577781

Pseudoscientific Claims
Puma Punku has become a popular subject in pseudoscientific theories involving lost continents and ancient aliens. Thousands of websites and media sources promote such ideas, citing the site's precision stonework and high-altitude location as inexplicable mysteries. There are however well-documented local precedents such as the sites of Pucará and Chiripa. The reconstructions show that Puma Punku's buildings are elaborated versions of structures excavated at Chiripa, which date from 550 BC to 100 AD (see the reconstructions by Alexei Vranich). Some of these earlier buildings were identified as storage facilities due to food remains and basket impressions. Vranich argues that claims of alien intervention or a lost supercivilization ignore the region’s archaeological context and reflect long-standing biases, such as labelling the Aymara as a "Stone Age people" incapable of such achievements.

References
Posnanski, A. 1945-57, "Tihuanacu. The Cradle of American Man", (vols 1-4), J. J. Augustin, New York / Ministerio de Educación, La Paz 1945–1957.

Vranich, Alexei 1999, "Interpreting the meaning of ritual spaces: the temple complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia" (Thesis). University of Pennsylvania.

Vranich, Alexei 2018. «Reconstructing ancient architecture at Tiwanaku, Bolivia: the potential and promise of 3D printing». Heritage Science 6 (1): 1-20. doi:10.1186/s40494-018-0231-0. Consultado el 20 de enero de 2025.

‘Sage Wall’ of Montana

The "Sage Wall" is a large, natural stone feature located on private land near Whitehall, Montana, within the Bob Marshall Wilderness. It's part of the Boulder Batholith, a massive rock formation, estimated to be 75 million years old (Late Cretaceous period granitic intrusion into earlier rocks and exposed to weathering). The part labelled the 'Sage Wall' is about 84m long and up to 7.6m high, and divided by deep horizontal and vertical jointing with some segments weighing up to 91 tons. The remarkable regularity in its features, including the size and shape of the blocks, has led to this feature erroneously being thought by some to be man-made. Some have speculated about the wall's origins, including theories about ancient civilizations, recent construction by unknown individuals, or even an astronomical observatory.

The wall is located on the property of Sage Mountain Center, a privately owned home-based business, and tours are available for a fee, "with the goal of promoting personal and environmental awareness". The Sage Mountain Center has created a moderate two-mile trail system to make the wall more accessible, with features like 400-year-old Douglas fir trees and views of the Ruby Valley. Access to the Sage Wall and trails is by reservation only, and tours are available through the Sage Mountain Center website. Trail hikes and tours cost $99 per person, with 17 years old and younger being free. An additional fee applies for guided tours. So, obviously promoting the air of "mystery" (including through pseudoarchaeological videos on YouTube)is to the financial benefit of the site's managers.

I'd like the grifters to show us
(a) the quarries these "blocks" used to build the "wall" were taken from.
(b) what function an 84m long straightish section of "wall" built with massive "blocks" served? What does it enclose/ divide/ demarcate?
(c) why was this construction material chosen instead of building a comparable structure with small rocks?
(d) where is the contemporary settlement activity required to produce the manpower (and audience) for such a structure? 

 (e) Why is it NOT a natural feature?

Anyway, here's a guy Timothy Alberino looking at the "wall" and going beyond the superficial "looks like" approach of the other YouTuber promotors of this place - like comparing the front and back sides of "blocks" and drawing the only conclusion one can (though he seems unable to resist the 'mysterious music' urges and is rather timid in actually making his mind up):

.

Montana Megaliths | Sage Wall Field Analysis

Posted on You Tube by Timothy Alberino Jul 6, 2023

(31,808 views).

Where the Wider Public Gets its History From These Days

The sheer volume of misleading or low-quality historical content on YouTube has long been a source of frustration—but the situation has deteriorated dramatically with the rise of AI-generated media. What was once a trickle of poorly-researched amateur content has become a flood of slick, algorithm-driven productions masquerading as educational material. Many of these videos are over an hour long, narrated with convincingly human-like synthetic voices, and assembled from scripts churned out by data-scraping algorithms that lack any meaningful sense of context, nuance, or scholarly rigor. They're often accompanied by AI-generated visuals that are not just inaccurate, but profoundly disorienting—depictions of historical scenes and figures that blend anachronisms, stereotypes, and outright fabrications into something resembling a digital hallucination.

What’s most troubling is not just the existence of this material, but the scale of its reach. Large platforms reward engagement, not accuracy, and these videos often outperform more carefully researched content in terms of views and visibility. In an era when critical thinking skills are increasingly undervalued or outright dismissed, the implications are deeply unsettling. If we continue to consume knowledge passively—favoring aesthetic appeal and emotional stimulation over accuracy and understanding—we risk creating a culture that is both misinformed and manipulable. At that point, the question is no longer just about bad history, but about whether we’re quietly surrendering the intellectual foundations of a free society in favor of a comforting but dangerous illusion.

It's Insulting: How NOT to "Research the Past"

"This is this is insulting, it's insulting to people 

that are into this stuff, to the interested
amateur this is a slap in the face"

Dan Richards

I have always said archaeology is "mot rocket science", access to the raw data is easy, the underlying principles are pretty simple, the logic is easy to follow. The situation in Britain (at least) shows that amateur groups can do some fantastic work.* Part of the key to that is often seeking guidance/help but certainly approaching the activity in a spirit of collaboration. Unfortunately the rise of an alternative model, pseudoarchaeology particularly of the clickbait commercial form (eg YouTubers) and commercial book production (Hancock and the rest) has led a lot of the do-it-yourself research into a cul-de-sac. Instead of collaboration, the sales algorithm favours confrontation, from the perspective of this (quite large) group of the people "just interested a true picture of the past" the study of the common history of mankind is no longer a "we" but instead an "us and them". A very good example of this is a video put out yesterday by Dan Richards ("Dan DeDunker") whose 'winning formula' is to simply attack anything in archaeology he thinks he can "debunk" (which he mispronounces "dedunk") and thereby generate click-money from the number of like-minded haters that engage. His latest target is Egyptologists (he apparently fancies himself as a self-taught expert in the very specialist field of Egyptology too).

Over on social media and in the press over the past few days, there has been a minor flurry of interest in the discovery of an  early fifth dynasty tomb at Saqqara of "Hereditary Prince, Governor of the Buto and Nekhbet Regions, Royal Scribe, Minister, Judge, and Chanting Priest" Userefre, apparently a son of Userkaf the founder of the Fifth dynasty. The tomb, like much in some parts of Saqqara (notably Userkaf's mortuary temple - which seems by that time to have been in ruins) had been altered in the 26th dynasty (the Saite period) explaining why there were various extraneous statues and other items found in this tomb.

Mr Richards put his mind to how he could piggyback on the news attention to produce some clickbait contrarian "content" about this tomb. He "researched" it and then decided that the 'New Egyptian Tomb Discovery Reveals The Lies of Egyptology'. He therefore rearranged his tchotchkes on the trophy shelf in the games room and stands below the camera with his treasures in the background to mumble, fumble and ramble through the topic in another of his over-long unfocussed videos. 

 .

'New Egyptian Tomb Discovery Reveals The Lies of Egyptology' 

Posted on YouTube 18.05.2025   by DeDunking 123K 

The first 11 minutes is a free-fall potpourri of gripes against Egyptologists.  We do not get onto this "New Tomb discovery" until here

"Now when this site was first discovered, Egyptologist Dr Joseph Wegner one of the first archaeologists excavating the site went on Fox News and said that he thought that it was from the Abydos dynasty. He said this was before it was announced as Usarkov's son but the difference in time is staggering. Now the Abydos dynasty is said to be a short-lived dynasty of kind of usurper type of royals that hung out in Abydos between the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasty [... digression ...]. It's kind of interesting that, um, we're getting really vastly different information. The Abydos dynasty between the fifteenth and sixteenth, like I said, Userkaf is from the fifth dynasty, the first pharaoh of the fifth dynasty. We're talking, like nine hundred years here, okay? This, the differences that that are going to be in that tomb are staggering, all right? We're getting two different stories. 

As a matter of fact there's more evidence we're getting two different stories. When you look at the information that they gave us on the, uh, Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities Facebook page, they say that it was a purely Egypt... Egyptian-ran (sic) mission right, like, that it was just Egyptians that were doing (sic) the find, but this guy's clearly an American right?He... He's not an Egyptian he's clearly an American....  [rolls eyes] . But you know why they made that little bit of bullshit up, right? That, that's clearly just like this national pride thing like this we've seen that before".

Good job there's no American pride here at all eh? The whole problem here is that Dan Richards is quite simply WRONG. He's just taken Fox "News" at face value - while these irresponsibly use an old video to bulk out the report of a new discovery without explicitly telling their viewers that  this is what they'd done. the more gullible ones just assume the two are the same. duh, Mr Dan. If he'd spent as much time researching and double-checking his story than arranging the tchotchkes on his show-off shelf  he'd not have made this mistake .  

Text 1: Andrea Margolis Archaeologists discover long-lost tomb of unknown pharaoh in Egypt" Fox news April 3rd 2025

"The excavation, which was conducted near the Egyptian city of Abydos this winter, was announced by the Penn Museum in Philadelphia last week. The pharaoh's tomb was found 23 feet underground and featured a decorated entryway and mudbrick vaults [...] Excavation leader Dr. Josef Wegner, an egyptology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, spoke with Fox News Digital about the discovery, which dates back to the Second Intermediate Period".

Text 2: Andrea Margolis 'Archaeologists discover tomb of Egyptian royalty behind false door: 'Unveils new secrets' Fox News May 11th 2025

The Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities announced the discovery in a recent Facebook post in April. The tomb was found at the Saqqara archaeological site in the Giza Governorate of Egypt. [...] The tomb belonged to a prince named "Userefre" or "Waser Ef Ra," the son of King Userkaf. Userkaf was the founder of the Fifth Dynasty, which lasted from the early 25th century B.C. until the mid-24th century B.C.

It is difficult to see how anyone doing their reading diligently and who knew their geography would confuse the two. There is quite a long stretch of desert between the two sites. The problem is that Mr Richards was not reaserching the actual archaeology, but looking for "dirt" on the archaeologists and if you look hard enough (or maybe superficaially enough) no doubt something can be found.

As a result Dan Richards has published a video revealing "The Lies of Egyptology" (of Professor Joseph Wegener and the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and what he scanadalously calls the "Zahi Hawass Foundation for Stealng Shit from Egypt" ). He asserts - on the basis of his own mistaken conflation of two sites - that the public are:

"getting fed a line of shit [...] I tend to believe that they frequently do things like this, and quite often I think it's just for them to facilitate you know looting of antiquities that there was something there that was cool from the 15th dynasty and they just sell that off and Wagner comes back he's like "Hey where was that artifact?" They're like "What artifact?"...."

These seem to me to be the kind of accusations this guy urgently needs to be called on to substantiate. This video has already received over 199,408 views [updated 21/5/2025]. These lies need to be stopped. This should not be what You Tube is used for.


*Not to say that all do, and I DO NOT include the majority of metal detecting in the framework of amateur archaeology.

More on the Under-Pyramid-Scan-Scam: Night Scarab "Khafre SAR scan vs reality"

More and more people are calling out the Ciccolo team's Under-Pyramid-Scan-Scam for what it is and posing serious questions for the team to answer: 

.

"Pyramid radar scan vs reality (underground structures?)'

Posted on You Tube by Night Scarab 10K

.
 

Carson's Complete Nonsense Tour-Promotion Based on Nicole Ciccolo's Under-Khafre-Pyramid-Scan-Scam

The interpretations of the "evidence" from the Under-Khafre-Pyramid-Scan-Scam get crazier and crazier. Here Randall Carson shows it as a multi-level car park pyramid on springs in a multi-colour layer cake. It is now beyond time for PROPER report from Nicole Ciccolo's team (Filippo Biondi, Armando Mei, and Corrado Malanga)

AI Fantasy misinterpretation of pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo - where's the report of the geophys evidence? 

Billy Carson II @4biddnKnowledge
SAR Scan of Khafre Pyramid Shows Huge Underground Structures. Deep beneath the Great Pyramid of Giza, hidden from the eyes of the world, archaeologists have made a discovery that could change everything we think we know about our history. Eight gigantic, spiral-shaped cylindrical structures descend more than 600 meters into the depths reaching toward the Earth’s core, into a concealed dimension of knowledge. If this discovery proves to be true, it would not only be the most significant archaeological revelation of our time but also evidence that our past is far more complex than we have been led to believe. Perhaps it is the confirmation of what many have long suspected: that there is a hidden history one that has been deliberately kept from us. What secrets might lie within these deep chambers? Who built them, and for what purpose? The answers could forever change our understanding of humanity. Let's explore this together on the 4bidden Tour Of Egypt 2025. LINK IN BIO

;

Pseudo-Archaeology, UFOs, and the Need for Authentic Skepticism

"To distinguish the truth from bullshit, rational skepticism is required. This is not the same as contrarianism, conspiracy theories, or a blanket refusal to accept any and all sources of authority and expertise"  (Nathan J. Robinson, 'Pseudo-Archaeology, UFOs, and the Need for Authentic Skepticism' , Current Affairs  05 May 2025).   

The conventional wisdom among archaeologists is that what we consider the first advanced societies arose well after the end of the last Ice Age 11,700 years ago. Early agricultural communities formed during the Neolithic period (approximately 10,000-2,000 B.C.), and then the first civilizations—characterized by cities, centralized authority, and writing—emerged between 3500 and 1600 B.C., which is when the world witnessed the rise of Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Mesoamerican societies, the Indus Valley civilization, and Chinese civilization. But what if all of this is wrong? What if the first advanced societies did not emerge thousands of years after the Ice Age? What if there was a civilization that existed during the Ice Age, one with technology so advanced that some of it resembled what humans achieved in the 19th century? What if this civilization was wiped out in a catastrophe when the Ice Age ended, leaving virtually no trace except the scraps of knowledge it passed down to the societies that succeeded it? What if this civilization was… the legendary lost continent of Atlantis? This is the hypothesis put forward by British writer Graham Hancock. Hancock has spent decades arguing that mainstream archaeologists are stubbornly and irrationally refusing to investigate the possibility that a lost Ice Age civilization existed.

In this well-argued article Nathan J. Robinson discusses the recewnt Dibble-Hancock debate on the Joe Rogan podcast and finds it revealing of broader societal issues, particularly the tension between mainstream experts and pseudoarchaeologists. Refusal of insitutional academia to engage with fringe theorists only strengthens their echo chambers and fosters a sense of persecution (by being ignored and dismissed), making it harder to counter misinformation. The loonies form insular communities in which they tell themselves they are being canceled because the establishment can’t handle their truths. This problem is compounded by widespread superficial knowledge, distrust of academic institutions, and above all, poor public education in critical thinking. Many people believe figures like Rogan and Graham Hancock not out of malice but because they lack the tools to assess truth from falsehood—tools that schools and institutions have failed to teach effectively. "Our institutions themselves bear a fair share of the blame for not doing a better job of building public trust and teaching people how to tell the truth from bullshit".

The blame lies elsewhere too. As Robinson points out, after several hours of having things carefully explained, media personalities (opinion creators) often prove to be unable to take new ideas on board:

"I am not under any illusion that one can successfully educate Joe Rogan—soon after Dibble exposed Hancock on the program, Hancock returned as a guest and pushed the same nonsensical theories. ".

Robinson advocates for more public-facing scientists, like archaeologist Flint Dibble, to explain how real scientific knowledge is produced. Dibble’s willingness to appear on Rogan’s show is praised as part of a tradition of public intellectuals (like Carl Sagan and James Randi) who demystify science and expose pseudoscience.

This is what we need now: real skepticism. The skepticism of MythBusters and great debunkers like James Randi, a skilled magician who spent his life exposing fraudulent claims of paranormal abilities, not the skepticism of someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who looks like an independent thinker but arrives at entirely irrational conclusions, in part because he’s too unwilling to take expertise seriously.

Robinson concludes by emphasizing the need for real skepticism — one grounded in evidence and intellectual humility, not contrarianism masquerading as independent thought. He stresses that experts must take greater responsibility for building public trust, especially via social media, to foster a more critical and informed society capable of resisting misinformation and authoritarian manipulation.

Richards: "Professor Dave Doesn't Understand archaeology" and 27400 People Need to get a Life

Not even the cat could watch it (Dan Richards, 'Professor Dave Doesn't Understand Archaeology: Response' posted on You Tube May 3, 2025). This is the response (I use the term loosely) to the excellent video by Professor Dave that I talked about earlier. That video had presented a really good and balanced picture of the issue of pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-archaeologists.  

Well, I settled down to watch what Richards had to say, got my cold beer, a warm cat on my lap... It says 23,447 people have watched it. I did not manage more than 25 minutes before I lost interest. 

In his usual manner, in the bottom half of the screen, against the background of his yet-again-rearranged comic collection display, Dan Richards is in full flow while jiggling about like something deranged (go on speed it up to max, turn the sound down, that got the cat's attention he thought it was a rat in the monitor). I kept waiting for the presentation of an actual argument, the emergence of a narrative thread (apparently he wrote a "script" for this stuff). Above all, decency would require him to demonstrate in a lucid manner his leading thesis (in the video's heading): "Professor Dave doesn't understand archaeology". The first 25 minutes was not clearly leading up to it, searching the automatically-generated transcript revealed the rest of the video was going to be the same, so I turned it off. It was all nasty and random sniping with no overall direction, once about this, once about that. The whole thing was an exercise in a guy who loves the sound of his own voice trying to convince himself and perhaps his viewers that he's the only cool, good and clever guy on the planet - so best qualified to be a castigator of the stupidity of everybody else. Quote:

"God, I absolutely love doing response videos to somebody that I can just use my favorite horrible insults on, I mean that's so much better than discussing data and logic and facts and ancient history."

What an ignoble way to make a living.

Martinez Lectures (I), "What is Archaeology"?

 

            Punishing with self-righteous religiosity          

In the USA, another guy without a clue attempts to lecture us on what archaeology is. Mark Martinez (@xprofe1) says he is a "Spanish teacher, historian, and philosopher" and claims to have a B.S. in Philosophy and M.A. in History (now working on Ph.D. in History)" - website https://xprofe.com/ [inactive] There are several teachers by this name on LinkdIn. On Twitter he critiques "leftist ideologies" and champions speedy justice (pro capital punishment) "from a Christian perspective", debates archaeology and "critiques D.E.I. as a cultural weapon" (Grok profile summary). Here's what he says about (his idea of) archaeology:

Mark Martinez @xprofe1 · Apr 30

The problem with archaeology.

Archaeology is the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation and analysis of material remains such as artifacts, architecture, biofacts, and cultural landscapes. The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight: interpretative bias. Interpretative bias refers to the influence of an archaeologist’s own cultural background, worldview, training, philosophy, and even political leanings on how they understand and explain the past. Because archaeology often involves reconstructing long-lost cultures from limited evidence, interpretation plays a central role; this monumental weakness in the processes opens the door to subjective influence and biased interpretations. Interpretative bias does not delegitimize archaeology as a study, but it is an important factor to consider when evaluating the ideas, theories, conclusions, and interpretations put forth by archaeologists. We must always remember that nothing is ever according to archaeology. It is always according to the interpretations of archaeologists. Interpretations are always influenced by personal or professional biases. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased archaeologist. This applies to any individual or group of individuals engaging in archaeology, from amateurs to professionals, from individual researchers to teams and universities. All are influenced by their own personal, collective, and/or professional biases. This does not mean that we cannot trust archaeologists, it just means that we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it misrepresents facts and/or the truth. The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

Where to begin? "The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight" and of course that means that nobody engaged in teh field has EVER even had an inkling of this, only the non-archaeologist Martinez (with his lil' old "philosophy" degree) has any sensible thoughts about (checks notes): "interpretative bias". Where does one even start to engage with such arrogance and attempts tp "redicover the wheel" coupled with elementary school level of description of the "problem"? I encourage Mr Martinez to find a good library and immerse himself for three weeks with the works of the Post-Processual movement in real (not imaginary) archaeology. Three weeks will be enough (for anyone normal - a lot of it is difficult reading), but will only have scratched the surface of the ruminations on that topic from our Post-Processual brethren. Part of the problem is a lot of pseudo-archaeology is US-focussed, and so the "archaeology" it engages with tends to be the US variety. Let us just say that, even if Processual/New Archaeology and CRM had in its prime its followers in the west (and east) of Europe, not everybody sees our dicipline in the way the Americans have done. Three weeks Mr Martinez and we'll come back to the subject. One wonders if Martinesz sees (or not) that exactly the same "interpretive biases" apply to the "alternative" views of the past he seems to be promoting here. I would ask him to consider (honestly - in as unbiassed a fashion as he can) whether the checks and restraints on the discipline-archaeology's interpretations and conclusions are the SAME as or different from those in pseudo-archaeology? Do they operate in the same way? An honest answer would be that they do not. But the same underlying biases are there. Let Martinez try to say they are not.

There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased pseudo-archaeologist. All are influenced by their own personal and collective biases, icluding identity-forming (tribal) ones. This means that in looking at what pseudo-archaeologists claim, write and say, we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it represents misidentification and dismissal of evidence and/or the truth. Yep. The shoe fits on both feet Mr Martinez. And that is PRECISELY the reason when we see claims made by the pseudo-archaeological milieu, we assess it in terms of the evidence cited supporting it in the context of the evidence and thought proceses they dimissed through their interpretive biases, and challenge their conclusions (often wealkly framed as "hypotheses" still needing testing/ "just asking questions"). 

The next bit is entirely off topic.

The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

WTF? The trees were planted by the LANDOWNER, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the landowners of the site. The site is managed by the TURKISH AUTHORITIES, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the authorities managing the site. Urged by the rantings of "concerned (about their clickbait)" pseudoarchaeologists some archaeologists gave their thoughts on the trees. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wron, maybe on one side of the hoill the situation was different than on the other side of the hill. Maybe they were wrong to enter into discussion with scandal-seeking clickbait miners, in a conflict which was between them (the YouTubers and their followers) and the TURKISH AUTHORITIES. I suspect that avenue of dialogue has been definitively shut down by the pseudoarchaeological response. Nota Bene, there is no evidence that even once were the scandal mongers - notably the same Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6) mentioned so lovingly by Martinez) in direct contact with the TURKISH AUTHORITIES on this matter (or any other) - despite their professed "concern" stateside.

.

Martinez Lectures (II), "What is Pseudoarchaeology"?

 In the USA, Mark Martinez (@xprofe1) a supporter of Graham Hancock, Jimmy Corsetti and their brand of making money by reinterpreting the past for a lay audience presumes to lecture us all on what (he, with his lil'old US "philosophy" degree, thinks) pseudoarcheology is (see above).  

Mark Martinez@xprofe1 May 1

Pseudo-archaeologist: the ultimate ad hominem.

In sports we have professional athletes and amateur athletes. The primary difference between both (sic) is whether they get paid to play their sport. There are also sponsorships, levels of training, and contracts, but this dichotomy is one that most all of us are familiar with and can agree on for the most part.

In a similar fashion, we have professional archaeologists and amateur archaeologists.

Professional archaeologists usually get paid for their work, have received formal training, and customarily hold some type of credentials or responsibilities within the field. Whereas amateur archaeologists usually don’t get paid, lack formal training and do not hold credentials or responsibilities within the field. Though the distinction between professional and amateur is extremely important, they’re both still archaeologists.

A key component to this dichotomy is archaeological methodology, which when practiced, does not determine whether you’re a professional or amateur, it determines whether you’re good at your craft or not. A professional or amateur archaeologist who makes mistakes, exercises poor judgement, or practices bad methodology, is not a “fake” archaeologist, they’re just bad at what they do.

@FlintDibble is not a pseudo-archaeologist because he lied and misrepresented facts during his debate with @Graham__Hancock on the @joeroganhq , he just exercised poor judgment and practiced bad methodologies. Similarly, professional archaeologists do not suddenly become pseudo-archaeologists, simply because they were proven incorrect later in their careers; they’re just found to have practiced bad methodologies.

Fake athletes [pseudo-athletes] are neither professional nor amateur. A fake athlete is someone who lies about the sport they claim to practice, which is why we would call them a fake. No one would call a high school soccer player a fake athlete; we would call them an amateur athlete.

Likewise, a fake archaeologist [pseudo-archaeologist] is someone who lies about practicing archaeology. No one would call a high school archaeology student a fake archaeologist, we would call them an amateur archaeologist, regardless of how many mistakes or bad methodologies they practice.

Consequently, why do academics and scholars repeatedly label @Graham__Hancock, @randallwcarlson, @BrightInsight6, @DeDunkingPast, @WWolfProd, @chrispdunn, and @UnchartedX1, as pseudo-archaeologists? They are certainly not fake. They don’t lie about practicing archaeology. Some are journalists, geologists, scientists, researchers, and investigators, while others do in fact practice archaeology at an amateur level. In the case of @PastPaulitics , he is a bona fide professional archaeologist and historian but still finds himself thrown in the same basket of archaeological deplorables.

So, why the pejorative insult? Because it is a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories; it is an ad hominem attack.

By labeling people as fake or pseudo, the goal is to showcase the person and their views in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories.

Labeling someone as a pseudo-archaeologist, when they are not, is one of the truest forms of an ad hominem attack. The ultimate ad hominem.

This article is long enough, I’ll add more on archaeological methodologies later this week. Please be sure to check out and follow all the good folks I linked on here, they all provide amazing content and valuable information.

Cant wait for the rest of his exposition of what a Spanish teacher with a degree in history knows about "archaeological methodologies"... but for now, let's have a look at what he wrote.

I'm fine with equating (what I see as) amateur archaeology with professional archaeoplogy. Back in England I used to work with amateur groups and they were great. But then we come across a problem with what the Spanish teacher somewhere in deepest darkest Trumpland thinks amateur archaeology is.

A key component to this dichotomy is archaeological methodology, which when practiced, does not determine whether you’re a professional or amateur, it determines whether you’re good at your craft or not.

Well no. Whether or not what somebody is doing is archaeology or not is whether it is done by application of the methodology(ies) of achaeology - defined in a plethora of books (in the UK, including whole bookshelves full of 'how to' manuals written and published FOR amateur archaeologists). An individual who digs up (trashes) an archaeological site just to see what artefacts they can find is an artefqct hunter (most often a "metal detrectorist", in the US a "relic hunter" or "pot digger") THAT IS NOT 'ARCHAEOLOGY' (pace my British colleagues, it is certainly NOT "CITIZEN ARCHAEOLOOGY"). In the same way if in a amateur football match in the UK between the Hogwarts Wanderers and the team from Greyfrioars School, if a Greyfriars boy should actually pick up the football and run with it in his arms through the goalposts, it would be neither a goal nor football. It would be a foul. The boy is not acting at that moment as an "amateur footballer" and has added nothing to the School's sports record. Archaeology is the study of the past through the analysis of its material remains by the appropriate methodology.

 Dan Richards and his    
ad hominen teeshirt 

This is incredibly nasty, and certainly involves very severe interpretational biases (see above) - quite apart from being actionable.

@FlintDibble is not a pseudo-archaeologist because he lied and misrepresented facts during his debate with @Graham__Hancock on the @joeroganhq, he just exercised poor judgment and practiced bad methodologies.

Dan Richards, some mumbling comics enthusiast who looks like the man who empties my bins fancies himself, like Mr Martinez, as an expert on all things archaeological (despite reportedly being a construction worker and electrician by trade) is trying to make a career as a YouTube "influencer" and the theme he choses to concentrate on is "debunking" (which he somehow mispronounces as "DeDunking" [sic]) archaeology. Since Flint Dibble answered Hancock's stuff online, Dan Richards, that is the guy's name, has made Dr Dibble his prime target. He accuses Dr Dibble of "lying" (the word he actually used) on some made-up pretences, involving a single unintentionally (in my opinion) misquoted statistic and Mr Richards himself not understanding how lecture slides work. The damaging ill-will false accusation of deceit is one thing, the fact that it is being repeated after Richards' video by people who uncritically accept his reasoning and terminology used another (and is an example of just the same interpretive biases of the pseudoarchaeologists and their followers). One might question why this is happening. Why is it important to intimate that Dr Dibble's whole presentation was "lies"?   

"Why do academics and scholars repeatedly label @Graham__Hancock, @randallwcarlson , @BrightInsight6, @DeDunkingPast, @WWolfProd, @chrispdunn , and @UnchartedX1 , as pseudo-archaeologists? [...] why the pejorative insult? Because it is a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories; it is an ad hominem attack. By labeling people as fake or pseudo, the goal is to showcase the person and their views in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories. Labeling someone as a pseudo-archaeologist, when they are not, is one of the truest forms of an ad hominem attack. The ultimate ad hominem. 

    

 

                      Pseudoclassical decor                  
 

It is because they employ the methods they do (conveniently set out in 2006 in Garrett G. Fagan's chapter 'diagnosing pseudoarchaeology' pp23-46 in the same author's edited collection "Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public" - the whole volume worth reading) rather than those of real  (professional or amateur) archaeology. In the same way as a pseudomorph in geology, pseudopodia and pseudoscorpions in biology, a pseudocarp in botany, a pseudonym in literature criticism, pseudoclassical (like Donald Trump's laughably bad-taste redecoration of the 1902-1909 Oval Office), it is a term used to describe something that looks like something else without being the thing it looks like. 

I really do not see that observing that  Voltaire, Boz, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, Mary Westmacott, George Orwell, Dr. Seuss, Mark Twain, Ayn Rand, Maya Angelou were all "pseudonymous writers" (which they were) is in any way a "pejorative insult", or "a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views[..] by labeling [them] as fake or pseudo", depicting them somehow "in a negative, dismissive and illegitimate light while influencing any would-be listeners or viewers from being receptive to their ideas and theories". That's just nonsense. Calling a pseudonymous writer a pseudonymous writer is in no way a judgement on the motives they may have had for hiding their real names (which were various). It is a statement of fact. The same goes for somebody who see Gobekli Tepe and just sees "mysterious" T-pillars with pictures on them and disorderly piles of stones around them as opposed to someone who sees a highly-complex stratigraphical sequence. One is approaching the site in a pseudoarchaeological way, the other not. That is not a perjurpous observation, it is a statement of (verifiable) fact - in this case Jimmy Corsetti has amply demonstrated that (given every opportunity) he simply does not understand the princoples of archaeological stratigraphy. Not the foggiest.

And this is arrant nonsense too:

[this is] a personal attack meant to undermine the person and their views, rather than addressing their arguments or theories"

The whole problem for the pseudoarchaeologists is that their critics actually DO address their arguments and hypotheses (theirs are not structured theories). They show where, from the point of view of archaeological methodology, they are irreconcilably incompatible with these methods, their conclusions cannot be supported through applying the archaeological method to the same basic data from which they had selected theirs from. THAT is why what they are doing is not considered (let us say the same form of) archaeology as what we are doinfg. It therefore needs to be differentiated, and the proper term for that, like it or not, is pseudoarchaeology. (It is not an "alternative archaeology" any more than crudely cutting somebody's leg off with an axe and no anaesthetic is not "alternative surgery").

As an aside to his other considerations, Martinez refers to "@PastPaulitics [...] a bona fide professional archaeologist and historian" as someone who "still finds himself thrown in the same basket of archaeological deplorables". As a point of record, this person with extreme rightwing views first appeared on Twitter a little over a year ago claiming to be an "archaeologist and historian with an ax (sic) to grind about how the past is used and misused in contemporary politics". Yet the archaeological literature does not yield any texts written by a "Paul Hill" on anything at all, much less "how the past is used and misused in contemporary politics", which is a subject I used to write a bit about in its central European context. I tried to engage him in conversation, when it appeared he was unable to show he had any knowledge of the basic literature or concepts of the subject he claims as his specialism. The name "Paul Hill" is that of an author of several popular books on Anglo-Saxon military history, and on Twitter @PastPaulitics uses a fantasy-figure avatrar in early-medievalesque costume. It really is not at all clear from the evidence we have that this twitter account does indeed represent a person who actually is what they say they are. Privately suspicions have been expressed that at least part of their output is in fact AI generated. Nevertheless, though this account supports pseudoarchaeologists, and criticises archaeologists who criticise their output, @PastPaulitics has not themselves produced any outright pseudoarchaeological texts, and as far as I am aware, nobody has actually named "@PastPaulitics" a pseudoarchaeologist. So this is more nonsense from the biased Mr Martinez.

Martinez Lectures (III), "Clovis First" Archaeology's Achilles Heel?

 Mr Martinez, the apodictic Spanish teacher from the US, thinks we should all know some local lore.  

Mark Martinez @xprofe1 7h.

Tom Dillehay and Graham Hancock

(@Tdillehay50 , @Graham__Hancock)
In the early 1980s Tom Dillehay first published his initial findings regarding his opposition to Clovis First. It wasn't until 1997, when a team of 12 archaeologists visited Monte Verde, that his work began to receive increased acceptance and finally it was recognized as accurate and correct. Clovis First was dead.

For nearly 20 years Dillehay's work was peer reviewed. However, the criticism that Dillehay endured was absolutely crushing and brutal. Dillehay suffered endless personal attacks to his integrity and person.

During this ordeal, mainstream archaeologists claimed their methodology was correct, and Dillehay's was incorrect. However, when it was all said and done, Dillehay was correct, and mainstream archaeologists were incorrect.

Though Graham Hancock is no Tom Dillehay [no one is], I can not help but see the correlation in their treatment by mainstream archaeologists. Dillehay in the end prevailed and was proven right. How much longer before Hancock may also be proven right?

It is one thing to critique a man's work, it is quite another to viciously attack him personally. After witnessing how vicious the attacks have been against Graham Hancock, we can clearly see that nothing has changed with mainstream archaeologists. For the most part, they are still the same cruel and vicious gatekeepers that tormented Tom Dillehay for 20 years. Ironically though, when you return fire, they scatter, play victim, and cry.

Tom Dillehay and Graham Hancock are examples of brave men who defy all the odds and refuse to surrender before immense pressure-campaigns by those who attack them personally.

Thank you Tom and Graham for setting such great examples for future researchers, historians, and archaeologists.
3:47 AM · May 4, 2025

       Спасибо        

That last bit sounds so familiar to somebody living in central eastern Europe ("Thank you Comrade Stalin for the opportunity to have a peaceful and happy childhood in this our beloved Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics, under your leadership....."). Creepy. But this Cult of the Personality crap is now spreading to Trumpland, so perhaps we should not be surprised. Yuk.

Let us start with noting that Monte Verde is an archaeological site [41°30′17″S 73°12′16″W] in southern Chile, near Puerto Montt, discovered in 1975 and excavated by Tom Dillehay starting in 1977. It is primarily known for Monte Verde II (MV-II), dated to approximately 14,550–14,500 calibrated years Before Present (cal BP), making it one of the earliest confirmed human settlements in the Americas. The site’s location in an anaerobic peat bog near Chinchihuapi Creek preserved organic materials exceptionally well, unlike most archaeological sites, which typically yield only stone tools and bones. The site also includes a more controversial layer, Monte Verde I (MV-I), with potential dates as early as 18,500 cal BP or older, though this is less widely accepted (including by the excavator).

Martinez ignores the fact that the acceptance of Monte Verde and other pre-Clovis sites (e.g., Meadowcroft, Cactus Hill) has fundamentally altered the Clovis First paradigm. The field has become more open to earlier human presence in the Americas, suggesting that archaeology is capable of evolving when presented with compelling data.

Again with this twit, we see a confusion in the use of the m-word:

"During this ordeal, mainstream archaeologists claimed their methodology was correct, and Dillehay's was incorrect".

What on earth is he on about? the methodology is one. Tom Dillehay carried out the investigation at Monte Verde and interpretation of the results according to the state-of-the-art methodology, and it was in the bounds of the very same methodological constraints, and in the framework of peer-review, that questions were raised about that interpretation.  


In any case, Martinez seems not to realise the situation here, and I would urge him to read up on it. What he's doing is simply parrotting one of the fixed mantras of the pseudoarchaeological community. "Clovis first" is the big bogeyman. They all "know" about it, none of them have read about it, beyond what they saw in a hancock book or a disparaging mention or two on the internet - all saying the sdame thing. NONE of them have checked it out, or thought it through. They just repeat it mindlessly like some holy mantra of their own as if it changes something or justifies anything.

The truth is the evidence (esp. the artefacts) from Monte Verde I and II was poor. Dillehay said that the artefacts were tools, but he was (for various reasons) unable to disseminate information about them in a way that was able to convince everyone. I wonder if the Hancockians blithely citing this as an alleged example of the archaeologists-blinded-by-dogma model they promote have ever actually reached for those first publications to look at those artefacts. They should, it might help them understand the nuances of their cardboard cutout model (IF they actaully know how to recognise lithic artefacts in the first place.

I would also recommend they strive to find out more about J. Reid Moir (and in the process my favourite early archaeologist Samuel Hazzledine Warren) and the matter of the 'eoliths' (here too). I have had the privilege of having a number of the original Moir ones in my hands and though I know they are natural, some are nevertheless very convincing. Which is why a certain circumspection is required classifying the more dodgy lithic artefact like theses. Reid Moir met a lot of scepticism, but as far as I can see from the publications of the time (as one would expect!), rather civil and healthy scepticism from the English antiquaries. In the end, reason won and East Anglian eoliths are no longer a 'thing' (?).

This is why the description of the alleged treatment of Dillahay is so puzzling for me. I've spend more than two thirds a lifetime going to and presenting papers in various forms of academic gatherings (in the UK, Poland, Austria, Ukraine, Egypt, USA once). I've sat through some really excruciatingly badly prepared and delivered papers. I've heard some of the most sawdust-for-brains-stupid presentations under the sun. I have sat through a presentation  with slides where a very senior and influential colleague presented his discoveries of his latest excavation project of a waterlogged site with structures and worked wood, only to have a little grey man at the back in the corner stand up and explain in a quiet steady voice that everything the professor had shown for the last hour was explicable as the work of (Upper Palaeolithic) beavers. And when you looked again... everyone (speaker included) agreed he was right. But it was all very amicable. In all those years, I have never (never) witnessed the sort of treatment of a conference participant as described by the Hancockians. I wonder what was wrong in the US archaeological community that something like that could happen? (The ringleaders seem to have been prominent archaeologists like Ales Hrdlicka (1869–1943) [physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution], Paul S. Martin (1928–2010) [paleoecologist at the University of Arizona], C. Vance Haynes Jr. (1928– ) [geochronologist and archaeologist at the University of Arizona], Thomas Lynch (1938–) [archaeologist at Cornell University], Stuart Fiedel ( ?-?) [archaeologist and consultant]). I am sure there must be literature covering this aspect of teh development of US archaeology.

It is worth noting that, despite the bleak picture presented by Martinez, there was a small group of archaeologists in the US, including figures like George Carter and Louis Leakey, argued for pre-Clovis occupation as early as the 1950s and 1960s, citing sites like Tule Springs (Nevada) or Calico Hills (California). These claims were largely dismissed due to questionable evidence, but they indicate that the debate was not entirely one-sided. By the 1970s and 1980s, as sites like Monte Verde and Meadowcroft gained attention, a growing number of archaeologists began questioning Clovis First, though they faced significant resistance.

Contrary to the bleak picture painted by Martinez, Dillehay has had a highly successful career. He is a Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt University, has published over 19 books and 200 journal articles, and has received numerous awards, including membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has held prestigious positions at universities worldwide and led major interdisciplinary projects. Martinez slyly omits this context, which undercuts his narrative of Dillehay as a perpetually persecuted figure.

Martinez's account lacks nuance and fails to acknowledge that scientific skepticism is a necessary part of validating extraordinary claims. Dillehay’s eventual acceptance shows that the system, while slow and sometimes contentious, can embrace paradigm-shifting evidence when it meets rigorous standards. Hancock’s ideas in contrast have not gained similar traction because they often lack such evidence, not because of a conspiracy among archaeologists.

Finally, I am at a bit of a loss trying to understand why it is somehow 'brave' to excavate a site and find evidence, study it and draw reasonable conclusions from it and then go ahewaad and publish and publicise it. That's what we do. If some Hrdlicka says it is "not an artefact - and here is why...." then obviuously it behoves the excavtor to listen attentively to the experienced older guy's reasoning, but if he finds it wanting... well what else can he do, but go ahead and tell what he is pretty sure IS the truth about those finds? Where would that lead US archaeology? (The whole system of US academic integrity in the study and presentation of the past is now faced with a challenge from the Trump-enabled "anti-woke" mob: here and here)

Tentative map of the global distribution of rock art.

Fig 14 from: Robert G. Bednarik 2012, 'The use of weathering indices in rock art science and archaeology' Rock Art Research 29(1):59-84.

What Happened to the "Roman Empire was a Fiction" TikTokker?

                     @momllennial_                     

 A US woman apparently in her late 30s to early 40s known as @momllennial_ on TikTok, sparked significant controversy around November 2021 with a series of videos claiming that Ancient Rome did not exist and was a fabrication, notably attributing it to the Spanish Inquisition. This person, whose first name appears to have been 'Donna' She argued that there were no primary Roman documents, that Roman culture was a mix of other civilizations (like Greek, Egyptian, and Turkish), and that iconic structures like the Colosseum or Hadrian’s Wall lacked definitive Roman origins. For instance, she falsely claimed Hadrian’s Wall was a road, not a wall, and that a Latin poem by Gaius Cornelius Gallus was written in Greek.

Her claims were widely debunked by historians, classicists, and other TikTok creators. Maxwell T. Paule, a professor of ancient studies, refuted her assertion about the Gallus poem, confirming it was in Latin. Others, like @stillnotallhere , countered her Hadrian’s Wall claims by citing firsthand visits and archaeological evidence. The consensus, supported by sources like Smithsonian Magazine, affirmed Roman construction of the wall under Emperor Hadrian, backed by numerous primary sources. Her videos, some garnering hundreds of thousands of views, were seen as provocative, with many labeling her a conspiracy theorist or troll. By late 2022, under the handle @momllennial_returns, she reposted her theories on Twitter (now X), reigniting mockery and debate.

Critics noted her arguments lacked evidence, ignored Latin manuscripts, and misrepresented archaeology. Some responses turned personal, including anti-Semitic harassment, though Donna, identifying as Jewish, pinned her theories on Catholic Church conspiracies. Her feud with Aidan Mattis escalated, with mutual accusations of defamation tied to his conservative affiliations. While her content drew attention, most reactions were skeptical, with comments calling her claims absurd or humorous. There’s no evidence her theories gained traction beyond being shared for their outlandishness. She also made other controversial claims, like suggesting Alexander the Great was a woman or that “Jesus Christ” translated to “clitoris healer.” No record exists of her responding to requests for comment from outlets like Insider.

In her TikTok bio and LinkedIn, Donna claimed a bachelor’s degree in anthropology and history from Western Kentucky University (2005). Some, like TikToker Aidan Mattis, questioned her credentials, finding no record of her graduation. Her blog, Fog of History [broken link], later clarified she double-majored in anthropology (specializing in archaeology) and history but dropped out after her junior year. As a former entertainment journalist, Donna lacked formal archaeological or historical training beyond her incomplete studies. Her claims reflect a layperson’s engagement with anthropology, marked by cherry-picking and misinterpretation, rather than rigorous application of the discipline’s methods. The academic community viewed her as a “conspiracy theorist” or “troll,” with no credible support for her theories. Her ideas echo earlier fringe theories, like those of Jean Hardouin, who claimed medieval monks fabricated classical texts. However, by attempting to frame the issue in 'anthropological' terms (ie by emphasizing material culture and dating) she attempted to ground her conspiracy in a semblance of 'scientific scepticism' and 'free enquiry'. This ultimately failed to convince anyone.

The public reaction was variable. Most comments on her TikTok videos were overwhelmingly sceptical, with users calling her claims “utterly incorrect” or sharing academic citations. Her 2022 Twitter reposts (@momllennial_returns) garnered 75,000 views but were widely mocked, with jokes comparing her to Seinfeld characters. Some backlash included anti-Semitic harassment, despite her declared Jewish identity, complicating the discourse. There is no evidence her theories gained significant traction beyond viral attention for their absurdity and rejection of evidence, mostly it seems they were spread as entertainment, not belief.

On checking, her original TikTok account is no longer active, her Twitter profile seems to have been deleted, a new TikTok account that seems tyo be hers is pretty innactive (and only contains some rather incomprehensible 'Jewish/Zionism' related material). The referenced URL (fogofhistorycom.wordpress.com) to her blog is non-functional, and no alternative link appears in the sources or through web searches. She never wrote up mand published her theories as a book or even academic paper. It seems the lady got tired with seeking attention through provocative online behaviour in various outfits and hairdos.