I applaud the contributors to the recent issue of @SAAorg Archaeological Record for the insightful articles and call to action on pseudoscience. While I thank the authors, I do have some concerns about centering the work of popular conspiracy theorists: http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462#

Citing/criticizing an author in a professional publication amplifies and legitimizes their work. It also lends credence to anti-establishment and anti-science grievances (Hancock has already plastered the issue on his blog as a badge of honor.)

In this case, an unqualified, deceptive author's work is focalized while archaeologists who have written about subjects like mound builder myths are largely omitted.

That means that public audiences linked to the issue via Hancock's website will be introduced to lists of references/sources that include more 19th century antiquarians and debunked texts than valid scientific publications with robust archaeological evidence.

I do agree w/ the authors that that greater transparency and public engagement through social media, videos, blogs, etc. are essential to combatting disinformation. Conspiracy theorists and propagandists depend on the lack of transparency/ uncertainty to suck readers in.

Our institutions are too opaque. It’s important to note that Hancock’s website includes an open discussion forum for people to post comments, theories, and responses. This contrasts with the @SAAorg discussion forum, which is relatively empty and closed to non-members.

@DSAArchaeology Again, I appreciate the authors for pushing the conversation.