Ok following the 'events' of the last couple of days I thought it might be useful to provide a quick 'How to spot a nasty in an archaeological forum' guide, because they're not always obvious to those beyond the field of archaeology....

Thread.

Which topics excite responses?

The short answer is anything that doesn't fit the 'white ancestry' trope, but may also include anything discussing non - traditional roles for women, the presence of LGBTQ+ people in the past, etc etc.

Favourite topics are -

Cheddar Man, Somerset.
Whitehawk Woman, Sussex. 
Roman Ivory Bangle lady burial, York.
Black Romans in the military. 
Viking women buried w/ military equipment, e. g, Birka.
Reframing of the history of stately homes to include their slavery connections.

Favourite phrases-

You will see a lot about 'woke political agendas', 'revisionism', 'cultural Marxism', 'political correctness' (with or without 'gone mad'), 'left wing media bias', 'fake news', attempts to 'destroy British identity/ancestry/stock' (delete as applicable)

You will also see a lot of 'haplotypes', 'Brythonic' + 'PIE (proto indo European) - all acceptable arch terms but, in case of the 1st, an attempt to blind you with science speak that neither you, nor they, can understand + in the 2nd + 3rd a barely concealed code for 'white race'

In case of skin colour you will see 'North African' + 'Sub-Saharan' bandied about - To racists, North African is code for white (acceptable), Sub-Saharan is code for black (unacceptable) - there will be acceptability of black people as slaves + not as Roman citizens

So, if someone in Roman period can be shown to be Sub Saharan slave, that's fine for a racist, but a Sub Saharan citizen is not.

... of course all the above rests on the skin differentiation between North + Sub Saharan Africa, which is of course nonsense, particularly in past.

Things to look out for -

Websited, persons etc prominently displaying runes, viking symbols etc. Those who talk about Paganism as a *factual* part of prehistory, those who are eager to make links between prehistoric monuments + their continuing relevance to the Saxons/Vikings.

Of course, any one of these things in themselves is not cause for alarm + may indeed be valid but, if you find yourself ticking off several of these signs, then beware.....there is a pattern + code for this unpleasantness and, when you become attuned, you will be able to see it.

If anyone is ever unsure about a source, please get in touch and the arch community, will be happy to give you better, archaeologically evidenced and valid, info.

The world of the past is fascinating, diverse and continues to delight and astonish us all - we cannot allow it to be re-written to suit a modern, far right, political or ideological agenda.

Thank you

P. S. The past is *always* political