If you've watched any streaming documentary in the past five years, you've probably encountered some version of this claim: ancient civilizations were more advanced than mainstream science admits, and someone is covering it up.
It sounds thrilling. It makes for great TV. And according to the actual archaeologists we've interviewed on Elevated Thoughts, it's doing real damage.
The Pattern
We've now done multiple episodes on pseudo-archaeology — with Dr. Flint Dibble, Carl Feagans, Dr. John Hoopes, and others. And a clear pattern has emerged in how these ideas spread.
It starts with genuine curiosity. Someone watches a documentary about the pyramids or Göbekli Tepe and thinks, "That's amazing — how did ancient people do that?" That's a great question. That's the kind of question that drives real science.
But instead of leading to peer-reviewed research, the algorithm serves up content that says: "They couldn't have done it. Someone else must have helped." And from there, the rabbit hole opens.
Why It Matters
You might be thinking: who cares if someone thinks aliens built the pyramids? It's harmless entertainment.
Here's why the experts we've talked to disagree:
- It erases indigenous achievement. As Dr. Dibble pointed out on our show, many pseudo-archaeological claims specifically target non-European civilizations. The subtext is that these cultures couldn't have built what they built — which has roots in colonial-era racism.
- It undermines scientific literacy. The same patterns of thinking that lead someone to reject archaeological evidence are the same patterns that lead to rejecting climate science, vaccine research, or election integrity data.
- It creates a gateway. Carl Feagans traced a direct pipeline from pseudo-archaeology communities to broader conspiracy networks. The skills you develop to "question the mainstream narrative" in archaeology transfer directly to QAnon-adjacent thinking.
The Echo Chamber Effect
One of the most striking things about covering this topic was seeing how the echo chambers operate. When we posted our episodes with credentialed archaeologists, the comments sections filled with people insisting the experts were either lying or part of a cover-up.
That's the hallmark of conspiracy thinking: any evidence against the theory becomes evidence for the theory, because it "proves" the cover-up exists. It's an unfalsifiable loop.
What We Can Do
The archaeologists we interviewed weren't hopeless about this. They all emphasized the same thing: the actual history is more interesting than the conspiracy versions. Real human achievement — building the pyramids with copper tools and organized labor, navigating the Pacific in wooden canoes, constructing Göbekli Tepe 11,000 years ago — is extraordinary without alien intervention.
The challenge is making the real story as compelling as the fake one. That's what good science communication does. And it's what we're trying to do on this show — not by debunking, but by showing that the truth is worth paying attention to.
The bar for evidence should be the same whether a claim excites you or bores you. That's the lesson pseudo-archaeology keeps teaching us.
