Mapping pseudoarchaeology
This semester I piloted a new short project in my ANTH 103: Introduction to Archaeology class: Mapping Pseudoarchaeology. Students were asked to identify a pseudoarchaeological claim tied to a real archaeological site or museum object, summarize that claim, and then rebut it using our class “counter-playbook.” They documented their case with at least one credible scholarly source, a representative image, and precise coordinates on a shared Google My Map.
The results were fantastic. Take a look at the live map of student submissions:
The assignment in brief
Each student uploaded a short write-up (about 400–500 words) in two parts: a neutral claim summary and a counter-analysis applying the counter-playbook (testability, evidence quality and uncertainty, context, convergence across methods, relevant expertise, transparency, peer review). They also placed a pin on our class map with the same content, plus an image and proper citation.
Briefly, the key goal was twofold:
- Build critical thinking and source evaluation skills by confronting pseudoarchaeology head-on.
- Begin to use maps as analytical tools, not just illustrations.
Why mapping matters from the start
I designed this project with an eye toward scaffolding GIS into archaeological education early. Too often, students don’t encounter GIS until late in their degree (if at all), or it’s outsourced to a Geography course that focuses on software rather than archaeological reasoning. As I argued in my SAA 2025 presentation, GIS should be treated as a hub for methods, data, theory, and pedagogy — not just as a technical elective.
By having first-semester students geolocate a pseudoarchaeological claim and represent their analysis spatially, we start to train spatial reasoning in tandem with critical thinking. The map isn’t just a pretty outcome: it’s a way of showing that archaeological arguments are always grounded in where evidence comes from.
Connecting to integrative GIS pedagogy
In my SAA talk, I described four dimensions of GIS as a hub for landscape archaeology:
- Technological and infrastructural hub: GIS orchestrates diverse tools and data streams.
- Data and synthesis hub: It harmonizes heterogeneous archaeological and environmental datasets.
- Theoretical and epistemological hub: Spatial models always encode assumptions — they’re interpretive acts.
- Cognitive and pedagogical hub: GIS trains spatial reasoning, reflexivity, and modeling literacy.
This project lives in that fourth area. Students aren’t just passively looking at maps; they’re making arguments in space, and seeing how pseudoarchaeology often ignores context and provenience. It’s a modest step, but one that makes GIS part of the conceptual toolkit from day one.
A scaffolded path for GIS across the curriculum
If we really want GIS to function as a hub in archaeology, the curriculum has to make space for it early and often—not just in one upper-division class. In our program here at SDSU we map GIS exposure across four tiers that repeat through multiple courses:
- Exposure: encounter tools/ideas; basic spatial literacy.
- Engagement: hands-on exercises with guidance; interpret simple outputs.
- Application: independent use on authentic data; justify choices.
- Interpretation & critique: make claims with spatial models; articulate assumptions and limits.
Here’s the high-level scaffold I’ve been using with some generic placeholders instead of specific course names:
| Tier / Course | Intro to Arch. | Field Arch. | Arch. Lab. | Adv. Methods | Capstone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Engagement | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Application | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Interpretation & Critique | ✓ | ✓ |
The Mapping Pseudoarchaeology project in ANTH 103 lives squarely in that first Exposure → Engagement space: students geolocate a claim, document evidence, and begin to reason spatially. Later courses move those same habits toward Application (e.g., designing a sampling strategy, building a basic model) and finally Interpretation & Critique (e.g., making and defending spatial claims, sensitivity analysis). That spiral is what turns “making a map” into thinking with maps.
Reflections so far
The class map has already become a teaching resource in its own right. In discussion, students pointed out patterns: pseudoarchaeological claims clustering at iconic sites, or the reuse of debunked narratives in new contexts. These observations only emerged once claims were mapped. That’s the point: maps can spark new questions, not just illustrate answers.
As we move into the next phase of the course, students will revisit the map for Part 2, this time identifying positive exemplars — cases where archaeologists did it right. Together, the two projects show both the vulnerabilities that pseudoarchaeology exploits and the best practices that strengthen archaeological interpretation.
Looking ahead
Ultimately, I want students to leave ANTH 103 not only with a sharper eye for pseudoarchaeological claims, but also with a first taste of spatial reasoning. If we treat GIS as a hub — infrastructural, theoretical, and pedagogical — then even intro students can see why context and provenience matter, and why archaeology is, at its core, a spatial science.
This project is one small example of how to weave GIS through the curriculum from the very beginning, helping students connect method, evidence, and interpretation in ways that will serve them as majors, professionals, and citizens alike. I’m currently working with SDSU MA alum Zach Clow on a manuscript detailing this approach to holistic GIS integration. Keep your eye out for that in the near future!
Leave a comment