Forum: The Past Not as Prelude

**Background:** The article situates itself in a 'current political climate' (CPC) of alternative facts, science denial, and economic depression, arguing that archaeology's colonial heritage risks revivification through essentialized hate. The author contends that what archaeologists say to the public matters more than most think, and that trivializing archaeological findings (e.g., 'vampire skeletons,' mummified goats) undermines scientists' ability to speak truth to power. The paper critiques two common justifications for archaeology: 'learning about the past' (which has historically supported a teleological view leading to capitalism) and 'stewardship/preservation' (which can be patronizing to descendant communities and used by governments and corporations to control resources). Examples include the backlash against stewardship at Bear's Ears, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas after UNESCO's offer to help preserve them, and Rio Tinto's hypocrisy in promoting heritage protection while destroying a 46,000-year-old Aboriginal rock shelter at Juukan Gorge.

**Methods:** This is a narrative review and critical essay, not a clinical study. The author draws on cognitive linguist George Lakoff's framework of conceptual metaphors (the 'Strict Father' vs. 'Nurturant Parent' family models) to analyze how archaeological language triggers conservative political frames. The author also references the 'science wars' (relativism vs. positivism) and argues that archaeologists must clearly explain what science is—emphasizing replicability, multiple lines of evidence, and systematic reasoning—rather than treating scientific reasoning as an exclusive province of European thought. The paper uses examples of media headlines, popular books (e.g., 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'), and archaeological interpretations (e.g., the Tollense battlefield, Maya 'collapse' due to drought) to illustrate how direct causation explanations and origin stories reinforce conservative 'truisms' about human nature.

**Key Results:** The paper does not present new empirical data but synthesizes arguments from multiple scholars. Key points include: (1) Lakoff's rules for public engagement: don't repeat false narratives, start with values, speak powerfully, give up identity politics, and be prepared. (2) Negating a frame (e.g., saying 'men stayed home' to refute it) strengthens the frame. (3) The 'normative masculinity' argument in the Ancient Near East is presented as an example of an origin story that is a political act, not a scientific fact. (4) Research by Khalil et al. (2017) suggests knowledge of Ancient Egyptian female pioneers can improve women's lives in Egypt today. (5) Steele's (2011) work on 'stereotype threat' warns against trivializing negative stereotypes. (6) The author argues that archaeologists should highlight subjects like the sustainability of small family farms, primordial diversity, failure of violent regimes, multiplicity of gender identities, and agency of ordinary people.

**Clinical Implications:** Not applicable. This is not a clinical study. The paper's implications are for archaeological practice and public communication: archaeologists must make deliberate, politically astute choices to avoid reinforcing conservative ideologies and instead support decolonization, tribal sovereignty, and social justice. The author concludes that archaeologists need 'an archaeology that speaks truth to power, that refuses to describe a past that justifies the CPC, and that reorients the public to a diverse past.'