Recently, the internet exploded with interest in one woman's claim to have identified two possible pyramid complexes in Egypt, previously completely unknown by archaeologists, by simply using Google Earth (her official post is
here). The images posted in this article, such as the one above, certainly demonstrate some kind of mound, but most of the discussion by academics on the issue has been a reactive effort to deny the potential of these claims, and there very viability based on the amateur status of Angela Micol. I think it's pretty plain to say that, in reality, an amateur is never going to be as knowledgeable as an expert. Additionally, everyone will agree that any actual study involving space imaging is just not viable without some more grounding, quite literally, through verification in person. So while many have put their two-cents in on why this is "bogus," in reality it's a moot point until someone has looked into the claims in person. So if there is really no debate over the fact that this is just preliminary information Angela Micol is putting out there, why do scholars suddenly get frustrated, angry, and down-right rude (such as in some of the comments seen
here) when reports come out that someone has found Google Earth images of pyramids?
Well, from my perspective, there are a few reasons. First, news agencies reporting online seem very rarely to get their facts straight before publication. Though Angela Micol doesn't claim to have any degree in archaeology, doesn't have any professional accreditation as an archaeologist, and doesn't make a living off of archaeological research, many publications still refer to her as one. That feels insulting when you've spent years of your life in school and in tents, working towards your profession. If I were to come out with research saying that Cheetos will cause you to give birth to bright orange babies, news agencies wouldn't suddenly call me a "doctor" to help the story sell. So it feels like our profession is being degraded when someone without a background is suddenly deemed an archaeologist because she has an interest in old dusty pyramids. This is exacerbated by the fact that she's doing her research from the comfort of her computer chair. As a profession, we still cringe at the idea of "armchair archaeology" because this was a serious problem in the past, and we certainly do not want to see people reverting to a time when it was OK to call yourself an archaeologist, even if you've never touched a trowel. This too degrades our profession, and the point of our research abroad. Yet this idea has also gotten its fair share of press, such as in the following post from Business Insider:
Become an Armchair Archaeologist -- Literally.
The problem with this negative scholarly reaction, is we often forget to enjoy the fact that people who make no money and have no investment in ancient Egypt are still spending hours of their lives trying to study it. We forget that our field does have relevancy beyond the few hundred professionals scattered across the nation or even globe of your chosen niche. We push away and repel people who really do want to help our community, by saying "leave it to the professionals" instead of embracing their good intentions and putting them towards more inclusive research. We are so caught up in a culture filled with jargon, exclusion, and hierarchy, that we lose sight of the fact that we need amateur interest to survive in the real world, to keep ourselves relevant, and to just feel like contributors to a broader society than our own academic microcosm. So instead of jumping to criticize and deny attempts at research by amateurs, the field should move toward building ways to use this positive energy towards investment in our future as a discipline.
