AI is distorting archaeology and flattening Indigenous knowledge
If you search Google Images for "cultural heritage Australia," near the top of the results is a photograph of giant carved stone heads rising from a red desert.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is reshaping archaeology, causing concern about the distortion of Indigenous knowledge. Google Images features a fabricated photograph of ancient stone heads in Australia, showcasing how AI-generated content can circulate as genuine historical records. While AI has the potential to broaden access to knowledge, it can also disseminate false histories and undermine Indigenous authority.
Researchers are increasingly worried about AI systems harvesting and misusing Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) without consent. The challenge lies in combating misinformation while preserving genuine scientific knowledge and its accessibility. Archaeology has long been susceptible to fringe narratives and pseudoscientific claims, such as the myth of lost continents Mu and Lemuria.
However, some false narratives persist and have even influenced pseudoarchaeology that diminishes Indigenous histories. For instance, the moai of Rapa Nui, the Gwion Gwion paintings in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, and petroglyphs in New Caledonia have all been attributed to mysterious foreign peoples rather than their Indigenous creators.
AI systems often learn from the open web, which is rife with misinformation and fringe theories, failing to weigh evidence or test claims. In contrast, Indigenous Knowledge is local, place-based, and bound to particular communities. This strength, however, makes it vulnerable to AI's indiscriminate absorption. While AI can distinguish consensus from fringe narratives, this ability depends on training data collected without community consent.
To combat misinformation, engaging the public is crucial, but accessible research can be overshadowed by fringe narratives. Indigenous Knowledge is more than just stories and cultural expressions; it encompasses environmental records, landscape knowledge, and multi-generational relationships with Country. Researchers have spent decades building trust with Indigenous communities, and these communities now utilize AI for language revitalization and research requiring cultural archives.
When communities agree to publish their knowledge, they do so on their own terms. However, AI systems must respect ICIP and not strip Indigenous knowledge of its context. Practical steps include requiring evidence of community permission for publishing Indigenous data and ensuring ICIP is considered in research design, ethics review, and peer review.
Above all, Indigenous communities must retain authority over how their knowledge is interpreted and reused.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
