Learning objective
To synthesize conceptual frameworks for evaluating ancient astronaut claims and apply them to a 2022 Midjourney–Zhistorica hoax, highlighting archaeological method, media literacy, and verification practices.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
[F1] Defining ancient astronaut theory and its appeal Ancient astronaut theory (teoría de los antiguos astronautas) proposes that extraterrestrials contacted ancient societies and shaped human culture. It attracts audiences by promising radical reinterpretations of enigmatic artifacts. Mainstream archaeology rejects the claim due to lack of testable evidence. The idea persists through popular books, television, and social media. Its appeal often rests on arguments from ignorance, selective imagery, and sensational narratives.
[F2] Situating cave art within archaeological interpretation Cave art (arte rupestre) comprises pigment or engravings on rock surfaces produced by past communities. Archaeologists read such imagery through cultural context, ethnography, and site formation processes. Motifs can be geometric, anthropomorphic, or zoomorphic, with meanings anchored in ritual, cosmology, or social signaling. Dating methods and stratigraphy link images to broader archaeological sequences. Without provenance and context, interpretation becomes speculative rather than scientific.
[F3] How pop culture reimagines prehistoric visual forms Popular culture frequently reinterprets cave scenes as spacecraft or aliens. Such readings project modern technological imaginaries onto prehistoric symbolism. Presentism obscures emic meanings that require contextual evidence. The result is a feedback loop where striking images fuel extraordinary claims. This loop thrives in visual-first platforms that reward novelty over verification.
[F4] Artificial intelligence image generation and authenticity challenges AI image generation (generación de imágenes por IA) creates convincing visuals from text prompts using models like Midjourney. Outputs can mimic patina, weathering, and stylistic irregularities associated with antiquity. Because metadata and provenance are easily severed online, synthetic images can masquerade as documentation. The line between creative experiment and counterfeit artifact becomes blurred. Robust source-tracing practices are therefore indispensable.
[F5] Archaeological hoaxes and standards of critical evaluation Hoaxes in archaeology (engaños arqueológicos) are fabricated claims presented as genuine finds. Core checks include verifiable provenance, peer-accessible documentation, stylistic consistency with regional corpora, and expert review. Red flags include invented sites, missing excavation records, or narratives of lost or destroyed artifacts. Scientific caution demands that extraordinary claims meet extraordinary evidentiary thresholds. Educational outreach helps inoculate publics against recurrent patterns of deception.
[F6] Media literacy skills for navigating digital heritage claims Media literacy (alfabetización mediática) involves cross-checking sources, tracing origins, and distinguishing commentary from evidence. Practical steps include reverse-image searches, registry checks for sites, and triangulating with specialist literature. Attention to framing devices—captions, hashtags, and emotive language—helps identify persuasion tactics. Clarity about the difference between art projects and archaeological evidence is crucial. Literacy empowers inclusive appreciation of authentic heritage.
APPLICATIONS AND CONTROVERSIES
[A1] Reconstructing the 2022 viral Midjourney cave sequence In 2022, images circulated online depicting humanoids beside a flying saucer, presented as authentic cave art. The series originated as an experiment by Gabriele Campagnano on the Zhistorica website. Midjourney generated the visuals to emulate prehistoric wall painting. Social reposts detached the images from their declared status as fabrications. The sequence demonstrates how quickly context evaporates in algorithmic feeds. Once detached, claims of early extraterrestrial contact appeared newly plausible.
[A2] The invented French site and provenance inconsistencies Posts attributed the imagery to a French location labeled “Uf-Olishen Cave.” No such site exists in archaeological catalogs, gazetteers, or museum records. The absence of coordinates, excavation reports, or accession numbers violates basic provenance norms. Claims also lacked independent field photographs or stratigraphic documentation. Invented toponyms constitute a classic strategy in cultural-heritage frauds.
[A3] How social captions and emojis amplified plausibility Circulating captions narrated early contact with extraterrestrial life and adorned the text with UFO and alien-face emojis. This rhetorical packaging primed audiences for wonder and minimized skepticism. The platform architecture of Facebook rewarded engagement, not verification. Anonymized pages, including one named “Alfa Centauri,” amplified the post. Visual fluency exceeded evidentiary transparency, encouraging rapid, credulous sharing.
[A4] Forensic signals of fabrication in stylistic features The purported “saucer” displayed symmetry and window-like dots unlike regional Paleolithic conventions. The patina appeared conspicuously uniform across “old” and “new” strokes, a common generative artifact. Line repetition suggested digital brush regularity rather than human variability. Narrative flourishes such as unverifiable destruction histories accompanied some reposts. Together, these signals align with known indicators of fabrication.
[A5] Independent verification and the role of fact-checkers Fact-checkers at Árbol Invertido and the #CubaChequea initiative traced the images to Zhistorica. Their reporting noted the author’s admission that the works were synthetic and experimental. Cross-referencing demonstrated that the “Uf-Olishen Cave” was fictitious. This case exemplifies the value of open, well-documented debunking. Verification restored context and offered teachable moments for digital audiences.
[A6] Implications for archaeology, education, and public trust Fabricated heritage can erode trust in legitimate discoveries and institutions. It diverts attention from real archaeological labor and local community stewardship. Educators can leverage this case to teach provenance, method, and ethics. Platforms and creators share responsibility to label synthetic heritage clearly. Transparent communication protects both scholarship and public imagination.
[A7] Methodological safeguards and editorial completeness checklists Rigorous editorial practices strengthen reliability across cultural-heritage writing. Safeguards include comprehensive item coverage, consistent terminology, and careful anonymization of direct personal identifiers when present. Structured, anchored paragraphs help trace every claim to defined concepts. Quality-control checklists ensure coherence, accuracy, and absence of hidden placeholders. Such methods parallel archaeological verification by prioritizing completeness and accountability.
Sources
- Zhistorica, website post, 2022, role: origin of Midjourney-generated cave images and explicit declaration of fabrication.
- Árbol Invertido / #CubaChequea, fact-check article, 2022, role: independent verification tracing images to Zhistorica.
- Midjourney, AI platform, 2022, role: tool used to generate synthetic cave-art visuals.
- “Alleged alien cave art” Facebook post (e.g., page named Alfa Centauri), social media post, n.d., role: example of public circulation with emoji-laden captions.
My Diary - Leonardo Cardillo 