Digital Age

The rapid spread of digital technology in the early 21st century transformed how information is shared and accessed, marking a significant change from earlier centuries when churches and cultural leaders controlled the flow of knowledge. Since February 2000, the Internet and widespread computer access have made it possible for millions to publish or access information almost instantly. While this has increased access and the public’s ability to challenge claims, it has also resulted in continued bias and selective presentation, sometimes reflecting the interests of those who produce and distribute the information.

In earlier eras, records of events and cultures were often shaped by those holding power, with historical narratives favoring victors while minimizing or erasing the experiences of others. The 20th century, especially in its later decades, saw increasing public examination and questioning of established histories, prompted in part by social movements like those for civil and equal rights. Before this broader scrutiny, publishing and distribution of information were predominantly managed by a few influential institutions, including major media organizations and religious authorities.

Throughout history, various groups have attempted to interpret or control ancient texts and symbols for reasons ranging from scholarship to self-interest. Such motives sometimes led to the destruction or suppression of evidence about diverse cultures and civilizations. For example, during the Spanish Inquisition, suppression extended to monuments and written records that documented the existence and vitality of multiple societies. Often, this was achieved not only through overt destruction but also by restricting or selectively releasing information, as was the case with the prolonged and controlled publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls over approximately 50 years.

The effort to shape historical understanding is not limited to religious organizations such as the Vatican. Governments, corporations, and educational institutions all participate in influencing historical narratives, sometimes funding research to reinforce particular views or maintain established interpretations. Even in academic contexts, research is often conducted within certain boundaries imposed by funding sources or institutional priorities.

In the decade leading up to the new millennium, increased attention was given to the work of those presenting interpretations of history or archaeology that differed from accepted academic views. These alternative perspectives often emerged in opposition to mainstream scholarly or institutional explanations, and the resulting debates have been most prominent in high-profile archaeological locations worldwide. For instance, on the Giza plateau, sponsorship and control by private interests have at times affected both the conduct and public release of archaeological findings.

Particularly relevant in early 2000 was the situation at Chichen Itza, where signs indicated the site might be privatized due to the Mexican government’s financial constraints for site maintenance. The potential transfer of stewardship to private, religious, or academic interests raised concerns over future public access and the objectivity of information shared about the site’s significance.

To approach a more balanced understanding of history, it is important to consider accounts and analysis from a variety of sources. This includes not just credentialed experts or institutional voices, but also original cultural records and the insights of indigenous groups. Many online sites offering such perspectives remain free from corporate control, though this could change in the future.

Looking forward, there is an opportunity to develop a historical narrative that recognizes and includes multiple cultural viewpoints, thereby helping present and future generations understand the complexities and mistakes of the past. As information becomes increasingly accessible, it remains necessary to critically evaluate all sources, advocate for public access to important sites and records, and support the work of independent researchers. These efforts can help distinguish between longstanding biases and more universal understandings of human history.