On archaeology and alterity.

Responding effectively to aItemative ideas about humanity's past is a growing concern for
many archaeologists, as popular television programs, the Internet, and best-selling books
increasing.ly promote theories which dramatically oppose accepted academic archaeological
interpretations. However, this problem has traditionally been undertheOlised, or considercd
primarily within scientistic fonnulations which simplistically contrast good, logical.
'0l1hodox' archaeology with bad, illogicaL 'lunatic fringe' archaeology. As an analysis of
some CUlTent ideas about the archaeological past demonstrates, this can be a false dichotomy
that impedes constructive thinking. Neither dowsing nor psychic archaeolob'Y, for example,
are clearly illogical or marginalised practices~ designating them as such, however, reveals
much about a priori convictions. Earth Mystelies in the U.K. has features in common with
Blitish academic archaeology. Apocalyptic threads running through some alternative
archaeology books are ancient in their structure, not strange and new, and can also emerge in
academic archaeological writings. This does not mean that there are no grounds for
disting.uishing between different accounts of the past, but it does mean that some standard
intolerances within archaeology, based upon notions of demarcation which do not \\ork,
must be questioned. Outside the discipline but exerting their influence within it the Skeptics'
mO\'cment and the 'anti-anti-Science' contingent of the Science Wars are increasing
polarisation around issues of rationality, and responding to divergent ideas inside and outside
academia with open hostility. However, there are well-established philosophies that pennit
the avoidance of such divisive and all-encompassing conflict. A henneneutic rather than
foundationalist approach to the dilemmas of alterity provides more robust and responsible
possibilities.