Weird Science

Here on my website, I have a separate page which I label "Weird Archaeology." On this page are included links to websites that present alternative theories of archaeology, as well as websites which debunk such theories. The page is one of the longest-lived pages I have here, it gets a fair number of hits, and I get a fair amount of email concerning it and the pages listed on it. But, as I told a reader the other day, I often waffle on "Weird Archaeology."

One of the results of writing and working in the mainstream public venue (as I guess that's what I do), is that I often come into contact with non-traditional archaeological theories. I often run across websites of those drawn to the occult and aliens; I often exchange email with persons who want to know about new evidence they've heard of for the Garden of Eden or the Great Flood. I also run into websites and conversations with people with alternate explanations for archaeological sites, based on cultural traditions rather than scientific evidence. Many are specious attributions of human monumental works as only possible with the help of little green men from outer space; others are genuinely thoughtful and worth a look.

Like many other scientists with admittedly positivist roots but gradually turning my intellectual face towards the attractions of multivocality, I am one dazed daisy. Is presenting this alternative universes broadening the research or crippling it by unviable comparisons? Am I finally unable to sift the wheat from the chaff, or simply maintaining an open mind?

Beats me. But here's what I do know. At the same time as archaeologists are discovering the richness that diversity of opinion can provide, the global reach of our information on the Internet and elsewhere is adding new audiences. As Lynn Meskell put in, in her introduction to Archaeology Under Fire, "An aware, responsible and engaged global archaeology might be a relevant, positive force which recognizes and celebrates difference, diversity, and multivocality."