Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 brill.
nl/nu
Alternative Archaeology: Many Pasts in Our Present
Pia Andersson
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies,
Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
[email protected]
Abstract
This article introduces the field of alternative archaeology. After a short presentation
of how the field has been received by professional archaeologists, different ways of
defining it are discussed, and potential demarcations are examined. A survey of the
most frequently discussed topics follows, together with a discussion of the methodolo-
gies employed and the theoretical presuppositions accepted by writers in the alterna-
tive archaeology genre, and how these differ from the methods and theories of
conventional academic archaeology. A brief section on the relevance of alternative
archaeology to the study of religion concludes the article.
Keywords
alternative archaeology, ancient astronauts, archaeoastronomy, Goddess Movement
She came alone, without being part of an organized travel group. She had found
her way to this remote place far away from the ordinary resorts by the coasts. One
day she stood there on the rim of our excavation trench, asking us question after
question and giving us encouraging cheers. She was obviously more well-read and
engaged than the normal tourists, who usually settled with just looking and lis-
tening to the monotonous voices of the Turkish guides. She was one of ‘them,’
one of them whom we — the archaeologists working at the site — usually and a
little irreverently bundled together under the label ‘the mother goddess-people.’
This day was an unusually slow day and she was the only tourist around. Sud-
denly, one of my colleagues invited her to climb down the ladder and come down
into the building we were excavating (actually something forbidden). At first, she
didn’t want to, maybe didn’t dare, but soon she let herself be persuaded. As she
came down and stood on the floor, her eyes filled with tears, her legs started to
shake and her steady stream of words suddenly came to an end. She was over-
whelmed by standing on the same floor which once, thousands of years ago, the
people of the Mother Goddess had stood upon. Her experience was very strong.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156852712X630743
126 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
For me, as I stood there on the very same floor, the contrast between her experi-
ence and mine became very clear. Here I stood, among my working tools, longing
for a break, with a headache caused by the 30-degree heat and some layer difficult
to interpret. And there she was, having a strong religious experience. The meeting
didn’t last very long; soon she hurried up the ladder again as if the ground beneath
her was burning the soles of her feet. With a trembling voice she couldn’t stop
thanking us. This had been the most important moment of her journey. (Berg-
gren in Andersson 2004)
The archaeologist Åsa, who had excavated at Çatalhöyük for three sea-
sons, explained to me how they were constantly visited by busloads of
“Mother Goddess worshippers” who were not particularly interested in
the archaeology being done on site, and mainly came to do religious
rituals on the mound. These visits had become an integral part of the
archaeologists’ daily life, just as they had become used to visits from
film teams, journalists, and local and distant tourists. In 2003 addi-
tional panels were put up in the nearby visitor center, presenting the
Goddess community and their alternative interpretations of the site
(Andersson 2004). A few years later, “days of dialogue” between profes-
sional scientists and the visiting Mother Goddess pilgrims were initi-
ated (Rountree 2011). But Ian Hodder, who has been project director
of the excavations at Çatalhöyük since 1993, is not a conventional aca-
demic archaeologist in his attitude towards such alternative interpreta-
tions and their defenders. His way of inviting different, competing
interpretations to be presented alongside his own is quite unusual.
More common are open conflicts, as seen at the Ales Stenar site in Sweden,
or at the Sphinx in Egypt, or at different archaeological sites in the USA
where native Indians and neo-shamans perform competing rituals, while
archaeologists dig and tourists take photographs (Wallis 2003).
Today, there are parallel cultures surrounding alternative archaeol-
ogy, relating to it in different ways. There is the angry crowd of archae-
ologists and other scholars, who loudly suggest that we need to combat
the pseudoscientific manifestations of alternative archaeology for the
sake of true science (see for example Cole 1980; Sabloff 1982; Flem-
ming 2006; Renfrew 2006; Fagan and Feder 2006). A minority of
theoretically-inclined archaeologists and scholars from diverse disci-
plines look at alternative archaeology in a more positive way, finding it
both important and interesting, and suggest that archaeologists take
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 127
heed and rather learn something from its success and popularity (see for
example Holtorf 2005, and Andersson and Welinder 2004).
Alternative Definitions
Most archaeologists refer to alternative archaeological topics by unflat-
tering names, such as pseudo-, nonsense, non-scientific, quasi-, or
bogus archaeology (Cole 1980; Sabloff 1982; Flemming 2006; Ren-
frew 2006; Fagan and Feder 2006). But there are also other scholars
who since the middle 1990s have tried to study these topics as data
worthy of description and analysis, calling it cult-, fringe-, fantastic-, or
popular archaeology. One basic question that has engaged this latter
group is whether any shared characteristics make it meaningful to group
them all under one umbrella term. Various anthropologists, historians
and sociologists have identified anywhere from three to nineteen com-
mon denominators that might be used to identify these topics as part
of a specific, identifiable kind of non-mainstream archaeology. Despite
some uncertainty about the question of defining this brand of extra-
academic archaeology, unanimity has emerged among these observers
that a variety of unconventional theories and notions do have certain
features in common (Williams 1995; Harrold and Eve 1995). William
Stiebing has been influential in his attempts to single out three defining
criteria: 1) an absence of scientific methodology and proof, 2) a ten-
dency to seek simple answers to complex problems, and 3) an ambiva-
lent and often hostile attitude toward the scientific establishment
(Stiebing 1984).
In the early twenty-first century many writers, including a growing
number of archaeologists, began using the term “alternative” for pur-
suits that share these characteristics (Denning 1999; Sebastion 2001;
Schadla-Hall 2004; Holtorf 2005). As the other epithets mentioned
above are either derogatory or fail to cover all topics usually involved,
the term “alternative” will also be used here.
To understand what the term “alternative archaeology” might
denote, one can compare it with the more familiar and established
“alternative medicine.” Typical dictionary definitions suggest that
“alternative medicine” is: 1) a range of theories and practices that exist
128 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
outside established, scientific institutions and conventional frames of
thought; 2) mostly practiced by non-professionals; 3) often referred to
by professionals as pseudoscience whereas its practitioners claim what
they do is “true science”; 4) often based on sources and inspiration that
can be traced to Western esotericism, occultism, new and old forms of
religion, myth, and folklore; 5) not clearly or rigidly distinguished from
the mainstream, since specific ideas and approaches that were regarded
as alternative at one stage can become mainstream at a later juncture.
This characterization fits alternative archaeology perfectly. To exem-
plify the last point, a common example used within medicine is acu-
puncture, which lately has travelled from being decidedly on the
alternative side of the fence to being partly accepted by conventional
medicine. In the same way, archaeoastronomy is an archaeological
sub-field that has crossed the boundary between “mainstream” and
“alternative”.
In trying to summarize the different topics that constitute alternative
archaeology, the scheme in Figure 1 illustrates its diversity. On the
vertical axis of “space” there is archaeoastronomy, and ideas such as,
e.g., the “face” on Mars at the top; the sunken continents of Mu, Lemu-
ria and Atlantis at the bottom; and halfway up the middle we find earth
mysteries, leylines, geoglyphs, crop circles and dowsing — dealing with
patterns and forces on or in the ground. On the horizontal axis of
“time” we find, to the very left, different versions of creationism, the
concept of “devolution” and the belief in dinosaurs living next to mod-
ern human beings. To the right we find what we could call “science
fiction archaeology,” which refers to ideas of ancient astronauts and
advanced prehistoric technology. In the center of the scheme are vari-
ous theories solidly rooted in the core concerns of those who construct
the theories — the special historical role of their own particular reli-
gion, race, nationality, gender or homeland.
Various topics within the broader field of alternative archaeology usu-
ally go hand in hand with specific sources of inspiration. Traditional
myths have been instrumental in the emergence of various versions
of creationism (for example Vedic or Biblical) as well as theories that
propound the crucial importance of one’s own race, religion or geo-
graphical location. Modern myths culled from e.g. New Age literature,
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 129
ALTERNATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY
Archaeoastronomy
The ‘face’ on Mars
Nationality
Race Religion
Creationism, devolution Ancient astronauts
Dinosaurs & humans Advanced technology
Gender Homeland
Earth mysteries, ley lines
dowsing, geoglyphs
crop circles
Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria
Figure 1
neo-paganism, or UFO religions have influenced the development of
topics such as the purported role of ancient astronauts, advanced pre-
historic technology, ley lines, the use of dowsing, speculations on earth
mysteries, crop circles, geoglyphs, sunken continents, the face on Mars
and various unconventional versions of archaeoastronomy. Finally, ideas
derived from various political ideologies lie at the core of some alternative
interpretations of the past that thrust a particular race, nationality, home-
land or ethnic group creators onto the center stage of prehistory.
130 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
Alternative Demarcations
Alternative archaeology is an extremely wide-ranging concept, or,
rather, a collective term that is not easy to delineate or define. The brief
survey above has listed various elements that most scholars convention-
ally consider to belong to alternative archaeology. Attempts to con-
struct more stringent definitions nevertheless meet with considerable
problems.
One element that might seem to unite its diverse manifestations is
alternative archaeology’s generally hostile stance towards academia, and
its exclusion from the orthodox and the conventional. But as the aca-
demic world is not homogeneous or consistent over time, this distinc-
tion is difficult to uphold. If one takes a closer look at individual
alternative archaeological phenomena, one soon finds that some alter-
native archaeological methods (for example Campbell and Ulin), theo-
ries (for example some archaeoastronomy), and practitioners (for
example Marija Gimbutas and Margaret Murray) have meandered
across the fuzzy boundaries purportedly distinguishing the “scientific”
from the “alternative,” and some authors have alternated between pro-
ducing the two types of literature.
Another potentially useful demarcation might be the distinction
between fiction and nonfiction. There are numerous depictions of alter-
native archaeology in contemporary fictive movies and books, and pre-
sumably few if any viewers of the Lara Croft and Indiana Jones movies
use these as sources of factual information. Perhaps a useful defining
characteristic of alternative archaeology is the insistence of its represen-
tatives that they are presenting “truth,” i.e. superior alternatives to aca-
demic theories? This demarcation can nevertheless also be questioned:
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, for instance, is understood as fiction
by many readers, but presents itself as a factual account, is seen by at
least some readers as “true,” and draws on existing concepts that are
also understood by many people as factual information about the past
(see Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln 1982).
Another attempt to demarcate alternative archaeology might be
to delimit it in time. Although Plato wrote about the lost world of
Atlantis — a myth that still resonates widely in today’s alternative
archaeological circles — we would not suggest that Plato was one of
the first alternative archaeologists: strictly speaking, an alternative
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 131
archaeology can only exist if it has a mainstream counterpart. Alterna-
tive archaeology can be identified as a distinct phenomenon no earlier
than the nineteenth century, at a time when scientific archaeology arose
as a field of study. The origins of mainstream, established science are
often seen in the gradual adoption of inductive, empirical approaches,
with Francis Bacon in the early seventeenth century as the paradig-
matic precursor. This was a very slow shift from a Scriptural and geo-
centric perspective — most of which would be “alternative” by today’s
standards — to a new paradigm inspired by luminaries such as Newton
and Copernicus, accompanied by the gradual retreat of Biblical mythology
as the ultimate arbiter of Truth. The emergence of archaeology as a
scientific discipline followed a similar trajectory, but came later.
At the earliest stages in the history of archaeology it is hardly mean-
ingful to distinguish between established and alternative archaeology,
but we can see the birth of the latter as scientific, empirically-based
methodology in the nineteenth century began to replace the mytholo-
gies which continued to preoccupy alternative archaeologists. To the
extent that non-empirical methods and mythological elements con-
tinue to inspire contemporary alternative archaeology, this field is rem-
iniscent of the earlier, more speculative forms of archaeology.
Nevertheless, alternative archaeology, and alternatives to mainstream
science in general, have evolved over time, and it is no longer possible
to simply identify “alternative” with “pre-modern,” or “pre-scientific.”
Topics, Methods and Concerns of Alternative Archaeology
If the outer boundaries of alternative archaeology remain hard to define
with any precision, it may be easier to point at a number of recurrent
concerns in the literature. A number of important ancient sites attract
particular attention with their mystery and beauty; these are the sites
discussed in book after book on alternative archaeology. An extraordi-
nary amount of literature is devoted to the Sphinx and the three pyra-
mids on the Giza plateau in Egypt; the colossal statues of Easter Island;
Stonehenge and Silbury Hill in England; Catalhöyük in Turkey; Ang-
kor Wat in Cambodia; Teotihuacan, Chichen Itza, and Palenque in
Mexico; Carnac in France; Tiahuanaco and Puma Punku in Bolivia;
Ales Stenar in southern Sweden; the Baalbek megalith; the temples at
132 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
Malta; and Machu Picchu and the Nazca lines in Peru. The grander
and older the site, the more important it appears to be for alternative
archaeology. The Sphinx and the pyramids of Giza have attracted most
attention by far. Sites important within new forms of religiosity are
Stonehenge and Silbury Hill in England and the Mayan sites in Latin
America (Wallis 2003); and Çatalhöyük in Turkey and the temples on
Malta, that the “Gimbutian” Mother Goddess movement has appro-
priated as its pilgrimage sites (Rountree 2003).
A few marine locations, and even some sites on other planets, are
referred to as “ancient sites” by alternative archaeology advocates, but
are not recognized as such by professional archaeologists. For example,
there are at least two famous underwater locations — Yonaguni in
Japan and a “stone road” near the island of Bimini, usually referred to
as the “Bimini road” — that are seen as evidence of sunken continents
(Hancock 2003). On the planet Mars there is the “city” of Cydonia,
including the “face on Mars” (Hoagland 1996).
Beside literature devoted to alternative interpretations of specific
sites, the alternative archaeology field also includes a fair share of grand
theories that attempt to uncover previously unknown connections
between many different locations of interest. An attempt to combine
most archaeological sites of interest into one grand theory is represented
on the Internet by the “WingMakers.” By means of conspiracy theo-
ries, and references to secret artifacts, archaeological findings, and a vast
array of material remains, most alternative archaeological topics are
linked with each other and to a broader New Age religiosity. Here are
a few fragments from their introductory Internet text:
In the summer of 1996 two college students innocently stumble upon an other-
worldly artifact while hiking in northern New Mexico near an ancient archaeo-
logical site, called Chaco Canyon. Through a chain of mysterious events, this
artifact ends up in the hands of the ACIO, an ultra-secret, unacknowledged
department of the National Security Agency responsible for reverse-engineering
recovered extraterrestrial technologies. The artifact, which becomes known . . . as
the Compass, is quickly determined to be of extraterrestrial origin, and its pur-
pose is eventually construed to be a homing device. . . . An exploratory team from
the ACIO is dispatched to the discovery site of the Compass artifact . . . leading
the team to an intricately designed structure carved deep inside a canyon wall. A
helix-shaped corridor spirals up through the rock with 23 chambers jutting out at
ten-meter intervals. . . . The WingMakers are thought to be representatives of the
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 133
Central Race, the most ancient race of beings in the universe, and the legendary
Creator Gods of life on all of the other galaxies. They are the genetic caretakers of
the universe, once thought to be Gods when they interacted with the human race
in eons past.1
Apart from sites, alternative archaeologists also refer to various artifacts
as evidence for their unorthodox interpretations of history. Some arti-
facts that have become staples of this literature are the Ica stones of
Peru, the so-called “Baghdad batteries,” crystal skulls, the “Antikythera
mechanism” found in a shipwreck outside Greece, the shroud of Turin,
The Kensington rune stone, the Dendera lamps, the iron pillar of Delhi,
Pacal’s sarcophagus lid of Palenque, the Piri Reis map, the Dogu figu-
rines of Japan, the stone spheres of Costa Rica, and the Phaistos disk.
The term “out-of-place-artifacts” (OOPAs) is used in alternative
archaeology to designate archaeological or historical objects found in
an unusual or seemingly impossible context, such as human footprints
in ancient sediments (see e.g. the videos The Mysterious Origin of
Man I and II, 1996). The term “xenotechnology” is used to refer to
objects that supposedly prove the existence of advanced alien technol-
ogy in the past, e.g. small bird-like objects similar to airplanes found in
sites in Egypt (the Saqqara bird), Central, and South America. An
influential example of the genre is Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden
History of the Human Race (1998), by Michael Cremo and Richard
Thompson, which systematically discusses different OOPAs, suggest-
ing that Earth and human presence on our planet are much older than
conventionally believed (i.e., as old as the Vedic scriptures suggest).
While alternative archaeology practitioners claim to be doing “true”
science, unbiased by the prejudices of the academic world and the race
for financial support, the methods used for arriving at their alternative
interpretations of the past are often quite different from the methods
used by conventional archaeologists. Whereas professional archaeolo-
gists usually excavate — a sequence of activities that involves digging,
measuring, weighing, counting, documenting, and in the final stage
interpreting their findings — the methods used by alternative archae-
ologists can be dowsing (e.g. Graves 1980), using a pendulum, chan-
neling messages from ancient or alien beings that tell about the past
1)
http://www.wingmakers.com/fullintro.html, accessed October 31, 2011.
134 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
(e.g. Cayce 1988), or simply dreaming and using one’s intuition (e.g.
Kjellson 1982). It is also very common within alternative archaeology
to make global comparisons in a way that conventional archaeologists
do not, as well as using myths, legends, religious texts and folklore as
source material for interpretation, in ways that would be deemed unac-
ceptable within academic archaeology (e.g. Hancock and Faiia 1998).
Much of alternative archaeology is based on presuppositions not
shared by conventional archaeologists. Writers on alternative archaeol-
ogy will, for example, often assume that there have been cataclysmic,
sudden changes in human prehistory, whereas mainstream archaeology
typically builds its theories on the underlying assumption that the past
is characterized by gradual, slow changes (e.g. Hancock 2003). Alterna-
tive archaeologists are also inclined to assume that there were global
contacts in the distant past, and theorize that an advanced technology
made this possible (see e.g. books by David Childress). Other com-
monly invoked theories suggest that the Earth, and human history, are
either much older (because the Vedic scriptures say so) or much younger
(because the Bible implies this) than accepted in established science.
Finally, there is the theme of “devolution,” i.e. the suggestion in much
of the alternative literature that humans have not evolved from bio-
logically more primitive or culturally simpler stages, but have devolved
e.g. from an earlier stage as beings of pure consciousness or spirit (e.g.
Cremo 2003).
Yet another common shared alternative claim that mainstream
archaeologists reject, is that prehistoric peoples were aware of and
affected by mysterious forces in the Earth. Under the term “earth mys-
teries” one finds theories (or “truths”) claiming that ancient sites were
built on ley lines, and that large designs (geoglyphs and crop circles)
show up in the vicinity of archaeological sites because of such forces
(e.g. Devereux 1999).
Alternative archaeologists can draw radical conclusions from meth-
ods accepted also in conventional archaeology, but used there with
much greater caution. Thus, the field of archaeoastronomy (interpret-
ing ancient sites as having been built according to the patterns of the
stars and other heavenly bodies) is an established field within academic
archaeology, but is extended in various ways by alternative archaeolo-
gists. Books in this field claim that ancient people had greater knowl-
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 135
edge of the stars and planets than mainstream archaeologists accept
(e.g. Bauval 2011), and that they had contact with ancient visitors from
outer space (e.g., Däniken 2009).
The continuing tension with conventional science, finally, leads some
alternative archaeologists to invoke conspiracy theories. Established,
orthodox science, universities and professors, and current paradigms of
knowledge supposedly repress inconvenient truths. Practitioners of
alternative archaeology thus become underdog heroes, fighting the
establishment Goliath (Cremo 1998).
Looking at the phenomenon of alternative archaeology from the per-
spective of religious studies, one can discern its role as an illustrative
example of the relationship between science and religion. In some cases,
religious sources instigate archaeological excavations (e.g. Mormon
excavations in Mesoamerica) and, in others, findings from archaeologi-
cal sites have an impact on religious practices (e.g. mother goddess
figurines found at Çatalhöyük in Turkey).
Furthermore, the topics, methods and concerns of alternative
archaeology closely resemble those of much contemporary religious
innovation. Alternative archaeology attempts to answer a number of
questions about our place in the universe, and our origins and history.
It does so by invoking the rhetorical forces of science, yet rejects much
of mainstream science as bigoted. It is individualistic, aligned with
popular culture and anti-elitist; it changes rapidly, spreads through
mass-market publications, is intensely skeptical of academic research
and gravitates towards themes and topics that interest large audiences.
It uses and recombines traditional and modern mythical narratives
in an incessant process of bricolage. For these and many other reasons,
it is a field that merits being studied as an important part of modern
religious history.
References
Andersson, Pia. 2004. “Helig plats eller vanl . . . och vanlig arbetsplats.” In Mellan
Thomsen och Däniken. Oenig diskussion kring alternativ arkeologi. Lindome: Brico-
leur Press.
Andersson, Pia, and Stig Welinder. 2004. Mellan Thomsen och Däniken. Oenig diskus-
sion kring alternativ arkeologi. Lindome: Bricoleur Press.
136 P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. 1982. Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
London: Jonathan Cape.
Bauval, Robert, and Thomas Brophy. 2011. Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of
Ancient Egypt. Rochester, Vermont: Bear & Company.
Campbell, Fiona and Jonna Ulin. 2004. BorderLine Archaeology: a practice of contem-
porary archaeology — exploring aspects of creative narratives and performative cul-
tural production. Gothenburg University, Department of Archaeology. GOTARC.
Series B, Gothenburg archaeological theses.
Cayce, Edgar, and Hugh Lynn Cayce. 1988. Edgar Cayce on Atlantis. New York: Warner
Books.
Childress, David Hatcher. 1995. Extraterrestrial Archaeology. Incredible Proof We are
not Alone. Stelle, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press.
Cole, John R. 1980. “Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory.”
In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3.
New York: Academic Press.
Cremo, Michael. 2003. Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact: How a Controversial New Book
Shocked The Scientific Community And Became An Underground Classic. Los Angeles,
California: Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing.
Cremo, Michael, and Richard Thompson. 1998. Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden
History of the Human Race. Badger, California: Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing.
Denning, Kathryn. 1999. On Archaeology and Alterity. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Devereux, Paul. 1999. Earth Mysteries. London: Judy Piatkus Publishers Ltd.
von Däniken, Erich. 2009. History Is Wrong. Franklin Lakes, New Jersey: New Page
Book.
Fagan, Garrett G., and Kenneth L. Feder. 2006. “Crusading against Straw Men:
An Alternative View of Alternative Archaeologies: Response to Holtorf.” World
Archaeology 38(4):718–729.
Flemming, Nic. 2006. “The Attraction of Non-Rational Archaeological Hypotheses:
The Individual and Sociological Factors.” In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.) Archaeologi-
cal Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the
Public, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Graves, Tom. 1980. Dowsing and Archaeology. Wellingborough, UK: Turnstone Press.
Hancock, Graham. 2003. Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age. London:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Hancock, Graham, and Samantha Faiia. 1998. Heaven’s Mirror: Quest for the Lost
Civilization. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.
Harrold, Francis, and Raymond Eve (eds.). 1995. Cult Archaeology and Creationism:
Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past. Iowa City, Iowa: University
of Iowa Press.
Hoagland, Richard C. 1987. The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever.
Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books.
Holtorf, Cornelius. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Cul-
ture. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
Kjellson, Henry. 1982. Sju nätter på Cheopspyramidens topp. Uppsala.
P. Andersson / Numen 59 (2012) 125–137 137
Renfrew, Colin. 2006. “Foreword.” In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.), Archaeological Fanta-
sies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, Abing-
don and New York: Routledge.
The Mysterious Origin of Man 1: Mysterious Evidence That Could Rewrite Man’s History.
1996. Video, 45 min. Produced by B. C. Video Inc. NYC.
The Mysterious Origin of Man 2: Shocking Evidence That Challenges Many of our Accepted
Theories. 1996. Video, 55 min. Produced by B. C. Video Inc. NYC.
Rountree, Kathryn. 2011. “Is Dialogue between Religion and Science Possible? The
Case of Archaeology and the Goddess Movement.” In James R. Lewis and Olav
Hammer (eds.), Religion and the Authority of Science. Leiden: Brill, 797–818.
Sabloff, J. 1982. Archaeology: Myth and Reality: Readings from Scientific American. San
Francisco, California: Freeman.
Schadla-Hall, Tim. 2004. “The Comforts of Unreason: The importance and relevance
of alternative archaeology.” In N. Merriman (ed.), Public Archaeology, London:
Routledge Press, 255–271.
Sebastion, Tim. 2001. “Alternative Archaeology: Has It Happened?” In Robert
J. Wallis and Kenneth Lymer (eds.), A Permeability of Boundaries?: New Approaches
to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore, Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports, 125–135.
Stiebing, William. Jr. 1984. Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular
Theories about Man’s Past. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus.
Wallis, Robert J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstacy, Alternative Archaeologists and
Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge.
Williams, Stephen. 1995. “Fantastic Archaeology: What Should We Do About It?” In
F. Harrold and R. Eve (eds.), Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding
Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past. Iowa City, Iowa, 13–25.
WingMakers: Ancient Arrow Project. http://www.wingmakers.com/fullintro.html.
Accessed October 31, 2011.
Copyright of Numen: International Review for the History of Religions is the property of Brill Academic
Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
