In this lessons, I would like to introduce you to a third aspect of great fascination of archaeology, after those of the discovery, and of work. The two first aspects of fascination we have described concerned field archaeology, namely the operations made on the excavation field. The third aspect of no less fascination, on the other hand, concerns the interpretation of the discovery. In fact, we may observe that, when the archaeologist is engaged in the interpretation of discoveries, technical and theoretical aspects emerge, which at the moment do not interest us. I mean that, just to mention one example, as concerns the technical sphere, in order to interpret an evidence, like in any other human science, we need a preliminary analysis of the quality of our sources, of their integrity, and their consequent validity: in other words, what is maintained about a written source holds true also for an evidence of material culture. Again, just to make a very limited example, as regards the theoretical sphere, in modern archaeology we ascertained that, in general terms, our analysis will be all of the more fruitful if they will be “contaminated” by the methods of other human sciences, like, for instance, ethnology, linguistics, economics, sociology, history of religion, and history of art. Today, on the other hand, we will deal with another facet concerning archeological interpretation, which holds true whichever path that we will follow along the technical and theoretical lines. Thus, when we face a problem of interpretation of an archaeological evidence, the itinerary we follow as archaeologists, whichever the more or less sophisticated critical tools is always swinging between the two poles of identity and alterity. What does this statement mean, which may appear enigmatic and paradoxical? We mean to say that, as the object of each archaeological research was always produced by a human society in a period and in a time more or less distant from us in time and space, that objects, so to say, takes always part in a variable percentage of identity and alterity with regard to our modern world. Each artifact, in fact, from the most monumental architecture to the simplest tool of any civilization of the remote, or of recent past, being man-made, may look quite similar to something we are accustomed to see, because we recognize in it something familiar to our experience, and our knowledge: in this instance, the artifact is placed on the side of identity. Yet, it may also happen that the artifact looks like quite distant from anything we are accustomed to see, so we cannot recognize in it anything familiar to our experience and our knowledge: in this second instance, for example, the artifact is placed on the side of alterity. Of course, in the study of the past each artifact concerning archaeology, but even each work or idea not belonging to material culture, is played on the side of identity, or on the side of alterity with regard to our world. Yet, we should say better that each artifact, or idea from the past is never placed completely on the side of identity or alterity, but it rather shares some identity, and some alterity at the same time. The percentage of identity and alterity of an artifact, or an idea form the past as compared with the modern world may change in quite a notable way. Let's make some clearer example, keeping ourselves in the sphere of material culture, which is peculiar to archaeology. When archaeologists for example, deal with the study of a Roman circus or amphitheater, at first sight, when asked which share of identity and which share of alterity they can single out in that architectural artifact, the temptation is strong to answer that they share of identity is really very high, because we can recognize in those monuments something very similar to our model stadiums, because we know that they held there shows similar to modern sport events, because we know that sometimes their audience reached thousands, in a way not different from nowadays. Yet, the first impression which leads us to believe that an ancient circus or amphitheater is quite similar is in fact wrong. First, because of the structure of an ancient circus or amphitheater are really different in several technical aspects from those of modern stadiums. Second, because the types of game, and competitions which were held in those places, were quite different from those held in our stadiums nowadays. And third, because there is only a very vague similarity in cultural, and psychological attitude between ancient, and modern spectators. Certainly, there are not secondary similarities between those ancient monuments and modern sports structures in their shapes, concept, functions, uses, spectators, but these analogies do not allow us to believe, as we just maintained, the rate of identity is extremely high, but rather quite high. To make an example on the other side, that of alterity, when archaeologists deal with the study of quite enigmatic evidences, like the imposing statues of Easter Island in the Pacific Oceans, of course, at the first sight, one may think that, here, the rate of alterity is extremely high because everything is mysterious in these material remains: who made them, when they were made and how they were made? For which aim they were erected? Which life did they have? But, if we overcome this first impression of great discouragement, and we study the customs, rules and beliefs of the people of those remote islands, albeit in a cultural context strongly marked by alterity, we will discover that the ritual reasons for those peculiar remains are not so foreign to those of a number of cultures set really far from out mentality, and yet not totally incomprehensible: in this case, we may exactly say that the rate of identity is quite low, while the rate of alterity is quite high. Just in order to make one example only, concerning rather, ideology rather than material culture, it is not difficult to maintain that for modern scholars the gods of Greek religion show quite high percentage of identity, because the passions of the deities in the Homeric poems are totally comprehensible to us, though they can hardly be related with our concept of deities; on the other hand, the gods of Egyptian religion must be placed on the side of a quite high rate of alterity, for their peculiar at the same time human, and animal aspects, and for the behavior in myths. The statement that one aspect of great fascination of archaeology, not concerning discoveries or procedures, but rather interpretation, is the fact that it walks in a path always swinging between identity and alterity, and this is particularly important for two reasons. The first reason is that, if we always keep in our mind that any evidence or remain from the past shares at the same time aspects of identity and alterity, albeit in quite different rates, we do not risk to make one of the typical mistakes of much of the not scientific archaeological popularization, namely the trivialization, and modernization of the past. As we will think that we know better what is similar to something we already know, when we think we understand better something from the past, we tend to assimilate it within the sphere of identity: if we are told that in the world of the Sumerian city-states of the 3rd millennium BC there were institutions similar to the democratic rules of the Greek towns, and we are being told of a “Sumerian democracy”, let's to say, we believe we understand better those towns and institutions, because we assimilate them, totally unduly, to government systems and social institutions which are quite familiar to us, that is we place them on the side of identity. So we wrongly believe we understand an important aspect of the ancient Sumerian civilization, yet, on the contrary, we falsify it, because we make of it, against all evidence, and in a totally antihistorical way, only an antecedent of a phenomenon of Greek civilization, with which it has nothing to share. Only if our critical conscience is quite vigilant, and if we always keep in mind that every remain from the past cannot be completely flattened on the side either of identity or alterity, we will be able to understand what in Sumerian institutions was origional and positive, though they had nothing to share with those of classical Greece. The second reason is that, if we do believe that archaeological research always follows, as we have maintained, that a difficult and suggestive path between identity and alterity, we will be able to appreciate that the archaeologist's profession, for the modes of interpretation, is a kind of gymnasium, training to recognize, and respect alterity. And finally, in our modern times, often characterized by trends of intolerance agains alterity and diversity, this is extremely positive.
