This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 55-69 Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3318361 Accessed: 15/01/2009 09:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.
Gero 1996. Afterall. Politis2001). socio-culturalanthropology has recently seen a sustained critique of the concept of reflexive ethnographic method (Lynch2000.that the development of reflexive field methods in archaeologyis neitherdelayed nor ironic.given what Robertson (2002) describes as a 20-year history of reflexivediscussion in anthropology and Marcus1986. 2002. At the very least. Formany Europeancountries. I wish to argue at the startof this paper. 2000. Robertson2002). Lucas2001. Fotiadis1993. The protection ological past 55 . Faulkner 2002. Salzman. Guptaand Ferguson1997) and given the indica(Clifford tions of even earlierbeginnings(Robertson 2002). Chadwick 1998.SOCIAL THOUGHTAND COM ENTARY M Reflexivity Archaeological and the "Local" Voice lan Hodder StanfordUniversity here have recently been a number of attempts to develop reflexivefield methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000. Dowdalland Parrish 2003.for example. Hodder1999a. the archaestill has a self-evident relationshipwith the state. the archaeologicalmove mightseem delayed. It might be argued that this turn to the reflexive in archaeology is ironic.Ratherit results from specific issues and problemswhich are of a ratherdifferent nature from those found in ethnography. as Archaeology a disciplinegrew in the 18th and 19th centuriesas an integralpartof the projectsof nationalismand colonialism(Trigger 1984). Bender et al 1997.however.
Whilethere have been parallelintellectualdebates in archaeology over the last 20 years (Shanksand Tilley1987). Stoffleet al 2001. nationaland international heritage management committees. Gathercole 1989. who can speak for. Rowlands 1993. I mean initiallythe flexivityhas been forcedon archaeology. for example. The materiality monumentality the archaeological and of past mean that arsites and monuments are often centralto the constructionof the chaeological national and colonial memory and counter-memory (eg Abu el-Haj 1998.Forexample. The moves towardsreflexivity. the main impulse towards reflexiveconcerns has been the increaseduse of the past in identityformation and land-rights claims(Layton and Lowenthal 1989. There is no one today. they have also led to greater consultation (in the Native American Graves Protection and Act Preservation and Repatriation and Section106 of the NationalHistoric Act) to anti-objectivist calls for the full integrationof oral historiesand indigenous knowledge(eg Anyonet al 1996. global interactions.but also in local.'inthat interaction past. guardianshipand interpretationhave often been very public. Meskell 2002b). Watkins 2000). defined above. Whilereburialissues in the UnitedStateshave led to some objectivistretrenchment.and the massive rise in the destructionof archaeologicalsites and monumentsaroundthe world have togethercreatedan awarenessof divergentopinionsabout how the pastshould be managed. Indeed.however much local and diversevoices might be raisedagainst them. A closely relatedissue is that the distantpast in many partsof the worldmay have no present communitieswhich can stake a directclaim on it. it has been the world of heritage managementthat has often been in the forefrontof the developmentof guidelines which lead towardscollaboration and multipleperspectives. or representthe interests.REFLEXIVITY THE "LOCAL" AND ARCHAEOLOGY VOICE of ancient monuments is a function of national governments.of the "Beakerpeople"of the 3rd millennium bc in Europe. Post-colonialprocesses. is digenous' It is preciselywhen the past is claimed by present communities that a rehere. the Australianchapter of ICOMOS InternationalCouncilon Monuments (the and Sites)has producedthe Burra Charter which movesawayfromdefiningsites 56 .and the same is true for countless other cultural groupings identified by archaeologists in the deep with 'other'. Kohland Fawcett1995. The resulting conflicts over ownership.A reflexivity derivesfromthe fieldworker's voices of 'informants' less likelyto emerge in archaeology.Byreflexivity recognition and incorporationof multiple stakeholder groups. Fora recent reviewsee Meskell2002a). and the selfcriticalawareness of one's archaeologicaltruth claims as historicaland contingent. have proceeded in the increasingly as ethically-conscioushalls of the academy.
Thisis not to deny the importanceof the moves that have been made in archaeology towardsnew forms of writingthat seek to dissolvea dependence of neutral objectivity(Edmonds1999. Formost archaeology. usuallywith less state supervision.DNA sampling. These intellectual moves have been made in response to feminist and poststructuralistcritiques. Harris matrices. This may be partlyfor reasonsalreadytouched upon. Tringham1994.micromorphology.and so on. Munsellcolour charts. It has the aura of laboratoryscience. Muchof their work is carriedout in on. geophysicalprospectionsurveys.and have had little impacton the processof archaeological writingin the field (thoughsee Benderet al 1997). phytolithanalyses.There has thus been little room or motivationfor the introductionof reflexivemethods in excavation methods themselves. Joyce 1994). Anotherreason for the ratherdifferentpositionof archaeological fieldwork in comparisonto ethnographyis that archaeologyoften uses a wide range of techniques adopted and adapted from the naturaland physicalsciences. rarelyprovideclearguidelines about how a reflexivescientificarchaeologyshould proceed. Stateand governmentinstitutionsin many countries are responsibefor makingsure that sufficientrecordsare kept of what is found. Specificexamples of collaborativework includethat at the Nevada test site (Stoffleet al 2001) and at the Barungarockart site in Australia(Smith et al 1995. Indeed.and they may have readworkssuch as those by Latour and Woolgar (1986)on the socialfactorsinvolvedin laboratory Butsuch deconstructions life. Tilley 1994.This role that archaeologists "primary" is seen as separate from the interpretations are then allowed to make. course. see also Smithand Ward2000). and that the materialfinds and monuments are properlycurated. until recentlyexcavationmethods have been largelyuntouched by the issue of reflexivity.Suchworkis a longwayfromobserverparticipation archaeobotany with local communities.IAN HODDER and monuments in objectivistterms. and towardsthe descriptionof cultural ICOlandscapesas understoodand perceivedby indigenouspeoples (Australia MOS 1981). But the new forms of writing so far attempted in archaeology have largelybeen syntheticaccounts.or off-site laboratories devoted to archaeozoologyor and the like.there can be no easy importof the reflexivemethods used in ethnography. sits Archaeology between the naturalsciencesand the so57 . manyarchaeologists awareof the post-positivist of in critique value-neutrality such contexts. espeand a that ciallythe linkbetween excavation the idea of "keeping record" is held in guardianshipby the state. Most about radiocarbon archaeologists spend much of theirtime in the fieldworrying dating. and empirical Of are descriptionseems straightforward.
One of the common themes in manyof these projectsis the emphasison inat terpretation the trowel'sedge. not as an egocentric display. reflexivity noted here refersto a recognitionof 'positionality'-thatone's positionor standpointaffect one's perspective(Rosaldo involvesrecognizing the 2000)-and thus reflexivity value of multiplepositions. but always in a way informed by a particularperspective. in some privileged as as way.ARCHAEOLOGY REFLEXIVITY AND THE "LOCAL" VOICE cial issues and conflictsthat make reflexivity essential.if excavatorshave limited knowledge of what they are excavating(Isthis a human or animal bone? Isthis 4th or 3rd century If pottery?). there are numerouswaysof definingreflexivity. I simply have argued elsewhere (1999a. 1999b)that some reflexivewritingin archaeology vergeson the egocentricand self indulgent(cf.The knowledgeof the archaeologistinfluencesthe way in which the site is dug. The followingpoints derivefrom several yearsof developing new methods at the excavationof the 9000 year old site of Catalhbyuk central Turkey(Hodder2000).outside biasand critique. they will be less able to excavateand interpret correctly. and from the published acin counts of the new methods being developed in Britainat HeathrowTerminal 5 by Framework et Archaeology(Andrews al 2000). Watkins 2000). to systems or feedback. Thereare many classicexamples such as the inability of archaeologiststrained in northernEuropeto "see"mud brickwalling in the Near East. also involvesa critiqueof one's It own taken-for-granted assumptions. do not use the term here in ways that referto behavioralreflexivity. they do not know that a yellow-greendeposit they have come across is actuallydung.Rather. I acceptthe criticism(Salzman2002) that accounts of the self are not.Robertson 2002).But more generally. alreadynoted. As the trowel moves over the ground it responds to changes in texture and colour. but as an historicalenquiry into the foundationsof one's claims to knowledge. Towards reflexivity in field archaeology As Lynch I (2000)has noted. Dowdalland Parrish 2003). what are the specific contours of rework of a colflexivityin field archaeology?Importantand ground-breaking laborativenature has now been widely pursued (Swidleret al 1997. It is necessaryto deso of being reflexive that respondto this parvelop specifically ways archaeological ticularcontext.and multivocality. they 58 . But within these general guidelines. I am concerned here with how these collaborativeand integrativeprojects have an impact on field methods. and from other projectsin the UnitedStates(eg LudlowCollective2001. Neitherdo I equate reflexivity with the examinationof self.
Leoneet al 1987).they will not be able to deal with interpretative issuesthat involveother contextsand other sets of data.IAN HODDER may misinterpreta stable as a house. have alWe seen that differentspecialistscan be broughtin relationto each other in ready orderintegrateinformationand to reachconsensual narrative accounts. Thismay involvesetting time. Severalof the projectsinvolvedin developingreflexive approachestryto balance the recording data in the field with some formof narrative of construction. If they do not look out beyond the individualcontextor unit they are excavating.Anotherresponse is to enable a large number of scientific so specialiststo be presenton site. and funds. aside so that team memberscan discuss possible narrativeaccounts about the purpose of features. especiallyif carried 59 . There has been much involvement of local communities in the constructionof visitorcenters and site interpretation. But how is it possible to empower the excavatorwith all the informationthat is needed? One solution is longterm-to upgrade(in terms of educationand pay levels)the task of excavation so that the field archaeologist betterinformedand more able to evaluatespeis cialist information. digging is not just a technique. Excavating involves chaeology destroyingthe relationshipsbetween artifactsand monuments.many of whom may be interested in the types of narrative that are being constructed about the site. Fromthis viewpoint. So one aim of a reflexiveapproachis to get the archaeologistsas they dig to as have as much information they can so that they can makea good judgement about what it is they are digging. with on-site laboratories.and so on. (Handler But archaeologicalexcavationitself is a highlyskilledtask.Butto what extent can non-specialistsbe involved?Mostarchaeologicalsites attract multiple stakeholders.Asa result. The importanceof developing interpretation the trowel'sedge is that arat involves destruction (though see Lucas2001). This leads to a second theme plore in reflexivefield archaeology-the importance of multivocality. it is a highlyskilledand difficultbalancingmany differenttypes of information(Shanksand McGuire 1996). or fail to see a slight foundation trench for a wall used to pen animals (forother examples see Hodder1999a).the links between separate layersin terms of depositional history. that they can give adviceand feedbackas the excavationis progressing (unlikethe usualsituation in which specialistswork in labs elsewhere and are sent data to analyse).the moment of excavationis the best chance the archaeologist ever have to exwill alternativeinterpretations about the data.and there have been reflexiveattempts to open the "sitetour" to groupsof differentbackground and Gable1997. the functions and meanings of buildings.
com).At Catalhoyuk diarywritinghas been used (see below)to encouragea more open account of the interpretation process. close integration has occurred between archaeologists and Native Americans(Swidleret al 1997).Forother examples of blurredgenres see Swogger(2000)and Leibhammer (2000). But it is not possiblefor largenumbersof unskilledpeople to be involvedin excavationitself.AND THE "LOCAL" VOICE REFLEXIVITY ARCHAEOLOGY out in the way describedabove.catalhoyuk. NativeAmericansand archaeologistshave worked side by side in developing ways of interactingwith Native Americanpasts (Dowdalland Parrish2003). This has sometimes led to a blurredgenre somewhere between science and ritual.it might be archaeologists(Watkins gued that their potentialfor expressingalternativevoices is compromised.One partialsolution is to recordand disseminateinformation in such a way that largerand more dispersedcommunitiescan be involved.When indigenous ar2000) are fullytrainedwithinthe academy.Inexcavationsin the Andes. Thetrainingof indigenousparticipants though usuallywithin the methods set by the academy. One such example is the LeechLakeReservationin Minnesota.These musingsare placed on the project website. Thereare other examplesof how traditionalnative knowledgehas been integrated in archaeologicalprojectson tribal lands. women and partnersof women who are menstruating not participate the excavations laboratory in or do analysis. The non-NativeAmericanarchaeologistshave agreed to follow the rules specified by tribal rules and taboos. especiallywhen backedup with an on-linedatabase(www. To what extent is it possible to involvevaried at stakeholdergroups in the moment of interpretation the trowel'sedge? allowsa fullerdegree of participation.But in many collaborativeexamples. Texas. in Experiments using the internetto involve more communities in the process of interpretationhave been at least partiallysuccessful.NativeAmericansare hired and trained to carryout the workand their traditionalbeliefs are taken into consideration both during planningand fieldwork(Kluthand Munnell1997). local community members.foreignarchaeologists often obligedto hold ritualsto ensurethe are success of the projector to placatethe spiritsor gods on the recoveryof a human or llama burial.Theyallow a widerdebate and dialogueabout the interpretation the of site.to mediate relations between archaeologists. many examples are providedby Smithand Ward(2000). ForAustralia. and descendents of both slaves and slave owners. In recent Caltrans archaeologicalprojects in California. Forexample. 2000) has used a website about the LeviJordanPlantationin Brazoria.Forexample. McDavid (1997. As much as one can attempt to bringas many differentvoices to the trowel's edge in order to create a range of perspectives(and thus to do better sci60 .
and 61 .Sucha rangeof information the excavationprocessto be embedded within a greaterdepth and richnessof context than is possible in texts and picturesand drawingsalone. It is difficultto reconstruct what questions were being asked. Diariescan be writtenwhich describethe thought processesof the excavators and laboratoryanalysts.IAN HODDER ence).it is necessary for reflexiveapproaches to develop methods for documentingthe documentation process. The whole social side of the constructionof data is not formallyrecordedand so it is difficultto reconstruct social relations the of productionof past archaeologicalknowledge.databasesand archives can be tagged with a historythat describes changes made through time. Inthis way it is possible for later archaeologiststo evaluate more clearlythe claims that are made can by the excavators. But in practicemany data archives.Within the objectivist frameworksin archaeologyit was thought sufficientto providedata recordsso that later generations could reconsiderthe conclusionsthat had been drawn.Inthe reflexiveCitytunnel-project (Berggren 2001) in Sweden.and on-site editing allows insets and close-ups.and this can easily be achieved by typing straightinto a computer. in practiceit becomes importantto open up the process of enquiryso that other groupsat a laterdate can re-interpret evidence. Traditionallymuch archaeological recording was done in the form of diaries.with possibilitiesfor commentingon theircolleagues'diaryentries. The excavators can be shown explainingwhat they are findingand discussingtheir interpretationsas they develop them. are difficultto use because it is difficultto reconstruct thinkingthat lay bethe hind the excavationand the selection of data.sound and words to be used to providea recordof the excavationand post-excavation allows process. the archaeologists'thoughts are documented in diaries. Theycan point out what they havefound.Diaryentriesthus become partof the database and can be searchedfor key words. The video clips can be added to the site database and can be recoveredusing key words. But there remainsa need for diarywriting. Increasedcodificationoften led archaeological teams to dispense with such diaries and to use solely codified forms. Anotherway of documentingthe documentationis to use digitalvideo.Forexample.which are often huge and highlycodified.The later re-interpretation make relationshipsbetween what was found and what the excavatorswere preoccupiedwith at the time. This allows visual information. Thus.Thereare numerousways in which the recordscan be embedded withinan outer layerof documentation. in order to open the archaeological process to wider scrutiny. They may show things that were missed. The video clips may show data that were not seen at the time or which can be reinterpretedwith hindsight.
close parallelsbetweenthese variousstrandsof a reWhilethere are certainly there are also differflexivefield methodologyin archaeologyand ethnography. one of the main aims of much collaborativeand reflexivearchaeologyis to involvelocalpeople in some way.AND THE "LOCAL" VOICE REFLEXIVITY ARCHAEOLOGY they may explainwhy the site came to have the meaning it did for the excavators (Brill2000.The many participantsare mentioned by name in the report. at (atalhoyuk the publicationsof the excavatedfeatureswill involvedirectquotes from the diaryenand referencesto and quotes fromvideos. but as a particular mode of enquiry into the relationshipbetween people and their pasts. outerlayerof documentation aroundthe documentation processitselfso that the vast amountsof codifieddata producedby excavations be critically can situated withinthe social relationsof productionof archaeological knowledge.Indeed archaeologymight now be defined not as the studyof the materialremainsof the past. Stevanovic2000). personalpositioning.as well as from the various specialists The that had lookedat data from a particular perspective. In ences. archaeology.the publishedreportis often writtenby one or two. in responseto the differentcontextsof the two disciplines. the interpretationsthat make up the archive are the result of all the team members.dialogue and writing. Working with "the locals" The archaeological equivalentof the 'nativeinformant'might be thought to be the mute sherd. Emele2000. Thisfragmentingand multiplyingof the archiveallows authorshipto be reand considered. but the personal contributionsare not identifiable.Evenif an excavationis performedby a groupof archaeologists. includedirectquotes fromthe localcommunitywhichwas invitedto participate in the post-excavationinterpretation. end resultis a patchworkof perspectivesand points of view which can be identifiedas to authors.includingin the laboratory. As a result.and thistendencyhas been am62 .The emphasis has been on finding ways to increase interpretive knowledgeand diversityat the trowel'sedge and at all stages in the analytical Therehas also been a concernto providean process.there is the potential for including a multiplicityof voices in publicationsand other output.Theywill also tries of the excavators. But to when the individualparticipants an increasingdegree write directaccounts of their interpretations. typicallythe site manager and perhaps an assistant. there has been less emphasison autobiography. but today throughoutthe world. archaeologistswork closely with those communitiesthat claim some form of culturalaffiliationwith particulararchaeologicalremains. Forexample.
The Charterfor SustainableTourismthat emerged from the WorldConferenceon Sustainable Tourism 1995 stated that tourismmust be 'ethically in and sociallyequitablefor local communities'.which as noted above is particularly sensitiveto local culturalinterests. Rountree(2002) has describedthe ways in which Goddessgroupstravelto the Neolithictemples of Maltain order to create a vision of traditionallifeways. organizedby the GettyConservation Institute. Butwhat that localvoice is has remainedlargelyuntheorised and 63 .IAN HODDER the ply shown above. Indeed. has been widelyrecognized (eg Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998).or ICOMOS. exceptat the levelof wantingto incorporate the localvoice.At another level the local is also constructed through global communities such as the many New Age groups that travel to archaeological sites in search of the authentic and traditional. the Getty ConservationInstitute has modified and developed the planning framework outlinedin the Burra Charter et (Avrami al 2000. Therehas been a massiveincreasein international charters the management for of archaeologicalsites over recent decades. ting up Site Management and definitionof the local is nowadaysoften at least partially constructedwithin a global constructionof the local as when UNESCO. the local is defined so that it can be better managed by global institutions. Moregenerally. In northernCalifornia Age New have been involvedin preserving 'traditional' dance lodgesthat were no groups as longerin use (Dowdall perscom).The Corinth on Archaeological Management Site Workshop in May2000. the Gettydefine how sites should be conservedand who should be consulted. So at one level. Butthere has been little reflexive cussionof this processin archaeology.workingwith and employinglocal labour. Conkeyand Tringham1996).refersto the importance of collaboration with local community members. The aim has been to listento and incorporate localvoice. So archaeologyis fullycomplicitin the construction the local-both imagof ined and institutional Castaneda dis(cf 1996). Forexample. and many of these have turned their attentionto the processesof collaboration with localcommunitiesaround sites and monuments.At (atalhoyuk such groups have tried to set up and 'rejuvenate' localcraftsby women.the unsullied (Meskell1995. it is often in the interestsof global marketsand international tourismto enlistarchaeologyin the construction 'preserved' of traditions and authentic destinations. has always been involved in constructinglocal institutionsand Archaeology memories-as in local museums. Forexample. WorldBank. See also de la Torre 1997).setPlanswith local participation Butthis emphasison etc. the GeneralAssemblyof ICOMOS 1987 in for of Townsand UrbanAreas adopted the Charter the Conservation Historic which includes guidelines for the participationof residents.
buildingof a water reservoir the and distribution sysand the constructionof a regionalschool.A reflexive 64 . Insuch contexts it is not possiblefor archaeologistsblithely to 'workwith the locals'. and on the social. cultural and economic impact of the projecton the nearbyvillages and towns.partlyfundabove. was rejected by the but village. the craft center mentioned women'sgroup.ARCHAEOLOGY REFLEXIVITY AND THE "LOCAL" VOICE unexaminedin archaeology(d Appadurai 1996).The definitionand conception of 'the local'that was being imposed by outside groupswas not acceptableto the ways in which the villagerssaw themselves. Whilethe guidelinesof internationalconservation the importanceof local participation and agenciesspecify stakeholderinvolvement. At (atalh6yuk. they need 1997). how fluidand globalthey are. and The separationof the disciplineshas meant a lackof contactand a lackof problematisationabout what it is that constitutes'the local'(cf Guptaand Ferguson are and involvethe localvoice. outreach programs. She has undertakennumerous tem. such as in the provisionof a library. the archaeological project includes both ethnoarchaeologists (suchas NurcanYalman.The projectalso has complex relationswith the fundamentalistor nationalist politicianswho are popularin the area.Inmy view this has partly standingof long-term been because there has been insufficientinvolvementof ethnographersand otherspecialists themselvesin archaeological heritagemanagementprojects.and what type of relationship with archaeologyand heritagewould best servetheir interests. there is rarely full accountof how to evaluateand ina volve different forms of 'local' interest and how to reach a thorough undereffectsof heritagemanagement.For example. Bartuhas also helped the projectmake long-terminvestmentsin the local village.Rather. Ifarchaeologists to be reflexive to workmore closelywith ethnographers othersin orderto find out who exand actly'the locals'are.workingon the ways that the contemporarysettlements and use of building materials can inform the study of the archaeological site) and ethnographers (such as Ayfer Bartu and David Shankland-see Hodder(ed) 2000) who have worked on understandinglocal community knowledge about the site. It threatened existingpower and gender relations. set up in the localvillageby an international ed by UNESCO also linkedto the Goddessmovement. attempts need to be made to reacha fuller of communitiessee themselves in relationto understanding how neighbouring the intersectionsbetween the global and local.But she has also guided the projectin understandingthe complex ways in which the nearbyvillage is constructedas 'local'within globalizing processes of appropriation. Involvingethnographers will hopefully assist archaeologists to shy away from assumingan equation between 'local'and fixed or indigenous.
They are often disempowered and neglected. although these are all relevantto archaeologyand have been pursued.authentic. In archaeology the emphasis is more on finding ways in which the collection of materialdata can be opened up to interpretation it happens (breaking as down 65 . Conclusion Wehave seen some similarities differencesbetween reflexive and field methods as they are being pursued in archaeology and ethnography.the presenceof an archaeological projectmightbest be used to create links to global economies and relationships(through language training.The loapproachto the local involvesseeing how it is historically to cal may not be an 'authentic'voice that can be used uncritically make sense of the past in that locality(Fabian1983).where a local communityis being 6 reconstitutedthrough an archaeologicaland museum project(Hall2000).In archaeology there is less emphasison autobiography.It needs to examinethe intersectionsbetween gage local and global economies and to find ways of engendering long-termsuswith tainable change through use of the materialityof the past. craft industries.IAN HODDER constructed.The ethnographythat is carriedout in relationto archaeologicallocales needs to be multi-sited(Marcus 1995) and enwith multiplestakeholders. the local communitiesare historically marginalized and in need of support. writing. many archaeologicalprojectsare of such a size that they create a considerableamount of local employment (excavators. and training in heritage management etc). ucation or training. archaeological projectscan lead to changeand transformationof the local in a varietyof differentways. and small-scalebut also as exploited and constructedby globalizinginterests).tourism. Iwould be the firstto argue that archaeologistsshould listento and engage with local communities that are directlyaffected by and involved in archaeologicalsites.attendantsand so on). in partnership varied local interests. guards. For some of these. in some circumstances. Butwhen the projectends this employmentopedportunitymay disappearunless the projecthas invested in infrastructure. Rather than archaeologybeing used to constructthe local as the flip side of the global (ie as traditional. A remarkableexample of an attempt to counteractthis disempowerment is provided by the District projectin CapeTown. and dialogue.Forexample.self-positioning. In many cases. But archaeologistsneed to understandthe processes of global disempowerment and to recognize that there may be many cross-cutting'local' communities that could be constructed in different ways.
Appadurai. "Interpretation Not Record: the Practice of Archaeology. researchfunding bodies are well behind and heritageinstitutions that have been some of the international conservation referred in this paper.Canberra. 166-88."inAmerican Ethnologist25.. 2000.but I havearguedin this paper ethicalconcernsabout incorporating our is that a furtherlevel of reflexivity needed in problematising assumptions for about 'the local'.Atthe very least. G.1996. Minnesota Australia ICOMOS. M. Ferguson. A. 66 .Despiterecent reworkings. 1996.and allowingextra layersof documentation so that others can re-evaluateconclusionsthat have been made.Thereis littleto reproject have long-term archaeological to collaboratewith stakeholdergroupsin terms of quire archaeological projects setting researchagendas.. "TranslatingTruths: Nationalism. Lewis. Modernityat Large. the Practice of Archaeology. currentNSF guidelinesand expecin for tationsregarding projprovision workwith localcommunities archaeological ects are inadequate. Los Angeles. R. "NativeAmerican OralTraditionsand Archaeology. J M.. G. ties to adopt closerworking with ethnographers. and the Remaking of Past and Present in Contemporary Jerusalem. L. Barrett & J.and whichare in myview largely product the emergenceof processual limitthe currentpotentialforfull-scale and its positivist perspective. 1981.. L. Grantproposals need make little reference to how an will communityimpact. The Australia ICOMOS Charterfor the Conservation of Places of CulturalSignificance (BurraCharter)..Jackson. Palumbo.. Getty Conservation Institute. Anyon. E..Australia. 1998. M. Avrami."Societyfor AmericanArchaeology Bulletin 14:2. archaeology the collaboration.. Andrews. Pp 525-530. who can assistin evaluating culturaleconomistsand a rangeof other specialists the long-termimpactof a projecton the full rangeof stakeholdercommunities.oral historians.and Lane. and de la Torre.T. References Abu el-Haj. 14-16.) to Thereis littleto encouragecloserties withethnographers in developingin-depthunderstanding 'the local'as constructedthroughmaof terialsand monumentsof the past. 2000. A Methodological Approach for Conservation Planning.J. (Inthis way. J.VOICE REFLEXIVITY AND THE "LOCAL" ARCHAEOLOGY and the distinctionsbetween discoveryand interpretation. derivefrom movesthat have been made in archaeology Manyof the reflexive localvoices."Antiquity Vol 74. between description and interpretation). Demas. R. Teutonico. it seems important archaeological projects socialscientists. which manyof us divideswithinanthropology But Isuspectthat the disciplinary a of decry. N. Mason. allowinga greaterdiversityof perspectivesor 'positions'in the interpretiveand analyticalprocess.
Colonial Transcripts South Africaand the in Hall. and Tringham. University College. The Politics of the Past.2000. "Virtual Spaces. Routledge. R. Hamilton.uk/assem/ 3/3chad. J." ournal of Social Archaeology. Universityof Minnesota Press. London: Routledge.University of California Press. "ArchaeologicalPractice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. M. 1997. & Parrish.J. 1998. 2001. J. 2003. Pp 219-228. Oxford. 1983. "TheSedgeford Project. "Archaeologyand The Goddess: Exploringthe Contours of Feminist Archaeology. and Gable. Local People. K.IAN HODDER Stone Worlds."In Hodder. and the Archaeological Record in Fieldwork. pp 25180. AnthropologicalLocations:Boundaries and Groundsof a Field Science. Durham NC.Alternative Narratives. In the Museum of Maya Culture:TouringChichenItzd. E. Oxbow. The Getty Conservation Institute." Archaeology International 5. 16-20 (Institute of Archaeology. Berkeley. Faulkner. 1999a. I.shef. 1986. "Swedish Archaeology in Perspective and the Possibility of Reflexivity. 1997. 1996.Duke University Press.. London. Bender. Hodder. "Archaeologyat the Edge of Chaos: FurtherToward Reflexive Excavation Methodologies. Pp 229-234. R. Gathercole. 1989. Edmonds. 1993. (eds). The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region.Columbia University Press. 1999. WritingCulture:the Poetics of Ethnography. Clifford. (ed). London). M. Gupta."journal or EuropeanArchaeology 1. 2002. Blackwell. A. 147-78.Greece. Atomic Pig-bones and Miscellaneous Goddesses. London Handler. Genderand Archaeology. Norfolk:An Experiment in Popular Participation and Dialectical Method. "ACollaborative Approach to Archaeology on the Sonoma Coast. R. B.htm. Oxbow. M. I (ed) Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology: the Example at Catalhoyuk. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes. Castaieda."Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety 63. 1996. Fotiadis. 9-23. "Leskernick: Nested Landscapes. Monograph 289." In A Stewart and D Stanton (eds. Emele. 67 . M. D. Ann Arbor. P and Lowenthal.McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Philadelphia. A. University of Pennsylvania Press. D. I (ed) TowardsReflexiveMethods in Archaeology: the Example at (atalhoyuk. M. University of Michigan Press. M. TheArchaeological Process. California." Assemblage (online journal) 3. Berkeley. and Tilley. Monograph 289. 2000."In Wright. De la Torre. Brill.C. Fabian. Quetzil. (ed). Unwin Hyman. 1996." In Hodder. http://www.) Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinkingthe Disciplines. Chadwick." CurrentSwedish Archaeology 9. 1997. Timeand the Other:How AnthropologyMakesits Object. "Video-Recordingas Part of the CriticalArchaeological Process. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.ac. 0.A. S. 1997. Gero. and Ferguson. Berggren. University of California Press. Conkey. (eds).G. 151-70. 2000. Minneapolis. Dowdall. "Regions of the Imagination: Archaeologists.J. Monuments and Memories. N. and Marcus. Los Angeles. Archaeologyand the ModernWorld: Chesapeake.
(eds)." in Native Americans and Archaeologists. .(ed). Museums and Heritage. K."Journal of Social Archaeology 1."in Claassen. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. Gimbutas and New Age Archaeology. (eds).G. 2001. Unwin Hyman. Politics and the Practice of Archaeology Cambridge University Press. B. 1995. Monograph 289." Current Anthropology28. Women in Archaeology pp. and Shackel. London. 1987. (ed). N. 1995. Munnell.S. "Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge. Layton. 2000.A. TowardsReflexiveMethodsin Archaeology: the Example at Catalh6yuk. Politis. (eds). R. 2000. R. (ed). "ReflexivityRedux: A Pithy Polemic on 'Positionality'. P. McDavid. B. R. Dongoske. 1998. Joyce. J."Antiquity 69. Meskell."Theory. 1999b. M. and Fawcett. Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology:the Example at (atalhoyuk. Downer.. CA. & K. 2001. and Warms." Anthropological Quarterly75(3) 557-574. Lynch. Leibhammer. G. Potter. "RenderingRealities." Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2001. 114-31. Mayfield Publishing. Life:the Construction ScientificFacts. "Toward a Critical Archaeology. C. 2000. 2000. 2000.Bricoleur. 1994. R. Marcus. 90-107. Pp 221-39. AnthropologicalTheory (2nd edition). Philosophy and ArchaeologicalPractice: Perspectivesfor the 21st Century. C. "Archaeology of the Colorado Coal Field War 1913-1914. Gender Bias and Indigenous Peoples in South America. 74-86. in Holtorf. (eds)."Anthropological Quarterly75(4) 785-792. Robertson. C ."Annual Reviewof Anthropology31. 251-82. "DorothyHughes Popenoe: Eve in an Archaeological Garden. and Power: the Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the LeviJordan Plantation. "The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology.J. CriticalApproachesto Fieldwork. Lucas. 279-301. "The Integration of Tradition and Scientific Knowledge on the Leech Lake Reservation. Rosaldo.Contemporaryand HistoricalArchaeological Practice." in McGee.1989. AltaMiraPress. Laboratory University Press. Routledge. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara. N. "Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology. 1986."Annual Reviewof Anthropology24.pp 521-35. R. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press. . 95-117. "Goddesses. Nationalism. University of California Press. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara..Princeton of Latour. "Archaeology as Cultural Critique: Pragmatism and the Archaeology of a Southern United States Plantation. R. and Woolgar. "On Archaeological Praxis. Anyon & A. Routledge. P.B. Decisions. (eds). P. Kluth. L. Conflictin the Archaeologyof LivingTraditions. L. Swidler.2002a. Lucas. Destination Culture: Tourism." in V. . "British Prehistory: Some Thoughts Looking In. Leone. I. Ludlow Collective. Buchli and G. G. M. 1997. Oxbow. Stepping Stones to Common Ground. R. "Ethnography in/of the World Systems: the Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.ARCHAEOLOGY REFLEXIVITY AND THE "LOCAL" VOICE . "Descendents.Goteborg.Cultureand Society 17(3).2002b. 9:376-380. 1995. Pp 129-42. and Karlsson. 51-66. Monograph 289. ."in Hodder. 68 . Kohl. Oxbow. 26-54. H. C. Mountain View. "Griefand A Headhunter's Rage. Archaeologies of the ContemporaryPast." HistoricalArchaeology31. 1997. 2002.
2000.I (ed) TowardsReflexiveMethodsin Archaeology:the Exampleat (atalhoyuk.Imperialist. Watkins. K. J. C . P C. 2002." 70. Ward. 1997. Tilley. Shanks. Man 19. AmericanAnthropologist 104(3). Towards reflexive Methods in Archaeology: the Example at ?atalhoyuk. Downer." Historyand Anthropology 13. 355Trigger. "Imageand Interpretation:the Tyrannyof Representation?" Hodder. Native Americans and Archaeologists. American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. 2000.Washington: US Government Printing Office. Oxbow. M. 69 . Stoffle. Monograph 289.Place. M. Sydney: Allen and Unwin and Vancouver: University of British Columbia. 31-51. and McGuire. M. Pp. and Culture1(2): 169Tringham.AltaMiraPress. "TheRole of Memory in the Transmissionof Culture.Colonialist. and Jackson. N. Oxbow. 2000. Universityof New England Press.B. "TheCraftof Archaeology. The Phenomenology of Landscape." 204. AltaMiraPress. and D."World Archaeology 25. 1995. "EngenderedPlaces in Prehistory. Rowlands. & A. E. 805-13. Bancroft.. C. Monograph 289. eds. Pp 235-8. M. R. 2000. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. and Tilley. Shanks. E. Indigenous Archaeology. 1984. P. "Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist. (2001) AmericanIndians and the Nevada Test Site:A Model of Researchand Consultation. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Davidson. "On Reflexivity. eds. "LookingAfter the Land: the Barunga Rock Art Management Programme. Gender.J." M. C.. 36-37. K." in I. C. (ed). 141-51. Salzman. Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Willika. 2002.R .(eds)."AmericanAntiquity 61. Swidler.W.Stepping Stones to Common Ground. and G. London. "Visualisingand Vocalizing Archaeology Archival Record: Narrative as Image. B Halmo. "Re-InventingMalta's Neolithic Temples: Contemporary Interpretations and Agendas. L.1996. and R.Cambridge University Press. Berg. Manabaru. ReconstructingArchaeology. R. Smith. eds. K. Smith. in Swogger. Anyon. 1994. G. N Zedeno. C." in Hodder. Ruth. Lovell-Jones. 1994. I. Stevanovic.1987. Archaeologistsand Aborigines. Dongoske.IANHODDER Rountree. 75-88.pp.. 1993.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.