You are on page 1of 16

Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice Author(s): Ian Hodder Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 76, No.

1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 55-69 Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research Stable URL: 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 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 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

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.


Reflexivity Archaeological



lan Hodder StanfordUniversity

here have recently been a number of attempts to develop reflexivefield methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000, Bender et al 1997, Chadwick 1998, Dowdalland Parrish 2003, Faulkner 2002, Fotiadis1993, Gero 1996, Hodder1999a, 2000, Lucas2001, Politis2001). It might be argued that this turn to the reflexive in archaeology is ironic. Afterall, socio-culturalanthropology has recently seen a sustained critique of the concept of reflexive ethnographic method (Lynch2000, Salzman, 2002, Robertson2002). At the very least, the archaeologicalmove mightseem delayed,given what Robertson (2002) describes as a 20-year history of reflexivediscussion in anthropology and Marcus1986, Guptaand Ferguson1997) and given the indica(Clifford tions of even earlierbeginnings(Robertson 2002). I wish to argue at the startof this paper,however,that the development of reflexive field methods in archaeologyis neitherdelayed nor ironic.Ratherit results from specific issues and problemswhich are of a ratherdifferent nature from those found in ethnography. as a disciplinegrew in the 18th Archaeology and 19th centuriesas an integralpartof the projectsof nationalismand colonialism(Trigger 1984). Formany Europeancountries,for example, the archaestill has a self-evident relationshipwith the state. The protection ological past


of ancient monuments is a function of national governments,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. There is no one today, for example, who can speak for, or representthe interests,of the "Beakerpeople"of the 3rd millennium bc in Europe,and the same is true for countless other cultural groupings identified by archaeologists in the deep with 'other','inthat derivesfromthe fieldworker's interaction past.A reflexivity of in voices 'informants' is less to likely emerge archaeology. digenous' It is preciselywhen the past is claimed by present communities that a rehere, I mean initiallythe flexivityhas been forcedon archaeology.Byreflexivity recognition and incorporationof multiple stakeholder groups, and the selfcriticalawareness of one's archaeologicaltruth claims as historicaland contingent. Post-colonialprocesses, global interactions,and the massive rise in the destructionof archaeologicalsites and monumentsaroundthe world have togethercreatedan awarenessof divergentopinionsabout how the pastshould be managed. Whilethere have been parallelintellectualdebates in archaeology over the last 20 years (Shanksand Tilley1987), the main impulse towards reflexiveconcerns has been the increaseduse of the past in identityformation and land-rights claims(Layton and Lowenthal 1989; Gathercole 1989, Kohland Fawcett1995. Fora recent reviewsee Meskell2002a). Whilereburialissues in the UnitedStateshave led to some objectivistretrenchment, they have also led to greater consultation (in the Native American Graves Protection and Actand Section106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Repatriation Act)and to anti-objectivist calls for the full integrationof oral historiesand indigenous knowledge(eg Anyonet al 1996; Stoffleet al 2001, Watkins 2000). The materiality and monumentality of the archaeological past mean that arsites and monuments are often central to the construction of the chaeological national and colonial memory and counter-memory (eg Abu el-Haj 1998, Rowlands 1993; Meskell 2002b). The resulting conflicts over ownership, guardianshipand interpretationhave often been very public. The moves towardsreflexivity, as defined above, have proceeded in the increasingly ethically-conscioushalls of the academy,but also in local, nationaland international heritage management committees. Indeed, it has been the world of heritage managementthat has often been in the forefrontof the developmentof guidelines which lead towardscollaboration and multipleperspectives.Forexample, the Australianchapter of ICOMOS (the InternationalCouncilon Monuments and Sites)has producedthe Burra Charter which movesawayfromdefiningsites


and monuments in objectivistterms, and towardsthe descriptionof cultural ICOlandscapesas understoodand perceivedby indigenouspeoples (Australia MOS 1981). Specificexamples of collaborativework includethat at the Nevada test site (Stoffleet al 2001) and at the Barungarockart site in Australia(Smith et al 1995; see also Smithand Ward2000). 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, Tilley 1994, Tringham1994, Joyce 1994). These intellectual moves have been made in response to feminist and poststructuralistcritiques. But the new forms of writing so far attempted in archaeology have largelybeen syntheticaccounts,and have had little impacton the processof archaeological writingin the field (thoughsee Benderet al 1997). Indeed, until recentlyexcavationmethods have been largelyuntouched by the issue of reflexivity. This may be partlyfor reasonsalreadytouched upon, espeand the idea of "keeping a record" that is held ciallythe linkbetween excavation in guardianshipby the state. Stateand governmentinstitutionsin many countries are responsibefor makingsure that sufficientrecordsare kept of what is found, and that the materialfinds and monuments are properlycurated.This role is seen as separate from the interpretations that archaeologists "primary" are then allowed to make, usuallywith less state supervision.There has thus been little room or motivationfor the introductionof reflexivemethods in excavation methods themselves. Anotherreason for the ratherdifferentpositionof archaeological fieldwork in comparisonto ethnographyis that archaeologyoften uses a wide range of techniques adopted and adapted from the naturaland physicalsciences. Most about radiocarbon archaeologists spend much of theirtime in the fieldworrying dating, geophysicalprospectionsurveys,DNA sampling, Munsellcolour charts, Harris matrices,micromorphology, phytolithanalyses,and so on. Muchof their work is carriedout in on- or off-site laboratories devoted to archaeozoologyor and the like. Such work a is archaeobotany longwayfromobserverparticipation with local communities. It has the aura of laboratoryscience, and empirical Ofcourse, manyarchaeologists are awareof descriptionseems straightforward. the post-positivist of value-neutrality in such contexts,and they may have critique readworkssuch as those by Latour and Woolgar (1986)on the socialfactorsinvolvedin laboratory life. Butsuch deconstructions rarelyprovideclearguidelines about how a reflexivescientificarchaeologyshould proceed. Formost archaeology,there can be no easy importof the reflexivemethods used in ethnography. sits between the naturalsciencesand the soArchaeology


cial issues and conflictsthat make reflexivity so essential. It is necessaryto deof that respondto this parvelop specifically ways being reflexive archaeological ticularcontext.

Towards reflexivity in field archaeology As Lynch I do (2000)has noted, there are numerouswaysof definingreflexivity. not use the term here in ways that referto behavioralreflexivity, or to systems feedback. Neitherdo I equate reflexivity with the examinationof self. I simply have argued elsewhere (1999a; 1999b)that some reflexivewritingin archaeology vergeson the egocentricand self indulgent(cf.Robertson 2002). I acceptthe criticism(Salzman2002) that accounts of the self are not, in some privileged as alreadynoted, reflexivity as noted here way,outside biasand critique.Rather, refersto a recognitionof 'positionality'-thatone's positionor standpointaffect one's perspective(Rosaldo involvesrecognizing the 2000)-and thus reflexivity value of multiplepositions,and multivocality. Italso involvesa critiqueof one's own taken-for-granted assumptions, not as an egocentric display, but as an historicalenquiry into the foundationsof one's claims to knowledge. But within these general guidelines, what are the specific contours of rework of a colflexivityin field archaeology?Importantand ground-breaking laborativenature has now been widely pursued (Swidleret al 1997; Watkins 2000). I am concerned here with how these collaborativeand integrativeprojects have an impact on field methods. The followingpoints derivefrom several yearsof developing new methods at the excavationof the 9000 year old site of Catalhbyuk in central Turkey(Hodder2000), and from the published accounts of the new methods being developed in Britainat HeathrowTerminal 5 by Framework et al 2000), and from other projectsin Archaeology(Andrews the UnitedStates(eg LudlowCollective2001, Dowdalland Parrish 2003). One of the common themes in manyof these projectsis the emphasison inat the trowel'sedge. As the trowel moves over the ground it reterpretation sponds to changes in texture and colour, but always in a way informed by a particularperspective.The knowledgeof the archaeologistinfluencesthe way in which the site is dug. Thereare many classicexamples such as the inability of archaeologiststrained in northernEuropeto "see"mud brickwalling in the Near East.But more generally,if excavatorshave limited knowledge of what they are excavating(Isthis a human or animal bone? Isthis 4th or 3rd century Ifthey do not pottery?), they will be less able to excavateand interpret correctly. know that a yellow-greendeposit they have come across is actuallydung, they


may misinterpreta stable as a house, or fail to see a slight foundation trench for a wall used to pen animals (forother examples see Hodder1999a). If they do not look out beyond the individualcontextor unit they are excavating,they will not be able to deal with interpretative issuesthat involveother contextsand other sets of data. So one aim of a reflexiveapproachis to get the archaeologistsas they dig to as they can so that they can makea good judgement have as much information about what it is they are digging. Fromthis viewpoint, digging is not just a technique; it is a highlyskilledand difficultbalancingmany differenttypes of information(Shanksand McGuire 1996). 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 is betterinformedand more able to evaluatespecialist information.Anotherresponse is to enable a large number of scientific so that they can give specialiststo be presenton site, with on-site laboratories, adviceand feedbackas the excavationis progressing (unlikethe usualsituation in which specialistswork in labs elsewhere and are sent data to analyse). Severalof the projectsinvolvedin developingreflexive approachestryto balance the recording of data in the field with some formof narrative construction. Thismay involvesetting time, and funds, aside so that team memberscan discuss possible narrativeaccounts about the purpose of features, the functions and meanings of buildings,the links between separate layersin terms of depositional history,and so on. The importanceof developing interpretation at the trowel'sedge is that arinvolves destruction see Lucas2001). Excavating involves chaeology (though destroyingthe relationshipsbetween artifactsand monuments.Asa result,the moment of excavationis the best chance the archaeologist will ever have to exalternative about the data. This leads to a second theme plore interpretations in reflexivefield archaeology-the importance of multivocality. We have alseen that different can be in relation to each other in ready specialists brought orderintegrateinformationand to reachconsensual narrative accounts.Butto what extent can non-specialistsbe involved?Mostarchaeologicalsites attract multiple stakeholders,many of whom may be interested in the types of narrative that are being constructed about the site. There has been much involvement of local communities in the constructionof visitorcenters and site interpretation,and there have been reflexiveattempts to open the "sitetour" to groupsof differentbackground and Gable1997; Leoneet al 1987). (Handler But archaeologicalexcavationitself is a highlyskilledtask, especiallyif carried


out in the way describedabove. To what extent is it possible to involvevaried at the trowel'sedge? stakeholdergroups in the moment of interpretation allowsa fullerdegree of participation, Thetrainingof indigenousparticipants though usuallywithin the methods set by the academy.When indigenous ar2000) are fullytrainedwithinthe academy,it might be archaeologists(Watkins gued that their potentialfor expressingalternativevoices is compromised.But in many collaborativeexamples, close integration has occurred between archaeologists and Native Americans(Swidleret al 1997). This has sometimes led to a blurredgenre somewhere between science and ritual.Inexcavationsin the Andes,foreignarchaeologists are often obligedto hold ritualsto ensurethe success of the projector to placatethe spiritsor gods on the recoveryof a human or llama burial. In recent Caltrans archaeologicalprojects in California, NativeAmericansand archaeologistshave worked side by side in developing ways of interactingwith Native Americanpasts (Dowdalland Parrish2003). The non-NativeAmericanarchaeologistshave agreed to follow the rules specified by tribal rules and taboos. Forexample, women and partnersof women who are menstruating in the excavations or laboratory do not participate analysis. Thereare other examplesof how traditionalnative knowledgehas been integrated in archaeologicalprojectson tribal lands. One such example is the LeechLakeReservationin Minnesota.NativeAmericansare hired and trained to carryout the workand their traditionalbeliefs are taken into consideration both during planningand fieldwork(Kluthand Munnell1997). ForAustralia, many examples are providedby Smithand Ward(2000).Forother examples of blurredgenres see Swogger(2000)and Leibhammer (2000). But it is not possiblefor largenumbersof unskilledpeople to be involvedin excavationitself.One partialsolution is to recordand disseminateinformation in such a way that largerand more dispersedcommunitiescan be involved.At Catalhoyuk diarywritinghas been used (see below)to encouragea more open account of the interpretation process.These musingsare placed on the project website.Theyallow a widerdebate and dialogueabout the interpretation of the site, especiallywhen backedup with an on-linedatabase( in using the internetto involve more communities in the process Experiments of interpretationhave been at least partiallysuccessful.Forexample, McDavid (1997; 2000) has used a website about the LeviJordanPlantationin Brazoria, Texas,to mediate relations between archaeologists, local community members, and descendents of both slaves and slave owners. 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


ence), in practiceit becomes importantto open up the process of enquiryso that other groupsat a laterdate can re-interpret the evidence.Within objectivist frameworksin archaeologyit was thought sufficientto providedata recordsso that later generations could reconsiderthe conclusionsthat had been drawn. But in practicemany data archives,which are often huge and highlycodified, are difficultto use because it is difficultto reconstruct the thinkingthat lay behind the excavationand the selection of data. It is difficultto reconstruct what questions were being asked. The whole social side of the constructionof data is not formallyrecordedand so it is difficultto reconstruct the social relations of productionof past archaeologicalknowledge. Thus, in order to open the archaeological process to wider scrutiny,it is necessary for reflexiveapproaches to develop methods for documentingthe documentation process.Thereare numerousways in which the recordscan be embedded withinan outer layerof documentation.Forexample,databasesand archives can be tagged with a historythat describes changes made through time. Diariescan be writtenwhich describethe thought processesof the excavators and laboratoryanalysts. Traditionallymuch archaeological recording was done in the form of diaries. Increasedcodificationoften led archaeological teams to dispense with such diaries and to use solely codified forms. But there remainsa need for diarywriting,and this can easily be achieved by typing straightinto a computer.Inthe reflexiveCitytunnel-project (Berggren 2001) in Sweden, the archaeologists'thoughts are documented in diaries,with possibilitiesfor commentingon theircolleagues'diaryentries.Diaryentriesthus become partof the database and can be searchedfor key words. Anotherway of documentingthe documentationis to use digitalvideo. This allows visual information,sound and words to be used to providea recordof the excavationand post-excavation allows process.Sucha rangeof information the excavationprocessto be embedded within a greaterdepth and richnessof context than is possible in texts and picturesand drawingsalone. The excavators can be shown explainingwhat they are findingand discussingtheir interpretationsas they develop them. Theycan point out what they havefound;and on-site editing allows insets and close-ups. The video clips can be added to the site database and can be recoveredusing key words. Inthis way it is possible for later archaeologiststo evaluate more clearlythe claims that are made can make relationshipsbetween by the excavators.The later re-interpretation what was found and what the excavatorswere preoccupiedwith at the time. The video clips may show data that were not seen at the time or which can be reinterpretedwith hindsight. They may show things that were missed, and


they may explainwhy the site came to have the meaning it did for the excavators (Brill2000, Emele2000, Stevanovic2000). Thisfragmentingand multiplyingof the archiveallows authorshipto be reand considered.Evenif an excavationis performedby a groupof archaeologists, the interpretationsthat make up the archive are the result of all the team members,the publishedreportis often writtenby one or two, typicallythe site manager and perhaps an assistant.The many participantsare mentioned by name in the report, but the personal contributionsare not identifiable. But to an increasingdegree write directaccounts when the individualparticipants of their interpretations,there is the potential for including a multiplicityof voices in publicationsand other output. Forexample, at (atalhoyuk the publicationsof the excavatedfeatureswill involvedirectquotes from the diaryenand referencesto and quotes fromvideos.Theywill also tries of the excavators, includedirectquotes fromthe localcommunitywhichwas invitedto participate in the post-excavationinterpretation,as well as from the various specialists The end resultis a patchthat had lookedat data from a particular perspective. workof perspectivesand points of view which can be identifiedas to authors. close parallelsbetweenthese variousstrandsof a reWhilethere are certainly there are also differflexivefield methodologyin archaeologyand ethnography, Inarchaeology, ences, in responseto the differentcontextsof the two disciplines. there has been less emphasison autobiography, personalpositioning,dialogue and writing.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,includingin the laboratory. outerlayerof documentation aroundthe documentation processitselfso that the vast amountsof codifieddata producedby excavations can be critically situated withinthe social relationsof productionof archaeological knowledge.

Working with "the locals" The archaeological equivalentof the 'nativeinformant'might be thought to be the mute sherd, but today throughoutthe world, archaeologistswork closely with those communitiesthat claim some form of culturalaffiliationwith particulararchaeologicalremains.Indeed archaeologymight now be defined not as the studyof the materialremainsof the past, but as a particular mode of enquiry into the relationshipbetween people and their pasts. As a result, one of the main aims of much collaborativeand reflexivearchaeologyis to involvelocalpeople in some way,and thistendencyhas been am62


the localvoice. ply shown above. The aim has been to listento and incorporate has been involved in local institutions and always Archaeology constructing memories-as in local museums,workingwith and employinglocal labour,setPlanswith local participation etc. Butthis emphasison ting up Site Management and definitionof the local is nowadaysoften at least partially constructedwithin a global constructionof the local as when UNESCO, WorldBank,or ICOMOS, the Gettydefine how sites should be conservedand who should be consulted. Therehas been a massiveincreasein international charters forthe management of archaeologicalsites over recent decades, and many of these have turned their attentionto the processesof collaboration with localcommunitiesaround sites and monuments. Forexample, the GeneralAssemblyof ICOMOS in 1987 for the Conservation of Historic Townsand UrbanAreas adopted the Charter which includes guidelines for the participationof residents. The Charterfor SustainableTourismthat emerged from the WorldConferenceon Sustainable Tourism in 1995 stated that tourismmust be 'ethically and sociallyequitablefor local communities'.The Corinth on Site Management Workshop Archaeological in May2000, organizedby the GettyConservation Institute,refersto the importance of collaboration with local community members. Indeed, the Getty ConservationInstitute has modified and developed the planning framework outlinedin the Burra Charter et al 2000. See also de la Torre (Avrami 1997),which as noted above is particularly sensitiveto local culturalinterests. So at one level, the local is defined so that it can be better managed by global institutions.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 unsullied (Meskell1995; Conkeyand Tringham1996). Forexample, Rountree(2002) has describedthe ways in which Goddessgroupstravelto the Neolithictemples of Maltain order to create a vision of traditionallifeways.At (atalhoyuk such groups have tried to set up and 'rejuvenate' localcraftsby women. In northernCalifornia NewAge have been involved in 'traditional' dance lodgesthat were no groups preserving as has been widelyrecognized longerin use (Dowdall perscom). Moregenerally, (eg Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998), it is often in the interestsof global marketsand international tourismto enlistarchaeologyin the construction of 'preserved' traditions and authentic destinations. So archaeologyis fullycomplicitin the construction of the local-both imagined and institutional Castaneda dis(cf 1996). Butthere has been little reflexive cussionof this processin archaeology, exceptat the levelof wantingto incorporate the localvoice. Butwhat that localvoice is has remainedlargelyuntheorised and


unexaminedin archaeology(d Appadurai 1996). Whilethe guidelinesof internationalconservation the and agenciesspecify importanceof local participation stakeholderinvolvement, there is rarely a full accountof how to evaluateand involve different forms of 'local' interest and how to reach a thorough undereffectsof heritagemanagement.Inmy view this has partly standingof long-term been because there has been insufficientinvolvementof ethnographersand otherspecialists themselvesin archaeological and heritagemanagementprojects. The separationof the disciplineshas meant a lackof contactand a lackof problematisationabout what it is that constitutes'the local'(cf Guptaand Ferguson are to be reflexive and involvethe localvoice, they need 1997). Ifarchaeologists to workmore closelywith ethnographers and othersin orderto find out who exactly'the locals'are, how fluidand globalthey are,and what type of relationship with archaeologyand heritagewould best servetheir interests. At (atalh6yuk, the archaeological project includes both ethnoarchaeologists (suchas NurcanYalman,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, and on the social, cultural and economic impact of the projecton the nearbyvillages and towns. Bartuhas also helped the projectmake long-terminvestmentsin the local village, such as in the provisionof a library, the buildingof a water reservoir and distribution sysand the construction of a school. She has undertakennumerous tem, regional outreach programs.But she has also guided the projectin understandingthe complex ways in which the nearbyvillage is constructedas 'local'within globalizing processes of appropriation.For example, the craft center mentioned women'sgroup,partlyfundabove, set up in the localvillageby an international ed by UNESCO but also linkedto the Goddessmovement, was rejected by the village.The definitionand conception of 'the local'that was being imposed by outside groupswas not acceptableto the ways in which the villagerssaw themselves. It threatened existingpower and gender relations.The projectalso has complex relationswith the fundamentalistor nationalist politicianswho are popularin the area. Insuch contexts it is not possiblefor archaeologistsblithely to 'workwith the locals'.Rather, attempts need to be made to reacha fuller of how neighbouring communitiessee themselves in relationto understanding the intersectionsbetween the global and local. Involvingethnographers will hopefully assist archaeologists to shy away from assumingan equation between 'local'and fixed or indigenous.A reflexive


constructed.The loapproachto the local involvesseeing how it is historically to make sense cal may not be an 'authentic'voice that can be used uncritically of the past in that locality(Fabian1983).The ethnographythat is carriedout in relationto archaeologicallocales needs to be multi-sited(Marcus 1995) and enwith It needs the intersections stakeholders. to examine between multiple gage local and global economies and to find ways of engendering long-termsuswith tainable change through use of the materialityof the past, in partnership varied local interests.Forexample, many archaeologicalprojectsare of such a size that they create a considerableamount of local employment (excavators, guards,attendantsand so on). Butwhen the projectends this employmentopedportunitymay disappearunless the projecthas invested in infrastructure, ucation or training. Iwould be the firstto argue that archaeologistsshould listento and engage with local communities that are directlyaffected by and involved in archaeologicalsites. In many cases, the local communitiesare historically marginalized and in need of support. They are often disempowered and neglected. A remarkableexample of an attempt to counteractthis disempowerment is provided by the District 6 projectin CapeTown,where a local communityis being reconstitutedthrough an archaeologicaland museum project(Hall2000). 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. For some of these, in some circumstances,the presenceof an archaeological projectmightbest be used to create links to global economies and relationships(through language training, craft industries,tourism, and training in heritage management etc). Rather than archaeologybeing used to constructthe local as the flip side of the global (ie as traditional,authentic, and small-scalebut also as exploited and constructedby globalizinginterests), archaeological projectscan lead to changeand transformationof the local in a varietyof differentways.

Conclusion Wehave seen some similarities and differencesbetween reflexive field methods as they are being pursued in archaeology and ethnography.In archaeology there is less emphasison autobiography, and writing, dialogue,self-positioning, although these are all relevantto archaeologyand have been pursued. In archaeology the emphasis is more on finding ways in which the collection of materialdata can be opened up to interpretation as it happens (breaking down


and between description the distinctionsbetween discoveryand interpretation, and interpretation), allowinga greaterdiversityof perspectivesor 'positions'in the interpretiveand analyticalprocess,and allowingextra layersof documentation so that others can re-evaluateconclusionsthat have been made. derivefrom movesthat have been made in archaeology Manyof the reflexive localvoices,but I havearguedin this paper ethicalconcernsabout incorporating our assumptions is needed in problematising that a furtherlevel of reflexivity for archaeological about 'the local'.Atthe very least, it seems important projects socialscientists,oral historians, ties with ethnographers, to adopt closerworking who can assistin evaluating culturaleconomistsand a rangeof other specialists the long-termimpactof a projecton the full rangeof stakeholdercommunities. which manyof us divideswithinanthropology But Isuspectthat the disciplinary a product of the emergenceof processual decry,and whichare in myview largely limit the currentpotentialforfull-scale and its positivist perspective, archaeology the currentNSF collaboration.Despiterecent reworkings, guidelinesand expecin archaeological forworkwith localcommunities tationsregarding projprovision ects are inadequate. Grantproposals need make little reference to how an will have long-term communityimpact.Thereis littleto reproject archaeological to collaborate with stakeholdergroupsin terms of quire archaeological projects setting researchagendas. (Inthis way, researchfunding bodies are well behind and heritageinstitutions that have been some of the international conservation referred to in this paper.) Thereis littleto encouragecloserties withethnographers in developingin-depthunderstanding of 'the local'as constructedthroughmaterialsand monumentsof the past.

Abu el-Haj, N. 1998. "TranslatingTruths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the Remaking of Past and Present in Contemporary Jerusalem,"inAmerican Ethnologist25, 166-88. Andrews, G., J. Barrett & J. Lewis. 2000. "Interpretation Not Record: the Practice of Archaeology,"Antiquity Vol 74. Pp 525-530. Anyon, R., Ferguson,T.J.,Jackson, L.and Lane, L.1996. "NativeAmerican OralTraditionsand Archaeology."Societyfor AmericanArchaeology Bulletin 14:2, 14-16. Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernityat Large. Minnesota Australia ICOMOS. 1981. The Australia ICOMOS Charterfor the Conservation of Places of CulturalSignificance (BurraCharter).Canberra,Australia. Avrami, E., Demas, M., Mason, R., Palumbo, G., Teutonico, J M., and de la Torre, M. 2000. A Methodological Approach for Conservation Planning. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.



Stone Worlds;Alternative Narratives; Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley,C. 1997. "Leskernick: Nested Landscapes."Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety 63, 147-78. Berggren, A. 2001. "Swedish Archaeology in Perspective and the Possibility of Reflexivity." CurrentSwedish Archaeology 9, 9-23. Brill, D. 2000. "Video-Recordingas Part of the CriticalArchaeological Process," In Hodder, I (ed) Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology: the Example at Catalhoyuk.McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp 229-234. Castaieda, Quetzil. 1996. In the Museum of Maya Culture:TouringChichenItzd. Universityof Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Chadwick,A. 1998. "Archaeologyat the Edge of Chaos: FurtherToward Reflexive Excavation Methodologies." Assemblage (online journal) 3. 3/3chad.htm. Clifford,J. and Marcus,G. (eds). 1986. WritingCulture:the Poetics of Ethnography.University of California Press, Berkeley. Conkey, M. and Tringham, R. 1996. "Archaeologyand The Goddess: Exploringthe Contours of Feminist Archaeology," In A Stewart and D Stanton (eds.) Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinkingthe Disciplines. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. De la Torre, M. (ed). 1997. The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Dowdall, K. & Parrish, 0. 2003. "ACollaborative Approach to Archaeology on the Sonoma Coast, California." ournal of Social Archaeology. Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memories. London: Routledge. Emele, M.2000. "Virtual Spaces, Atomic Pig-bones and Miscellaneous Goddesses,"In Hodder, I (ed) TowardsReflexiveMethods in Archaeology: the Example at (atalhoyuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp 219-228. Fabian, J. 1983. Timeand the Other:How AnthropologyMakesits Object.Columbia University Press. Faulkner, N. 2002. "TheSedgeford Project, Norfolk:An Experiment in Popular Participation and Dialectical Method." Archaeology International 5, 16-20 (Institute of Archaeology, University College, London). Fotiadis, M. 1993. "Regions of the Imagination: Archaeologists, Local People, and the Archaeological Record in Fieldwork,Greece."journal or EuropeanArchaeology 1, 151-70. Gathercole, P and Lowenthal, D. 1989. The Politics of the Past. Unwin Hyman, London. Gero,J. 1996. "ArchaeologicalPractice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data,"In Wright, R. (ed). Genderand Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 25180. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (eds). 1997. AnthropologicalLocations:Boundaries and Groundsof a Field Science. University of California Press, Berkeley. Colonial Transcripts in South Africaand the Hall, M. 2000. Archaeologyand the ModernWorld: Chesapeake. Routledge, London Handler, R. and Gable, E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.Duke University Press, Durham NC. Hodder, I. 1999a. TheArchaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.



. 1999b. "British Prehistory: Some Thoughts Looking In." Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 9:376-380. . (ed). 2000. Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology:the Example at (atalhoyuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Joyce, R.A. 1994. "DorothyHughes Popenoe: Eve in an Archaeological Garden,"in Claassen, C .(ed). Women in Archaeology pp. 51-66. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums and Heritage. University of California Press. Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds). 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology Cambridge University Press. Kluth, R. & K. Munnell. 1997. "The Integration of Tradition and Scientific Knowledge on the Leech Lake Reservation," in Native Americans and Archaeologists. Stepping Stones to Common Ground. N. Swidler, K. Dongoske, R. Anyon & A. Downer. (eds). AltaMiraPress. Life:the Construction of ScientificFacts.Princeton Latour,B. and Woolgar,S. 1986. Laboratory University Press. Layton, R.1989. Conflictin the Archaeologyof LivingTraditions. Unwin Hyman, London. Leibhammer, N. 2000. "RenderingRealities,"in Hodder, I. (ed). TowardsReflexiveMethodsin Archaeology: the Example at Catalh6yuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp 129-42. Leone, M., Potter, P. B. and Shackel, P. 1987. "Toward a Critical Archaeology." Current Anthropology28, 251-82. Lucas,G. 2001. CriticalApproachesto Fieldwork.Contemporaryand HistoricalArchaeological Practice. Routledge. Ludlow Collective. 2001. "Archaeology of the Colorado Coal Field War 1913-1914," in V. Buchli and G. Lucas. (eds). Archaeologies of the ContemporaryPast. Routledge. Lynch, M. 2000. "Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge."Theory,Cultureand Society 17(3), 26-54. McDavid, C. 1997. "Descendents, Decisions, and Power: the Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the LeviJordan Plantation." HistoricalArchaeology31, 114-31. . 2000. "Archaeology as Cultural Critique: Pragmatism and the Archaeology of a Southern United States Plantation, in Holtorf, C. and Karlsson, H. (eds). Philosophy and ArchaeologicalPractice: Perspectivesfor the 21st Century.Bricoleur,Goteborg. Pp 221-39. Marcus, G. 1995. "Ethnography in/of the World Systems: the Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography."Annual Reviewof Anthropology24, 95-117. Meskell, L. 1995. "Goddesses, Gimbutas and New Age Archaeology."Antiquity 69, 74-86. .2002a. "The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology."Annual Reviewof Anthropology31, 279-301. .2002b. "Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology." Anthropological Quarterly75(3) 557-574. Politis, G. 2001. "On Archaeological Praxis, Gender Bias and Indigenous Peoples in South America."Journal of Social Archaeology 1, 90-107. Robertson, J. 2002. "ReflexivityRedux: A Pithy Polemic on 'Positionality'."Anthropological Quarterly75(4) 785-792. Rosaldo, R. 2000.[1989]. "Griefand A Headhunter's Rage," in McGee, R.J. and Warms, R. L. (eds). AnthropologicalTheory (2nd edition). Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA.pp 521-35. 68


Rountree, K. 2002. "Re-InventingMalta's Neolithic Temples: Contemporary Interpretations and Agendas." Historyand Anthropology 13, 31-51. Rowlands, M. 1993. "TheRole of Memory in the Transmissionof Culture."World Archaeology 25, 141-51. AmericanAnthropologist 104(3), 805-13. Salzman, P C. 2002. "On Reflexivity." M. R and .1996. "The Craftof Archaeology."AmericanAntiquity 61, 75-88. Shanks, McGuire, Shanks, M. and Tilley, C .1987. ReconstructingArchaeology.Cambridge University Press. Smith, C. E., Willika, L., Manabaru, P. and Jackson, G. 1995. "LookingAfter the Land: the Barunga Rock Art Management Programme," in I. Davidson, C. Lovell-Jones. and R. Bancroft.(eds). Archaeologistsand Aborigines.pp. 36-37. Universityof New England Press. Smith, C. E. and G. K. Ward. eds. 2000. Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Sydney: Allen and Unwin and Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Stevanovic, M. 2000. "Visualisingand Vocalizing Archaeology Archival Record: Narrative as Image," in Hodder, I. (ed). Towards reflexive Methods in Archaeology: the Example at ?atalhoyuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp 235-8. Stoffle, R.W, M. N Zedeno, and D. B Halmo, eds. (2001) AmericanIndians and the Nevada Test Site:A Model of Researchand Consultation.Washington: US Government Printing Office. Swidler, N., K. Dongoske, R. Anyon. & A. Downer. eds. 1997. Native Americans and Archaeologists.Stepping Stones to Common Ground.AltaMiraPress. in Hodder,I (ed) Swogger,J.2000. "Imageand Interpretation:the Tyrannyof Representation?" TowardsReflexiveMethodsin Archaeology:the Exampleat (atalhoyuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp. Tilley, C. 1994. The Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg, London. Man 19, 355Trigger,B. 1984. "Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist,Colonialist,Imperialist." 70. Gender,Place, and Culture1(2): 169Tringham, Ruth. 1994. "EngenderedPlaces in Prehistory." 204. Watkins, J. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology. American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. AltaMiraPress.