116957866-Archaeological-Reflexivity-and-the-Local-Voice-–-Ian-Hodder

8/13/2019 116957866-Archaeological-Reflexivity-and-the-Local-Voice-–-Ian-Hodder

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/116957866-archaeological-reflexivity-and-the-local-voice-ian-hodder 1/16

Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" VoiceAuthor(s): Ian HodderSource: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 55-69Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic ResearchStable 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 youmay 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 [email protected].

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3318361?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3318361?origin=JSTOR-pdf



SOCIALTHOUGHTAND COMMENTARY

rchaeologicaleflexivityn d t h L o c a l o i c e

lan Hodder

StanfordUniversity

here have recentlybeen a number of attemptsto develop reflexive ield

methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000, Bender et al 1997,

Chadwick 998, Dowdalland Parrish 003, Faulkner 002, Fotiadis1993, Gero

1996, Hodder1999a, 2000, Lucas2001, Politis2001). Itmightbe arguedthat

this turn to the reflexivein archaeologyis ironic.Afterall, socio-culturalan-

thropologyhas recentlyseen a sustainedcritiqueof the concept of reflexive

ethnographicmethod (Lynch2000, Salzman,2002, Robertson2002). At the

veryleast,the archaeologicalmove mightseem delayed, givenwhat Robertson

(2002) describesas a 20-year historyof reflexivediscussion in anthropology

(Cliffordnd Marcus1986,

Guptaand

Ferguson1997)and

giventhe indica-

tions of even earlierbeginnings(Robertson 002).

Iwish to argueat the startof this paper,however, hat the developmentof

reflexive ield methodsinarchaeologys neitherdelayednorironic.Rathert re-

sultsfromspecificissues and problemswhich are of a ratherdifferentnature

fromthose found in ethnography.Archaeology s a disciplinegrewinthe 18th

and 19th centuriesas an integralpartof the projectsof nationalismand colo-

nialism(Trigger 984).Formany European ountries, orexample,

the archae-

ological paststill has a self-evidentrelationshipwith the state. The protection

55



ARCHAEOLOGYEFLEXIVITYND THE LOCAL OICE

of ancient monuments is a functionof nationalgovernments,howevermuch

local and diversevoicesmight

be raisedagainst

them.

Acloselyrelated ssue isthatthe distantpastin manypartsof the worldmay

have no presentcommunitieswhich can stake a direct claimon 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 truefor

countless other culturalgroupings identified by archaeologists in the deep

past.Areflexivityhat derives rom the fieldworker'snteractionwith'other', in-

digenous'voicesof 'informants' s less

likelyo

emergein

archaeology.It is preciselywhen the past is claimed by presentcommunities that a re-

flexivityhas been forced on archaeology.By reflexivity ere,Imean initiallyhe

recognitionand incorporationof multiple stakeholdergroups,and the self-

criticalawareness of one's archaeological ruth claims as historicaland con-

tingent. Post-colonialprocesses,global interactions,and the massive rise in

the destructionof archaeological ites and monuments aroundthe world have

togethercreatedan awarenessof divergentopinionsabout howthe pastshouldbe managed.While here have been parallel ntellectualdebates in archaeol-

ogy overthe last 20 years(Shanksand Tilley1987),the main impulsetowards

reflexiveconcerns has been the increaseduse of the pastin identity ormation

and land-rights laims(Layton 989;Gathercole nd Lowenthal 989, Kohland

Fawcett1995. Fora recentreviewsee Meskell2002a).Whilereburial ssues in

the UnitedStateshave led to some objectivistretrenchment,hey have also led

to greater consultation (in the Native American Graves Protection andRepatriationActand Section 106 of the NationalHistoricPreservationAct)and

to anti-objectivist alls for the full integrationof oral historiesand indigenous

knowledge (eg Anyonet al 1996;Stoffleet al 2001, Watkins 000).

Themateriality nd monumentality f the archaeologicalpastmean that ar-

chaeologicalsites and monuments are often centralto the constructionof the

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 to-

wardsreflexivity, s definedabove, haveproceededinthe increasingly thical-

ly-conscioushalls of the academy,butalso in local,national and international

heritagemanagementcommittees. Indeed, it has been the worldof heritage

management hat has often been in the forefrontof the developmentof guide-

lineswhich leadtowardscollaboration nd multipleperspectives.Forexample,

the Australianchapterof ICOMOSthe InternationalCouncilon Monumentsand Sites)hasproduced he BurraCharterwhich movesawayfromdefining ites

56



IAN HODDER

and monuments in objectivist erms, and towardsthe descriptionof cultural

landscapesas understoodand

perceivedby indigenouspeoples

(AustraliaCO-

MOS 981).Specificexamplesof collaborativework include that at the Nevada

test site (Stoffleet al 2001) and at the Barungarockart site in Australia Smith

et al 1995; see also Smithand Ward2000).

This s not to denythe importanceof the moves that have been made in ar-

chaeologytowards new forms of writing hat seek to dissolvea dependenceof

neutralobjectivity(Edmonds1999, Tilley1994, Tringham1994, Joyce 1994).

These intellectualmoves have been made inresponse

to feministand post-

structuralistcritiques.But the new forms of writingso far attempted in ar-

chaeologyhave largelybeen syntheticaccounts,and have had little impacton

the processof archaeologicalwriting n the field(thoughsee Benderet al 1997).

Indeed,untilrecentlyexcavationmethodshavebeen largelyuntouchedbythe

issueof reflexivity. hismaybe partly orreasonsalready ouched upon, espe-

cially he linkbetween excavation nd the idea of keeping record hat is held

in guardianshipbythe state. Stateand government nstitutions n manycoun-tries are responsibefor makingsure that sufficient recordsare keptof what is

found, and that the material inds and monumentsare properlycurated.This

primary ole is seen as separatefromthe interpretationshat archaeologists

are then allowed to make, usuallywith less state supervision.Therehas thus

been little roomor motivation orthe introductionof reflexivemethods in ex-

cavationmethodsthemselves.

Anotherreason forthe ratherdifferentpositionof archaeologicalieldworkin comparison o ethnography s that archaeologyoften uses a wide rangeof

techniquesadoptedand adaptedfromthe naturaland physical ciences. Most

archaeologistspendmuch of theirtime inthe fieldworrying bout radiocarbon

dating,geophysicalprospection urveys,DNA ampling,Munsellcolourcharts,

Harrismatrices,micromorphology,hytolithanalyses,and so on. Muchof their

work is carriedout in on- or off-sitelaboratoriesdevoted to archaeozoologyor

archaeobotany nd the like.Suchwork sa long wayfromobserverparticipationwith local communities. It has the aura of laboratory cience, and empirical

description eems straightforward. fcourse,manyarchaeologists reaware of

the post-positivistritiqueof value-neutralitynsuchcontexts,andtheymayhave

readworkssuchas those byLatour nd Woolgar1986)on the social factors n-

volvedin laboratoryife.Butsuchdeconstructionsarelyprovide learguidelinesabout how a reflexive cientificarchaeology hould proceed.

Formostarchaeology,herecan be no easy importof the reflexivemethodsused in ethnography.Archaeologyitsbetweenthe natural ciences andthe so-

57



ARCHAEOLOGY EFLEXIVITYND THE LOCAL OICE

cial issues and conflicts hat makereflexivityo essential. It is necessary o de-

velopspecifically rchaeologicalwaysof

beingreflexive hat

respondo this

par-ticularcontext.

Towards reflexivity in field archaeology

AsLynch2000)has noted,thereare numerouswaysof defining reflexivity.do

not use the term here in waysthat refer o behavioralreflexivity, r to systems

feedback. Neitherdo

Iequate reflexivity implywiththe examinationof self. I

havearguedelsewhere(1999a;1999b)that some reflexivewriting n archaeol-

ogyvergeson the egocentricand self indulgent cf.Robertson 002).Iacceptthe

criticism Salzman2002) that accounts of the self are not, in some privileged

way,outside bias and critique.Rather, s alreadynoted,reflexivitys noted here

refers o a recognitionof 'positionality'-thatone'spositionorstandpointaffect

one's perspective Rosaldo2000)-and thus reflexivitynvolvesrecognizinghe

value of multiplepositions,and multivocality.talso involvesa critiqueof one'sown taken-for-granted ssumptions, not as an egocentric display,but as an

historicalenquiryinto the foundationsof one's claims to knowledge.

Butwithin these general guidelines,what are the specificcontoursof re-

flexivity n field archaeology?Importantand ground-breakingworkof a col-

laborativenaturehas now been widely pursued(Swidler t al 1997; Watkins

2000). Iam concernedherewith how these collaborativeand integrativeproj-

ects have an impacton field methods.Thefollowing pointsderivefromsever-al yearsof developingnew methods at the excavationof the 9000 yearold site

of Catalhbyukn centralTurkey Hodder2000), and from the publishedac-

counts of the new methods being developed in Britainat HeathrowTerminal

5 by FrameworkArchaeology Andrews t al 2000),and fromother projects n

the UnitedStates(eg LudlowCollective2001, Dowdalland Parrish 003).One of the common themes in manyof these projects sthe emphasison in-

terpretationat the trowel'sedge. As the trowel moves over the ground it re-sponds to changes in textureand colour,but always in a way informedby a

particularperspective.Theknowledgeof the archaeologist nfluencesthe wayin which the site is dug. Thereare manyclassicexamplessuch as the inabilityof archaeologists rainedin northernEurope o see mud brickwallinginthe

NearEast.Butmore generally, f excavatorshave limited knowledgeof what

they areexcavating Is hisa humanor animal bone?Isthis 4th or 3rdcentury

pottery?),heywillbe lessable to excavateand interpret orrectly.ftheydo notknowthata yellow-greendeposit they have come acrossisactuallydung, they

58



IAN HODDER

may misinterpreta stable as a house, or fail to see a slightfoundationtrench

fora wall used topen

animals(for

otherexamples

see Hodder1999a).

Iftheydo not look out beyondthe individual ontext or unitthey areexcavating, hey

willnot be able to deal withinterpretativessuesthat involveother contextsand

othersets of data.

So one aim of a reflexiveapproach s to get the archaeologistsas they digto

have as much information s theycan so thattheycan makea goodjudgement

about what it is they are digging. Fromthis viewpoint, diggingis not just a

technique;it is a

highlyskilled and difficult

balancingmanydifferent

ypes ofinformation(Shanksand McGuire 996). But how is it possible to empower

the excavatorwith all the informationthat is needed? One solution is long-

term-to upgrade(interms of educationand paylevels) he task of excavation

so that the fieldarchaeologists better nformedand more able to evaluatespe-

cialistinformation.Anotherresponseis to enable a largenumberof scientific

specialists o be presenton site, withon-site laboratories, o that they cangive

advice and feedbackas the excavation s progressingunlike he usual situationin whichspecialistsworkin labs elsewhereand are sent data to analyse).

Severalof the projectsnvolved ndevelopingreflexive pproaches ryto bal-

ancethe recording f datainthe field with some formof narrative onstruction.

Thismayinvolvesettingtime, and funds,aside so that team members can dis-

cuss possiblenarrativeaccounts about the purposeof features,the functions

and meaningsof buildings, he linksbetween separate layersin terms of de-

positional history,and so on.Theimportanceof developinginterpretation t the trowel'sedge isthat ar-

chaeology involvesdestruction(thoughsee Lucas2001). Excavatingnvolves

destroying he relationshipsbetweenartifactsand monuments.Asa result, he

moment of excavation s the bestchancethe archaeologistwilleverhave to ex-

plorealternative nterpretations bout the data. Thisleads to a second theme

in reflexivefield archaeology-the importanceof multivocality.We have al-

readyseen that differentspecialistscan be brought n relation o each other inorderintegrate nformationand to reachconsensualnarrative ccounts. Butto

what extent can non-specialistsbe involved?Mostarchaeologicalsites attract

multiplestakeholders,manyof whom may be interestedin the types of nar-

rativethat are being constructed about the site. There has been much in-

volvement of localcommunities in the constructionof visitorcentersand site

interpretation,and there have been reflexiveattemptsto open the sitetour

to groupsof differentbackgroundHandler nd Gable1997; Leoneet al 1987).Butarchaeologicalexcavation tself is a highlyskilledtask,especiallyif carried

59




out in the waydescribedabove.To what extent is it possibleto involve varied

stakeholdergroups

in the moment ofinterpretation

t the trowel'sedge?

Thetrainingof indigenousparticipantsllowsa fullerdegreeof participation,

though usuallywithin the methods set bythe academy.Whenindigenousar-

chaeologists Watkins000)arefullytrainedwithinthe academy, t mightbe ar-

gued that theirpotentialforexpressingalternativevoices iscompromised.But

in many collaborativeexamples, close integrationhas occurred between ar-

chaeologistsand Native Americans Swidleret al 1997). This has sometimes

ledto a blurredgenresomewhere betweenscience and ritual.Inexcavationsnthe Andes, oreignarchaeologists reoften obligedto hold rituals o ensure the

success of the projectorto placatethe spiritsor gods on the recoveryof a hu-

man or llama burial.In recent Caltransarchaeologicalprojectsin California,

Native Americansand archaeologistshave workedside by side in developing

ways of interactingwith Native Americanpasts (Dowdalland Parrish2003).

The non-NativeAmericanarchaeologistshaveagreedto followthe rulesspec-

ified bytribal rules and taboos. Forexample,women and partnersof womenwho aremenstruating o not participatenthe excavations r laboratory naly-

sis. Thereare otherexamplesof howtraditionalnativeknowledgehas been in-

tegrated in archaeologicalprojectson tribal lands. One such example is the

Leech LakeReservationn Minnesota.NativeAmericansare hired and trained

to carryout the workand theirtraditionalbeliefsare taken into consideration

both duringplanningand fieldwork Kluthand Munnell1997). ForAustralia,

many examplesare providedbySmithand Ward 2000).Forotherexamplesofblurredgenressee Swogger 2000)and Leibhammer2000).

But it is not possibleforlargenumbersof unskilledpeopleto be involved n

excavation tself.Onepartial olutionis to recordand disseminate information

in such a waythat largerand moredispersedcommunitiescan be involved.At

Catalhoyuk iarywritinghas been used (see below)to encouragea moreopen

account of the interpretationprocess.Thesemusingsare placedon the project

website.Theyallow a widerdebateand dialogueabout the interpretationf thesite,especiallywhen backedupwith an on-linedatabase www.catalhoyuk.com).

Experimentsn usingthe internetto involvemorecommunities in the process

of interpretationhave been at leastpartially uccessful.Forexample,McDavid

(1997; 2000) has used a website about the LeviJordanPlantation n Brazoria,

Texas,to mediate relationsbetween archaeologists,local community mem-

bers,and descendents of both slaves and slave owners.

As much as one can attemptto bringas manydifferentvoices to the trow-el'sedge in orderto create a rangeof perspectives andthus to do better sci-

60



IAN HODDER

ence), in practice t becomes important o open up the processof enquiryso

thatothergroupsat a laterdate can re-interprethe evidence.Withinobjectivistframeworksn archaeology twasthoughtsufficient o providedata records o

that latergenerationscould reconsider he conclusionsthat had been drawn.

But in practicemanydata archives,which are often huge and highlycodified,

are difficult o use because it is difficult o reconstruct he thinking hat laybe-

hindthe excavationand the selection of data. It isdifficult o reconstructwhat

questionswere being asked. The whole socialside of the constructionof data

is notformally

recordedand so it is difficult o reconstruct he socialrelationsof productionof pastarchaeologicalknowledge.

Thus, in orderto open the archaeological processto wider scrutiny, t is

necessaryfor reflexiveapproachesto develop methods for documenting he

documentationprocess.There are numerouswaysin whichthe recordscan be

embeddedwithinan outerlayerof documentation.Forexample,databasesand

archivescan be tagged with a historythat describeschanges made through

time. Diariescan be writtenwhichdescribethe thoughtprocessesof the exca-vators and laboratoryanalysts.Traditionallymuch archaeologicalrecording

was done in the form of diaries.Increasedcodificationoften led archaeologi-

cal teams to dispense with such diariesand to use solely codified forms. But

there remainsa need fordiarywriting,and this can easilybe achievedbytyp-

ing straight ntoa computer.Inthe reflexiveCitytunnel-projectBerggren 001)

in Sweden,the archaeologists'houghtsare documented in diaries,with pos-

sibilities orcommentingon theircolleagues'diaryentries.Diary ntries hus be-come partof the database and can be searched for keywords.

Anotherwayof documenting he documentation sto use digitalvideo. This

allows visual information,sound and wordsto be used to providea recordof

the excavationand post-excavation rocess.Sucha rangeof information llows

the excavationprocess o be embeddedwithin a greaterdepth and richnessof

contextthan is possiblein textsand picturesand drawingsalone. Theexcava-

torscan be shown explainingwhatthey arefindingand discussing heir inter-pretationsas theydevelopthem.Theycan pointout whatthey havefound;and

on-site editing allows insets and close-ups.The video clips can be added to

the site database and can be recoveredusingkeywords. Inthisway it is possi-ble for laterarchaeologists o evaluate moreclearlythe claimsthat are made

bythe excavators.The laterre-interpretationan makerelationshipsbetween

what was found and what the excavatorswere preoccupiedwith at the time.

Thevideo clipsmayshow datathat were not seen at the time orwhich can bereinterpretedwith hindsight.They may show things that were missed, and

61




they mayexplain whythe site came to have the meaningit did for the excava-

tors(Brill2000,

Emele2000, Stevanovic2000).

Thisfragmentingand multiplyingof the archiveallowsauthorship o be re-

considered.Even fan excavations performedbya groupof archaeologists,nd

the interpretations hat make up the archiveare the result of all the team

members,the publishedreport soften writtenbyone ortwo,typically he site

managerand perhapsan assistant.The many participantsare mentioned by

name in the report,but the personalcontributionsare not identifiable. But

when the individualparticipantso an increasingdegreewrite directaccountsof their interpretations, here is the potential for includinga multiplicityof

voices in publicationsand other output. Forexample,at (atalhoyukthe pub-

licationsof the excavated eatureswill involvedirectquotesfrom the diaryen-

triesof the excavators, nd references o and quotesfrom videos.Theywillalso

includedirectquotesfromthe localcommunitywhichwas invited o participate

in the post-excavation nterpretation,as well as from the variousspecialists

that had lookedat data froma particular erspective.The end result sa patch-workof perspectivesand pointsof view whichcan be identifiedas to authors.

While here arecertainly loseparallelsbetween these various trandsof a re-

flexive ieldmethodology narchaeologyand ethnography,here are also differ-

ences, inresponse o the different ontextsof the twodisciplines. narchaeology,

there has been lessemphasison autobiography, ersonalpositioning,dialogue

and writing.The emphasis has been on findingwaysto increaseinterpretive

knowledgeand diversityat the trowel'sedge and at all stages in the analyticalprocess, ncludingnthe laboratory. herehas also been a concern o providean

outerlayerof documentation round he documentationprocess tselfso that the

vast amounts of codifieddataproducedbyexcavations an be criticallyituated

withinthe social relationsof productionof archaeologicalknowledge.

Working with the localsThearchaeological quivalentof the 'native nformant'mightbe thoughtto be

the mute sherd, but today throughoutthe world,archaeologistsworkclosely

with those communitiesthat claim some form of culturalaffiliationwith par-

ticulararchaeologicalremains. Indeedarchaeologymightnow be defined not

as the studyof the materialremainsof the past,butas a particularmode of en-

quiryinto the relationshipbetween people and their pasts.

As a result,one of the main aims of much collaborativeand reflexivear-chaeology sto involve ocalpeopleinsomeway,and thistendencyhas been am-

62



IAN HODDER

plyshown above. Theaim has been to listento and incorporatehe localvoice.

Archaeologyhas always been involved inconstructing

ocal institutionsand

memories-as in localmuseums,workingwith and employing ocallabour, et-

tingupSiteManagementPlanswith localparticipationtc. But hisemphasison

and definitionof the localis nowadaysoften at leastpartially onstructedwith-

in a globalconstructionof the localas when UNESCO,COMOS,orldBank,or

the Gettydefine how sites should be conservedand who should be consulted.

Therehas been a massive ncrease n internationalharters or the management

ofarchaeological

sites over recentdecades,

andmany of these have turned

theirattentionto the processesof collaborationwithlocalcommunitiesaround

sites and monuments. Forexample,the GeneralAssemblyof ICOMOSn 1987

adopted the Charter or the Conservation f HistoricTownsand UrbanAreas

which includesguidelines for the participationof residents. The Charter or

SustainableTourism hat emergedfrom the WorldConferenceon Sustainable

Tourismn 1995statedthat tourismmust be 'ethically ndsociallyequitablefor

localcommunities'.TheCorinthWorkshop n Archaeological iteManagementin May2000, organizedbythe GettyConservationnstitute,refers o the impor-

tance of collaboration with local community members. Indeed, the Getty

Conservation nstitute has modifiedand developed the planningframework

outlined n the BurraCharterAvramit al2000.See alsode laTorre 997),which

as noted above is particularlyensitiveto localcultural nterests.

So at one level,the local isdefined so that it can be bettermanaged byglob-

al institutions.At another level the local is also constructedthrough globalcommunitiessuch as the many New Agegroupsthat travel to archaeologicalsites in search of the authenticand traditional, he unsullied(Meskell1995;

Conkeyand Tringham1996). Forexample, Rountree 2002)has describedthe

waysin whichGoddessgroupstravelto the Neolithic emples of Malta n order

to create a visionof traditional ifeways.At(atalhoyuksuchgroupshavetried

to set upand'rejuvenate'ocal craftsbywomen. InnorthernCaliforniaNewAge

groupshavebeen involved n preservingtraditional' ance lodgesthatwere nolonger n use (Dowdallperscom).Moregenerally, s hasbeenwidelyrecognized

(eg Kirshenblatt-Gimblett998),it isoften inthe interestsof globalmarketsand

internationalourism o enlistarchaeologynthe construction f 'preserved'ra-

ditionsand authenticdestinations.

Soarchaeology sfullycomplicit nthe construction f the local-both imag-inedand institutionalcfCastaneda 996).Buttherehasbeen littlereflexivedis-

cussionof thisprocessnarchaeology,xceptatthe levelof wanting o incorporatethe localvoice.Butwhatthatlocalvoiceis hasremained argelyuntheorised nd

63




unexamined n archaeology d Appadurai 996).While he guidelinesof inter-

nationalconservationgencies

specify heimportance

of localparticipation

nd

stakeholdernvolvement,here israrely full accountof howto evaluateand in-

volve different forms of 'local'interest and how to reach a thorough under-

standingof long-term ffectsof heritagemanagement. nmyviewthis haspartly

been because there has been insufficient nvolvement of ethnographersand

otherspecialistshemselves narchaeologicalndheritagemanagementprojects.

Theseparationof the disciplineshas meant a lackof contactand a lackof prob-

lematisationabout what it is that constitutes the local'(cf Gupta

andFerguson

1997).Ifarchaeologists re to be reflexive nd involve he localvoice,they need

to workmorecloselywithethnographers ndothersinorder o find outwho ex-

actly the locals'are,howfluidandglobaltheyare,andwhattypeof relationship

witharchaeologyand heritagewould best serve theirinterests.

At (atalh6yuk, the archaeological project includes both ethnoarchaeolo-

gists (suchas NurcanYalman,workingon the waysthat the contemporary et-

tlements and use of building materials can inform the study of thearchaeological site) and ethnographers (such as Ayfer Bartu and David

Shankland-see Hodder(ed)2000) who have worked on understanding ocal

community knowledgeabout the site, and on the social, culturaland eco-

nomic impactof the projecton the nearbyvillagesand towns. Bartuhas also

helped the projectmake long-term nvestments n the localvillage,such as in

the provisionof a library,he buildingof a water reservoir nd distribution ys-

tem, and the constructionof a regionalschool. Shehas undertakennumerousoutreachprograms.Butshe has also guidedthe project n understandinghe

complex ways in whichthe nearbyvillageis constructedas 'local'withinglob-

alizing processesof appropriation.Forexample, the craftcenter mentioned

above,set up inthe localvillagebyan internationalwomen'sgroup,partlyund-

ed by UNESCOut also linkedto the Goddessmovement,was rejectedbythe

village.Thedefinitionand conceptionof 'the local'thatwas being imposedby

outsidegroupswas notacceptable o the waysinwhichthe villagers awthem-selves. Itthreatenedexisting powerand genderrelations.Theprojectalso has

complex relations with the fundamentalist or nationalistpoliticianswho are

popular nthe area. Insuchcontexts it is not possibleforarchaeologistsblithe-

lyto 'workwiththe locals'.Rather, ttemptsneed to be made to reach a fuller

understanding f how neighbouring ommunitiessee themselvesin relation o

the intersectionsbetween the globaland local.

Involvingethnographerswill hopefully assist archaeologiststo shy awayfromassumingan equationbetween'local'and fixedor indigenous.Areflexive

64



IAN HODDER

approachto the local involvesseeing how it is historically onstructed.Thelo-

calmay

not be an 'authentic'voicethat can be useduncritically

o makesense

of the pastin that locality Fabian1983).Theethnography hat is carriedout in

relation o archaeologicalocales needsto be multi-sited Marcus 995)and en-

gagewithmultiplestakeholders. t needsto examinethe intersectionsbetween

local and global economies and to find ways of engenderinglong-termsus-

tainablechangethroughuse of the materialityof the past, in partnershipwith

varied local interests.Forexample,manyarchaeologicalprojectsare of such a

size that they createa considerableamount of localemployment (excavators,guards,attendantsand so on). Butwhen the projectendsthisemploymentop-

portunitymay disappearunless the projecthas investedin infrastructure,d-

ucationor training.

Iwould be the firstto arguethat archaeologists hould listento and engage

with local communities that are directlyaffected by and involved in archaeo-

logicalsites. Inmanycases,the local communitiesarehistoricallymarginalized

and in need of support. Theyare often disempoweredand neglected. A re-markableexample of an attempt to counteract this disempowermentis pro-

vided bythe District project n CapeTown,where a localcommunity s being

reconstituted hroughan archaeologicaland museum project(Hall2000). But

archaeologistsneed to understandthe processesof global disempowerment

and to recognizethat there may be many cross-cutting local' communities

that could be constructedin differentways. Forsome of these, in some cir-

cumstances, he presenceof an archaeological rojectmightbest be usedto cre-ate links to global economies and relationships(throughlanguage training,

craft industries,tourism, and trainingin heritage management etc). Rather

than archaeologybeingused to construct he localas the flipside of the glob-

al (ie as traditional,authentic,and small-scale but also as exploitedand con-

structedbyglobalizingnterests), rchaeological rojects an leadto changeand

transformationof the local in a varietyof differentways.

Conclusion

Wehave seen some similarities nd differencesbetweenreflexive ieldmethods

as they are being pursued in archaeologyand ethnography.In archaeology

there is lessemphasison autobiography, ialogue,self-positioning, ndwriting,

althoughthese are all relevantto archaeologyand have been pursued.In ar-

chaeology the emphasis is more on findingways in which the collection ofmaterialdata can be opened upto interpretation s it happens(breaking own

65




the distinctionsbetweendiscoveryand interpretation,nd betweendescription

andinterpretation), llowing

agreaterdiversity

ofperspectives

or'positions'

n

the interpretiveand analyticalprocess,and allowingextralayersof documen-

tation so that otherscan re-evaluateconclusionsthat have been made.

Manyof the reflexivemovesthat havebeen madeinarchaeologyderive rom

ethicalconcernsaboutincorporatingocalvoices,but I haveargued n thispaper

that a further evel of reflexivitys needed in problematising ur assumptions

about 'the local'.Atthe veryleast,itseems importantorarchaeologicalprojects

to adoptcloserworkingies withethnographers,ocialscientists,oralhistorians,culturaleconomistsand a rangeof otherspecialistswho can assist n evaluating

the long-termmpactof a projecton the fullrangeof stakeholder ommunities.

ButIsuspectthat the disciplinary ivideswithinanthropologywhichmanyof us

decry,andwhichareinmyviewlargely product f the emergenceof processual

archaeology nd itspositivistperspective,imit he currentpotential or full-scale

collaboration.Despiterecentreworkings,he currentNSF uidelinesand expec-

tationsregarding rovisionorworkwith localcommunitiesnarchaeological roj-ects are inadequate. Grantproposalsneed make little reference to how an

archaeological rojectwillhavelong-term ommunitympact.There s little o re-

quirearchaeologicalprojects o collaboratewith stakeholdergroups ntermsof

settingresearchagendas. (Inthisway,research undingbodies are well behind

some of the international onservation nd heritage nstitutions hat have been

referredo inthispaper.)There slittle o encourage loser ies withethnographers

in developing in-depthunderstanding f 'the local'as constructedhroughma-terialsand monumentsof the past.

References

Abu el-Haj, N. 1998. TranslatingTruths:Nationalism, the Practiceof Archaeology, and the

Remaking of Past and Present in ContemporaryJerusalem, inAmerican Ethnologist25,166-88.

Andrews, G., J. Barrett & J. Lewis. 2000. Interpretation Not Record: the Practice of

Archaeology, AntiquityVol 74. Pp 525-530.

Anyon, R.,Ferguson,T.J.,Jackson,L.and Lane,L.1996. NativeAmerican OralTraditionsand

Archaeology. Societyfor AmericanArchaeologyBulletin 14:2, 14-16.

Appadurai,A. 1996. Modernityat Large.Minnesota

Australia ICOMOS. 981. The Australia ICOMOSCharter or the Conservation of Places ofCulturalSignificance (BurraCharter).Canberra,Australia.

Avrami, E., Demas, M., Mason, R., Palumbo, G.,Teutonico, J M.,and de la Torre,M.2000. A

Methodological Approachfor Conservation Planning. Getty Conservation Institute, LosAngeles.

66



IAN HODDER

Bender,B., Hamilton,S. and Tilley,C.1997. Leskernick: tone Worlds;AlternativeNarratives;

Nested Landscapes. Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety 63, 147-78.

Berggren, A. 2001. SwedishArchaeology in Perspective and the Possibility of Reflexivity.CurrentSwedishArchaeology9, 9-23.

Brill,D. 2000. Video-Recordingas Part of the CriticalArchaeological Process, In Hodder, I

(ed) TowardsReflexiveMethods 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 Museumof MayaCulture:TouringChichenItzd.Universityof

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Chadwick,A. 1998. Archaeologyat the Edgeof Chaos: FurtherToward Reflexive Excavation

Methodologies. Assemblage (online journal) 3. http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/

3/3chad.htm.

Clifford,J.and Marcus,G.(eds). 1986. WritingCulture: he Poeticsof Ethnography.Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Conkey,M.and Tringham, R. 1996. Archaeologyand The Goddess: Exploring he Contours

of Feminist Archaeology, In A Stewart and D Stanton (eds.) Feminismsin the Academy:

Rethinkingthe Disciplines. Universityof Michigan Press,Ann Arbor.

De la Torre, M. (ed). 1997. The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean

Region.The

GettyConservation

Institute,Los

Angeles.Dowdall, K. & Parrish,0. 2003. ACollaborative Approach to Archaeology on the Sonoma

Coast, California. ournal of SocialArchaeology.

Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and

Memories. London: Routledge.

Emele, M.2000. VirtualSpaces,Atomic Pig-bones and MiscellaneousGoddesses, In Hodder,I (ed) TowardsReflexiveMethods in Archaeology: the Exampleat (atalhoyuk. McDonald

Institute of Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara,

Monograph 289. Oxbow. Pp 219-228.

Fabian,J.1983. Time and the Other:HowAnthropologyMakes ts Object.Columbia UniversityPress.

Faulkner,N. 2002. TheSedgeford Project, Norfolk:An Experiment in Popular Participationand Dialectical Method. Archaeology International 5, 16-20 (Institute of Archaeology,

UniversityCollege, London).

Fotiadis, M. 1993. Regions of the Imagination: Archaeologists, Local People, and the

Archaeological Record in Fieldwork,Greece. ournal or EuropeanArchaeology1, 151-70.

Gathercole, P and Lowenthal, D. 1989. ThePolitics of the Past. Unwin Hyman, London.

Gero,J.

1996.Archaeological

Practice and Gendered Encounters with FieldData,

InWright,R.(ed). Genderand Archaeology. Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 251-

80.

Gupta,A.and Ferguson,J. (eds). 1997. AnthropologicalLocations:Boundaries and Groundsofa FieldScience. Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Hall,M.2000. Archaeologyand the ModernWorld:ColonialTranscriptsn SouthAfricaand the

Chesapeake. Routledge, London

Handler, R. and Gable, E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creatingthe Past at

Colonial Williamsburg.Duke University Press, Durham NC.

Hodder, I. 1999a. TheArchaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.

67




. 1999b. BritishPrehistory:Some Thoughts Looking In. Cambridge Archaeological

Journal. 9:376-380.

. (ed). 2000. Towards Reflexive Methods in Archaeology:the Exampleat (atalhoyuk.McDonaldInstitute of Archaeological Research/British nstitute of Archaeologyat Ankara,

Monograph 289. Oxbow.

Joyce, R. A. 1994. DorothyHughes Popenoe: Eve in an Archaeological Garden, n Claassen,C.(ed). Women inArchaeology pp. 51-66. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums and Heritage.

Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds). 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology

Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kluth,R. & K.Munnell. 1997. TheIntegration of Traditionand 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.

Latour,B. and Woolgar,S. 1986. LaboratoryLife: he Construction f ScientificFacts.Princeton

University Press.

Layton, R.1989. Conflict n the Archaeologyof LivingTraditions. Unwin Hyman, London.

Leibhammer, N.2000. RenderingRealities, n Hodder, I. (ed).TowardsReflexiveMethods in

Archaeology: the Example at Catalh6yuk. McDonald Institute of Archaeological

Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara,Monograph289. 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 HistoricalArchaeologicalPractice.Routledge.

Ludlow Collective. 2001. Archaeology of the Colorado Coal Field War 1913-1914, in V.

Buchli and G. Lucas.(eds). Archaeologiesof 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). Philosophyand

ArchaeologicalPractice:Perspectives or 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. TheIntersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Reviewof

Anthropology31, 279-301.

.2002b. Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology. AnthropologicalQuarterly75(3) 557-574.

Politis, G. 2001. OnArchaeological Praxis, Gender Bias and Indigenous Peoples in SouthAmerica. Journalof SocialArchaeology 1, 90-107.

Robertson, J. 2002. ReflexivityRedux: A Pithy Polemic on 'Positionality'. AnthropologicalQuarterly75(4) 785-792.

Rosaldo, R.2000.[1989].

Griefand A Headhunter'sRage,

inMcGee,

R.J.and Warms,R. L.(eds). AnthropologicalTheory(2nd edition). Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA.pp

521-35.

68



IANHODDER

Rountree, K. 2002. Re-InventingMalta's Neolithic Temples: Contemporary Interpretations

and Agendas. Historyand Anthropology13, 31-51.

Rowlands,M.1993. The Role of Memoryin the Transmission of Culture. WorldArchaeology

25, 141-51.

Salzman, P C.2002. OnReflexivity. AmericanAnthropologist 104(3), 805-13.

Shanks, M.and McGuire,R.1996. The Craftof Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity61, 75-88.

Shanks, M.and Tilley,C .1987. ReconstructingArchaeology. Cambridge UniversityPress.

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 EnglandPress.

Smith, C. E. and G. K. Ward. eds. 2000. Indigenous Culturesin an Interconnected World.Sydney:Allen and Unwin and Vancouver: Universityof BritishColumbia.

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.NZedeno, and D.B Halmo,eds. (2001)American Indians and the Nevada Test

Site: A Modelof Researchand Consultation.Washington: US Government PrintingOffice.

Swidler, N., K. Dongoske, R. Anyon. & A. Downer. eds. 1997. Native Americans and

Archaeologists.SteppingStones to Common Ground.AltaMiraPress.

Swogger,J.2000. Imageand Interpretation: he Tyrannyof Representation? n Hodder,I(ed)TowardsReflexiveMethods n Archaeology: he Exampleat (atalhoyuk. McDonaldInstitute

of Archaeological Research/BritishInstitute of Archaeology at Ankara,Monograph 289.

Oxbow. Pp.

Tilley,C. 1994. ThePhenomenology of Landscape.Berg, London.

Trigger,B.1984. AlternativeArchaeologies:Nationalist,Colonialist,Imperialist. Man 19, 355-

70.

Tringham,Ruth.1994. EngenderedPlaces in Prehistory. Gender,Place,and Culture1(2):169-204.

Watkins, J. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology. American Indian Values and Scientific Practice.

AltaMiraPress.

69

Documents

116957866-Archaeological-Reflexivity-and-the-Local-Voice-–-Ian-Hodder