Archaeological reflexivity and the local voice (original) (raw)
Reasons for Redundancy in Reflexivity: The Role of Diaries in Archaeological Epistemology
Archaeological research projects employ a diverse body of recording strategies to preserve detailed information about material evidence of the past. One of the most persisting and common forms of recording is the archaeological diary. Despite having undergone transformations in form and function over the history of archaeology as a discipline, diaries are most often integrated into contemporary excavations in order to enhance reflexivity and to provide a greater context for understanding both the processes and products of these research endeavors. I argue that diaries do succeed in promoting reflexive archaeological practice, though not because of the greater contextual information they capture. Instead, the degree to which diaries repeat information recorded by other media embodies their integral role in reflexive archaeological epistemology. By comparing diary entries from Çatalhöyük, Turkey to the pro forma produced at this site, I demonstrate that archaeological diaries' power derives from their position in the local network of objects and inscription devices at archaeological sites and from how authority is formulated within the contemporary disciplinary framework of archaeology.
assemblage, 1998
This paper concerns itself with the relationship between theory and practice in archaeology. In an Antiquity article, Ian Hodder (1997) proposed that by embracing post-processual ideas of subjectivity, recursive hermeneutics and multivocality, a more reflexive excavation methodology should be possible. This paper broadly concurs with Hodder's thesis but argues that his article did not take into account many of the other archaeological workers within the discipline who have also put forward similar ideas. This paper therefore sought to redress this imbalance by outlining these various perspectives. It also suggests further means by which reflexivity in excavation practice may be explored, principally by the critical re-examination of stratigraphic matrixes and context sheets. Particularly, in a developer-funded excavation context, any move towards more reflexive methodologies will have far-reaching implications for how contemporary archaeology is structured and managed. The digital online version of this paper in Assemblage is archived on the Archaeology Data Service, but I have uploaded a pdf of it here.
The disjuncture between 'what we do' and 'what we say we do' has contributed not only to a great deal of conversation and debate it has also lead to a fair amount of angst and misunderstanding in archaeology (i.e. theory/practice split or the homebase/field bifurcation). Many (myself included) firmly believe that this disjuncture can only be addressed by following up close what 'we' (understood to encompass people, institutions, media, materials, things, etc. which comprise an archaeologist) actually do in practice. Anthropologists and sociologists have long enrolled ethnography and ethnomethodology as set of practices for engaging with what scientific practitioners do (this has been especially successful when they have been bold enough to free themselves from the weight of epistemology!). Hitherto, archaeology, sadly, has been in large part ignored by these practitioners (refer to my entry from October 23, 2005 and Tim Webmoor's fromNovember 6, 2006), though there are notable exceptions in the related field of the philosophy of science with the important work of Alison Wylie. Thankfully, the tides are changing and this is in large part due to a few archaeologists who have taken the initiative themselves.
In this introductory essay to this volume, we chart and survey an emerging fi eld, that of archaeological ethnography. We show its links and associations with both disciplinary and social-political trends in archaeology and in social anthropology in the last decades, and discuss some of the key recent work that has been carried out under this rubric. We argue that archaeological ethnography needs to be defi ned broadly, as a trans-disciplinary and transcultural space that enables researchers and diverse publics to engage in various conversations, exchanges, and interventions. Material traces from various times are at the centre of this emerging space. The production of his space requires a radical rethinking of the ontological and epistemological basis of archaeology, questioning the moder nist roots of offi cial archaeologies, and demonstrating the existence of other, public discourses, practices and engagements with the material past which can be defi ned as alternative archaeologies. Archaeological ethnography can bring to the fore these alternative engagements without necessarily endorsing their premises, being constantly alert to their political connotations and renderings. The main interconnected facets of archaeological ethnography as we propose it here are its critical refl exivity, its holistic and multi-sited nature, its multi-temporal rather than presentist character, its sensuous and sensory engagement with the world, its political commitment, and its conception as collective and team practice, which transcends the boundaries between the researcher and his or her diverse publics.
Introduction: "Community-Oriented Archaeology"
Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 2014
D efining the relationship b e tw e e n a rc h a e o lo g y a n d th e people it studies has always been an elu sive undertaking. T he people o f the past are long gone by the time archaeologists arrive to tell th eir stories. W hat exactly we can and cannot say about them o r on th eir b eh a lf from th e im perfectly p re served an d n o n -rep resentative sam ple o f th e ir m aterial g estures is not, a n d never has been, very clear. Many archae ologists have, we think, underestim ated the complexity o f this problem . Archae ologists seem to expect the relationships between things and culture, culture and individuals, the past an d the present to be straightforw ard, w hen all evidence from the anthropology of o u r own expe riences suggests otherw ise. In the p re sent th ere is some correlation between m aterial things an d th eir roles in p eo p le's lives, b u t the reality, as anyone who has had a favourite coffee m ug or a dis like for specific places knows, is com plex and varied. T he distance between what we th in k ourselves to be capable o f as cu ltu ral beings a n d w hat we define as the subject o f o th er peoples' history is a m easure o f these limitations. Despite o ur hopes th at the past is understandable in o u r own terms, it seems likely th at this is as m uch an ethnocentric aspiration as a scholarly truth. M artindale and Nicholas (this volume) argue that such bias serves us well when the archaeologists are part o f the descent com m unity o f the people being studied, b u t generates ethnocen tric barriers to o u r perception when the arch aeo lo g ical-su b ject re la tio n sh ip is m ore distant. T here has always existed a double standard in archaeology on this front, one that reflects a wider asymme try in which som e ways of knowing the past are valued while others are not. T he im balance favours the dom inant cultural community, which in the cu rren t politi cal context Atalay 2007:253) defines as "western". H ere we refer n o t ju st to the declarative value o f considering m ulti ple points of view (which has increased lately), b u t to th e dem onstrable effort to do so, which as many papers in this special issue argue, requires disciplinary concessions o f privilege and forthright scrutiny about ethnocentrism . As with any subaltern dynam ic, th e asym m etry is m o re visible to th o se w ho occupy m arginalized p o in ts o f view, which in N orth Am erican archaeology at least, is prim arily Indigenous (although similar relatio n sh ip s exist in th e archaeology o f A frican-A m erican, L atino, C hinese a n d o th e r c o m m u n itie s). T h o se w ho are n o t m arginalized by the structural asym m etries o f pow er do n o t perceive