12

Click here to load reader

Critiquing the Archaeological Diary

  • Upload
    nedaooo

  • View
    215

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

k

Citation preview

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 29

    CRITIQUING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIARY

    William Anderson and Damjan Krsmanovic

    I find Barbara very irritating this morning. Feel she is being rather dominant and imposing her views and interpretations. (Tilley 1996: Jun 17)

    with Chris I sometimes feel over-whelmed. He doesnt seem to leave space for alternative for other peoples stories. (Bender 1996: Jun 18)

    The diary is essentially a first-person narrative that recounts experiences and encounters. It is also an inherently personal, even private text. Yet diaries are also written to be read by others: even the most secret and sacred of diaries has the potential (and is therefore meant) to be shared since it is written in the first place. In this paper, we explore the tension and ambiguity between the personal diary and the diary intended for consumption, in relation to archaeological diaries, paying attention to their content, publication, reception and consequences.

    The genesis of this paper lies in our joint reflection on the problems associated with writing in archaeology, and our own experiences of diary writing. We do not venture to be unnecessarily critical of the use of diaries in archaeology; indeed, we applaud the efforts of archaeologists experimenting with forms of archaeological recording, using diaries, for instance. What we intend to explore, however, is that the diary format remains problematic owing to its capacity to obscure just as much as clarify the outcomes of archaeological investigations in which it is employed.

    Defining the archaeological diary

    The archaeological diary constitutes a text that is simultaneously private and public. Its subject matter is wide-ranging: encompassing observations, reportage, thoughts, and feelings. Its tone can veer from private and introspective to political and epic, and, crucially, its readership may range from one to potentially thousands. What marks these texts as distinctive, whether they are for personal consumption or mass publication, their contents quotidian or rhapsodic, is that they are of the moment. They capture a certain time and place, making them an authentic record of archaeological practice as it happens, and so appear uniquely credible.

    Archaeological information has long been conveyed in the form of diaries and journals. Personal experience in the form of a narrative was central to antiquarian writings (Hodder 1989; Morris 1994: 27; Peltz & Myrone 1999: 5-9), and the work of explorer-archaeologists in the 18th-19th centuries. In the 20th century, the evolution of corporate knowledge, which became invested in institutions rather than individuals, encouraged the pursuit of objective or disinterested approaches. This resulted in the use of language that sought to deny the role of the individual in the production of knowledge, such as the loss of the first person pronoun I (Hodder 1989; Joyce 2002: 52-5).

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 30

    In anthropology, the diary format played a key role in conveying the fieldworkers methods and intentions, and so greatly impacted on the discipline itself (Sinclair 2000: 477-78). Famously, it was the publication of Bronislaw Malinowskis diaries, recounting his fieldwork in Kiriwina that revealed how, far from obtaining objective data, the anthropologists overwhelming preoccupations and state of mind must have had a considerable effect on what he saw and the sense he made of it (Gosden 1999: 58).

    Archaeologists, meanwhile, held a firm belief in the veracity of objective data obtained through scientific methods, with the emergence of the new or processual archaeology movement in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the diary form has long continued to constitute a part of field recording, Greek archaeology over the past century being one example (Hitchcock 2009, pers. comm.). Yet, such diaries constitute daily field notes and are not self-consciously employed as reflections on subjectivity and relativity of knowledge production. The diary is, rather, an additional means of empirical recording.

    In more recent years, the archaeological diary has undergone a revival thanks to the post-processual emphasis on the subjectivity of archaeological practice stemming from post-structuralist precepts involving deconstructive reading, disregard for grand narratives and meta-texts (Olsen 1991) , and the vogue for phenomenological approaches (Chadwick 2003; Hodder 1999: 121-3; Olsen 2006; Tilley 1994, 2004; Tilley et al. 2000). Explanations of field methods often include a temporal element that describes the sequential nature of fieldwork and flags the subjective experience of fieldworkers. An example of this is the differential role of gender in sensory experiences of archaeological sites (Hamilton and Whitehouse 2006). The keeping of field diaries may even be a requirement for students taking archaeology courses (cf. Hamilakis 2004).

    Use of the diary has not been confined to avant-garde, academic archaeology. Diaries have also been adopted in commercial, public and popular spheres to present fieldwork in an accessible and unambiguous way. They are also used as a means of accountability that demonstrates the temporal progress of archaeological work. In the case of the British television series Time Team, the sequential nature of excavation is used as a dramatic device: weve got three days to.... As communications technology develops and becomes more accessible, digital formats can enhance the immediacy of archaeological recording including for diary-writing (Hodder 1999: 120-8; 2003b: 61-2).

    Critiquing the archaeological diary

    It is with the diary as a published format as well as a writing genre that we are concerned. Though content and tone are integral, the manner in which the writing is disseminated and received can determine its meaning. Through publication, the personal can become deeply political: romantic musings can be perceived as, and hence transformed into, ideological dogma; trivial disagreements and bickering may be read as reflecting political and class dynamics. The seemingly innocuous journal can become a document of control, a chronicle that cements the legacy of a campaign. It therefore projects a variety of signals authenticity, reliability, drama

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 31

    that can become confused and compromised through the genres intentionally subjective tone.

    Our critique is not intended as an attack on subjective or post-processual approaches. We admire the use of fieldwork diaries, and many of the issues that we raise have been identified and discussed by the diary authors we cite (see below). We are, however, calling for further reflexivity of reflexivity (Pels 2000: 17-18; cf. Bourdieu 2003: 282), specifically in terms of how field practice is presented in the diary format. Thus, we aim to scrutinize the process by which archaeological knowledge is produced, conveyed and consecrated. Moreover, considering forms of writing in archaeology encourages critical thinking of the disciplines aims as a method of documentation versus a creative, imaginative and performative act.

    The diary may be seen as an invitation to reflexivity that captures the essence of the subjects interaction with the archaeological record (Hodder 2003b). Its apparent spontaneity and subjectivity are responsible for assimilating together different kinds of discursive field which collide and mix, constituting the world-view of the author. As a compilation of spatio-temporally specific information, the diary in effect fossilizes as residue of the context in which it was generated. Thus, it may be seen as an artefact itself, a relic of archaeological experience strung together by means of language. Its strength (and, arguably, its weakness) is that it is immutable, and, as with phenomenological approaches, cannot be engaged with on a critical basis (Fleming 2006). Put another way, its subjectivity poses a challenge to traditional modes of academic discourse. Who, after all, can question the primacy of the participant-observer?

    Therefore, while it may be seen as a relic of archaeological practice in that it is representative of the particular circumstances in which it was produced, the diary is at the same time self-consciously agent specific. Its apparent spontaneity can, then, be used to reify a pre-determined interpretation, vision or hierarchy. This makes the format peculiarly powerful and problematic. Though self-awareness and self-criticism are laudable and description of the circumstances in which information is gained is crucial, ostentatious subjectivity can become as much a posture as positivist detachment.

    Rather than clarifying the relationship between the archaeologist and the material past, the diary can add further distance between the subject, the reader, and the presentation of data. Accordingly, the diary has the potential to reify hierarchy and self-promotion rather than subvert them. Thus, we are interested in seeing how the archaeological diary, as an informal method of recording, affects the organization of empirical data, given its capabilities and problematic status.

    Case Study: diaries from the atalhyk and Leskernick projects

    To illustrate the advantages and problems of using diaries in archaeology, we shall deal with two sets of diaries from a contemporary and a recent project. The diary entries come from the 2008 season of the atalhyk project, the long-running and ongoing excavation of a Neolithic settlement in central Anatolia, directed by Ian Hodder; and from the 1996 season of the Leskernick project, which investigated Late Neolithic and Bronze Age remains on Bodmin Moor in Cornwall, southwest Britain,

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 32

    under the direction of Barbara Bender, Sue Hamilton and Christopher Tilley. The use of diaries and other experimental recording methods at these projects has been discussed in a number of publications (Hodder 1999, 2000, 2003a; Farid 2000; Tilley et al. 2000; Bender et al. 2007), and diaries from both of these projects are available online (see bibliography).

    The diary is of the moment

    The unpolished and unprocessed nature of the diary may be seen as advantageous in that it captures the moment/s of the archaeologists interaction with the archaeological record. This is in contrast to post hoc field reports and final publications, whose composition may be subject to any number of influences (Tilley 1989: 278; Sinclair 2000: 478; Pels 2000: 2). Arguably the diary pre-empts such corruption through highlighting the formulation of the co-extension between data and interpretation as it happens, as the following entries from the atalhyk and Leskernick diaries demonstrate:

    We dicided to grid up the area and send it all to flotation, in case we can establish any meaningful patterns in the deposition of the obsidian. Although my observations thus far suggest that it will be concentrated in a spread of slightly darker material containing more charcoal to the southwest of the space. This may end up being recorded as a separate unit, possibly a discrete dump, but the jury is out on this for now, since I haven't quite decided whether the floor is really just a compacted make-up dump layer anyway, with an ad-hoc working surface. (JST 2008: Jul 13)

    CG and Gary began trowelling the interior of H23. It is difficult to positively identify a door on this structure. The triangular 'backstone' appears to be in a niche, given that the wall seems to be single skinned. With the turf removed and further stones exposed, H23 now looks less circular. A problem which we will have to monitor just how deturfing and excavation alters surface impressions. (Hamilton 1996: Jun 8)

    In these entries, the decisions, thoughts and predictions made by the excavators are shown as informed by the process of excavation itself. Based on pre-existing knowledge and experience, immediate interpretations of artefacts and contexts are offered. Here, the diary clarifies the process of categorization and interpretation through the archaeologist revealing his/her interaction with the material evidence. Thus, field reports can be written that juxtapose objective description with subjective experience, thereby giving a more transparent view of how conclusions are reached (Bender et al. 1997).

    The diary tells it how it is

    It is possible for the archaeological diary to demystify the archaeological process using frank, conversational language (cf. Olsen 2006: 147). The diary can demonstrate the arbitrary nature of data categorization, and, in the context of the atalhyk and Leskernick projects, the difficulties of excavating at a Neolithic site. In addition, the documentation of difficulties surrounding interpretation and classification of material further illuminates the co-extension between interpretation as provided in a publication and activity in the field itself. In this sense, the reader of the diary is freed to an extent from the the tyranny of the predetermined narrative (Barker 1999: 25) that a more polished piece of writing would offer. The reader is instead offered archaeology through a number of hermeneutic pathways (Hodder 2000: 9-10):

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 33

    Talking of potential misinterpretation we swung by the 4040 yesterday and im a bit concerned about whats going on there. For instance Mikes supposed "burnt" building. They dont seem to have noticed that the walls of the building quite clearly cut the "burnt material" if thats what it is. And in Dans area all those little flooring events he has us belive is going on, we had similar deposits in all the buildings we took out which we, I think correctly, identified as one or two events at most, what is going on? (RR 2008: Jul 16)

    We walk back to the southern settlement to what Barbara calls the 'organic cluster' of houses. Goodness knows why she calls it this. To me it seems the reverse: a rather well-planned and set out series of houses in two parallel rows. (Tilley 1996: Jun 4)

    Having the accounts of several people working on the same project can also demonstrate multivocality when it comes to examining artefacts, features and contexts, and the conflicts that may arise from differing interpretations (Hamilakis 1999: 66). It shows the contentious nature of archaeological data and the difficulties encountered when correlating data and interpretation. Expectations formed before and in the course of fieldwork can be overturned in a moment by discoveries that are documented as events:

    I was about to bashe out the first mixed make-up/floor layer, (16523), when lo and behold out popped armfuls of obsidian debitage. (JST 2008: Jul 13)

    On Thursday JMR and KJK had taken down with unit 16833 what looked like a massive homogenous mass of room infill in the corner of walls 2426 and 2408. In the planum I had had some doubts if there were some mudbricks, especially as BE had seen mortar lines there in 2006. But it looked completely homogenous in the section created by cut of grave 2416, and was not visible while taking it down at all. After a day of drying, however, the brown loose room infill became easily discernible from hard brownish-yellow mudbrick. This taught me another lesson on mudbrick walls and on believing in sections. Sometimes it seems as if the West Mound is playing tricks on me (ER 2008: Jul 26)

    Problems involving categorization of material are further highlighted at atalhyk in diary entries ruminating over what constitutes an individual on the basis of skeletal material (HSL 2008: Jul 16), and what constitutes a feature in a particular context (JJW 2008: Jul 22). Likewise, the Leskernick diaries articulate issues involving the distinction between natural and anthropogenic features (Tilley et al.: undated; Bender 1996: Jun 14, 19; Tilley 1996: Jun 19), as well as the contentiousness of attributing symbolic significance to features (Bender 1996: Jun 16; Tilley 1996: Jun 16). The diary therefore highlights how objectivity is a shifting paradigm built on categorical consensus which is likely to change in light of ongoing discoveries (cf. Kuhn 1970). This can be a source of dissonance when different methodologies and expectations are thrown together in a collaborative environment.

    Thus, diaries show the mutable nature of knowledge production and the position that archaeologists occupy as the producers of that knowledge. Understandings and presentations are revealed as agent-specific and resulting from an agents grounding in particular epistemological and disciplinary streams, as well as their social, cultural and political background:

    In France, we have generally first the excavation and after the season we have the post fouille or post excavation . At this moment, you study the archaeological material. So when you leave the site after the excavation (and generally you leave after), you never see this part of the work! You wash material, sometimes you mark the ceramic but no more. (SO 2008: Jun 23)

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 34

    The diary as a hermeneutic device

    The discussion above also demonstrates that the diary has, arguably, the capacity to function a hermeneutic device par excellence when situated beside other (more traditional) methods of archaeological recording. A hermeneutic perspective a means by which interpretations are verified through juxtaposition of the detail against the whole and vice versa allows archaeologists to move between data and interpretation (Hodder & Hutson 2003: 195-98) by evaluating the questions posed and statements made in relation to the data, that is, the subjective thought produced through discourse (Ricoeur 1981: 47, 55). Thus, archaeological diaries, in theory, are capable of being used as devices for appropriation. This means that the diary is presented as an open device whose content may be subject to indefinite reading and evaluation (also context dependent), whence arises the actualization of meanings in the readers mind (Ricoeur 1981: 184-85). Appropriation is in no manner a pretence towards objectivity, but a way of illustrating the open ended process of interpretation.

    The diary is not as spontaneous as it appears

    Much of what we have discussed stems from diary accounts that report circumstances at the trowels edge (Hodder 1999: 92; 2000: 5; 2003b: 58). However, this idea must be scrutinized more carefully in order to test the sincerity that diaries seemingly profess. For instance, it is necessary to consider the time interval between the excavation done in a day and the diary entry following it. The interval would suffice for a person to change their view about what they were doing during the day on the basis of circumstances she or he were involved in. By considering the multitude of activities the person partook in throughout the day general social interaction, discussion, experiences, emotions the possibility of interpretations staying fixed is diminished. Accordingly it is difficult to evaluate the archaeological diary in terms of the immediacy of its content.

    The diary purports to bare all but remains self-censored

    The apparent benefits of an archaeological diary may all be subverted in practice. Reflexivity and subjectivity can mask what is an objective truth seemingly spontaneous notes can, in reality, be premeditated accounts. A diary might provide transparency but it may alternatively cloud the situation, forming a dividing layer between the author and the reader. Such separation may be manifested in a diarys preoccupation with examining personalities, divisions in hierarchy, class and race. At best, such entries may detract from archaeological information, weakening the data-interpretation co-extension; yet they could also be libelous. These problems are recognized and stated by Paul Basu in his introductory note to the Leskernick diaries:

    It is clear that the diaries are deeply problematic. They are either sanitised and mundane or else frank and potentially hurtful. I suggest that the diaries are an experiment, and that an experiment doesnt have to be successful to be useful. (Basu 1998: Mar 18)

    The prospect of publishing the diaries, and the authors awareness of this, would further alter the way that they would approach the diary in terms of content and tone. Of course, it is natural that interpretations begin to change and fluctuate as soon as they are formed and disseminated, but the possibility of tracking this process is

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 35

    arguably diminished when authors have an awareness of their views being broadcast:

    It is interesting how the diary keeping is beginning to set an agenda of its own and a set of expectations/reactions: Im only going to tell you this if you promise not to record it in your diary... (Tilley 1996: Jun 4)

    Since the diaries of atalhyk were always intended to be published for broader consumption, this would have consciously and subconsciously shaped the content of the entries (see KJK 2008: Jul 16). Similarly, the idea of publishing the Leskernick diaries on the internet was met with some tension on the part of the project directors (Basu 1998: Jan 12). Indeed, they kept two sets of diaries for the project, one censored and another uncensored, for the purpose of such an outcome (Basu 1998: Jan 26).

    The diary enforces hierarchy

    The Leskernick diaries frequently record interpersonal interaction rather than archaeological information. From the very first day of the 1996 season, the diary entries indicate a division within the team that is presented as being based on interpretive capability imaginative, interpretive, post-processual versus manual, mechanical, functionalist. This results in a persistent strain between the directors (or settlement people) and the diggers, generating a top-down interpersonal hierarchy Bender 1996: Jun 2; Hamilton 1996: Jun 2; Tilley 1996: Jun 2, 20, 21). The head of the diggers, Mike Seager-Thomas, is isolated as a personality to be consistently targeted by the diarist directors. He is frequently described as argumentative and aggressive (Bender 1996: Jun 2; Tilley 1996: Jun 2), and his functionalist views and antithetical stance amount to an anarchy threatening the project:

    Ate pretty late. Almost immediately the crisp man, Mike [S-T], launched into a fairly aggressive attack on the idea that the backstones were in any way special. Came up with all sorts of functional explanations - but claimed hed never heard of Functionalism. Rubbished our attempts to discuss alternative ways of interpreting. Twice - thrice - reiterated that anyway, it didnt matter, since he wasnt in charge. Long discussion of hierarchies. All rather tense and unsatisfactory. The other two men (Ash, Chris G.) completely stum. Chris pretty quiet. Sue trying to hold her corner. Penni and Marilyn attempting occasional intercessions. Felt very riled that, despite our best attempts, we had imported someone who seemed pretty antagonistic. (Bender 1996: Jun 2)

    He may well ruin the project. (Tilley 1996: Jun 2)

    Far from being inclusive and facilitating multiple perspectives, the Leskernick diaries reveal and reify hierarchical dynamics. Though Tilley states emphatically that the diggers are the ones wanting a hierarchy (Tilley 1996: Jun 2), it is ironic that the diary format and content as it is published on the internet reinforce the class microcosm of the project, for only the directors diaries are available for consumption. The lack of voice from the diggers and students is remarkable. This amounts to a controlled, post-processual rite, even reaching the point of dictating the diary writing of the excavators by guiding them through the process (Bender 1996: Jun 6). The supposedly non hierarchical nature of the project is a fiction and there is a latent hierarchy which is described as not a bad thing as obviously those with more knowledge and experience are bound to have a certain authority over those who are basically students (Bender et al. 1997: 172).

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 36

    The diary is not as multivocal as it appears

    The atalhyk project diaries have been able to avoid discussion of hierarchy to an extent due to the wider range of the diary entries in terms of content, the number of people writing, and their availability as opposed to the kind of self-censoring procedures employed at Leskernick by publishing one set of tailored diaries. Thus, for one particular day at atalhyk, a number of perspectives exist: ranging from empirical (CM 2008: Jun 14), reflective about the projects aims and methodologies (RBW 2008: Jul 16; DEL 2008: Jul 29, Sep 5), to more personal (KJK 2008: Jul 16; JJW 2008: Jul 16). This may be regarded as achieving a degree of multivocality.

    In the Leskernick diaries, the range of multivocality is diminished due to the lack of published diaries from non-directors (which, according to a post on the Leskernick web page, is because no other diaries have been submitted). If we think about this in terms of the effect the archaeological diary has in cementing the legacy of campaign, the Leskernick diaries arguably preserve the hegemony of the directors while marginalizing the voices of non-directors.

    Reflexivity and subjective practice are stressed as integral to the aims of the Leskernick project (Tilley 1996: Jun 2, 4, 19). However, in their diaries, the directors display high-handedness when they express disappointment at the capabilities of the fieldworkers, and their unwillingness to participate in the experimental nature of the project.

    Came down off the hill fuming and sullen about the poor quality of some of the plans. Upset that people had not really focused on the quality of the stones, and that some people had not really taken the task seriously. Actually, thinking about it, thats not true. They had been serious and committed, but simply not able to sketch accurately enough. (Bender 1996: Jun 15)

    I think there will inevitably be a cynical male bonding taking place in the digger's caravan. They all seem archetypal Institute of Archaeology products: ignorant of theory and philosophy, unimaginative and conventional. But technically skilled. (Tilley 1996: Jun 2)

    Therefore, Tilley is correct in noting the power of the diary as setting a particular agenda (Tilley 1996: Jun 4), for it generates its own cognitive and moral arena (Pels 2000: 9). Against the backdrop of animosity and division between the Leskernick team members, the diary becomes a device which the directors use to issue criticism of those refusing to participate in the experiments of the project. The act of diary writing is consequently transformed into a method of confessional purification [that] subtly ensnares and downgrades those who are incapable of opening up and revealing themselves after the imperative example of the confessor (Pels 2000: 8).

    The diary detracts from archaeological information

    In the atalhyk diaries, the veering away of attention from the archaeological process has also been an issue, for the diary often came to be used as a device for expressing personal frustration (Farid 2000: 25). Such attention given to the personal has been labelled as narcissism (Moore 1994: 45; Bourdieu 2003: 282), in that the processes demonstrating the dynamic between the subject and the object/s of interpretation are disregarded in favour of personal narratives, which steer the diary

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 37

    away from its ability to elucidate the archaeological process. Needless to say, in this essay we seem to be commentating on archaeological projects as if they were soap operas, acted out by a clique of professional academics!

    Though shifting the focus away from the archaeological process is a relatively obvious sign of the diary detracting from real data, recording and prioritizing of interpretation is another more subtle means. This is also connected to the issue of interpretations which are at odds with those of the project directors. In the following entries, Tilley reflects on his own role in controlling data collection and interpretation by giving precedence to his voice when recording features:

    Should I be writing down what Marylyn says even if I deem it to be inaccurate? (Tilley 1996: Jun 14)

    Matt is extremely upset when I dismiss as uninteresting what he thinks is a very significant triangular stone. (Tilley 1996: Jun 19)

    It emerges that not all interpretations are equal, despite claims of multiple perspectives that were supposedly a driving force behind keeping diaries in the first place. Not only are the views of the excavators and students marginalized but the relationship between the directors themselves regarding interpretation too becomes strained. Thus, issues of hierarchy are brought to the fore and seen as indivisible from the processes of the creation of archaeological knowledge.

    Conclusions

    In discussing the content and format of the archaeological diary, we have raised some issues regarding the use of diaries in archaeology, and particularly their circulation in print and on the internet. They are intriguing documents, complex and difficult to hold to a unified standard, as each contains the perspective of an individual. It is therefore questionable whether we can even talk of the archaeological diary.

    There are several benefits to writing diaries during archaeological fieldwork: they encourage reflexive practice; acknowledge the subjectivity of the archaeologist; and to some extent negate the subjective-objective opposition; they provide raw data rather than the cooked final report, and therefore are less distorted by hindsight; and they allow for multiple voices and viewpoints. But these benefits can all be subverted in practice, and may in fact turn into negatives: reflexivity and transparency may mask or confuse an objective truth; what appear to be spontaneous notes may in fact be premeditated accounts, especially when the writing of diaries is a contrived exercise rather than a personal choice.

    Therefore, we do not dismiss the adoption of diaries in archaeology: we regard their use at Leskernick and atalhyk as having contributed significantly to the dialogue over reflexivity and subjective practice. We argue, though, that attempts to attain multivocality and immediacy have sometimes backfired and resulted in quite the opposite the reinforcement of hierarchies, privileged voices, and pre-determined narratives.

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 38

    Thus, the notion that diaries are authentic, faithful representations of archaeological practice remains problematic. While they do not solve problems associated with knowledge production and bridging the data-interpretation divide, their capacity to describe circumstances impacting on the production of archaeological knowledge and the legacy of an archaeological campaign gives archaeologists additional tools with which they are able to evaluate their work and make informed decisions about the processes of excavation and interpretation.

    It is a brave step to publish personal diaries, though can be a calculated one. Nevertheless, people are fallible and diaries help to reveal mistakes the process of trial and error through which we reach conclusions and create knowledge. Thus, the use of diaries not only enlivens archaeological writing, it is an important (though not unproblematic) step towards eroding the unspoken conventions and meta-narratives that often pervade writing on field archaeology.

    Diary entries

    Basu 1998 = Introductory note to the Leskernick diaries, available online at

    Bender 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available online at

    CM 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    DEL 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    ER 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    Hamilton 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available online at

    HSL 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    JJW 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    JST 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    KJK 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    RBW 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    RR 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 39

    SO 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at

    Tilley 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available online at

    Bibliography

    Barker, E. 1999: Introduction in E. Barker (ed.), Contemporary Cultures of Display. New Haven: Yale University Press, 23-25.

    Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 1997: Leskernick: stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 147-78.

    Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 2007: Stone Worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology. Left Coast Press.

    Bourdieu, P. 2003: Participant objectivation, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, 281-94.

    Chadwick, A. 2003: Post-processualism, professionalisation, and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice, Archaeological Dialogues 10/1, 97-117.

    Farid, S. and Team Members 2000: The excavation process at atalhyk, in Hodder (ed.) 2000, 16-36.

    Fleming, A. 2006: Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16/3, 267-80.

    Gosden, C. 1999: Anthropology and Archaeology: a changing relationship. London and New York: Routledge.

    Hamilakis, Y. 1999: La trahison de archologues? Archaeological practice as intellectual activity in postmodernity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12/1, 60-79.

    Hamilakis, Y. 2004: Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy, World Archaeology 36/2, 287-309.

    Hamilton, S. and Whitehouse, R. 2006: Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a subjective approach, European Journal of Archaeology 9, 31-71.

    Hodder, I. 1989: Writing archaeology: site reports in context, Antiquity 63, 268-74.

    Hodder, I. 1999: The Archaeological Process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Hodder, I. (ed.) 2000: Towards a Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the example at atalhyk. Cambridge: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

    Hodder, I. 2003a: Archaeology Beyond Dialogue. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

  • p.i.t.: archeologische ervaringen 6 (3 december 2008) 40

    Hodder, I. 2003b: Archaeological reflexivity and the local voice, Anthropological Quarterly 76/1, 55-69.

    Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003: Reading the Past: current approaches in archaeology theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Joyce, R. A. 2002: The Languages of Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Kuhn, T. 1970: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Moore, L. E. 1994: The ironies of self-reflection in archaeology in I. M. Mackenzie (ed.), Archaeological Theory: progress or posture? Aldershot & Brookfield: Avebury, 43-65.

    Morris, I. 1994: Archaeologies of Greece in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece. Ancient histories and modern archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8-47.

    Olsen, B. 1991: Roland Barthes: From Sign to Text in C. Tilley (ed.), Reading Material Culture. Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Post-Structuralism. Oxford: Blackwell, 163-205.

    Olsen, B. 2006: Archaeology, hermeneutics of suspicion and phenomenological trivialization, Archaeological Dialogues 13/2, 144-50.

    Pels, D. 2000: Reflexivity. One step up, Theory, Culture and Society 17/3, 1-25.

    Peltz, L. and Myrone, M. 1999: Introduction: mine are the subjects rejected by the historian: antiquarianism, history and the making of modern culture, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds.), Producing the Past: aspects of antiquarian culture and practice 1700-1850. Aldershot & Brookfield: Ashgate, 1-13.

    Ricoeur, P. 1981: Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Sinclair, A. 2000: This is an article about archaeology as writing, in J. Thomas (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology: a reader. London & New York: Leicester University Press, 474-88.

    Tilley, C. 1989: Excavation as Theatre, Antiquity 63, 275-80.

    Tilley, C. 1994: A Phenomenology of Landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg

    Tilley, C. 2004: The Materiality of Stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford & New York: Berg.

    Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., and Bender, B. 2000: Art and the re-presentation of the past, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6/1, 35-62.

    Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., Harrison, S., and Anderson, E. (undated): Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing between cultural and geomorphological landscapes: the case of hilltop tors in southwest England, article available on the Leskernick website at