Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice

There have recently been a number of attempts to develop reflexive field methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000, Bender et al 1997, Chadwick 1998, Dowdall and Parrish 2003, Faulkner 2002, Fotiadis 1993, Gero 1996, Hodder 1999a, 2000, Lucas 2001, Politis 2001). It might be argued that this turn to the reflexive in archaeology is ironic. After all, socio-cultural anthropology has recently seen a sustained critique of the concept of reflexive ethnographic method (Lynch 2000, Salzman, 2002, Robertson 2002). At the very least, the archaeological move might seem delayed, given what Robertson (2002) describes as a 20-year history of reflexive discussion in anthropology (Clifford and Marcus 1986, Gupta and Ferguson 1997) and given the indications of even earlier beginnings (Robertson 2002). I wish to argue at the start of this paper, however, that the development of reflexive field methods in archaeology is neither delayed nor ironic. Rather it results from specific issues and problems which are of a rather different nature from those found in ethnography. Archaeology as a discipline grew in the 18th and 19th centuries as an integral part of the projects of nationalism and colonialism (Trigger 1984). For many European countries, for example, the archaeological past still has a self-evident relationship with the state. The protection End Page 55 of ancient monuments is a function of national governments, however much local and diverse voices might be raised against them. A closely related issue is that the distant past in many parts of the world may have no present communities which can stake a direct claim on it. There is no one today, for example, who can speak for, or represent the interests, of the "Beaker people" of the 3rd millennium bc in Europe, and the same is true for countless other cultural groupings identified by archaeologists in the deep past. A reflexivity that derives from the fieldworker's interaction with 'other', 'indigenous' voices of 'informants' is less likely to emerge in archaeology. It is precisely when the past is claimed by present communities that a reflexivity has been forced on archaeology. By reflexivity here, I mean initially the recognition and incorporation of multiple stakeholder groups, and the self-critical awareness of one's archaeological truth claims as historical and contingent. Post-colonial processes, global interactions, and the massive rise in the destruction of archaeological sites and monuments around the world have together created an awareness of divergent opinions about how the past should be managed. While there have been parallel intellectual debates in archaeology over the last 20 years (Shanks and Tilley 1987), the main impulse towards reflexive concerns has been the increased use of the past in identity formation and land-rights claims (Layton 1989; Gathercole and Lowenthal 1989, Kohl and Fawcett 1995. For a recent review see Meskell 2002a). While reburial issues in the United States have led to some objectivist retrenchment, they have also led to greater consultation (in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) and to anti-objectivist calls for the full integration of oral histories and indigenous knowledge (eg Anyon et al 1996; Stoffle et al 2001, Watkins 2000). The materiality and monumentality of the archaeological past mean that archaeological sites and monuments are often central to the construction of the national and colonial memory and counter-memory (eg Abu el-Haj 1998, Rowlands 1993; Meskell 2002b). The resulting conflicts over ownership, guardianship and interpretation have often been very public. The moves towards reflexivity, as defined above, have proceeded in the increasingly ethically-conscious halls of the academy, but also in local, national and international heritage management committees. Indeed, it has been the world of heritage management that has often been in the forefront of the development of guidelines which lead towards collaboration and multiple perspectives. For example, the Australian chapter of ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) has produced the Burra Charter which moves away from defining sites [End Page 56...