Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Archaeological Ethnography (Hamilakis 2011)
Archaeological Ethnography (Hamilakis 2011)
Archaeological Ethnography (Hamilakis 2011)
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Archaeological Ethnography:
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
A Multitemporal Meeting
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Ground for Archaeology
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
and Anthropology
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
Yannis Hamilakis
Archaeology, School of Humanities, University of Southampton, Southampton,
SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom; email: y.hamilakis@soton.ac.uk
399
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
400 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
archaeological use is to provide analogies for Lucas 2010), scholars are increasingly realizing
the interpretation of past material evidence. that such an assumption is a fallacy, and one
Equally, both fields have left behind rep- with serious consequences and not only of
resentationist, structuralist, and linguistic in- epistemological nature (see Zimmerman 2008).
terpretive schemes, or at least have theorized The assumption is certainly false in all these
and problematized their application and useful- cases of the archaeology of the contemporary
ness. As recent commentators have noted (e.g., past (on which more below). This assertion
Yarrow 2010), the perceived asymmetry be- of absence is based on the fact that when
tween archaeology and anthropology may have archaeologists investigate certain time periods,
had positive effects because it has forced archae- the ones they call prehistoric for example, they
ology to think deeply about the potential and often rely on material traces alone. Leaving
properties of its immediate object, i.e., mate- aside, for the moment, the assumptions behind
rial things, and on its genealogy, its historical this premise (that archaeology is almost exclu-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
and sociopolitical underpinnings, and its gen- sively the pursuit of knowledge about the past),
eral role and purpose. Anthropologists, on the one could note that even in those cases our
other hand, have started paying much more at- contemporary archaeological practice, more
tention to material objects (revealing perhaps often than not, involves living people, as well as
an unacknowledged debt to archaeology, along materials: the fellow researchers and other spe-
with cultural history and microhistory), plac- cialists; the people who live near and in some
ing themselves at the center of the emerging cases within or on the top of what we designate
field of material culture studies. The trend is an “archaeological” site; and the people who
an outcome of the general move in humanities stake claims on and express allegiances with
and social sciences away from textualism, cogni- the material past, which we have named (often
tivism, and constructionism, and toward things problematically) “archaeological record.” Even
and materials and their sensuous properties for archaeology, therefore, and not just for
and effects (see Brown 2004, Domanska 2006, anthropology, people are around, and they
Fahlander & Kjellström 2010, Hamilakis et al. can and often do answer back, challenging not
2002, Henare et al. 2007, Hoskins 1998, Latour only the archaeologists’ stories and interpre-
2005, Miller 2009, Myers 2001, Turkle 2007). tations, but often their legitimacy and their
Anthropologists have also shown a renewed in- self-proclaimed exclusive right as stewards
terest in history, following the thriving, at least and interpreters of the material past [see
since the 1980s, tradition of historical anthro- Comaroff & Comaroff (1992, p. 15) for a
pology (e.g., Cohn 1990, Comaroff & Comaroff critique of a similar anthropological miscon-
1992, Sahlins 1985); more pertinently, the ex- ception of history].
ploration of the diverse social modes of popular This paper aims to demonstrate that the
and vernacular historicization has gained new transformed fields of archaeology and anthro-
impetus (see Hirsch & Stewart 2005). pology now have the opportunity for a lasting
Most importantly, however, and to return to and much more fruitful rapprochement, in
the anecdote above, it is the belief that archaeol- the emerging shared ground and space of
ogy deals with dead people who cannot answer archaeological ethnography. At the same time,
back and contest our account of them that has this transdisciplinary field also constitutes the
been heavily eroded and problematized. Al- space for transcultural encounters and provides
though even in sophisticated treatments today, the arena for the meeting of practitioners from
we often hear and read that a fundamental other fields, from history to contemporary
attribute of archaeology that distinguishes it art. More importantly, as the invocation of
from anthropology is absence, the absence of ethnography denotes, this transcultural space
people, that is, who are present only through facilitates multiple coexistences, encounters,
the material traces they have left behind (e.g., conversations, and dialogues, and also critical
engagements and creative tensions between including their objects of study and their rela-
scholars and diverse publics and social actors. tionships with time and with matter. Further-
Materiality and temporality are at the center more, archaeological ethnography may consti-
for this transdisciplinary and transcultural tute an appropriate and effective way through
space. The methods for this new field are still which both parent disciplines can contribute
forming, but they appear to combine both to the broader scholarly and public debates on
archaeological and anthropological practices. modernity, temporality, and materiality, as well
At the same time, practitioners of archaeo- as the intersection among them.
logical ethnography are also experimenting
with new methods that have been devised to
serve specifically this emerging field. Although PAVING THE WAY FOR
archaeological ethnography is my chosen name ARCHAEOLOGICAL
for this field, several other studies within it have ETHNOGRAPHIES
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
adopted other names, including ethnographic Some readers will have already noted that the
archaeology (Castañeda & Matthews 2008) and term archaeological ethnography has a long
ethnocritical archaeology (Zimmerman 2008). history. It originates within ethnoarchaeology,
This discussion will not review a similar and the use of ethnography by archaeologists to
valuable development, which has been called aid interpretation of past material traces (e.g.,
ethnography of archaeological practice (e.g., Watson 1979, 2009), and is still used by archae-
Edgeworth 2003, 2006, 2010), the exclusive ological works that operate within, or originate
focus of which is the detailed ethnographic un- from, the ethnoarchaeological paradigm (e.g.,
derstanding of the workings of the archaeolog- Forbes 2007, Parsons 2006). Ethnoarchaeol-
ical discipline and profession itself and its ways ogy was linked to 1960s and 1970s new ar-
of producing knowledges as well as material ef- chaeology and was seen as a way to animate
fects. I hope to show below, however, that such the “static” remnants of the past, by collect-
a valuable effort cannot fulfill its potential if it ing ethnographic data from communities living
is carried out in isolation, if it ignores the mul- near the archaeological sites under investiga-
tiple encounters between scholars and various tion or from societies that, owing to their per-
publics in and around archaeological spaces. ceived “premodern” way of life, were deemed
Likewise, rather than reviewing and com- appropriate to be compared with archaeological
menting on the very wide range of uses and contexts. Analogical inferences and the princi-
applications of ethnography within archaeol- ples of uniformitarianism lie at the basis of eth-
ogy (compare Hollowell & Nicholas 2008), the noarchaeology, which came under severe criti-
aim here is to limit the discussion only to the cism by more recent interpretative and critical
field of archaeological ethnography. This arti- archaeological approaches on both epistemo-
cle does not simply review the key ideas and logical and ethical-political grounds. This crit-
developments within this emerging field (for icism focused on the epistemic problems with
other reviews and assessments, see Castañeda the use of analogy (e.g., Wylie 1985), the al-
2008, Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009b, lochronization of contemporary people (Fabian
Hollowell & Mortensen 2009b, Hollowell & 1983), and the ethically problematic, often im-
Nicholas 2008). Its ultimate aim is to show plicit assumption that the primary archaeolog-
that archaeological ethnography, far from being ical function of contemporary communities is
simply an additional method and practice in the to act as proxies for the people in the past
already rich armory of archaeology, constitutes and sources of useful (for the archaeologist) in-
a fundamental challenge for both archaeology terpretative information (Fewster 2001). De-
and anthropology: It forces us both to recon- spite or perhaps because of this criticism, some
sider their ontological and epistemic certainties strands of ethnoarchaeology have developed in
and to rethink their foundational charter myths, a more critical and reflexive manner and have
402 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
expanded the range of issues to be investigated archaeology, the ethnographies of heritage, and
and the analytical concepts used (see Fewster the archaeologies of the contemporary past.
2006; and for a more general review, David & The diverse intellectual developments of the
Kramer 2001). 1980s and early 1990s known as the interpre-
More importantly, earlier critics did not ap- tive, postprocessual turn are well known by
preciate perhaps the diversity of ethnoarchaeo- now. One of its largely undeveloped compo-
logical applications and did not anticipate that, nents had been the belief in the political di-
despite the epistemic frame and the founda- mension of archaeological practice (Hamilakis
tional logic of ethnoarchaeology, the process 2007a). This belief was not simply a result of
of engaging with contemporary communities the realization that archaeological objects and
and local people acquires its own dynamic and finds as well as archaeological knowledge are
harbors an immense transformative potential. often deployed within various political agen-
Archaeologists who engaged in ethnoarchae- das; more importantly, it was an outcome of the
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
ological research with the initial aim to solve understanding of archaeological practice itself
(with the help of local people) specific archae- as historically contingent, firmly rooted in the
ological problems came progressively to val- present, and thus inherently political. Internal
orize ethnographic research in its own right scholarly developments, however, would not
and often produced informative and powerful have been enough to force archaeology to con-
accounts of contemporary social practices that front its political character, and inevitably its
may or may not be of any direct archaeologi- colonial and nationalist heritage. Social and po-
cal use (see Fewster 2006; Forbes 2007, 2009; litical pressures, from the struggles by indige-
Halstead 1998). In doing so, they also implic- nous peoples resisting their (and their ances-
itly and perhaps unintentionally challenged the tral traces’) “scientific” objectification, to calls
(modernist) epistemic foundations of archaeol- for the repatriation of ancient objects housed in
ogy, especially the rigid separation between past metropolitan western museums, and for archae-
and present, or between prehistoric and historic ology to align itself with major political battles
periods. This is particularly true for projects op- such as the antiapartheid struggle (Ucko 1987),
erating within the framework of multiperiod, contributed immensely to the loss of archae-
regional surveys. Some key studies and publi- ology’s political innocence. As a result, vari-
cations carried out within the broader ethnoar- ous forms of community and collaborative par-
chaeological tradition but focusing on the study ticipation in the archaeological process were
of contemporary, urban material culture as op- developed, which involved direct engagement
posed to “traditional” contexts (e.g., Gould & and face-to-face interaction with local com-
Schiffer 1981, Rathje 1979) also paved the way munities and indigenous groups (see Colwell-
for the more recent field of the archaeologies Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2008, Derry &
of the contemporary past (see below). Ethnoar- Malloy 2003, Kerber 2006, Marshall 2002,
chaeology should be seen as one of the ances- Silliman 2008a). Studies on the contemporary
tral fields of archaeological ethnography, and political economy and sociopolitics of archae-
its history, but also contemporary insights, es- ology (e.g., Boytner et al. 2010; Gathercole
pecially the ones resulting from reflexive and & Lowenthal 1990; Hamilakis & Duke 2007;
critical engagements with living communities, Kane 2003; Zorzin 2011a,b) including those on
should be of immense value in constituting the nationalist and colonialist archaeology (Abu El-
field of archaeological ethnography. Haj 2001, Hamilakis 2007b, Lydon & Rizvi
More instrumental in bringing about ar- 2010, Nicholas & Hollowell 2007, Stefanou
chaeological ethnography, however, have been 2008), on indigenous perspectives (cf. Allen &
other scholarly developments, the most im- Philips 2010, Smith & Wobst 2005, Watkins
portant being the emergence of critical- 2005), and more recently on the involvement
interpretative or postprocessual approaches in of archaeology in contemporary armed conflict
and warfare and in the “war on terror” (e.g., space (Herzfeld 1991), a space that sits uncom-
Albarella 2009, Crossland 2009, Emberling fortably in the broader national discourse that
2008, Hamilakis 2009, Myers 2010, Perring & prioritizes the classical past (Hamilakis 2007b);
Linde 2009, Price 2009, Silliman 2008b, Stone the ethnographic study of the most iconic mon-
2009) have proliferated, challenging further the ument of that same Greek national discourse,
temporal distanciation upon which modernist the Athenian Acropolis, as the embodiment
archaeology was founded. of simultaneously national and global value
Although these intellectual-cum-social (Yalouri 2001) and as a purified and purifying
developments prepared the political landscape space that seeks to displace all “matter out
for archaeological ethnography, the ethnogra- of place” around it, including the dilapidated
phies of heritage and the archaeologies of the neighborhood of Anaphiotika on its foothill
contemporary past gave it further impetus. (Caftantzoglou 2001); the clash between the of-
The former foregrounded the contested nature ficial projection of that other iconic monument,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
404 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
standpoint on the part of local people, who see properties of this space, and they need not
these artifacts as gifts from their ancestors and be rehearsed in full here. Briefly, they include
emphasize the strengthening of the connection its reflexive nature, meant not so much as the
with the past that the act of digging creates individual researchers’ self-positioning, as the
(Hollowell 2004, 2006, 2009); another example situation and contextualization of the project
is the ethnography among the villagers of as a whole (Castañeda 2008). We have also
Kozani in northern Greece, who illicitly collect defined it as total (but not totalizing) ethnog-
antiquities not in order to sell them, but as a raphy: Although things from various times
way of creating their own material histories (and their scholarly and public renderings and
outside the official ones produced by the state. meaningful deployments) constitute the core
These are histories that stress a felt intimacy and focus of archaeological ethnography, we
with material objects and a pride in one’s have argued that these need to be explored
own locality, as opposed to the homogenized within the broader social context and can be
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
national space (Antoniadou 2009; for other understood only if the researcher is attuned to
studies, see Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2004, the materiality and temporality of social life in
Matsuda 1998, Thoden van Velzen 1996). general. As such, archaeological ethnography
requires long-term commitment to and linguis-
tic and social familiarization with the specific
DEFINING THE SPACE OF context. Such long-term, total ethnography
ARCHAEOLOGICAL needs to be multisited, given the dispersal
ETHNOGRAPHY of past materiality in diverse, often global
Some recent attempts at archaeological ethnog- domains, but without losing the analytical
raphy define it as a novel, hybrid practice, force that a sustained focus on a defined and
a method that combines archaeological and delimited space, such as an archaeological site,
anthropological procedures and ideas. Such a for example, can offer (Candea 2007). Materi-
definition, however, limits the potential of ar- ality acts on people through bodily senses and,
chaeological ethnography and prevents its prac- for an archaeological ethnography to do justice
titioners from exploring not only the epistemic to it, will need to be multisensory and sensitive
but also the ontological implications of this to the political economy of affect that material
emerging field, for both archaeology and an- things generate and are a key part of (Richard
thropology. I argue instead that archaeological & Rudnyckyj 2009). Political contestations
ethnography is (and can be) much more than a of various kinds are ever present at heritage
practice and a method. It is rather a transdisci- spaces, and archaeological ethnography cannot
plinary and transcultural space, a locality and a but adopt a politically sensitive perspective
ground that allows for multiple meetings, con- beyond the managerialism that characterizes
versations, and interventions to take place. The much of the scholarly discourse on heritage
production of this space is possible because of (Hollowell & Nicholas 2009), working thus
the epistemic and interpretive transformations against the bureaucratization of ethics in ar-
that its parent disciplines, archaeology and an- chaeology and anthropology (Hamilakis 2007a,
thropology, have undergone in the past 20 years Meskell & Pells 2005). Finally, archaeological
or so and because of the social interventions ethnography will have to sail between the rock
upon scholarly work and practice by disenfran- of presentism and homochronism (inherent in
chised people and groups. Materiality and tem- ethnographic attempts; see Birth 2008) and the
porality are the two defining features of this hard place of allochronism and escapism that
novel space; archaeological ethnography is con- comes from the archaeo- of archaeology (and
stituted at the intersection of these two features. can also be found in some earlier anthropo-
Elsewhere (Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos logical accounts). Archaeological ethnography
2009b) we defined in some detail the key should be multitemporal, attuned both to
tension but can also work as a locale where cre- has brought everything together to carry out
ative negotiations and revelatory performances a series of practices that he calls ethnographic
of various kinds can be enacted (Clifford 1997, installations: Photographic, archival, and
2003). An archaeological site, for example, is ethnographic material is “returned” to the
a perfect such borderland and an ideal zone community in the shape of a series of carefully
of contact. Here, the border very often takes staged exhibitions. This has been conceived and
the physical manifestation of a metal fence executed as a performance inspired by, among
delineating the expropriated land and defining other things, the “theater of the oppressed” of
its heterotopic status. Within it, it can also take Agosto Boal. In addition to their ethical role
the shape of a cordon put up by archaeologists in making public hitherto inaccessible for the
to “protect” sensitive areas, or keep visitors local communities materials that were part of
out, so that an active archaeological excavation their history, these practices also serve as a
can go on undisturbed. Yet local people and stage for further ethnographic research and
tourists alike, longing for intimacy and a closer information, leading to a novel process of col-
encounter with the materiality of the past, laborative knowledge production. Levinasian
sometimes cross these physical barriers, creat- ethics prioritizing face-to-face interaction
ing tension and confrontation, but which can were some of the guiding theoretical ideas,
also lead to a detailed, sensitive, ethnographic and elicitation, evocation, and ethnographic
discourse and perhaps subsequent dialogues triggers were some of its underpinnings.
and collaborations. Marshall and colleagues (2009) take ar-
chaeological ethnography into a different
dimension by working through the concept of
WHAT DOES AN autoethnography, seen as an in-depth, reflex-
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ive, ethnographic exploration of the researcher
ETHNOGRAPHY MEAN herself, an exploration which then becomes
IN PRACTICE? an integral part of the research process. Their
Rather than listing an exhaustive series of context was the Cold War (1980s), women-
instances and cases in archaeological ethnog- only, peace camps at Greenham Common in
raphy, and an equally long array of methods southern England, at the site where the United
deployed, I instead discuss a few key studies States had constructed a military base for nu-
that are paradigmatic of this emerging field. clear missiles. Some members of the research
Through this discussion, the kinds of method- team were actively involved as peace activists in
ological procedures currently in operation the camps, whereas others were directly or in-
will also emerge (for other cases, see papers directly implicated in other ways; e.g., one was
in Castañeda & Matthews 2008; Hamilakis a daughter of a peace activist. This started as a
406 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
conventional archaeological project (within the the most important archaeological site for the
recent trend for an archaeology of the recent island, yet there seemed to be an active dis-
and contemporary past, and the archaeology missal of its value among local people, whereas
of the Cold War/“military archaeology”; see local intellectuals and others seemed to want to
Schofield 2009, Schofield & Anderton 2000), promote more the nineteenth-century heritage
but it soon became evident that it had to of the island (which linked it to the Greek
change course radically. The autoethnographic War of Independence) rather than the Greek
endeavor helped researchers realize that their national golden age, the classical past (see
propeace, feminist political convictions had to Hamilakis 2007b). Our colleagues who were
become an essential part of the research enter- excavating the site and who had invited us to
prise, something that did not sit comfortably carry out ethnography did everything they
with the seemingly “neutral” and apolitical could to facilitate our research, but they were
stance adopted by heritage organizations such at the same time occasionally nervous that
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
as English Heritage. In addition to autoethnog- they were being “watched,” and they could not
raphy, ethnographic interviews with women always understand our insistence in collecting
who were active at the camps convinced the broken glass and rusty nails, the material traces
researchers that they should abandon their of the farmstead that was demolished to make
planned archaeological methods of excavation way for the excavations. Intensive archival and
and collection of artifacts and concentrate ethnographic research among local communi-
instead on surveying and on recording objects ties (including the workmen and workwomen
and features in situ. In this transformed process, employed by archaeology) and visitors, lasting
ethnography and oral history, as well as the for three years, and carried out by a team
direct involvement in fieldwork of the women of scholars (archaeologists, anthropologists,
protagonists, became extremely important. As photo-ethnographers and photo-bloggers),
researchers recognized that Greenham Com- indicated the existence of a series of parallel and
mon was not simply a peace camp but rather often conflicting discourses about the site. It
a feminist space for radical experimentation, also revealed a longing for an intimate connec-
they also decided to constitute their project tion with ancient objects and their materiality,
as a space where politics, reflexivity, memory, objects that are subject to access restrictions
and archaeology came together. imposed by official archaeology; furthermore,
In one of my own archaeological ethnog- it exposed a desire on the part of our inter-
raphy projects, the one centered around the locutors to understand the political economy
archaeological site of Kalaureia (known for of archaeological practice (“who sponsors you,
its ancient sanctuary of Poseidon) on the and why do they pay for all this?”) and the
island of Poros, Greece (see Hamilakis et al. inner workings of archaeology. Excavation
2009, Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009b), workmen, for example, were attempting to
I entered a field filled with tension right from trace the subsequent social life of the objects
the start: The land upon which the sanctuary of they themselves brought to light, and they were
Poseidon was located had been expropriated by disappointed when they could not find them in
the state archaeological service through a long the local museum, fueling further the mistrust
and acrimonious process involving the family against official archaeology. It soon became
that, until the start of the recent excavations, clear that, although our ethnography was not
was living among the ruins, reusing the ancient designed to investigate archaeological practice
buildings for its own, day-to-day needs. State and the workings of the discipline as such, it
archaeology had also caused much resentment inevitably had to include all social actors who
in the area owing to the strict application of engaged with the site in whatever capacity,
antiquities legislation and also because of its including archaeologists and archaeological
inherent bureaucratic problems. Kalaureia was workwomen and workmen, because their
interaction with various publics was constant, simply an arena of transcultural encounters
often resulting in many revelatory moments. among archaeologists, anthropologists, artists,
Furthermore, we staged site tours and school scholars from various disciplines, and diverse
projects on site as ethnographic performances, social actors and publics, and where the offi-
often choosing objects that embodied different cial, modernist archaeology comes into contact
times and ones that were evocative of the with the various alternative archaeologies, de-
diverse social life of the place (e.g., an ancient fined as multiple discourses and practices on
block with graffiti on it, made by the children of things from another time (see Hamilakis 2008,
the family who used to play among the ruins). Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009b). It does
Within our broad methodological appara- not merely provide a way of confronting and ex-
tus, photo-ethnography and photo-blogging posing to critical scrutiny conflicts and clashes
acquired prominence. In addition to documen- over heritage and of understanding nonofficial,
tary photography, we took many creative pho- popular valorizations of the material past. It
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
tographs, treating the photographic process as does not only render archaeological knowledge
an opportunity for ethnographic encounters production a collaborative endeavor, valorizing
and as a way of eliciting responses from the ar- at the same time dialogic processes and face-
chaeological team and from visitors and local to-face, transformative encounters in their own
people. Our photographs were not representa- right, rather than seeing them simply as instru-
tions but evocative material objects that reen- ments in knowledge production. It does not
tered ethnography through local exhibitions only confront head-on the fallacy that, unlike
and through an ongoing photoblog (http:// anthropology, archaeology deals with absence,
www.kalaureiainthepresent.org), thus con- the absence of people whose traces are called
stituting ethnographic installations. on to recover, record, curate, and interpret. It
The San Pedro Valley ethnohistory project does all the above, but its potential is far greater.
in southern Arizona can be described as another Archaeological ethnography is not an archae-
pioneering effort in archaeological ethnogra- ological methodological tool, nor is it purely
phy (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006, Colwell- a research apparatus within the domain of
Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2004, Ferguson & heritage.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006). Its value does In a recent paper, originally delivered as a
not lie simply in bringing into direct dialogue keynote speech at the 2009 Bristol meeting on
and collaboration archaeologists and Native the interface between archaeology and anthro-
American people from different tribes, nor in pology referred to in the introduction above,
its methodologically innovative practices con- Ingold (2010) imagines the fields of archaeol-
sisting, among others, of peripatetic dialogues ogy and anthropology in the year 2053. In do-
where the land and its features become the pri- ing so, he conjures up an image of two closely
mary mediators. Its most important contribu- linked but transformed disciplines, whereby ar-
tion rests in the effort to question long-standing chaeology has abandoned its obsession with
official archaeological premises, including the the archaeo-, that is with a certain concep-
archaeological-ontological principles that pri- tion of time as genealogical, and the mod-
oritize the linearity of time and the notion of ernist insistence on linearity and temporal suc-
temporal succession, principles that have been cession, whereas anthropology has abandoned
at the basis of the western modernist canon. the anthropo-, that is its exclusive preoccupa-
tion with humans, embracing instead all organ-
isms, humans, plants, animals, as well as mate-
BEYOND HERITAGE: rial things: in other words, a discipline that has
CONCLUSIONS become a “principled inquiry into the condi-
The emerging transdisciplinary space of ar- tions and potentials of life in a world peopled
chaeological ethnography does not constitute by beings whose identities are established not
408 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
by species membership but by relational accom- stone? Objects and artifacts, owing to their du-
plishment” (p. 160). rational qualities, constitute material memories
Archaeological ethnography is an endeavor that embody and project time as coexistence
that can help make this futuristic image become rather than as linearity or succession: They
reality. Far from denigrating objects and mate- are multitemporal (see Hamilakis & Labanyi
rials in favor of the ethnographic, as some would 2008; Olivier 1999, 2008). As such, they are an
fear, it places the thingness of things and the anomaly for a modernist conception of time,
properties of materials center stage. In doing complicating official archaeology’s chronomet-
so, it also recognizes, after Bergson (1991), that ric devices, which, more often than not, prior-
a fundamental property of matter is its dura- itize one moment in the life of the artifact. But
tion, its ability to last, its insistence in disrupt- this anomaly also constitutes the great trans-
ing the temporality of the present, and the on- formative potential of objects and things: They
tology of linearity and succession (see Al-Saji throw into disarray modernist temporality, pro-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
2004, Deleuze 1991). Take, for example, an ar- gressive sequential time (see Dawdy 2010).
chitectural stone block removed from its geo- Although one could claim that such
logical context sometime in the sixth century philosophical reflection does not need archae-
B.C. and carved in a certain shape to become ological ethnography, only the objects and
part of a building in a sanctuary. A modernist, artifacts themselves, I insist that it is through
conventional archaeologist would date it in the multitemporal archaeological ethnography
sixth century, thus prioritizing a specific mo- that such rethinking and reconceptualization
ment in its life. But the object in question con- acquire potency and import: by witnessing
tinued to live and became a feature in some- ethnographically multiple, alternative percep-
one’s house in the twentieth century A.D. and a tions of materiality and temporality; by making
drawing panel upon which children would carve the properties and qualities of objects and
their initials, contributing thus to its ongoing things (things that are often arranged in—and
transformation. The carvings would eventually thus finished with—chronometric, typological,
become less prominent, as lichens would colo- functional, or formal taxonomies), their thing-
nize their grooves, but being still visible would ness and materiality, a fundamental point of
attract the attention of the twenty-first century inquiry; by attending to the traces of their con-
A.D. archaeological ethnographers, who would tinuous lives and existences, their patina, their
make the stone an object of ethnographic in- reworking by human and nonhuman agents in
quiry (creating, based on the carved initials, a different times; by inquiring ethnographically
genealogical-relational chart of the family who about their agency, today and in the past; and
lived there, before “archaeology” arrived), a by enabling such presence and agency to be
touchstone and a stop-over point in visitors’ enacted through the staging of contemporary
tours, a stage for further ethnographic per- performances, where humans, other beings,
formances and engagements. How old is that and objects and things are all key protagonists.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to all my colleagues at the Kalaureia Research Program, archaeologists, workwomen,
workmen, and guards, for everything they did to facilitate our archaeological ethnography work;
and to my closest collaborators in this endeavor, Aris Anagnostopoulos and Fotis Ifantidis. Above
all, I am indebted to the people of Poros and the surrounding area, and to the countless visitors
to the site, for their warm response and the many revelatory moments. An anonymous referee
provided helpful comments and suggestions.
LITERATURE CITED
Abu El-Haj N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society.
Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
Albarella U. 2009. Archaeologists in conflict: empathizing with which victims? Heritage Manage. 2(1):105–14
Allen H, Phillips C, eds. 2010. Bridging the Divide: Indigenous Communities and Archaeology in the 21st Century.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Al-Saji A. 2004. The memory of another past: Bergson, Deleuze, and a new theory of time. Cont. Philos. Rev.
37(2):203–39
Antoniadou I. 2009. Reflections on an archaeological ethnography of “looting” in Kozani, Greece. See
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
410 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
David N, Kramer C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Dawdy SL. 2010. Clockpunk anthropology and the ruins of modernity. Curr. Anthropol. 51(6):761–93
Deleuze G. 1991. Bergsonism. Transl. H Tomlinson, B Habberjam. New York: Zone Books
Derry L, Malloy M, eds. 2003. Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past. Washington,
DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Domanska E. 2006. The material presence of the past. Hist. Theory 45:337–48
Duke P. 2006. Knossos as memorial, ritual, and metaphor. See Hamilakis & Momigliano 2006, pp. 79–88
Duke P. 2007. The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance: Archaeology and Tourism on a Greek Island. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast
Edgeworth M. 2003. Acts of Discovery: An Ethnography of Archaeological Practice. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR
S1131)
Edgeworth M, ed. 2006. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Edgeworth M. 2010. On the boundary: new perspectives from ethnography of archaeology. See Garrow &
Yarrow 2010, pp. 53–68
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
Emberling G. 2008. Archaeologists and the military in Iraq 2003–2008: compromise or contribution? Archaeol.:
J. World Archaeol. Cong. 4(3):445–59
Fabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Fahlander F, Kjellström A, eds. 2010. Making Sense of Things: Archaeologies of Sensory Perception. Stockholm:
Dep. Archaeol. Class. Hist., Stockholm Univ. (Stockholm Stud. Archaeol. 53)
Ferguson TJ, Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2006. History Is in the Land: Multivocal Tribal Traditions in Arizona’s
San Pedro Valley. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Fewster K. 2001. The responsibilities of ethnoarchaeologists. In The Responsibilities of Archaeologists: Archaeology
and Ethics, ed. M Pluciennik, pp. 65–73. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR S981; Lampeter Workshop Archaeol.
4)
Fewster K. 2006. The potential for analogy in post-processual archaeologies: a case study in Basimane ward,
Serowe, Botswana. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 12(1):61–87
Flannery K. 2006. On the resilience of anthropological archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:1–13
Fontein J. 2006. The Silence of Great Zimbabwe: Contested Landscapes and the Power of Heritage. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast
Forbes H. 2007. Meaning and Identity in a Greek Landscape: An Archaeological Ethnography. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Forbes H. 2009. Researching Ekina ta Khronia [Times Past] in a rural Greek community. See Hamilakis &
Anagnostopoulos 2009a, pp. 88–107
Garrow D, Yarrow T, eds. 2010. Archaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference.
Oxford: Oxbow
Gathercole P, Lowenthal D, eds. 1990. The Politics of the Past. London: Unwin Hyman
Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
González-Ruibal A. 2008. Time to destroy: an archaeology of supermodernity. Curr. Anthropol. 49(2):247–79
Gosden C. 1999. Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. London: Routledge
Gould RA, Schiffer MB, eds. 1981. Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. New York: Academic
Halstead P. 1998. Ask the fellows who lop the hay: leaf fodder in the mountains of northwest Greece. Rural
Hist. 9:211–34
Hamilakis Y. 2007a. From ethics to politics. See Hamilakis & Duke 2007, pp. 15–40
Hamilakis Y. 2007b. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Hamilakis Y. 2008. Decolonizing Greek archaeology: indigenous archaeologies, modernist archaeology, and
the post-colonial critique. In A Singular Modernity: Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth-Century
Greece, ed. D Damaskos, D Plantzos, pp. 273–84. Athens: Benaki Mus.
Hamilakis Y. 2009. The “war on terror” and the military archaeology complex: Iraq, ethics, and neo-
colonialism. Archaeol.: J. World Archaeol. Cong. 5(1):39–65
Hamilakis Y, Anagnostopoulos A, eds. 2009a. Archaeological Ethnographies. Leeds, UK/Cambridge, MA: Man-
ney [Public Archaeol. 8, (2/3)]
Hamilakis Y, Anagnostopoulos A. 2009b. What is archaeological ethnography? See Hamilakis & Anagnos-
topoulos 2009a, pp. 65–87
Hamilakis Y, Anagnostopoulos A, Ifantidis F. 2009. Postcards from the edge of time: archaeology, photography,
archaeological ethnography (a photo-essay). See Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009a, pp. 283–309
Hamilakis Y, Duke P, eds. 2007. Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast
Hamilakis Y, Labanyi J. 2008. Time, materiality, and the work of memory. Hist. Mem. 20(2):5–17
Hamilakis Y, Momigliano N, eds. 2006. Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the
“Minoans”. Padua: Also Ausilio/Bottega d’Erasmo (Creta Antica 7)
Hamilakis Y, Pluciennik M, Tarlow S, eds. 2002. Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality. New
York: Kluwer/Plenum
Handler R, Gable E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Harrison R, Schofield J, eds. 2009. Archaeo-ethnography, auto-archaeology: introducing archaeologies of the
contemporary past. Archaeol.: J. World Archaeol. Cong. Spec. Issue 5(2)
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
Harrison R, Schofield J. 2010. After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches of the Contemporary Past. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Henare A, Holbrad M, Wastell S, eds. 2007. Thinking Through Things: Theorising Artefacts Ethnographically.
London: Routledge
Herzfeld M. 1991. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Hirsch E, Stewart C. 2005. Introduction: ethnographies of historicity. Hist. Anthropol. 16(3):261–74
Hodder I, ed. 2005. Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge/London:
MacDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res. Brit. Inst. Ankara
Hollowell J. 2004. Old things on the loose: the legal market for archaeological materials from Alaska’s Bering Strait.
PhD thesis, Indiana Univ., Bloomington
Hollowell J. 2006. St. Lawrence’s legal market in archaeological goods. In Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and
the Antiquities Trade, ed. N Brodie, M Kersel, C Luke, KW Tubb, pp. 98–132. Gainsville: Univ. Fla.
Press
Hollowell J. 2009. Standpoints of stewardship in a global market for the material past. See Hollowell &
Mortensen 2009a, pp. 218–39
Hollowell J, Mortensen L, eds. 2009a. Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past. Gainsville: Univ.
Press Fla.
Hollowell J, Mortensen L. 2009b. Introduction: ethnographies and archaeologies. See Hollowell & Mortensen
2009a, pp. 1–17
Hollowell J, Nicholas G. 2008. A critical assessment of ethnography in archaeology. See Castañeda & Matthews
2008, pp. 63–94
Hollowell J, Nicholas G. 2009. Using ethnographic methods to articulate community-based conceptions of
cultural heritage management. See Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009a, pp. 141–60
Holtorf C, Piccini A, eds. 2009. Contemporary Archaeologies: Excavating Now. Frankfurt: Peter Lang
Hoskins J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. New York/London: Routledge
Ingold T. 2010. No more ancient; no more human: the future past of archaeology and anthropology. See
Garrow & Yarrow 2010, pp. 160–70
Kane S, ed. 2003. The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Boston, MA: Archaeol. Inst. Am.
(Colloq. Conf. Pap. 7)
Kerber JE, ed. 2006. Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States.
Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Kirch PV, Sahlins M. 1992. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, Vols. 1–2. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Lane K, Herrera A. 2005. Archaeology, landscapes and dreams: science, sacred offerings, and the practice of
archaeology. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 20(1):111–29
Latour B. 2005. From realpolitic to dingpolitic or how to make things public. In Making Things Public:
Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. B Latour, P Weibel, pp. 14–41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
412 Hamilakis
AN40CH25-Hamilakis ARI 16 August 2011 14:17
Leach E. 1977. A view from the bridge. In Archaeology and Anthropology: Areas of Mutual Interest, ed. M Springs,
pp. 161–76. Oxford: BAR S19
Lucas G. 2010. Triangulating absence: exploring the fault-lines between archaeology and anthropology. See
Garrow & Yarrow 2010, pp. 28–39
Lydon J, Rizvi U, eds. 2010. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Marshall Y, ed. 2002. Community Archaeology. London: Routledge (World Archaeol. 34)
Marshall Y, Roseneil S, Armstrong K. 2009. Situating the Greenham archaeology: an autoethnography of a
feminist project. See Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009a, pp. 225–45
Matsuda D. 1998. The ethics of archaeology, subsistence digging, and artifact looting in Latin America: point,
mute, counterpoint. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 7:87–97
Meskell L. 2005. Archaeological ethnography: conversations around Kruger National Park. Archaeol.: J. World
Archaeol. Congr. 1(1):81–100
Meskell L. 2007. Falling walls and mending fences: archaeological ethnography in the Limporo. J. South. Afr.
Stud. 33(2):383–400
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Stefanou E. 2008. Aspects of identity and nationhood: commemorating, representing and replicating the Greek maritime
past. PhD thesis, Univ. Southampton
Stone PG. 2009. Protecting cultural heritage in times of conflict: lessons from Iraq. Archaeol.: J. World Archaeol.
Cong. 5(1):32–38
Stroulia A. 2002. On the other side of Kiladha Bay: local perspectives on archaeological sites and on archae-
ology. Aegean Archaeol. 4:101–13
Stroulia A, Buck Sutton S, eds. 2010. Archaeology in Situ: Sites, Archaeology, and Communities in Greece. Lanham,
MD: Lexington
Thoden van Velzen D. 1996. The world of Tuscan tomb raiders: living with the local community and the
ancestors. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 5(1):111–26
Turkle S, ed. 2007. Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ucko P. 1987. Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological Congress. London:
Duckworth
Watkins J. 2005. Through wary eyes: indigenous perspectives on archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:429–49
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Watson PJ. 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Access provided by University College London on 07/06/18. For personal use only.
Watson PJ. 2009. Archaeology and anthropology: a personal overview of the past half-century. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 38:1–15
Wylie A. 1985. The reaction against analogy. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory 8:63–111
Yalouri E. 2001. The Acropolis: Global Fame, Local Claim. Oxford: Berg
Yarrow T. 2010. Not knowing as knowledge: asymmetry between archaeology and anthropology. See Garrow
& Yarrow 2010, pp. 13–27
Zimmerman LZ. 2008. Real people or reconstructed people? Ethnocritical archaeology, ethnography, and
community building. See Castañeda & Matthews 2008, pp. 183–204
Zorzin N. 2011a. Contextualising contract archaeology in Quebec: political economy and economic depen-
dencies. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 26(1):119–35
Zorzin N. 2011b. The political economy of a commercial archaeology: a Quebec case study. PhD thesis, Univ.
Southampton
414 Hamilakis
AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Prefatory Chapter
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:399-414. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Lucy Suchman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
The Archaeology of Consumption
Paul R. Mullins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology
Michael D. Frachetti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship?
Tim Murray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground
for Archaeology and Anthropology
Yannis Hamilakis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399
Archaeologies of Sovereignty
Adam T. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 415
A Century of Feasting Studies
Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Biological Anthropology
Menopause, A Biocultural Perspective
Melissa K. Melby and Michelle Lampl p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53
Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding
of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and
Associated Conditions
Tessa M. Pollard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145
From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution
of Language and Tool Use
Michael A. Arbib p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257
vi
AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33
Sociocultural Anthropology
Substance and Relationality: Blood in Contexts
Janet Carsten p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19
Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides
T.M. Luhrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71
Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology
Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies
Jeffrey H. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103
Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary
Climate Change
Susan A. Crate p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 175
Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality
of Immigration in Dark Times
Didier Fassin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Contents vii
AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33
viii Contents
AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33
Indexes
Errata
Contents ix