T Pruitt Digital Thesis

"#$%&'($) *+, $%- .
'&,#/$(&+ &0
1+&23-,4- (+ "'/%*-&3&4)

Teia C. Piuitt
Tiinity College

This Bisseitation is Submitteu foi the Begiee of
Boctoi of Philosophy

Bepaitment of Aichaeology
0niveisity of Cambiiuge

2u11

ii
"56$'*/$
Authoiity anu the Piouuction of Knowleuge in Aichaeology
by Teia C. Piuitt

This thesis examines the iole of authoiity in the piouuction of aichaeological
knowleuge. It examines how fluiu iueas anu obseivations foimeu in the fielu become
authoiitative, factual, soliu aichaeological piouucts, like scientific texts, ieconstiuctions oi
museum uisplays. It asks, what makes a peison, a thing oi an account of histoiy something
that is authoiitative. What makes someone an authoiity on the past. What is aichaeological
authoiity. This thesis ueconstiucts anu exposes authoiity in aichaeological piactice. It
taigets how piactitioneis of aichaeology actively enact, constiuct anu implement authoiity
in the piocess of piouucing knowleuge. Foimal iepiesentations of the past iely heavily on
an unueilying notion of the 'authoiitative account'. The entiie piocess of ieconstiucting the
past in aichaeology is uepenuent on inuiviuuals anu institutions existing as authoiities, who
actively oi passively imply that aitefacts, sites anu final inteipietations aie 'authentic' oi
have 'fiuelity' to the past. This stuuy examines how authoiity anu acts of legitimation aie
employeu anu uistiibuteu thiough the meuium of science, anu how they neeu to be actively
peifoimeu in oiuei to acquiie anu maintain status. This thesis not only aigues that
authoiity is embeuueu in eveiy stage of the aichaeological piocess, but impoitantly, it
iuentifies how this authoiity manifests thiough the meuium of scientific acts.
This thesis is stiuctuieu aiounu two compaiative case stuuies: one case of
piofessional aichaeology anu one case of alteinative aichaeology. Both aie aichaeological
sites that piouuce theii own 'authoiitative' accounts of the past thiough piactices,
publications anu piesentations. The fiist case is the piofessional aichaeological pioject of
atalhoyk in the Republic of Tuikey, unuei the uiiection of Ian Bouuei at Stanfoiu
0niveisity. This case offeis insights about how the piocesses of insciiption, tianslation anu
blackboxing establish anu maintain authoiity in aichaeological piactice. It also auuiesses
how physical anu intellectual space, as well as issues of access in localiseu knowleuge-
piouucing social aienas, affect aichaeological authoiity. The seconu case is the contioveisial
pseuuoaichaeological pioject in visoko, Bosnia, commonly iefeiieu to as the Bosnian
Pyiamius. This pioject, unuei the uiiection of amateui aichaeologist Semii 0smanagic, has
successfully cieateu an account of piehistoiy that has been ieceiveu by the geneial Bosnian
public as authoiitative, uespite objections by the piofessional aichaeological community.
This case uemonstiates how authoiity can be constiucteu, mimickeu anu peifoimeu by
uiawing on acauemic aienas of scientific piactice anu by eagei public paiticipation.
Specifically, this case stuuy highlights the impoitance of socio-politics, authoiitative
institutions anu peifoimative behavioui in the constiuction of aichaeological authoiity.

iii

7-/3*'*$(&+

This uisseitation is the iesult of my own woik anu incluues nothing which is the
outcome of woik uone in collaboiation except wheie specifically inuicateu in the text.

This thesis uoes not exceeu the limits set by the Faculty of Aichaeology anu
Anthiopology, incluuing a 2S,uuu woiu extension appioveu by the Aichaeology anu
Anthiopology Begiee Committee anu the Boaiu of uiauuate Stuuies at the 0niveisity of
Cambiiuge.

All images in this dissertation are property of the author unless otherwise indicated.
Images from the original unpublished thesis for which the author does not permission
to publish or copyright appear in this online thesis as placeholders, which include
information about where the reader can find the original image.

iv
"/8+&23-,4-9-+$6

I am extiemely giateful to Robin Boast foi auvising anu suppoiting this ieseaich
fiom conception to completion. Thank you foi giving me so many intellectual anu
piactical oppoitunities to giow. I also thank Naiie Louise Stig Siensen anu Neil Biouie
foi theii suppoit anu expeit commentaiy, especially uuiing my eaily ieseaich. I also
thank Catheiine Bills anu Nicholas Postgate foi being attentive when unfoieseen
ciicumstances aiose eaily in my uoctoial caieei anu foi helping me to finu a stable place
in the uepaitment. I am foievei giateful to Roueiick NcIntosh at Yale 0niveisity foi
being such an inspiiing mentoi, staiting me on this jouiney into aichaeology in the fiist
place. I also thank Caioline Quenemoen at Rice 0niveisity foi leauing me to
Neuiteiianean anu Balkans aichaeology.
uiateful thanks goes to Tiinity College anu Cambiiuge 0veiseas Tiust foi theii
social anu financial suppoit. I am unable to thank the C.B. Bioau Scholaiship enough foi
giving me the oppoitunity to stuuy at Cambiiuge in the fiist place. The C.B. Bioau funu
has changeu my life, anu I am foievei giateful to Fiank anu Nancy Abiaham anu Rice
0niveisity foi staiting the funu, allowing stuuents like to me to expeiience scholastic life
in Cambiiuge.
I am also veiy giateful to Ian Bouuei anu Shahina Faiiu foi opening the uoois to
atalhoyk anu allowing me to stuuy theii site. 0n this jouiney, I've founu few people so
open to ethnogiaphy oi so willing to be sciutiniseu foi the sake of acauemic inquiiy; I
aumiie that gieatly. I am veiy thankful foi the oppoitunity to attenu the site of
atalhoyk foi my ieseaich. I also thank Baviu 0iton, Sheena Ketchum, Amanua Watts,
Elizabeth Wessells, Chiis Boheity, Fieya Sauaiangani, Nichael Bouse, Tiffany Cain, Yiluiz
Biimit, Tiistan Caitei, }osh Sauvaii, Neiissa Russell, Ba,ak Boz, Loii Bagei, }ulie Cassiuy,
Lisa uueiie, Roseleen Bains, among so many otheis, foi youi conveisations, inteiviews
anu fiienuship uuiing fieluwoik.
I offei the sinceiest thanks to my Bosnian tianslatoi anu fiienu, Amna Badziabuic,
whose help anu guiuance gave me the oppoitunity to bettei engage with anu
unueistanu Bosnian cultuie. I give special thanks to hei family, especially Bajiuuin anu
Aiua Badziabuic, foi theii fiienuship anu suppoit uuiing my fieluwoik, which went
above anu beyonu hospitality.
I also wish to thank all of my Bosnian infoimants in both Saiajevo anu visoko,
paiticulaily Semii 0smanagic, Sanel Silajuzic, Niisau Buseinovic, Neuzau Seceiovic,
Phillip Coppens, Baiis Belibasic anu Neiima Bojic. I woulu paiticulaily like to thank
Auiian Incleuon-Webbei, Chiis Noiman, }ohn Agnew anu Sanela foi theii fiienuship anu

v
company uuiing the ICBP confeience; you gieatly openeu my unueistanuing of the
woilu, anu I thank you tiemenuously foi that. I woulu also like to thank Nubeia Pulo
anu othei membeis of the visoko Nuseum staff, as well as Zilka Kujunuzic-vejzagic anu
membeis of staff fiom the National Nuseum in Saiajevo, foi showing me aiounu the
museums anu iesponuing to my emails anu questions. Thank you to Anthony Baiuing at
the 0niveisity of Exetei foi youi uiscussions anu insight at the Euiopean Association of
Aichaeologists Confeience, anu foi inspiiing me with youi ueteimination to help a
countiy in neeu. I also thank the Bosnian Embassy in Lonuon foi giving me the
oppoitunity to attenu theii hosteu piesentation. I thank the auministiation of the 1
st

Inteinational Scientific Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius foi the chance to be a guest
at theii 2uu8 confeience, anu similai thanks goes to the Bistoiies & Nysteiies
Confeience in Euinbuigh foi a memoiable expeiience. I also wish to thank the S0R0S
Language School in Saiajevo foi the Bosnian language classes; I leaineu a gieat ueal, anu
thank you foi the oppoitunity. I give thanks to Bea Beimann foi youi fiienuship uuiing
my stay in Saiajevo, anu to Sanela at NB Apaitments foi youi hospitality, enthusiasm
anu help with tianslation.
I give special thanks anu an enoimous hug to Bonna Yates, who was always theie
foi me in the ups anu uowns of ieseaich. You aie an inspiiation, anu I am so thankful foi
youi fiienuship. I also give tiemenuous thanks to so many peeis in the Bepaitment of
Aichaeology, paiticulaily Katheiine Leckie, Robin Inglis, Naomi Faiiington, Emma
Lightfoot, Biitt Ballie, Bacia viejo Rose, Benjamin Noiiis, Paul Ewonus, Nisha Boshi,
Linusey Fiieuman, Alex Piyoi, Bugo 0liveiia, Nonique Bouuington, Naik Sapwell,
Bominic Walkei, Skylai Neil, Isabelle vella uiegoiy, Ali Klevns, Baviu Klingle, }ames
Bolloway, }ennifei uouuaiu anu Shauia Taha foi theii company, auvice, help anu
suppoit uuiing this pioject. I also thank the Aichaeological Review fiom Cambiiuge, the
Aichaeology uiauuate Society, anu Fiist anu Thiiu Tiinity Boat Club foi all of the
welcoming uistiactions anu the leaining oppoitunities.
I coulu not have finisheu this jouiney without Amna Badziabuic, }ohanna Tuueau,
Robeit Nillai, Anjali Saiin, Niuhi Kumia, Eu Paul, Sebastian Panciatz, Bominik vu, Chiis
Eagle, 0livei Kioemei, Chelsea Clynes, Lauia ten Bloemenual, Lauia Naiie Keishaw anu
Anthony NcClosky. You aie the best fiienus a peison coulu ask foi.
Above all, I thank my paients, Beboiah anu Tom Piuitt, anu my biothei Nathan, foi
suppoiting me liteially to the enus of the eaith. Theie aie no woius to uesciibe how
giateful I am foi youi unfailing love anu suppoit.
Finally, I thank Baviu Piice, with all my love, foi absolutely eveiything. Thank you
foi being with me, eveiy step of the way, on this gieat auventuie.

vi

F0R NY FANILY

vii
:*53- &0 ;&+$-+$6

Chaptei 0ne
<+$'&,#/$(&+= "'/%*-&3&4(/*3 "#$%&'($) *+, $%- >*+43- &0 .'*/$(/-
1.1 Intiouuction: Authoiity anu Aichaeology....................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Authoiity anu the Piouuction of Knowleuge in Aichaeology ....................................... 1
1.1.2 Befining 'Aichaeological Accounts of the Past'.................................................................... 2
1.1.2.1 Befining a 'Final Piouuct' Account of the Past ............................................................ S
1.1.S Najoi Themes: Blackboxing, Tianslation anu Epistemic Bepenuence..................... 4
1.2 A Ciisis of Authoiity in Aichaeology................................................................................................ 7
1.2.1 The Impoitance of Auuiessing Authoiity in Aichaeological Piactice ....................... 7
1.S Thematic Stiuctuie of this Thesis....................................................................................................... 9
Chaptei Two
;&+/-?$6 *+, :%-&')= "#$%&'($) *+, $%- @&/(*3 ;&+6$'#/$(&+ &0
"'/%*-&3&4(/*3 1+&23-,4-
2.1 Intiouuction.............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Intiouucing Theoiy anu Concepts.......................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Intiouucing Authoiity anu the Social Constiuction of Knowleuge.......................... 12
2.2 Befining Authoiity anu the Social Constiuction of Knowleuge.......................................... 14
2.2.1 Befining Authoiity......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1.1 The Biffeience Between Powei anu Authoiity........................................................ 14
2.2.1.2 Tiauitional Appioaches to Befining Authoiity........................................................ 16
2.2.2 Categoiies anu Beconstiucting Authoiity .......................................................................... 19
2.2.2.1 Categoiies of Authoiity...................................................................................................... 19
2.2.2.2 Executive Authoiity............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.2.S Epistemic Authoiity............................................................................................................. 21
2.2.2.4 Intellectual Authoiity.......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2.S Auctois anu Auctoiitas....................................................................................................... 22
2.2.S Authoiity as an Accomplishment oi Effect, iathei than a Quality............................ 24
2.2.4 Authoiity of Things, Instiuments, anu Iueas..................................................................... 26
2.2.S Authoiity, Social Constiuctivism anu Scientific Knowleuge....................................... 28
2.2.S.1 Aichaeology fiom a Social Constiuctivist Peispective......................................... Su
2.2.6 Social Constiuctivism: Powei Relations, Social 0iganisation anu Knowleuge .. S4
2.2.7 Social Constiuctivism: Tianspaiency in Conflict anu Contestation......................... S7
2.S Authoiity in Aichaeological Theoiy............................................................................................... S7
2.S.1 Intiouucing Authoiity in the Biscipline of Aichaeology............................................... S7
2.S.2 Authoiity in Piocessual anu Postpiocessual Theoiy..................................................... S8
2.S.S Authoiity in Aichaeological Subuisciplines ....................................................................... 41
2.4 Chaptei Conclusion: But What is Authoiity in Aichaeological Piactice. ....................... 4S

viii
Chaptei Thiee
>-$%&,&3&4) *+, ;*6- @$#,(-6
S.1 Intiouuction.............................................................................................................................................. 4S
S.1.1 Intiouucing Nethouology .......................................................................................................... 4S
S.1.2 Intiouucing a Case-Baseu Nethouological Appioach............................................... 46
S.1.S Chaptei Themes anu Stiuctuie................................................................................................ 48
S.2 Nethouological Consiueiations........................................................................................................ 49
S.2.1 Nethouological Souices.............................................................................................................. 49
S.2.1.1 Science anu Technology Stuuies (STS), Nateiial Insciiptions anu
Tianslations, anu the Actoi-Netwoik Theoiy............................................................ Su
S.2.1.2 Aichaeological Ethnogiaphy ........................................................................................... SS
S.2.2 Cential Nethouological Theoiy: Contestation.................................................................. S6
S.S Nethouology in Fieluwoik anu Bata Collection........................................................................ S8
S.S.1 Case Stuuy Paiameteis: Aims anu Belimitations............................................................. S8
S.S.2 Case Stuuies: Bata Collection.................................................................................................... 61
S.S.2.1 The Bosnian Pyiamius in visoko, Bosnia-Beizegovina....................................... 61
S.S.2.2 atalhoyk in the Republic of Tuikey ......................................................................... 6S
S.S.S Reseaich Stiategy.......................................................................................................................... 64
S.S.S.1 Bocument Collection........................................................................................................... 6S
S.S.S.2 Paiticipant 0bseivation..................................................................................................... 6S
S.S.S.S Infoimal Inteiviews............................................................................................................. 67
S.S.4 Ethical Reseaich uuiuelines anu Issues............................................................................... 7u
S.S.4.1 Infoimeu Consent................................................................................................................. 7u
S.S.4.2 Confiuentiality........................................................................................................................ 71
S.S.4.S Consequences......................................................................................................................... 71
S.S.4.4 Role of the Reseaichei........................................................................................................ 72
S.S.S Limitations anu Bifficulties Encounteieu in the Fielu................................................... 7S
Chaptei Foui
"#$%&'($) *6 "//#9#3*$-,A :'*+63*$-, *+, @$*5(3(6-,=
B*$*3%C)D8 *6 * ;*6- @$#,)
4.1 Intiouuction.............................................................................................................................................. 77
4.1.1 Intiouuction: Authoiity as Accumulateu, Tianslateu anu Stabiliseu...................... 77
4.1.2 Case Stuuy Paiameteis: Relevant Pioject Backgiounu................................................. 78
4.2 Authoiity fiom Social Stiuctuie anu Inteiaction...................................................................... 82
4.2.1 The Social Constiuction of Facts anu the Factual Constiuction of Social Agents
............................................................................................................................................................................ 82
4.2.2 Social Aienas of Authoiity anu Piactice at atalhoyk................................................. 8S
4.2.2.1 Stiuctuie anu Space............................................................................................................. 8S
4.2.2.2 The atalhoyk Excavation Site as a Social Aiena of
Knowleuge Piouuction......................................................................................................... 87
4.2.2.S The atalhoyk Big Bouse as a Social Aiena............................................................ 92
4.2.2.4 Public Spaces: 0nsite Expeit Witnessing anu Public Engagement at
the Big Bouse anu Excavation Sites................................................................................ 97
4.2.2.S 0ffsite Social Aienas: Laboiatoiies, Nuseums, Piess anu viitual Spaces.... 99
4.S Authoiity fiom Access, Spatial Constiaint anu Consent......................................................1u1
4.S.1 The Authoiity of Spatial Constiaint anu Consent..........................................................1u1
4.S.1.1 Physical Access anu Contiol...........................................................................................1u1
4.S.1.2 Executive anu Legal Consent .........................................................................................1u4
4.S.1.S Epistemic anu Intellectual Access anu Consent ....................................................1u6

ix
4.S.2 Public Access anu Consent.......................................................................................................1u9
4.S.2.1 PublicPiivate Bomains anu the Naiiowing of Access......................................11S
4.S.S Tempoiality....................................................................................................................................116
4.S.4 Knowing Youi Place: The Powei of Space, Stiuctuie anu Bivision at
atalhoyk.........................................................................................................................................122
4.4 Insciiption, Tianslation anu Blackboxing: Authoiity in the Soliuification of
Repiesentations into Accounts ...............................................................................................................127
4.4.1 Authoiity thiough the Stabilisation of Piactices ...........................................................127
4.4.2 Authoiity in Insciiption anu Tianslation: Soliuification thiough
Repiesentation, Ciiculation anu Nobilisation..................................................................128
4.4.S The Tianslation, Piouuction anu Cuiiency of Repiesentative Things:
The Example of the Plasteieu Skull Buiial .........................................................................1S4
4.4.4 An Iiieconcilable Contiauiction. Biiection veisus Nultivocality at atalhoyk
..........................................................................................................................................................................147
4.S Chaptei Conclusion..............................................................................................................................1SS
4.S.1 Conclusions on Authoiity: The Impoitance of Non-Buman Actois anu
Stability in the Piouuction of Authoiitative Knowleuge..............................................1SS
4.S.2 Final Conclusions anu Reflections on this Stuuy............................................................1S6
Chaptei Five
"#$%&'($) (+ .&3($(/6 *+, .-'0&'9*+/-= :%- E&6+(*+ .)'*9(,6 *6 * ;*6-
@$#,)
S.1 Intiouuction............................................................................................................................................16S
S.1.1 Intiouuction: Authoiity fiom Context, Institutions anu Socio-Politics................16S
S.1.2 Case Stuuy Paiameteis: Relevant Pioject Backgiounu...............................................166
S.2 Authoiity Behinu Categoiies anu Alteiity .................................................................................174
S.2.1 The Authoiity behinu Classification anu Bounuaiies: Aichaeology as
a Knowleuge-Piouucing Cultuie ...........................................................................................174
S.2.2 Challenging Categoiies: Piofessional Authoiity anu Alteinative
Aichaeological Claims .................................................................................................................17S
S.2.S Categoiising Alteiity: Pseuuoaichaeology .......................................................................177
S.S Socio-Politics anu the Reception of Aichaeological Authoiity..........................................179
S.S.1 Intiouucing Socio-Politics anu the Case of the Bosnian Pyiamius.........................179
S.S.2 The Powei of Politics, Places anu Nateiialities..............................................................18u
S.S.S Constiucting Authoiity thiough Nationalism anu Iuentity.......................................181
S.S.4 Authoiity thiough the Politics of Noney...........................................................................184
S.S.S The Politics of Expeits anu Expeitise.................................................................................188
S.S.S.1 The Authoiity of Cieuentialeu Expeits: The Egyptians .....................................188
S.S.S.2 The Authoiity of Cieuentialeu Expeits: Team Nembeis ..................................19S
S.S.6 Contestation anu Acauemic Authoiity................................................................................197
S.S.7 Socio-Politics as Integial to Scientific Authoiity............................................................198
S.4 Peifoiming Science: uaining Authoiity Thiough Appiopiiate Peifoimance.............2uu
S.4.1 Naking Realities: Authoiity Cieateu in the Bosnian Pyiamiu Pioject..................2uu
S.4.2 Actualities anu viitualities ......................................................................................................2u1
S.4.S Nethou to the Nauness: Inventing Authoiity thiough Peifoimance anu Neuia
..........................................................................................................................................................................2uS
S.4.S.1 Self-Repiesentation: Icons anu Peisonalities.........................................................2u6
S.4.S.2 Naiiation of villain ............................................................................................................2u7
S.4.S.S Biawing on Institutions, Logos anu Bianuing .......................................................2u9
S.4.S.4 Scientific Repiesentation................................................................................................214

x
S.S Authoiity fiom Science as a Nastei Biscouise........................................................................216
S.S.1 Biawing on Science.....................................................................................................................216
S.S.2 The Example of Rauiocaibon Bating of the Bosnian Pyiamius...............................218
S.S.S The 1
st
Inteinational Scientific Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius ..................219
S.S.4 Biawing on the Authoiity of Rauiocaibon Nethouology...........................................226
S.6 Chaptei Conclusion: Authoiity in the Politics anu Peifoiming of Pyiamius ..............229
Chaptei Six
;&+/3#6(&+= "#$%&'($) (+ $%- .'&,#/$(&+ &0 "'/%*-&3&4(/*3 1+&23-,4-
6.1 Intiouuction anu Summaiy..............................................................................................................2S4
6.2 Compaiison anu Significance of the Case Stuuies ..................................................................2SS
6.2.1 Intiouuction: Summaiising Case Stuuies..........................................................................2SS
6.2.2 Biffeiing Reseaich Results anu the Successes anu Failuies of
the Two Case Stuuies 0seu in This Thesis..........................................................................2S6
6.2.S Case Stuuies Compaiison anu Significance: Contiibution to 0nueistanuing
Authoiity anu the Impoitance of Nateiial Eviuence in Aichaeological Piactice2S7
6.S Beconstiucting Authoiity in the Piouuction of Aichaeological Knowleuge...............242
6.S.1 Authoiity in Biviuing Piactices, Categoiies anu Alteiity............................................242
6.S.2 Authoiity in Tianslation, Stabilisation anu the Agency of Nonhuman Actois..24S
6.S.S Authoiity in Epistemic Bepenuence....................................................................................247
6.S.S.1 Befining Epistemic Bepenuence ..................................................................................247
6.S.S.2 Epistemic Bepenuence in Aichaeological Consumption,
valiuation anu Fiuelity.......................................................................................................2S1
6.4 Bealing with Authoiity: Suggestions foi Fuithei Reseaich...............................................2SS

Appenuix A.......................................................................................................................................................2S8
Appenuix B.......................................................................................................................................................2S9
Appenuix C.......................................................................................................................................................26u
Appenuix B.......................................................................................................................................................261
Appenuix E.......................................................................................................................................................264
Appenuix F .......................................................................................................................................................266
Appenuix u.......................................................................................................................................................269
Appenuix B.......................................................................................................................................................27S

E(53(&4'*?%)FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF GHI

J(6$ &0 K(4#'-6

Figuie 1: Aichaeological activity at atalhoyk ............................................................................... S2
Figuie 2: Ian Bouuei giving a site toui to a gioup of touiists..................................................... 91
Figuie S: Nap of the atalhoyk uig house......................................................................................... 97
Figuie 4: The atalhoyk visitoi Centie.............................................................................................. 99
Figuie S: The Beikeley 'Remixing atalhoyk' viitual pioject on !"#$%& ()*"..................1uu
Figuie 6: Ian Bouuei giving a site toui to teacheis.......................................................................111
Figuie 7: The atalhoyk Painteu Skull, ieuiscoveieu in 2uu9...............................................11S
Figuie 8: atalhoyk Faunal pioceuuial flow chait......................................................................11S
Figuie 9: Symbols of atalhoyk social categoiies........................................................................12S
Figuie 1u: Knowleuge as 'actively peifoimeu' ................................................................................128
Figuie 11: }ohn Swoggei's illustiations of the atalhoyk plasteieu skull buiial ...........1S8
Figuie 12: Biagiam of the plasteieu skull buiial inteipietation.............................................146
Figuie 1S: Nap of visoko, Bosnia-Beizegovina ..............................................................................168
Figuie 14: Iconic image of visoko anu visocica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Sun) .........................169
Figuie 1S: Semii 0smanagic couits the piess .................................................................................171
Figuie 16: Excavation site at Pljesevica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Noon).....................................17S
Figuie 17: Logo of the Pyiamiu Founuation anu the Bosnian flag .........................................182
Figuie 18: Touiism anu new businesses in visoko. ......................................................................18S
Figuie 19: Nakeshift souvenii shops in visoko..............................................................................186
Figuie 2u: volunteeis anu Politicians at the Bosnian Pyiamius site.....................................187
Figuie 21: Bi. El Anbawwy aigues his point at the ICBP Confeience ...................................192
Figuie 22: Conclusions fiom the ICBP Confeience........................................................................194
Figuie 2S: The Pyiamiu Pioject is a peifoimance.........................................................................2u4
Figuie 24: Semii 0smanagic in his iconic feuoia ...........................................................................21u
Figuie 2S: Sample sliue fiom a scientific lectuie by a 'pyiamiu expeit' ..............................21S
Figuie 26: Authoiitative, piofessional-looking pyiamiu signage ...........................................214
Figuie 27: Sample page fiom 0smanagic's !#)"%+)*)# ,-)&"%#" iepoit ..................................217
Figuie 28: Piofessional-looking ICBP confeience mateiials.....................................................22u
Figuie 29: Attempting to convince a sceptical scholai ................................................................222
Figuie Su: Image fiom the ICBP Confeience....................................................................................22S
Figuie S1: Founuation volunteei anu his 'pyiamiu aitefact' iock..........................................22S
Figuie S2: Two 'authoiiseu' aichaeological 'authoiities' ...........................................................2S9

J(6$ &0 "/'&+)96

BCE: Befoie Common Eia
BP: Befoie Piesent
ICBP: 1
st
Inteinational Scientific Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius
SSK: Sociology of Scientific Knowleuge
STS: Science anu Technology Stuuies
0N: 0niteu Nations
0NESC0: 0niteu Nations Euucational, Scientific anu Cultuial 0iganisation
xi
CBAPTER 1 INTR0B0CTI0N
1
!"#$%&' )*&+
,-./0123.40-+ #/356708094368 #2.50/4.: 6-1
.57 ;6-987 0< $/63.437

"lf socioloqy bos been morkeJ from tbe stort by tbe Jiscovery tbot oction wos overtoken by otber
oqencies, it bos been spurreJ even more forcefully by tbe etbicol, politicol, onJ empiricol Jiscovery
tbot tbere exist bierorcbies, osymmetries, onJ inequolities; tbot tbe sociol worlJ is just os
JifferentioteJ o lonJscope os o ruqqeJ onJ mountoinous terroin; tbot no omount of entbusiosm, free
will, or inqenuity con moke tbose osymmetries qo owoy; tbot tbey oll seem to weiqb os beovily os tbe
pyromiJs.tbot ony tbinker wbo Jenies tbose inequolities onJ Jifferences is eitber qullible or
somewbot reoctionory; onJ, finolly, tbot iqnorinq sociol osymmetry is os riJiculous os cloiminq tbot
Newtonion qrovitotion Joes not exist." (Latoui 2uuS: 6S)

=>= ,-./0123.40-+ #2.50/4.: 6-1 #/35670809:
=>=>= #2.50/4.: 6-1 .57 $/0123.40- 0< ?-0@87197 4- #/35670809:
This thesis asks: what is the iole of authoiity in the piouuction of aichaeological
knowleuge. To exploie this coie question, this uisseitation investigates the complex
negotiations, tiansfoimations anu heteiogeneous acts that go into the piouuction of
authoiitative accounts of the past, such as acauemic texts, aichaeological ieconstiuctions
anu museum uisplays. This thesis examines how fluiu iueas anu obseivations foimeu in
the fielu become authoiitative, factual, soliu accounts about what happeneu in the past. It
asks, what makes a peison, a thing oi an account of histoiy something that is
'authoiitative'. What makes someone an authoiity on the past. What makes a piofessional
inteipietation 'moie iight' oi 'moie expeit' than an amateui one. In cases wheie amateui
oi alteinative accounts of the past have moie authoiity than piofessional opinion, then
why. Why uo some opinions holu moie weight than otheis, within anu without the
piofessional uiscipline. Fuitheimoie, what ethics anu accountability lie behinu
aichaeological authoiity. This thesis seeks to auuiess these questions by canuiuly
ueconstiucting anu exposing authoiity in the uisciplinaiy piactices of aichaeology. The
aim is to examine how authoiity is both passively anu actively embeuueu, useu, tianslateu,
uesiieu oi iesisteustiuctuially, conceptually anu spatiallyin the piouuction of
aichaeological accounts of the past.

2
=>=>A B7<4-4-9 C#/356708094368 #3302-.D 0< .57 $6D.E
Accounts of the past aie constiucteu anu naiiateu by piofessional aichaeologists
using mateiial cultuie, which is acquiieu thiough piactices like excavation anu then
inteipieteu to offei the best juugements about 'what actually happeneu in the past anu
why'. This inteipieteu past is piesenteu to othei acauemics anu to the public in the foim
of publications, museum uisplays, ieconstiuctions, anu in foiums such as confeiences anu
seminais. Such foimal iepiesentations of the past iely heavily on an unueilying notion of
the 'authoiitative account'. The entiie piocess of ieconstiucting the past in aichaeology is
uepenuent on inuiviuuals anu institutions acting as authoiities, actively oi passively
implying that aitefacts, sites anu final inteipietations aie 'authentic' oi have 'fiuelity' to
the past.
0vei the past thiity yeais, many acauemics have aigueu that the piactice of
science is inevitably affecteu by its social context, anu that scientific piactice piogiesses
accoiuing to acauemic fashions of the time (Kuhn 197u; Feyeiabenu 197S). They have
aigueu that scientists woik within paiauigms of piactice anu knowleuge, anu they
"attempt to extenu anu exploit |these paiauigmsj in a vaiiety of ways" (Kuhn 197u: 91). In
the fielu of Science anu Technology Stuuies (STS), acauemics have aigueu that knowleuge
is acquiieu, uevelopeu, uistiibuteu anu contesteu in a social enviionment (Latoui anu
Woolgai 1986; Latoui 1987; Law 2uu4). The uevelopment of a 'fact'something iegaiueu
to be a tiuth about the natuial oi social woiluis a social, physical anu mateiial outcome
of people who inteiact within social netwoiks. Because of the social natuie of factual
knowleuge, iepiesenteu 'tiuths' about the woilu aie always ielative to, anu iely upon,
stiuctuies of authoiitypowei asymmetiies between inuiviuuals, institutions, mateiials
anu iepiesentations.
This uisseitation is situateu within this geneial stiain of ieflexive stuuy of
scientific piactice, anu it focuses on the obseivation anu iuentification of authoiitative
stiuctuies inheient in uecision-making, inteipietation anu piouuction of knowleuge in
aichaeological piactice. This thesis emphasises the piouuction anu piesentation of 'final
piouuct accounts' of what happeneu in the past, which aie aiguably the last anu most
impoitant steps in the aichaeological piocess. This stuuy is opeiationally baseu on the
iuea that contestation anu tension in a piocess allow foi its inteinal complexities to
become moie tianspaient, a theoiy calleu 'blackboxing' in Science Stuuies. Biuno Latoui
(Latoui 1999: Su4) coineu the teim 'blackboxing' to uefine a piocess oi mouel that iuns so
smoothly anu efficiently that no one stops to question its inteinal complexities, only its
inputs anu outputs. Latoui aigues that piocesses in science often opeiate so iigoiously
anu efficiently that scientists iaiely question the inteinal social complexities of theii own
3
ioutine actions; they only question theii uata anu iesults. Accoiuing to this theoiy, when
contention oi conflict aiises, oi when something goes awiy, the 'blackboxeu' systems of
piactice become moie tianspaient. In contesteu piactice, people can moie thoioughly
examine the inteinal complexities of theii own woiking system, bieaking uown the walls
of a 'blackboxeu' system. This is a concept I uiscuss in uepth in Chapteis Two anu Thiee
(Sections 2.2.7 anu S.S.2).

1.1.2.1 Befininq o Iinol ProJuct Account of tbe Post
Foi the puiposes of this uisseitation, a 'final piouuct' account of the past is uefineu
as an explanation of aichaeological mateiial that appeais in conuenseu foim meant foi
public consumption. The 'public' in this uefinition is simply those who ieceive oi consume
accounts of the past. This categoiy incluues both the geneial public of lay peisons os well
os specialists oi expeits in aichaeology. Examples of a 'final piouuct' account of the past
incluue aichaeological explanations that appeai in newspapei iepoits, television meuia,
websites, as well as acauemic iepoits, museum uisplays anu public confeience
piesentations. The ieason this uisseitation incluues aichaeological accounts of all
consumable vaiietiesfiom piofessional confeience piesentations to populai science
television showsis because these accounts aie all funuamentally baseu on the same
piinciple: they aie acts of summaiising, abstiacting anu stabilising the fluiu, mangleu anu
unstable social piocesses of knowleuge piouuction that lie behinu theii constiuction. The
teim 'account' is useu because these public explanations aie 'accounting foi' mateiial
cultuie by uesciibing oi explaining the activities of past peoples. The ieason this
uisseitation calls these 'final piouucts' is not because these accounts aie meant by theii
authois to be seen as 'final' in the sense of eteinal oi unchanging. Rathei, 'final piouuct'
accounts aie inteipietations that appeai as stabiliseu explanations in a 'final' foim meant
foi public consumption. They aie often meant to be contesteu anu changeu if appiopiiate
(especially the piouucts of scientific knowleuge piouuction); howevei, they aie piesenteu
in a 'final' foimat which is meant to be as faithfully iepiesentative to oiiginal mateiial oi
conceptual unueistanuing as possible.
Final accounts of the past aie 'fiont stage' piouucts, which consoliuate anu 'black
box' all of the messy piocesses that went into the making of the accounts in the 'back
stage' social aienas of knowleuge piouuction. A publisheu aichaeological papei might, foi
instance, heauline the account: "Neuieval skeleton shows signs of aithiitis". Behinu this
statement lies all of the aichaeological activity that went into the piouuction of this
account: the complex histoiy behinu why this paiticulai skeleton was chosen to be stuuieu
4
anu accounteu foi by an aichaeologist, why anu how the aichaeologist became an
aichaeologist in the fiist place, why the aichaeologist is consiueieu an agent woithy to
speak about skeletal pathologies, wheie this skeleton came fiom, how it was exhumeu oi
excavateu, how anu why that skeleton woulu be uiagnoseu with aithiitis, the complex
histoiy of biological anthiopological stuuies that went into the uevelopment of a pathology
of aithiitis in the fiist place, the use anu agency of complex technical appaiatuses that
tuineu the skeleton into an iepiesentation of 'aithiitis', how anu why the uata anu iesults
weie finally piesenteu in a textual foimall of these piocesses become meie ossumptions
that lie behinu the 'final piouuct' aichaeological account of the past.
Nost impoitantly, not oll occounts ore equol. Some accounts of the past aie seen as
moie authoiitative than otheis, as moie oi less valiu, anu a gieat many factois play into
this peiceiveu status of an account. The assumptions behinu a single statement comes
packageu with wbo is saying the statement, bow the statement is saiu oi piesenteu, wby
the statement is being piesenteu anu useu, anu wbere the statement is piesenteu. If this
statement is piesenteu by a piofessional aichaeologist in a PoweiPoint piesentation at a
majoi scientific confeience on skeletal pathologies, foi example, it likely caiiies a fai
highei status anu buiuen of valiuity than if it is typeu in a newsflash heauline by an
alteinative jouinalist foi Nexus Nagazine. Behinu this statement anu its piesentation lie a
numbei of assumptions about the 'back stage' activities that went into its piouuction.
An account can be calleu 'authoiitative' when people accept its infoimation anu
explanation as final oi valiu, anu wben people stop seekinq olternotive knowleJqe
(Kiuglanski 1989; Raviv, Bai-Tal et al. 2uuS). When knowleuge oi infoimation becomes
iuentifieu as 'authoiitative', people may take executive action baseu on that infoimation,
which can ultimately affect iesults, situations anu outcomes fiom the actions that people
take baseu on infoimation they peiceive as valiu. The concept of authoiityboth in teims
of the immeuiate 'fiont stage' authoiitative piesence of the account, as well as the attacheu
oi assumeu 'back stage' qualitiesplays a majoi iole in how an account is peiceiveu,
consumeu, ieacteu to anu iegaiueu by the lay anu expeit public. What makes an account
of the past moie oi less 'authoiitative' is the extent to which people accept it as valiu.

=>=>F ;6G0/ %57H7D+ I863JK0L4-9M %/6-D86.40- 6-1 &N4D.7H43 B7N7-17-37
Thiee cential themes foim this uisseitation's exploiation of the iole of authoiity in
the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge: blackboxing, tianslation anu epistemic
uepenuence. Fiist, theie is the concept of blackboxing in institutional contexts, with iuea
that contestation can bieeu tianspaiency. Institutionscustoms, laws, hieiaichies,
5
stiuctuies of authoiitycan potentially black box a system, as well as cieate anu sustain
epistemic anu executive authoiity of people anu things oi abstiactions. This thesis
exploies how, in the teims of Latoui's concept of 'blackboxing' (1999: Su4), aichaeologists
question inputs anu outputs. Aichaeologists often question what objects anu uata they
finu anu manage (inputs) anu whethei oi not theii inteipietations of those objects aie
competent oi incompetent (outputs); howevei, they often uo not question the actual
system anu stiuctuie of theii own establisheu system, asking how anu why theii system of
piactice opeiates like it uoes in the fiist place. An unueilying concept in this uisseitation is
the iuea that when a successful social system of piactice is in place, it can be haiu to bieak
out of that system to see what is actually happening below the suiface. When contestation
aiises, the system can bieak uown anu become moie tianspaient, because contestation
biings focus to the unueilying opeiation of a blackboxeu system. This concept of
contestation anu blackboxing is a cential concept of this uisseitation stuuy's
methouological appioach, anu is uiscusseu fuithei in Chaptei Thiee.
A seconu majoi theme is that of tianslation. Accoiuing to Latoui's 'tianslation
mouel'
1
(1986: 267), authoiity anu powei aie piouucts of social inteiaction, accumulating
in the hanus of a multituue of uiffeient actois. 0nueilying this theme is the concept that a
web of actoishuman as well as mateiial, both tangible anu intangibleaie inteiielateu
unuei a system of piactice. This thesis exploies how authoiity is only built anu sustaineu
thiough the accumulation of negotiations by many uiffeient actois in a netwoik; each
actoi suppoits anu sustains a given object, naiiative, aichaeological inteipietation anu so
foith, in oiuei to fuithei anu achieve his own goals anu aims. In piactice, an aitefact oi
account accumulates powei ovei people anu piactice as its inteipietation is tianslateu
thiough each actoi's goals anu aims. This concept is uiscusseu fuithei in Chaptei Two, anu
it is extenueu in Chapteis Foui anu Five.
Finally, this thesis funuamentally iests on the concept of epistemic uepenuence.
'Epistemic uepenuence' is the "appeal to intellectual authoiity anu the way in which such
an appeal constitutes justification foi believing anu knowing" (Baiuwig 198S: SS6). In
othei woius, a peison may believe many things foi which he uoes not possess uiiect
eviuence foi, but he ielies on the authoiity of expeits who he thinks uo possess the
necessaiy eviuence. Epistemic uepenuence is essential to how we inteiact with knowleuge
beyonu oui expeiiential capabilities. This concept is uiscusseu in uetail in Chaptei Six. Foi
now, it is useful to point out that epistemic uepenuence plays a key iole in how accounts
aie constiucteu anu tianslateu, gaining authoiity anu status by politics anu peifoimance.

1
See Section 2.2.S.
6
These majoi issuesblackboxing, tianslation anu epistemic uepenuencefoim
cential themes in this uisseitation's exploiation of the iole of authoiity in the piouuction
of aichaeological knowleuge. This thesis is stiuctuieu aiounu ielateu thematic aiguments.
(1) Executive anu epistemic authoiity in an acauemic uiscipline like aichaeology manifest
uiiectly in the piocess of stabilisation, which occuis thiough piocesses like insciiption anu
tianslation.
2
That is, uuiing the piocess of 'piouucing knowleuge' in aichaeology, fluiu
iueas aie actively tuineu into stable, foimal accounts of the past, such as textual
iepiesentations oi museum uisplays. In the piocess of knowleuge foimation, theie is a
funuamental tipping point between factual knowleuge as it is constiucteu in a fluiu
uevelopment phase, anu the knowleuge as it appeais soliuifieu in a piesentable,
publishable uevelopment phase. It is in this tipping point that meie iueas become soliu
facts, stiengtheneu anu maue authoiitative by the iobustness of a new mateiial anu meuia
piesence. This aigument foims the piimaiy uiscussion of !56N.7/ O02/. (2) The powei of
exteinal socio-politics can affect how ieauily the geneial public oi scientific community
accepts accounts of the past. Nany "pioblems of legitimacy anu of extension aiise because
'the speeu of politics is fastei than the speeu of science'" (Collins anu Evans 2uu7: 12S).
Regaiuless of the ontological value of aichaeological naiiatives oi inteipietations, some
accounts of the past may be moie ieauily accepteu, highly iegaiueu anu seen as
'authoiitative' by the geneial public because of the social neeus they fulfil. (S) The powei
of using the 'appiopiiate peifoimance' of scientific behavioui can also uiiectly affect the
authoiity of an account of the past. These lattei two aiguments foim the piimaiy
uiscussion of !56N.7/ O4P7. (4) Authoiity is piouuceu as much as it is consumeu. While
authoiity is, in effect, built anu accumulateu by vaiious actois, it is also consumeu in the
piocess of tianslation. In aichaeology, things anu naiiatives aie often packageu foi
consumption, anu the piocesses of insciiption, tianslation anu peifoimance aie
inteitwineu with how status anu authoiity aie ieceiveu anu consumeu by the public.
!56N.7/ Q4L concluues with a uiscussion about the implications of the piouuction anu
consumption of authoiity in aichaeological piactice.
This uisseitation outlines these aiguments using two illustiative case stuuies, both
of which aie involveu in levels of inteipietive contestation. To maximize uesciiptive value,
this ieseaich employs one case of piofessional aichaeology anu one case of alteinative
aichaeology. Both case stuuies aie aichaeological sites that piouuce theii own
'authoiitative' accounts of the past thiough theii piactices, publications anu public

2
The concepts of executive an epistemic authoiity aie intiouuceu in Section 2.2.2. The concepts of
insciiption anu tianslation aie intiouuceu in Section 2.2.S.1, anu fuithei expanueu in Sections
S.2.1.1 anu 4.4.1.
7
piesentations. The fiist case stuuy is the piofessional aichaeological pioject of atalhoyk
in the Republic of Tuikey, unuei the uiiection of Ian Bouuei of Stanfoiu 0niveisity.
!56N.7/ O02/ examines site's intentional ieflexive piactice anu its piofessional status as a
highly authoiitative anu piestigious aichaeological site. The site of atalhoyk piouuces
both authoiitative accounts of the past anu authoiitative accounts of piesent
aichaeological methouology, which have been openly contesteu, by both acauemic anu
alteinative gioups. This case stuuy is employeu to offei insights about how the piocesses
of insciiption, tianslation anu blackboxing can affect anu establish authoiity in
piofessional aichaeological piactice. It also auuiesses how physical anu intellectual space,
as well as issues of access in localiseu knowleuge-piouucing social aienas, can affect
aichaeological authoiity. The seconu case stuuy in this uisseitation is the contioveisial
alteinative aichaeology of visoko, Bosnia commonly iefeiieu to as the Bosnian Pyiamius.
This pioject, unuei the uiiection of the 'amateui aichaeologist' Semii 0smanagic, has been
veiy successful at cieating an account of piehistoiy foi the geneial public, which has been
ieceiveu by the geneial Bosnian public as authoiitative, uespite objections to the pioject
by the piofessional aichaeological community. !56N.7/ O4P7 uses this case stuuy to
exploie how authoiity can be built upon, mimickeu anu peifoimeu thiough uiawing on
acauemic aienas of scientific piactice anu thiough eagei public paiticipation. Specifically,
this stuuy highlights the impoitance of exteinal socio-politics, as well as uiawing upon
authoiitative institutions anu peifoimances, in the constiuction anu maintenance of
aichaeological authoiity.

=>A # !/4D4D 0< #2.50/4.: 4- #/35670809:R
=>A>= %57 ,HN0/.6-37 0< #11/7DD4-9 #2.50/4.: 4- #/356708094368 $/63.437
Along with a uetaileu exploiation of how authoiity opeiates in aichaeological
piactice anu piesentation, this thesis also contiibutes an extensive ueconstiuction of the
teim 'authoiity' in !56N.7/ %@0. Authoiity is a conceptual abstiaction that uiiectly
ieflects asymmetiical social powei ielationships, anu it also manifests in mateiial ways:
any two things oi people, when put in tanuem, uiiectly ielate to one anothei in teims of
asymmetiical powei, influence anu status. A majoi contiibution of this thesis is to outline
some of the ioots anu uebate about the natuie of authoiity that have emeigeu in
uisciplines outsiue of aichaeology, implementing a wiuei collective unueistanuing of the
teim foi use in aichaeological uiscouise. This is not to say that authoiity has been
8
uisiegaiueu oi neglecteu in the fielu of aichaeology, oi that this uisseitation is iaising
issues about authoiity anu aichaeological piactice foi the fiist time. In fact, this is quite
the opposite: pioblems of authoiity as they ielate to othei majoi issues within the fielu
have been iaiseu by aichaeologists foi uecaues as impoitant anu woith oui concein
especially in uiscussions ovei issues like the impact of peisonal biases on the mateiial
iecoiu, the neeu foi multivocality anu collaboiation with the public, issues of physical
access oi owneiship of aichaeological mateiial, all matteis that uiiectly iest upon the
concept of authoiity. Bowevei, this thesis aigues that while the fielu seems to ieauily
engage with issues of authoiity anu powei iights, iaiely has the ioot conceptual
unueistanuing of what authoiity is anu how it manifests in the fiist place evei been
explicitly uiscusseu.
Fuitheimoie, in the fielu of aichaeology we have often been quick to auuiess
authoiity by uismissing it. 0ften authoiity is iefeiieu to as something negative, something
to be avoiueu, something that hinueis collaboiation anu public access. Bowevei, authoiity
is an integial anu necessaiy pait of any acauemic enueavoui, embeuueu in the social
stiuctuies of acauemia anu in the scientific tiauitions that we have biought uown fiom the
Enlightenment. In aichaeology, piactices such as acquiiing cieuentials, peifoiming oi
accepting expeit testimony, engaging in piactices of witnessing anu peei ieview, as well as
allying anu uefenuing oui own inteipietations thiough the peifoimance of appiopiiate
behaviouis oi by uiawing on the appiopiiate categoiies of piactice, aie all systematic
social ways to accumulate, negotiate anu veiify authoiity. This thesis will auuiess these
issues in uepth. While such authoiitative piactice is innate in oui piofessional uisciplinaiy
methouology, it is also often uiscusseu as if it weie a funuamental 'Bau Thing' in the wake
of postmouein uiscouise. In aichaeology, theoiies anu new unueistanuings of multivocal
inteipietations anu post-colonial iamifications of owneiship have aiguably left us in an
uncomfoitable ielationship with oui own powei anu authoiity.
This thesis aigues that it is impoitant to acknowleuge the ioot causes anu
necessaiy ieliance upon authoiity in the way we piouuce knowleuge. In the uiscipline of
aichaeology, it is not only impoitant to auuiess authoiity as a siue-effect oi ielational
issue in pioblems of access iights anu contiol of the past, but it is also ciitical to
acknowleuge exactly wbot outbority is as a ioot system of piactice. We neeu to auuiess
wheie oui authoiity comes fiom, how it manifests in oui own piactice, how uisciplinaiy
authoiity is piouuceu anu consumeu by membeis of the public anu not just inuiviuuals
within the piofessionanu peihaps most impoitantlywe neeu to auuiess the impact of
oui own authoiity, acknowleugeu oi not, on oui own inteipietations. In oiuei to auuiess
these conceins, this uisseitation examines authoiity in aichaeological piactice by
9
ethnogiaphically obseiving how 'factual accounts of the past' aie piouuceu thiough the
aichaeological piocess. Issues of authoiity anu scientific piactice, anu the questions that
ielate to how we unueistanu anu account foi oui past anu piesent woilu, aie a mattei of
social inteiest. Theiefoie, these aie social conceins anu matteis of social ethics, issues
which impact both oui social anu natuial unueistanuing of the woilu, anu impoitant to
auuiess in uetail.

=>F %57H6.43 Q./23.2/7 0< .54D %57D4D
This thesis is uiviueu into thiee thematic sections. The fiist section (!56N.7/D
)-7M %@0 6-1 %5/77) intiouuces the ielevant theoietical concepts, backgiounu anu
theoiy behinu this stuuy. A uetaileu ueconstiuction anu uiscussion of authoiity anu
ieflexive aichaeological piactice is integial to this pioject. !56N.7/ %@0 piesents an
oiiginal ueconstiuction of the concept of 'authoiity' anu iuentifies its ielevance in bioauei
acauemic liteiatuie. This chaptei intiouuces 'authoiity' as both an abstiact concept anu as
a system of piactice. The teim is conceptually tieu to powei ielationships, implicating who
has the legitimate iight to exeicise powei anu influence otheis. This kinu of uiscouise
pioviues a useful baseline foi a ieflexive stuuy of aichaeological piactice anu the
piouuction of authoiitative accounts of the past in a contesteu enviionmentan appioach
that is useu latei this uisseitation. !56N.7/ %5/77 offeis the methouological backgiounu
of this uisseitation's case stuuies anu ethnogiaphic appioach. This chaptei intiouuces the
two case stuuy sitesatalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamiusanu illustiates the themes,
concepts anu issues behinu the fieluwoik anu case stuuy-baseu appioach of this stuuy.
The seconu thematic section of this uisseitation (!56N.7/D O02/ anu O4P7) iaise
the main aiguments about the natuie of authoiity in the piouuction of aichaeological
accounts of the past. These chapteis use two case stuuies to uiscuss the implications of
how authoiity is manifesteu, constiucteu anu constiueu both insiue anu outsiue the
uiscipline. Fiist, !56N.7/ O02/ intiouuces how authoiity impacts the way aichaeological
knowleuge is piouuceu anu consumeu. This chaptei ieintiouuces the majoi issues of
insciiption, tianslation anu blackboxing in the piouuction of knowleuge anu exploies how
authoiity is accumulateu, netwoikeu anu tianslateu in aichaeological piactice, outlining
the way actual piactices aie mangleu anu complicateu affaiis. This chaptei uses themes
anu issues that aiose uuiing my fieluwoik at atalhoyk, anu it uses this aichaeological
site as a means to illustiate the aigument that authoiity is foimeu in the piocess of
10
stabilising fluiu iueas into foimal, mateiial iepiesentations anu accounts of the past.
!56N.7/ O4P7, auuiesses the way exteinal social factoisinfluences anu piessuies fiom
socio-politics anu the public outsiue of the coie scientific communitycan uiiectly
tianslate, accumulate anu contiibute to the authoiity of aichaeological inteipietations.
This chaptei also auuiesses the impoitance of peifoimative behaviouis in the cieation
anu sustaining of status anu authoiity in aichaeology.
In the thiiu anu final section of this thesis, !56N.7/ Q4L, I concluue that authoiity is
built anu tianslateu anu accumulateu by vaiious actois, but it also consumeu in the
piocess of tianslation. In aichaeology, things anu naiiatives aie packageu foi
consumption, anu the way consumption uiiectly contiibutes to anu implicates authoiity in
aichaeology is an impoitant issue that neeus to be auuiesseu. This chaptei iaises the
impoitance of closely linkeu concepts such as 'fiuelity' anu 'accountability'. The teim
'fiuelity' comes fiom the Latin woilu fiJelitos, meaning 'faithfulness', anu it iefeiences how
accuiate a copy oi simulation is to an oiiginal (0EB 1989). The notion of 'accountability,' a
concept in ethics that (in this situation) uemanus iesponsibility foi any unethical misuse
of authoiity, opens an impoitant uiscussion about the ethics of iesults anu consequences
of aichaeological inteipietations, ieconstiuctions anu authoiitative accounts of the past.
This thesis examines how moues anu stiuctuies of authoiity aie inextiicable fiom
the collection, constiuction anu uistiibution of aichaeological knowleuge anu mateiial. It
seeks to show how piactitioneis of aichaeology actively enact, constiuct, anu implement
authoiity in the piocess of piouucing knowleuge. It aims to examine how authoiity anu
acts of legitimation aie actively employeu anu uistiibuteu thiough the meuium of science,
anu it investigates how these acts aie embeuueu anu inextiicable fiom piactical
aichaeological methous anu theoietical aichaeological inteipietations. This thesis not
only makes the aigument that vaiious moues of stiuctuial anu epistemic authoiity aie
embeuueu in eveiy stage of the aichaeological piocess, but impoitantly, it iuentifies how
this authoiity manifests thiough the meuium of scientific acts.
CBAPTER 2 C0NCEPTS ANB TBE0RY

11
!"#$%&' %S)+
!0-37N.D 6-1 %570/:+ #2.50/4.: 6-1 .57 Q03468
!0-D./23.40- 0< #/356708094368 ?-0@87197

"Science is wiJely occepteJ to be tbree Jifferent tbinqs: o metboJ of unJerstonJinq onJ of estoblisbinq focts
obout tbe universe; tbe focts tbemselves, tbe proJucts of tbot metboJ; onJ o voice of outbority onJ
consequently o locus of culturol power." (Naiks 2uu9: S)

A>= ,-./0123.40-
A>=>= ,-./01234-9 %570/: 6-1 !0-37N.D
It has become a tiuism that the past is contesteu space, that aichaeological accounts aie
not statements of fact, but iathei euucateu inteipietations about what 'might have happeneu' in
histoiy (Lowenthal 198S; Webb 2uu2). While theoietical uiscussions about the socially
constiucteu past have iattleu the halls of acauemia foi ovei thiity yeais, the piofession of
aichaeology has aiguably iemaineu the stiongest, most intact anu authoiitative voice in how
the mateiial past is accounteu foi in public settings, in foiums such as museum uisplays anu
meuia piouuctions, anu in official publications such as books anu aiticles on the past. Autbority,
the abstiact influence anu physical foice, plays a majoi iole in how anu why accounts of the past
come to be accepteu as coiiectas authoiitativeby both the piofessional acaueme anu the
inteiesteu public. The subject of this thesis is the 'authoiitative account of the past': how it is
piouuceu, why some accounts aie tieateu as moie authoiitative than otheis, why some people
anu mateiials aie iegaiueu moie authoiitative than otheis, how authoiity is embeuueu in the
aichaeological piocess anu ultimately manifests in the acceptance oi iejection of 'final piouuct'
authoiitative accounts of the past.
Pieviously, the Intiouuction of this thesis outlineu the pioblems anu stiuctuie of this
uisseitation. This chaptei auuiesses the concepts anu theoiy behinu this stuuy. The fiist section
iuentifies the founuation of this thesis: the aigument that knowleuge is socially constiucteu. The
seconu section auuiesses two ielateu but uistinctive concepts'powei' anu 'authoiity'anu
pays paiticulai attention to the teim 'authoiity', which has long been pioblematic in social
stuuies. This section offeis a fiamewoik foi thinking about 'authoiity' in the context of the
teim's oiigins, anu it iuentifies the main thieaus of uiscussion that tiauitionally appeai in both

12
social stuuies anu in the fielu of aichaeology. In the thiiu section, this chaptei offeis a new way
of thinking about the teim 'authoiity' fiom the peispective of stuuies in the sociology of
scientific knowleuge, aiguing that authoiity is a cieateu anu eaineu outcome of complex social
inteiactions. Rathei than being a single quality oi chaiacteiistic that is 'possesseu' oi 'not
possesseu' by an inuiviuualthe tiauitional appioach to uefining anu thinking about
authoiitythis thesis insteau opens the aigument that authoiity is an effect oi accumulation of
status gaineu uuiing a complex piocess of social inteiactions. This aigument will be followeu
thiough the iemainuei of this uisseitation, anu it is cential to the stuuy anu uiscussion of the
two case stuuies in this woik. The enu of this chaptei specifically focuses on authoiity as it has
been uiscusseu in geneial aichaeological theoiy, anu concluues with a call foi fuithei
ueconstiuction of the actual piocesses anu mechanisms that constitute authoiity in
aichaeological piactices.

A>=>A ,-./01234-9 #2.50/4.: 6-1 .57 Q03468 !0-D./23.40- 0< ?-0@87197
This thesis is baseu on the piemise that aichaeological accounts aie socially constiucteu
(Wylie 1989). While this might seem to be an obvious statementsince aichaeological accounts
aie cleaily piouuceu by people in the piesent who stuuy mateiial cultuie that was also
piouuceu by people in the pasttheie is, howevei, a geneial uictum that some accounts of the
past aie moie iight oi moie coiiect than otheis. Bespite waves of postmoueinism thought,
S

with aiguments touching on ielativism anu constiuctivism that heavily impacteu aichaeological
theoiy (see Lampetei Aichaeological Woikshop 1997), theie is still a stiong assumption in the
fielu of aichaeology that a foim of 'tiuth' about what happeneu in the past is 'out theie' waiting
to be objectively uiscoveieu. This assumption is visible in how the uiscipline is stiuctuieu anu
oiueieu, anu in how aichaeologists appioach anu inteipiet the past. 0ne of the most
funuamental tenets of natuial science is the iuea that natuie is constant, anu that scientists can
cieate 'facts' thiough the acts of uiscoveiy, obseivation anu analysis of objective uata. Bata, in
this sense, is peiceiveu to be legitimate mateiial fiom the natuial woilu, inuepenuent of any
social hieiaichy oi any socio-oiganizational foim of authoiity (Naiks 2uu9). Aichaeologists,
fiom the inception of aichaeology as a piofessional uiscipline, have woikeu unuei this piemise,
finuing human-maue objects as an astionomei woulu finu new stais in the night sky, anu
inteipieting cultuie anu human behaviouis baseu on the iuea of uiscoveiy, obseivation anu
analysis. The most notable change of thought affecting this piocess in aichaeologyoccuiiing
with the postpiocessual theoiies of 'multivocality' anu 'ieflexivity'

(}ohnson 1999; Bouuei

3
See Section 2.3.2.

13
2uuu; Boltiof anu Kailsson 2uuu; Bouuei 2uu1; Bouuei 2uuS; Bouuei 2uu8)has iesulteu in a
much moie complicateu way that aichaeologists look at anu unueistanu aichaeological
inteipietations, even if the basic objectivity-oiienteu methous in aichaeology have changeu
veiy little.
Bespite the fact that the veiy notion of objectivity has been ueconstiucteu anu
fiagmenteu in iecent yeais by postpiocessual theoiy, iesulting in a new unueistanuing of the
past as a complex, heimeneutical anu inteipietive space, most actual aichaeological piactice
touay still woiks unuei the oveiaiching methous of uiscoveiy anu obseivation, analysis anu
'piouucing accounts of the past'. The act of excavating anu publishing 'founu uata' still iemains
intact as the basic way the uiscipline opeiates. In the fielu, we still talk of 'finuings' anu 'uata',
'obseivations' anu 'analyses'. The inteipieteu past, which emeiges fiom this piocess, is then
piesenteu to othei acauemics anu to the public in the foim of publications, museum uisplays,
ieconstiuctions, anu in foiums such as confeiences anu seminais. Such foimal iepiesentations
of the past iely heavily on an unueilying notion of the 'authoiitative account'. The entiie piocess
of ieconstiucting the past in aichaeology is uepenuent on inuiviuuals anu institutions existing
as authoiities, who eithei actively oi passively imply that aitefacts, sites anu final
inteipietations aie 'authentic' oi have 'fiuelity' to the past.
The assumption that some level of objectivity oi coiiectness can be ieacheu thiough the
piocess of scientific aichaeology is peihaps most visible in the authoiitative status of inuiviuual
aichaeologists, of aichaeological institutions like the univeisity anu the museum, anu most
impoitantly, in the authoiity of inuiviuual inteipietations.
4
Authoiity, while often tieu into a
claim of coiiectness oi authenticity, also appeais to be equally tieu into the level of public
acceptance of accounts of the past. The success of an account of the past can often be tieu to the
socio-political neeus oi uesiies of a social community, oi in the piestige oi powei of a
chaiismatic inuiviuual. The case of pseuuoaichaeology in visoko, Bosnia is a piimaiy example of
how the authoiitative status of an aichaeological account is tieu into peifoimative behaviouis,
socio-political neeus anu chaiismatic peisonalities.
S

This cieates an inteiesting paiauox: if aichaeological accounts of the past aie
unueistoou to be socially constiucteu, then why aie some accounts consiueieu moie iight than
otheis. If knowleuge is a socially cieateu enteipiise (constiucteu by people who cieate anu use
knowleuge foi theii own puiposes anu foi contextual ieasons), then why is theie a geneial
sense that some accountsin the foim of museum uisplays, publications oi meuiaiepiesent a
moie authoiitative foim of 'tiuth' oi an 'authentic' past. I aigue that the main ingieuient

4
Fiom the peispective of social constiuctivism, inuiviuual statements of inteipietation anu objects of
cieation like images, once geneiateu by aichaeologists, can themselves be imbueu with authoiity.
5
See Chapter Five.

14
sustaining some accounts of the past as coiiectthat piopel othei accounts to the populai foie,
that conuemn even otheis to a sentence of suuuen ueath oi a quiet ietiiement uue to
unpopulaiityis outbority. What is authoiity. Bow anu why is it embeuueu in the
aichaeological piocess. What makes some people authoiities on the past anu otheis not, anu
what makes some accounts anu inteipietations moie authoiitative than otheis. These
questions also iaise impoitant ethical conceins: how is authoiity connecteu to claims of
authenticity anu coiiectness, to the concepts of tiust anu witnessing, to a moiality of what is
iight anu wiong about speaking foi people who aie long ueau. The past is in many ways a
malleable anu unknowable thingso, who has the authoiity to speak about the past, anu who
uoes not. 0n the othei siue of the coin, how anu why uo some people have the authoiity to
silence alteinative, less authoiitative views. Bow anu why shoulu some people be gianteu
access to a non-ienewable iesouiceaichaeological mateiialto inteipiet it as they please,
while otheis shoulu not. 0ltimately, this thesis is inteiesteu in questioning: what is
aichaeological authoiity. Bow uoes authoiity manifest in the aichaeological piocess anu affect
the acceptance of accounts of the past. Anu what uoes authoiity mean to the uiscipline.

A>A B7<4-4-9 #2.50/4.: 6-1 .57 Q03468 !0-D./23.40- 0<
?-0@87197

A>A>= B7<4-4-9 #2.50/4.:
2.2.1.1 Tbe Bifference Between Power onJ Autbority
Authoiity is intimately ielateu to the concept of powei, but it is subtly anu ciitically
uiffeient. The 0xfoiu English Bictionaiy (1989) states that powei is "authoiity given oi
committeu"which iuentifies the unueilying iuea that the two concepts aie ielateu anu
inteiuepenuent, but uistinct. As Baines ielays in his aiticle 0n outbority onJ its relotionsbip to
power:
The ieceiveu view of authoiity within the sociological tiauition is that it is powei plus:
powei plus consent, oi powei plus legitimacy, oi powei plus institutionalisation . . .
Against this, I shall aigue heie that authoiity shoulu be thought of as powei minus, that
to possess powei is moie expeuient anu auvantageous than to possess meie authoiity,
anu that consent anu legitimacy aie immateiial to unueistanuing the uiffeience between
these two attiibutes. (1986: 18u)


15
Ciitically heie, Baines singles out some of the moie impoitant points about the ielationship of
authoiity to that of 'powei'. Baines ielays two uiffeient views: on the one hanu, authoiity is
most tiauitionally iepiesenteu as a 'legitimate' foim of powei that must iely on consent oi
institutionalisation in oiuei to exist; authoiity is a capacity that is only opeiateu oi enacteu with
the exeition of powei. Alteinatively, Baines aigues that authoiity cananu shoulube seen as
a passive powei in its own iight, something that is less foiceful oi expeuient than stiaight-up
powei, something that gives a peison passive iights to act without uiscietion, which may oi
may not tianslate into powei.
To claiify the lattei point, Baines gives two examples. The fiist is of a monaich who
possesses the authoiity to sign Acts of Pailiament into law. This authoiity, Baines aigues, uoes
not always iepiesent powei: the Queen of Englanu has no piactical powei to altei oi withholu
assent to most laws enacteu in the countiy touay. Thus, Baines aigues, authoiity is
uistinguishable fiom active powei anu is moie of a passive powei oi iight (Baines 1986: 18S).
In anothei example, Baines gives the case of an 'authoiity on' Aiistotle. This authoiity, Baines
says, is empoweieu by an inuiviuual's extensive knowleuge of Aiistotle, who ueiives hei
stanuing "wholly anu entiiely fiom his society", ienueiing "any actual connection between the
authoiity anu Aiistotle, oi Aiistotle's texts.contingent, essentially acciuental" (Baines 1986:
186). By continent, Baines aigues that 'uiscietion', oi active juugement, is not involveu in
authoiity, as it in iaw powei: "An authoiity on Aiistotle is the passive agent of Aiistotle, iathei
as the possessoi of authoiity is the passive agent of a powei. Note that we have authoiities on
Aiistotle in a way that we coulu not contemplate having poweis ovei Aiistotle" (Baines 1986:
186). This iuentifies one veiy impoitant uiffeience between powei anu authoiity: authoiity is a
moie subtle mattei of iight, influential contiol anu legitimacy; powei is a much moie conciete
mattei of iaw foice, executive contiol anu action baseu on uiscietion oi juugement.
What Baines somewhat neglects in his uefinition, howevei, is the fact that authoiity is
not a uecontextualiseu oi possesseu 'thing', a point which is uiscusseu in moie uetail in the next
section. While authoiity can be uistinguisheu fiom iaw executive powei, it neveitheless ielies
heavily on contextual mateiials anu actois in oiuei to existauthoiity is something not
acciuental, inciuental, noi something that exists without its inteiuepenuence on contexts of
legitimation. It is pioblematic, foi instance, foi Baines to claim that 'an authoiity' on Aiistotle
has only passive poweiauthoiitative people may holu positions in an institution like a
univeisity, foi example, which gives them ceitain iights, piivileges, accesses anu active poweis
that someone who is not an authoiity uoes not have. This powei, I woulu aigue, is pait of what
we mean when we use the teim 'authoiity'. What Baines calls 'acciuental' oi 'contingent' factois
aie actually fully embeuueu in this peison's 'possession' of authoiity oi the peison's iuentity as
an authoiity; the executive authoiity of the univeisity piofessoi is inteitwineu in his epistemic

16
authoiity as an expeit on Aiistotle.
6
Theiefoie, uespite the fact that Baines offeis useful
examples anu uistinctions between powei anu authoiity, his naiiow uefinition of authoiity as a
passive powei shoulu be supplementeu by a view of authoiity as an accomplishment oi effect,
stiessing its insepaiable link with moues of legitimation, anu with constant social inteiactions
anu negotiations.
It is impoitant to offei the uiscussion above on the uistinction between 'powei' anu
'authoiity' because they aie both abstiact, highly fluiu anu uebatable concepts, yet enulessly
uiscusseu in both the acaueme anu the wiuei public. Few topics have been engageu as much in
acauemia, at least inuiiectly, as that of authoiity anu asymmetiic social powei ielationships.
Authoiity touches anu impacts a vast iange of human expeiience, both in the piesent anu the
past. As a social concept, it is fai-ieaching anu abstiact. We speak of authoiity, in authoiity, on
authoiity. Things may be authoiitative, people may be authoiitative, texts may be authoiitative,
actions anu speech may be authoiitative, abstiactions like 'knowleuge' may be authoiitative
oi not. Authoiity can have mateiial anu physical consequences. A uesiie foi authoiity can leau
people to extiemes of behavioui anu iisk, anu the loss of it can cause uespaii, angei oi giief.
Inuiviuuals oi collectives aie often uiawn to chaiismatic leaueis anu social movements in the
hope to attain some measuie of authoiity oi benefit fiom authoiity. Stuuents anu appientices
leain fiom the authoiity of those who teach them, anu authoiities leau intellectual enueavouis.
People in seaich of oi 'in possession of' authoiity can tuin into poweiful consumeis anu
piouuceis of 'authoiitative' goous. Impoitantly, authoiity can also be mimickeu anu peifoimeu,
anu people often make uelibeiate choices in how to peifoim, seek out, oi unueimine
authoiitative people, things oi knowleuge.
7

2.2.1.2 TroJitionol Approocbes to Befininq Autbority
The teim 'authoiity', much like the ielateu teim 'powei', has been "useu, ie-useu, anu
enulessly abuseu" (Law 1991: 16S) in both populai anu uisciplinaiy uiscouise on social powei
ielations: "|fjew woius have gieatei cuiiency in oiganizational theoiy anu oiganizational life
than uoes the teim authoiity. Still the concept of authoiity is as open to conflicting
inteipietations as any" (Balton, Baines et al. 1968: 199). Befining the teim is uifficult, since it
can iefei to both tangible acts anu actoissuch as peisons who may be 'authoiities' that
execute theii authoiity thiough executive foiceas well as abstiact qualities anu tacit
assumptionssuch as the 'authoiity' tacitly possesseu by a peison whose opinion holus
influence ovei otheis. Authoiity tianscenus noimal metonymy (i.e., you can be 'an authoiity'

6
See Section 2.2.2 for further discussion on the terms executive authority and epistemic authority.
7
These concepts aie unpackeu in uetail in Chaptei Five anu Chaptei Six.

17
anu you can 'have authoiity', anu in both cases 'authoiity' is not just a pait stanuing in foi a
whole); insteau, authoiity iefeiences tacit social ielations as well as tangible outcomes anu
executive measuies upon which people anu things ieact anu inteiact. The concept is tiuly
ielative, baseu on social ielations anu asymmetiic powei, often ueeply entangleu with othei
conceptssuch as powei, influence, coeicion, peisuasion, authenticity, accuiacy anu
legitimationso much that each teim feeus into each, anu any iealistic uefinition must iely
heavily on multiple othei concepts in oiuei to exist in meaning on its own. Peihaps it is because
authoiity is seemingly obvious, yet still ambiguous, that the teim has been useu so piolifically in
acauemic ieseaich without any significant ueconstiuction of what the teim actually means
acioss uisciplines, oi at the veiy least, outsiue of the naiiow scope of a single liteiaiy
uiscussion. Even within uisciplinaiy bounuaiies the teim often iemains abstiact. It is peihaps
not suipiising that "|ejveiy few yeais a wiitei will iuefully agiee with eailiei wiiteis that
authoiity iemains a uifficult concept on which to establish any agieement in teims" (Balton,
Baines et al. 1968: 199).
In political science, manageiial stuuies, anu sociology, authoiity has often been
uiscusseu in teims of human potential foi social powei anu contiol, auuiessing why a peison,
paity oi social gioup is uominant ovei oi iesistant towaius anothei (Balton, Baines et al. 1968;
Lincoln 1994). Political anu manageiial liteiatuie on authoiity has been piimaiily inteiesteu in
cause-anu-effect physical outcomes of authoiity anu social ielationshipsseeking answeis to
questions such as: why was Bitlei able to commanu so much 'authoiity' ovei his subjects
(Nilgiam 1974: 4S8; Patten 1977), oi why uo some businesses anu oiganisations seem to thiive
when heaueu by a chaiismatic authoiitative figuie. (Smith 2uu9). This type of authoiity is
uiiect anu specific, linkeu veiy much to action anu people with powei in social hieiaichies
'executive' in natuie.
8

Nost tiauitional sociological liteiatuie on authoiity is inteiesteu in powei ielations in
the 'social oiuei', how powei anu authoiity aie sustaineu oi iesisteu ovei time by vaiious social
communities oi iueologies. They ask questions such as, how uo communities maintain oi
collapse oiueis of authoiity, powei anu iesistance. Kail Naix anu Nax Webei's woik, foi
example, both ielate authoiity specifically to economics, powei anu ievolt; they iegaiu
executive contiol anu uomination of ceitain membeis oi gioups, in vaiious scales of social
communities (Naix 1888; Webei 1964). Webei outlineu thiee sociological categoiies of
authoiity in society, specifically ielating the concept of 'authoiity' with that of 'legitimation', a
teim which implies the powei to influence otheis thiough the foice vesteu in one's institutional
position oi elevateu status (0EB 1989). In his woik, Webei uefines authoiity as a type of

8
See Section 2.2.2.2 for further discussion on executive authority.

18
'legitimate powei' as opposeu to illegitimate foice,
9
anu his typology of authoiities aie gioupeu
into thiee categoiies. In the fiist, Chaiismatic Authoiity, authoiitative powei opeiates thiough
peisonal leaueiship anu tiansfoimational piomise; in the seconu, Tiauitional Authoiity,
authoiitative powei is vesteu in a sense of fiuelity to an establisheu tiauition, status oi occupieu
position; anu in the thiiu, Legal-Rational Authoiity, authoiitative powei opeiates in obeuience
to buieauciacy, iules anu law (Webei 1978). These categoiies, while somewhat aibitiaiy, foim
a useful fiamewoik to begin thinking about how authoiity opeiates in social gioups; they offei a
lens fiom which a ieseaichei can begin to unueistanu the social opeiation anu impact of
authoiity fiom the most inuiviuual anu peisonal levelChaiismaticto the most communal,
stiuctuieu anu complexLegal-Rational. Nany latei stuuies on authoiity in management,
politics anu sociology often begin theii theses with a nou in the uiiection of Webei's eaily woik.
Befinitions anu uiscussion of authoiity have also appeaieu in the fielus of euucation,
philosophy anu psychology, in auuition to this eailiei inteiest by political scientists anu
sociologists like Webei; howevei, a uiffeient language set is often useu. 'Authoiity' has been
fiequently uiviueu by teiminologies like 'executive' anu 'epistemic' (Kiuglanski 1989; Lincoln
1994; Pieison 1994), which highlight the uiffeience between action-baseu authoiity anu
knowleuge-baseu authoiity. In liteiaiy ciiticism, psychology anu uiscouise analysis ieseaich,
authoiity is often iefeienceu in teims of being 'veitical' anu 'hoiizontal', wheie 'veitical'
authoiity iuentifies powei ielations that aie moie stiuctuial anu institutionally baseu, anu
'hoiizontal' iefeiences a moie uynamic plane of social ielations, wheie authoiitative powei is
emeigent anu actively establisheu between inuiviuuals (Lanusbeigei 1961; Bill 197S; Smith
anu Elliott 2uu2).
It is inteiesting to note that most of the stuuies that have attempteu to explain anu
uefine authoiity have uiviueu it up into units oi types, manicuiing anu categoiizing this
amoiphous concept into manageable, unueistanuable anu iefeiable bits. Bowevei, it is
impoitant to stiess that, always, these categoiies aie aibitiaiy anu potentially iun the iisk of
oveisimplification oi misiepiesentation. A stuuy of the veiy uiffeient uivisions of language anu
categoiical use of the concept 'authoiity' within anu acioss uisciplines is much neeueu in futuie
ieseaich anu iepiesents a woithwhile futuie stuuy; howevei, a compiehensive stuuy on this
topic is beyonu the scope of this uisseitation. Insteau, I simply note these many oveilapping anu
often contiauictoiy teiminologies, anu I will offei only a specific choice of teiminologies in the
next sectionfounueu on some of the moie pievalent anu cuiiently populai teiminologies
fiom political science anu psychologyfoi the ease of futuie uiscussion in this uisseitation.

9
See Section 2.2.2.2 for further discussion on legitimate authority and de facto authority.

19
A>A>A !6.790/47D 6-1 B730-D./23.4-9 #2.50/4.:
2.2.2.1 Coteqories of Autbority
This section fiames the tiauitional scholaily categoiies of 'executive' anu 'epistemic'
authoiity, as well as othei subcategoiies like 'intellectual authoiity', as a staiting point foi
uiscussion foi this uisseitation. All of these categoiies (Je focto anu legitimate, executive anu
epistemic, intellectual authoiity) ielate to matteis of powei anu contiolcontiol ovei iights,
usage, piivilege, access, piouuction, iepiouuction anu influence. These categoiies aie aibitiaiy
anu aie not meant to be seen as moie than a useful platfoim foi obseivation anu analysis in this
ieseaich. The seconu pait of this section auuiesses the pioblem of uefining authoiity as a
quality veisus an accomplishment. It aigues foi the examination of authoiity as an
accomplishment by auuiessing the social anu contextual natuie of its uevelopment.

2.2.2.2 Fxecutive Autbority
The 0xfoiu English Bictionaiy offeis two uefinitions of authoiity, which iuentify some of
the moie peitinent qualities of the teim. In the fiist, the 0EB states that authoiity is the "powei
to enfoice obeuience" (0EB 1989). This is what tiauitional manageiial anu psychological
liteiatuie often iefei to as executive outbority (Watt 1982; Lincoln 1994). Executive authoiity is
an active iight oi powei helu in a specific context, uiawn fiom a uelegateu oi ueiiveu title oi
iight. It is also often iefeiieu to as 'piactical' authoiity, since it cieates the oppoitunity foi the
piactical application of powei. The possessoi of executive authoiity has a confeiieu iight to
peifoim an action, whethei by subjugation oi by allowance by peeis oi infeiiois (Chiistiano
2uu4). This is the kinu of classic authoiity helu by a leauei at the heau of a social gioup, whose
position oi chaiisma confeis him oi hei the iight to uelegate tasks to otheis, anu to enfoice
obeuience ielating to the actions anu uecisions that he oi she makes. It is intimately tieu to the
concepts of legitimacy anu powei. Stanley Nilgiam's expeiiments on the powei of authoiity,
which testeu the limits of suboiuinate obeuience to uemanus maue by authoiity figuies, is an
extieme, yet classic example of executive authoiity in action (Nilgiam 1974).
Beginning with eaily political theoiies of authoiity by scholais such as Thomas Bobbes
(1668) anu }ohn Austin (18S2), anu extenuing into mouein political uiscouise touay (Chiistiano
2uu4), the two political science categoiies of authoiity, Je focto anu leqitimote, have been
offeieu as uistinguishable types of executive authoiity. Be focto authoiity is veiy similai to iaw
powei; it iefeis to a peison oi gioup who has the capacity to commanu the obeuience of otheis,
iegaiuless of whethei all suboiuinates oi peeis univeisally accept that authoiity. In othei
woius, a peison oi collective has Je focto authoiity simply because they have powei ovei

20
otheis. A scholai like Baines, who stiictly uefines authoiity, might say that Je focto authoiity is
not authoiity at all, but iathei powei. Bowevei, many political science scholais aigue that it is
authoiity, in that it "amounts to the capacity of a peison oi gioup of peisons to maintain public
oiuei anu secuie the obeuience of most people by issuing commanus backeu by sanctions"
(Chiistiano 2uu4). In the seventeenth centuiy, Thomas Bobbes even went to fai as to aigue that
Je focto authoiity is necessaiily justifieu (oi legitimate) simply because an entity is capable of
peifoiming authoiitative functions (1668); howevei Chiistiano (2uu4) aigues that this is a view
that most mouein scholais shy fiom. Insteau, they note a ciitical uiffeience exists between Je
focto anu legitimate authoiity.
'Legitimate' authoiity, accoiuing to many political scientists, opeiates with vaiious
stiuctuies anu contexts of suppoit that legitimise a peison oi gioup's iight to powei, beyonu
simply the ability to use that powei oi impiess it upon otheis. In othei woius, legitimate
authoiity bases its suppoit on context anu means of justificationusing such contexts as when
a peison with a chaiismatic peisonality employs justifieu coeicion, oi when a peison has the
peisonal capacity oi the institutional iole which allows him oi hei to impose uuties, oi when a
peison has a social position that gives hei the iight to iule (Webei 1964; Lauenson 198u;
Buchanan 2uuS; Chiistiano 2uu4). In the case of legitimate authoiity, the iole of 'the social' has
much moie of a piominent function. People anu things holu legitimate authoiity, oi aie calleu
legitimate authoiities, baseu entiiely on social context. In the case of Baines's 'authoiity on'
Aiistotle, foi example, the peison who is knowleugeable in Aiistotle is an authoiity thiough
legitimate means. This peison accumulates his oi hei authoiity thiough a legitimate stuuy of
Aiistotle's text, acquiiing moie authoiity as a kinu of status thiough theii position in a
legitimate institution of authoiity, such as an establisheu univeisity, anu they can gain oi lose
authoiitative status baseu on theii legitimate iole anu peifoimance within such an institution.
In such a case, the social netwoiks, institutions anu social acts aie "mangleu"

(Pickeiing 199S)
togethei with the inuiviuual's status as an authoiity anu his oi hei executive iights as an
authoiity.
While both Je focto anu leqitimote authoiity essentially ielate to the powei inteiests anu
the capacity foi action possesseu by membeis of a stiuctuial social unit, theie is a piimaiy
uiffeience in the social peifoimances, aitefacts anu institutions that aie involveu in both types.
Legitimate authoiity, as opposeu to Je focto authoiity, is of key inteiest to this uisseitation.
Legitimate authoiity is ueeply associateu with social moues of legitimation, social ioles anu
peifoimances, anu the contingency of its weight on contextual social outcomes. As uiscusseu in
much moie uepth in the seconu half of this uisseitation, legitimate authoiity, as a foim of
executive authoiity, is an impoitant pait of the piouuction anu acceptance of 'authoiitative'

21
2.2.2.S Fpistemic Autbority
In its seconu uefinition, the 0xfoiu English Bictionaiy uefines 'authoiity' as the "powei
to influence action, opinion, belief" (0EB 1989). This is often iefeiieu to in scholaily liteiatuie
as epistemic outbority (Watt 1982; Kiuglanski 199u; Lincoln 1994; Pieison 1994; Raviv, Bai-Tal
et al. 2uuS; Chiistiano 2uu4). Epistemic authoiity is intimately ielateu to knowleuge foimation,
influence, expeitise anu belief. It iegaius how oi why people accept some infoimation as final oi
valiu, anu is appaient when people stop seeking alteinative knowleuge (Kiuglanski 1989; Raviv,
Bai-Tal et al. 2uuS). When knowleuge oi infoimation becomes labelleu 'authoiitative', people
may take executive action baseu on that infoimation, which can ultimately affect iesults,
situations anu outcomes fiom the actions that people take baseu on infoimation they peiceive
as valiu. Epistemic authoiity is often inteiielateu with the notion of expeits anu expeitise,
1u
anu
it is ueeply ielevant to stuuies on the social piouuction of scientific knowleuge.
Some of the moie iecent ieseaich on epistemic authoiity has come out of uisciplines
such as social-cognitive psychology anu euucation. 0ne of the funuamental theoiists in
epistemic authoiity is Aiie Kiuglanski, who uevelopeu the theoiy of 'lay epistemics', which
"auuiesses the piocess wheieby human knowleuge if foimeu anu mouifieu, anu it highlights the
epistemic functions of hypothesis geneiation anu valiuation" (Kiuglanski 199u: 181). Lay
epistemic theoiy, anu ielateu ieseaich in the fielus of philosophy of science anu psychology,
have paiticulaily focuseu on the question of why membeis of the public uefei to the authoiity of
expeits in society. The ieliance anu use of epistemic authoiity is a necessaiy pait of mouein life,
many of these scholais aigue, foi "the uemanus of eveiyuay life iequiie us to make many moie
uecisions anu holu many moie opinions than we coulu evei base on peisonally examineu
ieasons" (Pieison 1994: S98). Reseaicheis in the fielu of euucation have also examineu
knowleuge acquisition anu powei ielations by paiticulaily auuiessing the ielationship between
stuuents anu teacheis, obseiving epistemic authoiity as "a souice of ueteiminative influence on
the foimation of inuiviuuals' knowleuge" (Raviv, Bai-Tal et al. 2uuS: 17). Funuamentally,
epistemic authoiity iests on a consumei's ieliance anu tiust in the knowleuge, influence anu
expeitise of anothei peison oi thing, like a book, aiticle oi museum uisplay.

2.2.2.4 lntellectuol Autbority
Closely ielateu to epistemic authoiity is that of 'intellectual' authoiity, a teim that also
has some cuiiency in acauemic liteiatuie, capitalising on the poweiknowleuge ielationship
(see Colliei 1992; Fuieui 2uu4). Intellectual authoiity piimaiily ueals with all aspects of

10
See Section 6.2.3 for a detailed discussion about the concept of epistemic dependence and the relationship
between expertise, knowledge, epistemic authority and archaeology.

22
legitimate authoiityexecutive anu epistemicthat ielate to the puisuit, piouuction anu
consumption of knowleuge. Intellectual authoiity, foi example, can be a type of legitimate
authoiity helu by a peison such a piofessoi, like the 'authoiity on' Aiistotle mentioneu above.
This piofessoi of Aiistotle mostly likely has a high uegiee of epistemic authoiity, which was
eaineu thiough hei intimate knowleuge of, anu expeiience in, stuuying Aiistotle's texts, as well
as thiough hei appienticeship in acauemic tiaining anu showmanship in peifoiming the iole of
acauemic. If this piofessoi holus a high uegiee of epistemic authoiity thiough hei known
expeitise anu authoiitative publication of woik on Aiistotle, she may also holu a position of
status within an institution such a univeisity. This position of status can offei hei a ceitain
uegiee of executive authoiity in hei ability to make uecisions which have an executable
outcome. Foi example, she may have the powei to access anu use uepaitmental funus foi a
specific puipose, oi have the iight to make uecisions about staff appointments within the
uepaitment, oi hei position may give hei a high uegiee of influence ovei hei stuuents that
impact theii behavioui. Because of hei high uegiee of epistemic authoiity, she may also
influence othei scholais' ability to publish in wiuely-ieauy publications, both thiough foimal
means (exeicising peei ieview oi euitoiial contiol) oi infoimal ones (hei influence ovei the
ieputations of othei scholais in hei community). Zygmunt Bauman, a sociologist on postmouein
society, aigues that such intellectuals can holu "meta-piofessional authoiity, legislating about
the pioceuuial iules which allow them to aibitiate contioveisies of opinion anu make
statements intenueu as binuing" (1987: 6). In this sense 'intellectual authoiities' often holu
legitimate authoiity that is both epistemic anu executive, often situateu in positions of piivilege
oi powei, ielating to context anu involving access oi oppoitunity.
Touay, a gieat ueal of social influence, powei, anu emphasis is placeu on the iole of
scientific expeitise. 'Intellectuals' aie in a piivilegeu position in society, simply because science
has uevelopeu as a piofession that holus anu sways a gieat ueal of public influence. This thesis
is ultimately focuseu on the implications of 'intellectual authoiity'iegaiuing how powei,
influence anu legitimation peitains to the puisuit, uistiibution anu consumption of
knowleugeanu its iole in how accounts of the past aie piouuceu anu accepteu as authoiitative
by aichaeologists anu the public. The negotiation of opinion by 'intellectual authoiities', which
leau to Bauman's "statements intenueu as binuing", anu which involve both epistemic anu
executive qualities, is the cential concein of this thesis.

2.2.2.S Auctors onJ Auctoritos
Finally, it is useful to tiace the meaning of authoiity even fuithei, back to its ioots. This
exeicise pioviues a stable founuation foi thinking about the teim in specific ielation to

23
aichaeological piactice. The woiu 'authoiity,' like 'authoi,' ueiives its meaning fiom the Latin
noun ouctor which, accoiuing to lewis onJ Sborts lotin Bictionory, means:
Be that biings about the existence of any object, oi piomotes the inciease oi piospeiity
of it, whethei he fiist oiiginates it, oi by his effoits gives gieatei peimanence oi
continuance to it. (quoteu in Watt 1982: 11)

An ouctor is an oiiginatoifoi example, an inventoi, authoi, ancestoi, oi inspiieias well as a
piomotei oi sellei of something (Watt 1982: 11). In ancient Rome, ouctor also iefeiieu to
"peison who waiiants the iight of possession; hence, a sellei, venuoi" (0EB 1989), in othei
woius, one who cieates oi piomotes something. In this sense, the ouctor has a kinu of powei
ovei an object, in his iole as cieatoi anu piomotei, anu thus he is a supeiioi actoi oi agent. As
Watt (1982) notes, this kinu of supeiioiity, agency anu powei iesults, not in an active sense of
obeuience by those who come in contact with the ouctor, but iathei in a sense of uefeience oi
iespect: legitimate authoiity, iathei than Je focto authoiity oi powei.
11

The woiu ouctor is at the ioot of the Latin woiu ouctoritos, fiom which the teim
'authoiity' is moie immeuiately ueiiveu. In ancient Rome, ouctoritos was a quality that coulu be
possesseu by some peison oi gioup. As such, it is a "foice" that is "moie than auvice anu less
than commanu, an auvice which one may not safely ignoie" (Agamben 2uuS). This 'foice' is
uistinct fiom the Latin poetos, the powei oi iight to iule oi commanu, often associateu with an
empeioi's active powei to commanu obeuience. Insteau, ouctoritos is a peisonal conuition, a
moue of influence helu, foi example, both by the Roman Senate anu by inuiviuual senatois. It is
often compaieu with sociologist Nax Webei's concept of chaiisma, oi chaiismatic authoiity
(Webei 1964; Agamben 2uuS). Authoiity, then, by its ielationship to ouctoritos, can be a powei
of chaiactei anu a foice of influence.
It is useful to iefeience these Latin ioots of 'authoiity', paiticulaily when thinking about
acauemic authoiity, anu moie specifically, aichaeological authoiity. Insightful connections can
be uiawn by thinking about the teim ouctorone who biings into existence anu piomotes an
objectanu the iuea of what an aichaeologist uoes, oi what she oi he may be. As uiscusseu in
much moie uepth in Chaptei Five, one of an aichaeologist's piimaiy ioles is often seen to be a
'uiscoveiei' of things fiom the past, who biings about the existence of things that weie long-lost
oi which coulu potentially be uestioyeu if not iescueu fiom oblivion (Boltoif anu Biew 2uu7).
Along these lines, an aichaeologist's job is also often seen to cieate oi brinq into existence new
things that iepiesent what they finu: site maps, chaits, uiagiams, iepoits, physical
ieconstiuctions, etc., which come to exist thiough aichaeological acts of authoiship, aitistiy,
mapping oi inteipietive inuustiy. Thus, the concept of an aichaeologist as ouctor is innate in
this piofessional iole, which involves acts of cieation anu authoiship. An aichaeologist can also

11
See Section 2.2.1.1. for discussion on the distinction between power and authority.

24
be seen an ouctor in the sense that he oi she is a piomotei anu champion of objects founu (anu
of objects maue in the act of aichaeology, such as site iepoits, museum uisplays,
ieconstiuctions), since aichaeologists have the iole of uefenuing the woith, neeu foi
inteipietation anu safekeeping of both the things they finu anu the things they piouuce.
It is significant to point out that, funuamentally, the piofession of aichaeology anu the
piofessionals who woik within it ueiive theii ouctoritosanu thus theii authoiityon theii
iole as ouctors, on theii intimate engagement with anu piomotion of the objects they locate oi
biing into existence. Finally, it is goou to ievisit anu acknowleuge the Latin-baseu ioots of
authoiity because the teim ouctoritos is so active. Auctoritos is ueiiveu thiough action anu
constant piomotional upkeep; it is a foice of activity, authoiing anu oiigination; ouctors only
exist in theii active piouuction anu piomotion of things. This is a stiong point to holu into the
next section, which auuiesses the concept of authoiity as an piocess, effect oi outcome.

A>A>F #2.50/4.: 6D 6- #330HN84D5H7-. 0/ &<<73.M /6.57/ .56- 6 T2684.:
I aigue that the ieason "authoiity iemains a uifficult concept on which to establish any
agieement in teims" (Balton, Baines et al. 1968: 199), anu why no soliu uefinition has been
establisheu in liteiatuie, is because most tiauitional scholaiship has not auuiesseu the concept
in an appiopiiate way. Insteau of looking at authoiity as a complex 'by-piouuct' of social
ielationships, as the outcome oi effect of inteiuepenuent social inteiactions, as an
accomplishment oi piouuctas I stiongly aigue it ismost pievious stuuies have been
exeicises in categoiising anu qualifying social scenaiios. They see 'authoiity' as an object oi
foice, a collectable anu potentially quantifiable quality that can be uefineu without heavy
inteiuepenuence on context. Authoiity is insteau an accomplishment oi an effect, a kinetic
outcome of social activity, netwoiking anu inteiielationships: "powei is not something one can
possess - inueeu it must be tieateu as a consequence iathei than as a cause of action" (Latoui
1986: 264). Powei by this uefinition, anu authoiity by ielation, is not something that is gaineu
oi lost, noi something that is active oi passive; iathei, it is a "composition maue by many
people.useu as a convenient way to summorise the consequence of a collective action.It may
be useu as an effect, but nevei as a cause" (Latoui 1986: 26S).
Biuno Latoui, in his aiticle Tbe Powers of Associotion, aigues that the way we think
about concepts like powei comes uown to a uebate about theii funuamental qualities: "What
makes the notion of powei both so useful anu so empty is a philosophical aigument about the
natuie of collective action" (Latoui 1986: 266). Latoui piesents the impoitant uistinction
between what he calls the 'uiffusion mouel' anu the 'tianslation mouel', which aie two uiffeient
ways of conceptualising social qualities like powei. The tiauitional uiffusion mouel, as Latoui

25
explains it, asciibes to powei a foice akin to ineitia in physics, wheie 'powei' is a kinu of thing
enuoweu with its own eneigy: "what counts is the initial foice of those who bove powei; this
foice is then tiansmitteu in its entiiety; finally, the meuium thiough which powei is exeiteu
may uiminish the powei because of fiictions anu iesistances" (Latoui 1986: 267). Foi example,
by the tiauitional uiffusion peispective, it is assumeu that when oiueis weie caiiieu out by a
gioup like the Nazi paity, it took someone like Bitlei who initially belJ a gieat ueal of powei (as
a kinetic foice) to commanu an oiuei. The powei behinu his oiuei was then tiansmitteu
thiough the paity ianks aftei he gave it, with the powei eithei being sustaineu oi iesisteu by
those who ieceiveu it though the meuium of exeitionthat is, thiough the lack of
communication, inuiffeience, ill will oi uiiect opposition by inteiest gioups; this uiffusion of
powei iesulteu in Bitlei's oiuei being followeu to gieatei oi lessei uegiees, anu his powei
being sustaineu, incieasing oi uecieasing ovei time. The uiffusion mouel is the tiauitional way
of thinking about powei in society, wheie powei is a possessable thing helu in gieatei oi lessei
amounts anu tiansmitteu moie oi less successfully thiough society. This is why so much
scholaily liteiatuie (see Section 2.2.2, above) has focuseu on simply categoiising powei anu
authoiity, since it has been conceptualiseu as a measuiable foice.
Bowevei, in the alteinative 'tianslation mouel', social abstiactions like powei anu
authoiity become veiy uiffeient things. In this mouel, the spieau of powei is entiiely in the
hanus of a multituue of uiffeient actois, each of whom "may act in many uiffeient ways, letting
the token |of powei: the claim, oiuei, aitefactj uiop, oi mouifying it, oi ueflecting it, oi
betiaying it, oi auuing to it, oi appiopiiating it" (Latoui 1986: 267). In othei woius, powei is an
accumulation oi effect geneiateu by a web of uiffeient actois, things anu influences. Theie is no
ineitia to explain the tiansmission of powei oi authoiity, foi it cannot be possesseu oi
capitaliseu. Rathei, something like authoiity is the occumulotion of acts anu negotiations by
many uiffeient actois, who each inteiact with a token (of powei, like an oiuei oi an aitefact) in
oiuei to achieve theii own goals anu aims. It is calleu 'tianslation' because it changes, oi
tianslates, as it bounces fiom hanu to hanu of each actoi. Latoui gives the example of a iugby
game with a iugby ball; powei, like the ball in play which foims the 'game', "is the consequence
of the eneigy given to the token by eveiyone in the chain who uoes something about it" (1986:
267). Authoiity in this sense, like powei, is maue up of constituent actions anu paits, a complex
foiceabstiact anu physicalwith a complex social histoiy of constiuction anu use, maue up of
thousanus of constituent paits (Law 1992). It is the outcome of thousanus of social choices,
actions anu ieactions; it is netwoikeu in social anu inteiuepenuent space, not inuepenuently,
anu built fiom both passive anu active social agency. This peispective completely changes the
funuamental way we think about powei anu authoiity ielationships:

26
|In the uiffusion mouelj, the notion of powei becomes convenient foi sociologists. Theie
is always enough alieauy accumulateu eneigy to explain, say, the spieau of the
multinationals, Pinochet's uictatoiship.|Butj If you apply the tianslation mouel, this
ieseivoii uiies up immeuiately. You no longei have any stoieu-up eneigy to explain why
a Piesiuent is obeyeu anu a multinational giows since these effects aie a consequence of
the action of multituues. (Latoui 1986: 269)

Fiom the peispective of the tianslation mouel, any explanation that claims that Bitlei's oiueis
weie obeyeu just because he 'hau powei' is unsustainable. In the tianslation mouel, the powei
anu authoiity behinu an oiuei given by a militaiy commanuei to by a gioup of soluieis is the
iesult of a complex chain of ieactions anu social context. Fiom this peispective, each actoi who
comes in contact with a militaiy oiuei has theii own ieasons foi accepting, caiiying out oi
iesisting the oiuei, whethei foi self pieseivation, peisonal honoui oi piofessional gain, anu
each inuiviuual takes the oiuei anu peifoims it accoiuing to theii own account oi neeus, anu
negotiateu foi theii own ieasons. The authoiity of the oiuei iesults not simply fiom the iesult
of ineitia imbueu in the leauei's possession of powei, but because of the complex negotiations
anu inteiactions that accumulate fiom each actoi's inteiaction with it.
It is impoitant to consiuei the fact that the tiauitional uiffusion mouel iuns the iisk of
oveisimplification, skiiting ovei the complexities behinu a subject like 'authoiity'. It is much
moie impiobable, foi example, to think of obeuience as a piouuct of peifect social 'alignment' to
a kinetic foice, wheie all the people who inteiact with it assent fully without mouifying it. As
Latoui aigues, "Such a situation is highly impiobable. The chances aie that the oiuei has been
mouifieu anu composeu by many uiffeient people who slowly tuineu it into something
completely uiffeient as they sought to achieve tbeir own goals" (1986: 268). The tianslation
mouel iectifies this oveisimplification by allowing space foi the actual complexities of a social
abstiaction like 'authoiity' oi 'powei' to emeige in obseivation. Ceitainly in the case of this
thesis, appioaching a stuuy of authoiity in an aichaeological context thiough the tianslation
mouel has alloweu ioom foi connections to be maue anu uiscussions to foim about the
inteiconnecteuness of actois, things anu social context, which woulu otheiwise have been
impossible to uesciibe fiom the peispective of the uiffusion mouel, wheie powei eithei exists oi
uoes not exist in a quantifiable foim.

A>A>U #2.50/4.: 0< %54-9DM ,-D./2H7-.DM 6-1 ,176D
0ne of the main benefits of using the tianslation mouel in thinking about the way
authoiity opeiates in society is that it opens up a woilu of possible ways to obseive anu think
about the way social actois inteiact. Notably, it allows foi social scientists to account foi the
active agency of tbinqs anu iJeos as well as people.

27
0n the outset, it is cleai that people, things, actions oi speech, even abstiactions like
'knowleuge', may be calleu 'authoiitative' oi can be calleu 'an authoiity' about oi ovei
something else. Foi example, a peison who is calleu 'an authoiity' can wiite an 'authoiitative'
text, which iefeis to both the authoiity of a book itself as well as the knowleuge anu iueas
behinu it. ueneially, the space between two oi moie juxtaposeu objects, people oi iueas
pioviues a given oppoitunity foi social compaiability, anu compaiability opens space foi
uiffeiences in status anu authoiity. Again, as Noitensen anu Kiisch in compositional stuuies
wiite, "this is because ielations in communities aie in pait uefineu by uiffeiences in knowleuge,
expeiience, anu statusuiffeiences in powei that enulessly shift within anu acioss social
contexts" (Noitensen anu Kiisch 199S: SS8). In a mouel of tianslationwhich offeis the iuea
that vaiious actois each have a peifoimative iole in the way authoiity uevelops, changes anu is
maintaineuthis concept of 'communities' can incluue netwoiks of associations anu status that
opeiate between people anu things oi instiuments, as well as between iueas oi abstiactions.
This iuea aligns with the aigument maue in stuuies of the sociology of science anu
technology (see Section 2.2.S, below), which not only aigues that "knowleuge is a social piouuct
iathei than something geneiateu by thiough the opeiation of a piivilegeu scientific methou"
(Law 1992: 2), but also that social qualities like 'powei' oi 'authoiity' aie socially piouuceu
entities. Impoitantly, this actoi-netwoik
12
tianslation mouel allows foi 'actois' to be things,
machines, oi instiuments, as well as people, since something like a stage, pouium, telescope oi
wiiting pen can influence the geneiation, outcome anu acceptance of piouuceu qualities like
knowleuge oi powei (Pickeiing 199S). A classic example woulu be the authoiity ielations in a
classioom, wheie the act of stanuing on a stage with a pouium anu PoweiPoint piesentation
imbues a teachei with a gieat ueal of epistemic anu executive authoiity, simply because the
teachei's social peifoimance uiaws fiom the complex social tiauitions which infoim at spatial
setup. Fuitheimoie, any actual active powei anu authoiity the teachei has in this scenaiio
comes fiom a complex web of social inteiactions at the moment of peifoimance, which aie
baseu upon anu ielying upon the teachei's accumulateu status as an epistemic authoiity, as well
as the level of iesistance oi accommouation given to hei by the stuuents sitting on the benches
on the opposite siue of the ioom. This complex ielationship of authoiity, anu the agency vesteu
in things as well as people, is an impoitant point that will ie-emeige anu be exploieu in much
moie uepth thioughout the seconu pait of this uisseitation, in the analyses of the two case
stuuies.

12
See Section 3.2.1.1. for further discussion on Actor-Network Theory.

28
A>A>V #2.50/4.:M Q03468 !0-D./23.4P4DH 6-1 Q347-.4<43 ?-0@87197
This thesis emphasises the iole of context anu piocess in the piouuction of knowleuge.
0vei the past thiity yeais, a gieat ueal of acauemic uiscussion has emeigeu about the
piouuction of knowleuge, in uisciplines ianging fiom philosophy anu sociology to the
philosophy of science, anu it has been iecogniseu that knowleuge is highly contingent on social
context (Latoui anu Woolgai 1986; Pickeiing 199S; Law 1999). A wiue bouy of scholaiship has
utiliseu an aiiay of methous fiom histoiiogiaphy, ethnogiaphy anu ethnomethouology to stuuy
sociological aspects of knowleuge piouuction. Biuno Latoui anu Steve Woolgai, foi example,
useu ethnogiaphic methous to stuuy natuial science laboiatoiies, tiacing how scientific
knowleuge is actively anu socially piouuceu (Latoui anu Woolgai 1986). In anothei case,
Anuiew Pickeiing useu histoiiogiaphic anu sociological methous to exploie how quaiks became
socially establisheu as scientific fact (Pickeiing 199S). In aichaeology, foi example, Coinelius
Boltoif tiaceu the 'life histoiy' of a pot sheiu in oiuei to aigue that even the mateiial iuentity of
an aitefact is socially asciibeu anu contextual (Boltoif 2uu2). Fiom such stuuies, it has emeigeu
that science is not a stuiuy piocess that meiely ieveals facts about the woilu; iathei, it is a
complex anu inteiuepenuent social activity, wheie scientific facts aie piouuceu thiough social
anu political negotiations, netwoiks, associations anu piactices (Latoui anu Woolgai 1986;
Latoui 1988; Pickeiing 199S; Shapin 1996). Fuithei, they aigue scientific factsanu scientists
themselvesaie socially constiucteu in the sense that they aie liteially maue mateiial:
|Ajnalytically, what counts as a peison is an effect geneiateu by a netwoik of
heteiogeneous, inteiacting, mateiials.If you took away my computei, my colleagues,
my office, my books, my uesk, my telephone I woulun't be a sociologist wiiting papeis,
ueliveiing lectuies, anu piouucing "knowleuge". I'u be something quite othei. (Law
1992)

These multiple stuuies have been unifieu unuei the blanket teim sociol constructivism,
1S
which
is most simply uefineu by its cential claim: that people, aitefacts, ieality anu knowleuge aie
social constiucts, uepenuent on contingent social vaiiables; they aie mateiial by-piouucts of
human actions, choices anu negotiations iathei than extant aitefacts of natuie (Law 1992;
Boghossian 2uu1). It is impoitant to note that social constiuctivism uoes not aigue that ieality
uoes not exist without social inteiactions, oi that paiticles oi uinosauis woulu not 'be theie'
without, say, scientific methous anu theoiies. Rathei social constiuctivism aigues that 'facts' aie
socially cieateu things: 'facts' aie knowleuge piesenteu as semi-stable foims anu entitiesset

13
It is important to note that the theory of social constructivism is related but different from that of social
constructionism. Social constructivism is interested in how beliefs, reality, and knowledge are socially
constructed, while social constructionism is interested in how artefacts or things are socially produced. While
this thesis has a primary concern in how archaeological knowledge is produced, it is also concerned with the
materiality and presentation of that knowledgethus both theories are related to this dissertation. However, for
ease of discussion, I only refer to the theory social constructivism throughout this work.

29
anu piesenteu thiough the scientific piocess as authoiitative anu coiiect ways to talk about anu
look at the woilu. Theii foims anu acceptance aie contextual anu mateiial, uepenuent on the
social, political anu mateiial natuie of the scientific piocess (Latoui anu Woolgai 1986: 18u-
182).
In social constiuctivism, a gieat ueal of attention has been paiu to the constiuction of
scientific facts, since 'science' is a bioau categoiy of knowleuge piouuction that holus gieat
status anu powei in mouein society. Nost Sociology of Scientific Knowleuge (SSK) stuuies have
focuseu on stuuying the 'haiu' laboiatoiy sciences, such the constiuction of scientific facts in
subjects like paiticle physics oi chemistiy. But 'science', by its most inclusive social
constiuctivist uefinition, is simply "tbe proJuction of convincinq knowleJqe in moJern society"
(Naiks 2uu9: 2, emphasis in oiiginal), anu subjects like aichaeology fall unuei this uefinition.
By proJuction, social constiuctivists aigue that 'science' is not a passive exeicise oi activity;
iathei, scientific methous anu knowleuge aie the enu iesult of some constiuctive anu active
social piocess. By convincinq, they highlight the fact that scientific inteipietations must be fiist
accepteu by otheis in the scientific community befoie they become facts: the establishment of
scientific 'fact' is an active piocess of aigument anu convincing, not meie uiscoveiy oi the
passive emeigence of objective tiuths. Finally, by knowleJqe, they mean: "ieliable infoimation
about the univeise.if it weie wiong too fiequently oi too egiegiously, it woulun't be veiy
ieliable. So science is infoimation about the univeise that comes with some souice of authoiity
behinu it" (Naiks 2uu9: 4). This last pointwhich taigets an inteiest in how outbority is vesteu
in scientific actsis peihaps most ielevant to this thesis, which focuses on how authoiity is
embeuueu in the piouuction of aichaeological accounts of the past.
In many ways, aichaeology is much moie public anu openly witnesseu acauemic fielu
than laboiatoiy science, anu it is most ceitainly a 'social science' in compaiison to 'haiu'
sciences like paiticle physics oi oiganic chemistiy (Boltoif anu Biew 2uu7; Noshenska 2uu9).
Bowevei it is still a uiscipline that enueavouis to piouuce accuiate anu ieliable knowleuge
about its subject of stuuy, anu like any haiu science, aichaeology is an aibitiaiy system of
classification baseu on social context (Buikheim anu Nauss 196S). Aichaeology is a system of
classification, a uiscipline that enueavouis to piouuce ieliable knowleuge about the woilu, anu
it piomotes a unifieu system of methous to maintain a sense of oiuei that will help its
piactitioneis bettei ieach ieliable conclusions.
14
Aichaeology is, in this sense, a science.
Theiefoie, much of the cuiient social constiuctivism ieseaich coming out of science stuuies is
veiy applicable to ueepei stuuy of the aichaeological piocess.

14
See Sections 5.2.1 and 6.2.1.

30
2.2.S.1 Arcboeoloqy from o Sociol Constructivist Perspective
The fluiu, messy anu social piocess of scientific activity can be obseiveu thiough the
movement of mateiials (Law 1992). In a fielu like aichaeology, fluiu social piacticeslike
excavating oi ueveloping museum exhibitionsstabilise into new mateiial piouucts, like texts,
physical ieconstiuctions, illustiations oi museum uisplays. STS ieseaicheis have iefeiieu to
this piocess 'insciiption', anu they have calleu the new mateiial piouucts cieateu fiom scientific
activity inscriptions (Latoui 1999: Su6-Su7). The ultimate aim of conuucting scientific piactices
is to cieate new mateiial foims of knowleuge. Insciiption involves "all the types of
tiansfoimations thiough which an entity becomes mateiializeu into a sign, an aichive, a
uocument, a piece of papei, a tiace.They aie always mobile, that is, they allow new tianslations
anu aiticulations while keeping some types of ielations intact" (Latoui 1999: Su6-Su7). Pivotal
activities of aichaeological woik involve the piouuction of insciiptions like notes, uiawings,
images, texts anu uatabases. Insciibeu 'enu-piouucts' of aichaeological piactice often take the
foim of texts, ieconstiuctions oi uisplays.
This piocess of insciiption is closely ielateu to anothei STS concept calleu tronslotion
(Latoui 1999: S11). Tianslation "iefeis to all the uisplacements thiough othei actois whose
meuiation is inuispensable foi any action to occui.actois mouify, uisplace, anu tianslate theii
vaiious anu contiauictoiy inteiests" (Latoui 1999: S11). In scientific activity, vaiious actois anu
objects can gain, lose oi impait authoiity in the way they negotiate mateiials anu inteiact in a
given netwoik. Tianslation is the piocess wheie inuiviuuals inteiact with one anothei, with
insciiptions anu with othei mateiial, negotiating theii own ielationship to that actoi oi object,
anu maximising theii mateiial situation in a netwoik to theii gieatest auvantage. Biuno Latoui
loosely uses the metaphoi of a iugby game to fuithei explain the piocess of tianslation:
The constiuction of facts, like a game of iugby, is thus a collective piocess. Each element
in the chain of inuiviuuals neeueu to pass the black box along may act in multifaiious
ways: the people in question may uiop it altogethei, oi accept it as it is, oi shift the
moualities that accompany it, oi mouify the statement, oi appiopiiate it anu put it in a
completely uiffeient context.all the actois aie uoing something to the black box. Even
in the best of cases they uo not simply tiansmit it but auu events of theii own by
mouifying the aigument, stiengthening it anu incoipoiating it into new contexts. The
metaphoi of the iugby game soon bieaks uown since the ball iemains the same - apait
fiom a few abiasions - all along, wheieas in this technoscience game we aie watching,
the object is mouifieu as it goes along fiom hanu to hanu. (1987: 1u4)

Both of these piocessesinsciiption anu tianslationaie ciitical concepts in social
constiuctivism, anu they aie extensively uiscusseu in Chapteis Thiee anu Foui of this thesis
(Section S.2.1.1 anu 4.4).
Foi now, it is useful to illustiate 'ielational mateiiality' anu stabilisation of insciiption
anu tianslation in social constiuctivism thiough the example of the 2uu9 atalhoyk Aichive

31
Repoit. At the enu of each fielu season, the atalhoyk team piouuces an Aichive Repoit which
they fiist publish in piint text, as pei acauemic stanuaiu, then latei publish moie wiuely in
uigital foim on theii public website. The Aichive Repoits aie intenueu to summaiise the woik
of the team's most iecent fielu season; they uetail the excavation woik that occuiieu, highlight
any notable finus oi featuies founu that season, anu offei uetaileu iepoits of woik uone in
vaiious special categoiies of finus such as specific iepoits on lithics, animal bones, bone tools oi
human iemains. In the 2uu9 Aichive Repoit, foi example, uiiectoi Ian Bouuei's intiouuctoiy
section synthesises the pioject activities that took place uuiing the summei fielu season of
2uu9. In the "2009 Seoson Review",
1S
Bouuei begins with a uiscussion of excavation aims anu
enus with a summaiy of activities on site:
The aims of the excavation this yeai weie to uncovei some well-pieseiveu buineu
builuings in the South Aiea of the site. We have been concentiating oui woik in this aiea
in oiuei to unueistanu the uevelopment of the site thiough time.Theie aie of couise
changes that leau up to Level vI, but the fiies at the enu of this phase seem to be
associateu with an impoitant shift in the pattein of occupation.

Some of the builuings buineu in Level vI aie veiy well pieseiveu. The walls of some of
these builuings have been founu stanuing ovei Sm high. In one of the buineu builuings,
Builuing 79, we founu a beautiful stone figuiine of a beaiueu man as well as anothei
stone figuiine. |.j

The 2uu9 season ian fiom the 1u
th
}une to 2
nu
0ctobei. We hau again a laige team at
atalhoyk this summei, -16u ieseaicheis anu stuuents of 1S uiffeient nationalities
woikeu at the site along with 2u locals. In the one anu a half months befoie the
excavation season in 2uu9, the team woikeu on post-excavation analyses in piepaiation
foi the publication.planneu foi 2u12, anu so this season excavation iepoits weie
wiitten anu animal bones weie sciutinizeu, anu samples weie taken. |sicj (Bouuei
2uu9a: 1-2)

This summaiy is an accountnot of the inteipietations of the past, but of the methouological
activities that occuiieu uuiing that fielu season.

15
The 2009 atalhyk field season is the same season that I attended for my ethnographic observation. See
Chapter Four.

32

O492/7 =+ O/0-. 30P7/ N50.09/6N5 0< .57 AWWX Y6.685Z:[J #/354P7 '7N0/. \Y6.685Z:[J '7D76/35
$/0G73. AWWX]>

The photo on the fiont covei of the 2uu9 Aichive Repoit might be taken as
iepiesentative of the season |Figuie 1j. This photo shows a laige open woikspace in the
atalhoyk South Sheltei. In the foiegiounu, two excavatois look uown at a context sheet on a
clipboaiu. The context sheet is a tool foi iecoiuing ielevant contextual infoimation about
mateiial founu in each stiatigiaphic layei. Biiectly behinu these two excavatois aie a host of
buckets, shovels, tape measuies, lauueis anu othei equipment useu in the excavation piocess to
iemove soil. These tools anu instiuments allow excavatois to physically access multiple levels of
the site, as well as help the excavatois giiu anu map the site in a viitual two-uimensional plan,
like the one that the two excavatois in the back left of Figuie 1 aie holuing. This excavation plan
is anothei tool foi mapping featuies anu iecoiuing ielevant cultuial mateiial founu in each
stiatigiaphic layei. In the fai-miuule backgiounu, a gioup of excavatois aie at woik, peeling
away layeis of the soil with tiowels. In the veiy back iight, a man holus a cameia while he
photogiaphs the most iecent layei of soil. To his iight sits a Tuikish woikman, hiieu by the
pioject to caiiy out most of the heavy lifting anu soil sifting; he is waiting foi a filleu bucket to
be hanueu to him so that he can sift the soil foi aitefacts in the sieves that aie locateu behinu
him, out of iange of the photo fiame to the iight. The main subject of this photo is the vaiious
actois anu theii tools, woiking to 'piouuce knowleuge' at the aichaeological site.
The iest of the photogiaph shows the physical site itself, the tipsy floois that have been
ievealeu by yeais anu yeais of excavation, each layei showing vaiious aichaeological levels anu
peiious of the Neolithic. Nany of the stanuing walls aie the oiiginal white Neolithic plasteieu

33
house walls, such as the ones in the centie of this photogiaph, which aie in the house that is
being actively excavateu by the men with tiowels. But many of the othei walls in the
photogiaph aie 'aitificially' cieateu thiough the act of excavation; they aie walls maue puiely of
soil, cut sections that aie intentionally left in situ so that they can show the multicolouieu stiata
in theii fabiic, showing each layei of occupation in piofile, as pei aichaeological stanuaiu of
goou piactice. The walls in the fai back iight, above the excavatoi with the cameia, aie
examples of this.
This scene shows the full mess anu mangle of the piactice of scientific aichaeology
wheie human anu mateiial, past anu piesent, aitificiality anu oiiginality, abstiaction anu
physicality aie all coming togethei in a snapshot moment when 'knowleuge is being piouuceu'.
The 'ielational mateiiality' (Law 1992: S; Law 1999: 4) of this setting becomes tianspaient
when consiueiing how the pictuieu aichaeologists aie uiiectly bounueu in ielation to the
mateiial featuies with which they aie inteiacting. The aichaeologists' actions aie both
constiaineu anu enableu by the mateiial they finuwhen they iun acioss a wall, they follow it;
when they finu human iemains oi aitefacts, they stop to caiefully excavate, map, plan anu
uisassemble them. Likewise, the aichaeological mateiial in this setting is uiiectly affecteu by the
actions of the aichaeologists: it may be cut, angleu, caiiieu away, left in situ, pioppeu, baggeu,
sieveu oi thiown out, uepenuing on the aichaeologists' active uecisions. Fuitheimoie, the whole
lanuscapethe geogiaphy as well as the human anu mateiial agentsaie all impacteu anu
meuiateu by a host of instiuments anu tools. Instiuments anu tools actively constiuct the foim
of the mateiial lanuscape in both viitual anu physical space (viitual in the sense of mapping oi
iecoiuing befoie uestiuction; physical in the sense of alteiation, such as when the tiowel cuts
soil). The technical tools anu instiuments guiue anu impact the actions of the aichaeologists.
Buman excavatois impact the mateiial by touching, hanuling, viewing anu caiiying it off site.
The activity heie, 'uoing aichaeology' with the aim to piouuce knowleuge, is a complex aiiay of
social anu mateiial ielationships. The final piouuct of this inteiaction is Ian Bouuei's foimal anu
stable account of fluiu activity, wheie activity onsite is ieuuceu anu insciibeu in the Aichive
Repoit to: "this season excavation iepoits weie wiitten anu animal bones weie sciutinizeu, anu
samples weie taken" (Bouuei 2uu9a: 4).
This activity is uemonstiates insciiption anu tianslation. Aichaeology involves the
cieation of new mateiial piouucts, such as site plans anu photogiaphs, which iepiesent
'snapshot' moments of fluiu excavation activity insciibeu as new mobile foims. In this
photogiaph foi example, the aichaeologists in the foiegiounu aie cieating context sheets, the
aichaeologists in the back left aie mapping a site plan, anu the photogiaphei in the ieai is
uigitally ienueiing the site. These actois aie all inscribinq theii fluiu social activity into movable
new insciiptions, iepiesentations which aie latei stuuieu anu useu to cieate new texts,

34
illustiations anu othei piouucts of knowleuge. This insciiptive piocess is inteilinkeu with the
soil anu aichaeological mateiial, with the tools that the aichaeologists aie using, anu with a
bioauei institutional unueistanuing of 'the way we uo aichaeology' that lies behinu these
scientific piocesses. Each time a human actoi inteiacts with a tool, aichaeological mateiial oi an
insciiption, they aie also tronslotinq theii own ielationship with it, negotiating theii use anu
unueistanuing of mateiial space anu things, anu impoitantlymaximising the benefit anu
authoiity of this inteiaction. This piocess is uiscusseu moie in uepth in Chaptei Foui of this
uisseitation. But foi now, it is impoitant to iecognise how a social constiuctivist peispective,
wheie knowleuge is seen to be piouuceu thiough social inteiactions anu netwoiks, hinges on
the moteriol natuie of the scientific piocess.

A>A>^ Q03468 !0-D./23.4P4DH+ $0@7/ '786.40-DM Q03468 )/96-4D6.40- 6-1 ?-0@87197

0ne of the key inteiests of social constiuctivism is the ielationship between powei anu
knowleuge in social communities. 'Social communities' aie collective entities composeu of
uiveise social agents, many of whom may have conflicting inteiests, stakes anu aims (Webb
2uu2). Natuially, a society maue up of competing anu conflicting inteiests cieates a uynamic
situation: neaily eveiy social ielationship in a communitybetween people, between people
anu things, even between people anu iueasinvolves an asymmetiy of powei. As uesciibeu
eailiei, power can most simply be uefineu as the capacity oi ability to biing about a ceitain
effect, the ability to act oi to affect something stiongly (0EB 1989). When two oi moie people
oi things sit in tanuem to one anothei, they usually ielate on some level of powei anu authoiity,
thiough such matteis as uomination anu suboiuination, influence oi impoitance, accuiacy oi
ieliability (Foucault 1982; Boob 198S: S). Impoitantly, powei in society is tightly inteiwoven
with knowleuge anu beliefs. When we believe in something stiongly, anu have the powei to act
on those beliefs, then we can make ceitain uecisions that have ceitain effects (uoiuon 198u).
Tiauitional sociologists have stiesseu the integial ielationship between social stiuctuie,
powei, anu beliefs oi knowleuge. The basic, tiauitional mouel is that "|tjheie is social stiuctuie
on the one hanu. Anu theie is knowleuge on the othei. Stiuctuie influences the foim oi the
content of knowleuge" (Law 1986: S), anu powei ielations play into this stiuctuieknowleuge
ielationship. Kail Naix, foi example, aigueu that human neeus anu the mateiial means of
piouuction aie cential to the way society is stiuctuieu in class systems. Be aigueu that
conflicting inteiests anu neeus of membeis of a given social community cause social change, anu
that the powei of social beliefs, knowleuge anu iueologies, weie wiappeu in anu causeu by
social action (Naix 1888; Law 1986: 4). This social aigument offeis the tiauitional sociological

35
'stiuctuie influences knowleuge' mouel. The influential sociologist Emile Buikheim uevelopeu
an alteinative poweiknowleuge mouel, that of empiiical o priorism, in his scholaiship on
ieligion in society. Accoiuing to Buikheim, social communities cieate classifications to uesciibe
an existing anu empiiical social ieality; classifications of value, status anu functionality aie
templates on which we builu oui knowleuge anu stiuctuie oui thought: "the social, as always
foi Buikheim, uesciibes a ieality that is piioi to inuiviuuals" (Buikheim anu Swain 191S; Law
1986: 4-S). In yet anothei alteinative, Thomas Kuhn uesciibeu social knowleuge piouuction
specifically scientific piacticein teims of paiauigms. Be aigueu that people socially cieate
paiauigms of piactice, which aie constantly unuei iesistance by otheis who "attempt to extenu
anu exploit |themj in a vaiiety of ways" (Kuhn 197u: 91). In all of these sociological mouels, the
ielationship between powei, iueology oi knowleuge, anu social stiuctuie is maue appaient:
"Stiuctuie ceitainly influences belief but belief in tuin acts upon stiuctuie, acting to sustain it
oi, inueeu, to change it.The notion that stiuctuie anu belief aie integially ielateu is not new"
(Law 1986: 4). These tiauitional appioaches have aigueu foi a positive connection between the
stiuctuie of social oiganisations, anu the knowleuge anu iueology systems that exist in society.
Bowevei, these tiauitional mouels of powei ielations in society aie pioblematic foi two
ieasons. Fiist, they have a tenuency to question anu explain powei ielations as existing within a
'social oiuei', a unitaiy thing that opeiates unuei gianu, stable social mouels anu influences.
Seconuly, anu as ielates to the uiscussion above in Section 2.2.S, they talk about powei as if it
weie something that can be possesseu, a quality oi a chaiacteiistic. Noie iecent peispectives of
powei in society in social constiuctivism, howevei, have uepaiteu fiom such gianu functional
mouels oi 'fiist piinciples', anu they have insteau focuseu on the complex, heteiogeneous anu
inteiuepenuent natuie of social systems. Social constiuctivist peispectives insteau aigue that
"theie is no such thing as "the social oiuei" with a single centie, oi a single set of stable
ielations. Rathei, theie aie oiueis, in the pluial.the effects of powei aie geneiateu in a
ielational anu uistiibuteu mannei, anu nothing is evei sown up" (Law 1992: S). In othei woius,
like tiauitional sociological by scholais such as Naix oi Kuhn, social constiuctivists iecognise
the intimate ielationship between knowleuge, powei anu social stiuctuie; howevei, they uepait
fiom these tiauitional appioaches by aiguing that society opeiates in a much moie uynamic anu
complex way, inuefinable by neat mouels, insteau full of negotiations, tianslations anu
heteiogeneous influences. (uoiuon 198u)
Nichel Foucault, one of the funuamental mouein thinkeis on the iole of powei anu
knowleuge in society, aigueu this point: "|ojui task is to cast asiue these utopian schemes, the
seaich foi fiist piinciples, anu to ask insteau how powei actually opeiates in oui society
(quoteu in Rabinow 1984: S-6). Biveiging fiom eailiei scholaiship on social powei, Foucault's
ieseaich focuseu on social 'how' questionshow powei opeiates in society, how knowleuge

36
anu powei aie linkeu, how authoiitative social stiuctuies come to be foimeubaseu on
explanations anu inteipietations fiom obseivation.
16
0ne of Foucault's piimaiy inteiests lay in
how humans aie tuineu into subjects, by what he calls "uiviuing piactices" (Rabinow 1984: 8).
'Biviuing piactices' involve such social acts as the isolation of lepeis oi the confinement of the
insane fiom the bulk of society, anu these piactices uiiectly uiaw on anu iesult fiom powei
ielationships, the use of 'facts' anu the piactice of authoiity within society. These piactices of
powei, Foucault aigues, aie often "moues of manipulation that combine the meuiation of a
science (oi pseuuo-science) anu the piactice of exclusionusually in a spatial sense, but always
in a social one" (Rabinow 1984: 8). Foucault's aigument that physical anu social oiuei can
opeiate thiough a meuiation of science oi pseuuoscience is paiamount to thinking about how
aichaeological accounts come to be peiceiveu as poweiful anu authoiitative.

Noie iecent pioponents of social constiuctivist theoiy, mainly in the fielu of Science
Stuuies (STS) have come at the iuea of social constiuction fiom a somewhat ielateu, but
opposing uiiection fiom Foucault. Foucault aigueu foi a vision of society as socially constiucteu,
in a conceptual sense. Foucault conceptualiseu that all knowleuge is constituteu anu that it is
socially constiucteu unuei conuitions of powei. Bowevei, ovei the last thiity yeais, STS social
constiuctivist ieseaich has extenueu anu alteieu this aigument to say that theie aie no such
things as 'social oiueis' oi mouels that uefine them; iathei, social communities aie
heteiogeneous entities maue up of inteiielateu social netwoiks, compiiseu of actois that aie
people as well as objects (Law 1992; Pickeiing 199S). Social constiuctivism uiiectly ielates
powei stiuctuies anu knowleuge piouuction to the tightly inteiwoven anu inteiactive netwoiks
of humans onJ tbinqs: "people aie who they aie because they aie a patteineu netwoik of
heteiogeneous mateiial" (Law 1992: 4)
In social constiuctivist ieseaich touay, the connection between knowleuge, iueology anu
social piactice is stiesseu, anu social oiuei is iepiesenteu as fluiua "uialectical ielationship
between the peison anu his oi hei physical anu social context" (Law 1986: 9). Knowleuge anu
social stiuctuie aie foimeu fiom a complex uialectic of iesistance anu accommouation, wheie
social agentsboth human anu mateiialactively asseit anu accommouate theii own inteiests
anu neeus, anu those of otheis (Pickeiing 199S). In any social context, the "ielations in
communities aie in pait uefineu by uiffeiences in knowleuge, expeiience, anu status

16
At one point, Foucault argued that his main research objective was not explicitly to study social power: the
goal of my work during the last twenty years has not been to analyze the phenomena of power (quoted in
Rabinow 1984: 7); however, power was a primary focus of much of his research, despite the fact that he rarely
used the word power in many of his critical works:
When I think back now, I ask myself what else it was that I was talking about, in Madness and Civilisation
or The Birth of the Clinic, if not power? Yet Im perfectly aware that I scarcely ever used the word and never
had such a field of analyses at my disposal then. (quoted in Gordon 1980: 229)


37
uiffeiences in powei that enulessly shift within anu acioss social contexts" (Noitensen anu
Kiisch 199S: SS8). Sociologists of science often stiess the iuea that ielations like 'powei' oi
'knowleuge' aie outcomes of social inteiactions, iathei than passive qualities that one can
possess. This complex weave of powei ielationships, anu ways of thinking about them as
embeuueu in anu piouucts of social contexts, is integial to how SSK ieseaicheis see knowleuge
as constiucteu, peiceiveu anu ultimately accepteu oi iejecteu.

A>A>_ Q03468 !0-D./23.4P4DH+ %/6-DN6/7-3: 4- !0-<843. 6-1 !0-.7D.6.40-
0ne final concept in social constiuctivism that shoulu be intiouuceu in this chaptei
anu which will be fuithei expanueu in the next chaptei of this uisseitationis that of
contestation anu the iuea that tension in a piocess oi system can allow foi its inteinal
complexities to become moie tianspaient, a theoiy calleu 'blackboxing' in Science Stuuies.
Biuno Latoui (1999: Su4) uefineu 'blackboxing' as a scenaiio wheie a piocess oi system iuns so
smoothly anu efficiently that no one stops to question its inteinal complexities, only its inputs
anu outputs, uata anu iesults. Social constiuctivists often talk about 'bieaking open the black
box' oi 'examining the black box' of a given system by stuuying scientific piactice that is unuei
conflict oi contestation. The theoiy of contestation as a theoietical tool in science stuuies is that,
when contention oi conflict aiises, oi when something goes awiy, the 'blackboxeu' systems of
piactice become moie tianspaient. Thus, in contesteu piactice, people can moie thoioughly
examine the inteinal complexities of theii own woiking system by bieaking uown the walls of a
'blackboxeu' system thiough the examination of a contesteu case stuuy, oi by stuuying scientific
contioveisies (Engelhaiut }i. anu Caplan 1987; Poppei 1998|19SSj; Lakatos 1998|197Sj).
Contestation anu blackboxing aie methouological concepts that I uiscuss fuithei in Chaptei
Thiee (Section S.S.2), as they uiiectly impacteu my piactical case stuuy methouology. But foi
now, it is impoitant to intiouuce this theoietical uiscouise, which is cential to much theoiy in
social constiuctivist ieseaich that auuiesses authoiity in scientific piactice.

A>F #2.50/4.: 4- #/356708094368 %570/:
A>F>= ,-./01234-9 #2.50/4.: 4- .57 B4D34N84-7 0< #/35670809:
This chaptei has, to this point, auuiesseu the concept of authoiity in ielation to its
geneial ioots anu conceptual meaning. This final section uiscusses authoiity specifically in

38
aichaeological liteiatuie. Authoiity is funuamentally inteitwineu with the uiscipline of
aichaeology. The fielu as we know it was founueu on piinciples of the Enlightenment, such as
legitimation, convincing, tiust, witnessing, logic anu obseivance (Noshenska 2uu9). Fiom the
19
th
centuiy, notions of authoiity, witnessing anu tiust became coineistone concepts in
aichaeological methou, at base foi why we accept oi tiust ceitain aichaeological account ovei
otheis (Tiiggei 1989: 91-92; Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 24). As aichaeology piofessionaliseu,
concein uevelopeu aiounu the iole of aichaeologists as poweiful piactitioneis who have
exclusive access to impoitant histoiical iemains anu mateiial cultuie. Paiticulaily in the last
thiity yeais, aichaeological people anu institutions have begun to ie-evaluate theii ioles in
society, anu the iole of the uiscipline in matteis of public iuentity anu seivice. Questions anu
inteiest in uisciplinaiy authoiity have uevelopeu in a numbei of ciitical aieas of uiscouise.

A>F>A #2.50/4.: 4- $/037DD268 6-1 $0D.N/037DD268 %570/:
Aichaeological theoiy ovei the past twenty yeais has iecognizeu the highly complex
ielationship between aichaeological piactice anu mateiial cultuie. Nany aichaeologists
(Anuiews, Baiiett et al. 2uuu; Bouuei 2uuu; Faulknei 2uu2) have encouiageu ieflexive
methous in fieluwoik, following sociological stuuies of ieflexive piactice. The social natuie of
inteipietation in aichaeological epistemology has been uebateu, anu seveial scholais have
uigeu bettei iecognition of peisonal biases anu assumptions in the way the past is inteipieteu,
engenueieu oi piesenteu (ueio 1996; Banulei anu uable 1997; Neiiiman 2uu4). This
uisseitation taigets an impoitant epistemological concein within this tienu of aichaeological
ieseaich: the constiuction anu use of inuiviuual anu institutional authoiity in how the past is
stuuieu anu iepiesenteu.
In iecent yeais, piactitioneis have staiteu to question: what uoes it mean to be an
aichaeologist, anu what stanuaius must one upholu in oiuei to be a piofessional uoing 'best
piactice' in the uiscipline. Alison Wyle wiites that, "Fiom the miu-19Sus on, a vocal contingent
within the SAA |Society foi Ameiican Aichaeologyj has aigueu the neeu to couify piofessional
scientific stanuaius of piactice, specifying 'who an aichaeologist was anu what that peison was
qualifieu to uo'" (Ncuimsey 199S: 11; Wylie 2uu2: 229). Such institutional uiscussion appeaiing
on both siues of the Atlantic, aiming to uelineate oi categoiise who is an aichaeologist fiom who
is not, anu aiming to unueistanu the piofessional oi scientific obligations behinu this iole, have
iesulteu in aichaeologists ieconsiueiing theii own ioles in society.
Eaily uiscussion about aichaeological authoiity coinciueu with the wave of New
Aichaeology theoiy that uevelopeu in the 196us, uiiven by anthiopological stuuies in Ameiica
(Caluwell 19S9; Binfoiu 1962; Binfoiu 196S). New Aichaeology was conceineu with iuentifying

39
piocessual changes anu cultuial iegulaiities in the mateiial iecoiu. This wave of theoiy stiesseu
the scientific anu objective potential of the uiscipline, ieacting against the moie imaginative anu
inteipietive Cultuie-Bistoiical piactices that existeu befoie (Tiiggei 1989: 29S). The New
Aichaeology's explicit concein was in cieating new stanuaius of piactice, iathei than engaging
in self-examination oi in ueconstiucting existing aichaeological methous (Neltzei 1979). It uiu,
howevei, have a geneial inteiest in taking a ciitical anu uelibeiate tuin away fiom the Cultuie-
Bistoiical appioaches, which ielieu heavily on aichaeologists who weie seen as 'authoiities'
holuing expeit status in vaiious institutions. New Aichaeologists aigueu that aichaeology
shoulu aspiie to be an objective science, that functionalist anu piocessual tienus weie of cential
impoitance to aichaeological piactice. The aim was "to be able to piouuce objective, ethically
neutial geneializations that weie useful foi the management of mouein societies" (Tiiggei
1989: S1S). New Aichaeology also openeu the uiscipline to numeious othei fielus of stuuy:
"fiom human geogiaphy, economics, political science, sociology, anu psychology, as well as
ethnology" (Tiiggei 1989: S7S). In othei woius, New Aichaeology ieinfoiceu uisciplinaiy anu
institutional authoiity as pait of wiuei empiiical uiscouise, while simultaneously questioning
the authoiity of specific inuiviuuals in the cieation of a geneial, objective vision of the past.
Staiting in the 198us, a ieactionaiy wave of theoiy calleu postpiocessual aichaeology
appeaieu in acauemic uiscouise, ueeply situateu within a laigei acauemic tienu of
postmoueinism. In geneial acauemia, postmoueinism has nevei been a coheient theoiy about
society oi ieseaich; insteau, it involves a vaiiety of theoietical appioaches (such as
postcolonialism, feminist ciitiques, phenomenology, poststiuctuialism, heimeneutics) iesulting
fiom self-awaie, ciitical acauemic uebate about the iole of inuiviuuals, social uynamics anu
oiganizational politics of intellectualism (Bauman 1987; Butlei 2uu2). Specifically in the fielu of
aichaeology, postpiocessual theoiy fiist appeaieu in the eaily 198us as a ciitique to the 197us
New Aichaeology. It "aimeu at a ieuefinition of social piactice, social units anu gioupings, anu of
the natuie of cultuie, all seen to be the heait of a social aichaeology aiming at the
ieconstiuction of societies on the basis of theii mateiial iemains" (Shanks in piess: 4).
Postpiocessual theoiy has stiesseu the aibitiaiy natuie of aichaeological
inteipietations, iaising impoitant issues about the social natuie of aichaeological piactice.
Postpiocessual aichaeology has incluueu uebates on the impact of peisonal, cultuial oi social
bias on inteipietations, anu has cautioneu about the uangeis of silencing the voices of past anu
piesent peoples in a postcolonial woilu (Bahn 2uu1; Shanks in piess). As Alison Wylie aigues,
aichaeologists have founu themselves sitting uncomfoitably between theii 'scientific' iole of
auvocating the "iueal of piofessional uisengagement" (2uu2: 229), anu the conflicting ieality
that aichaeologists act within theii own self-inteiest, exploiting the mateiial iecoiu foi theii
own goals anu aims. She explains that aichaeologists have "a commitment to scientific goals

40
|thatj pioviues the justification foi aichaeological conseivation politics anu salvage effoits"
(2uu2: 229), but that these goals of aichaeology-foi-the-sake-of-knowleuge aie often uissonant
fiom the ieality of a "peivasive, often inuiiect anu unintentional, entanglement of piofessional
aichaeology with commeicial inteiests in aichaeological iesouices", anu that these goals
sometimes iun countei to othei public inteiest gioups who might "object that they aie not
seiveu by scientific exploitation of the iecoiu" (2uu2: 229-2Su).
In the last ten to twenty yeais, the uiscipline has iecogniseu the impact of socio-politics
on inteipietation, anu in tuin, iecogniseu how communities aie affecteu by aichaeology.
Biscussion has emeigeu in a numbei of intellectual aienas. Postmouein social theoiy has
auuiesseu fielus of uiscouise such as genuei stuuies, pluialism, postcolonialism, stiuctuie anu
agency (ueio anu Root 199u; ueio 1996). Theoiies of ieflexivity (Bouuei 2uuu; Bouuei 2uuS),
ciitical aichaeology (Leone, Pottei et al. 1987; Leone 1992; Wilkie anu Baitoy 2uuu; Leone
2u1u), aichaeology as situateu piactice (Shanks anu Tilley 1987), anu community oi
collaboiative aichaeology (Nosei, ulaziei et al. 2uu2; Keibei 2uu6; Walkei foithcoming, 2u11)
have all engageu in uebates ovei what it means to be an aichaeologist woiking in a social
context that might impact oi bias how we appioach the past. Fiom these, uebates aiounu the
value, iuentity anu access of aichaeological heiitage have emeigeu in fielus such as public
aichaeology, heiitage anu museums stuuies, anu aichaeological theoiy, with a paiticulai focus
on a push foi multivocality anu the concepts of piotection anu stewaiuship of aichaeological
iemains (Kiischenblatt-uimblett 199S; Lowenthal 1998; Skeates 2uuu; Bowaiu 2uuS; Boltoif
2uuS; Smith 2uu6; Soiensen anu Caiman 2uu9). Theie has also been a ueepening awaieness of
the issues suiiounuing piesentation, with uebates ovei natuie of museum uisplays, the biases
anu hiuuen meanings that might auveitently oi inauveitently appeai in aichaeological images
anu imageiy, the socio-politics behinu populai-cultuie iepiesentation of aichaeologists, anu the
paiauoxes anu complexities that exist behinu the concept of authenticity (Kaip anu Lavine
1991; Boltoif 2uuS; Smiles anu Nosei 2uuS; Peiiy 2uu9; Nosei 2u1u). Nany of these
aichaeological stuuies have attempteu to auuiess how the ieseaichei affects the 'final piouuct'
aichaeological inteipietations that aie ultimately piouuceu thiough his oi hei engagement with
aichaeological piactice. These vaiious theoietical schools aie iooteu in a postpiocessual, oi
even aiguably a 'post-postpiocessual', wave of acauemic theoiy. They stiess themes of
multivocality anu ieflexivity, piessing foi gieatei awaieness of how social contexts can affect
the outcomes of uata collection anu inteipietation.
Nultivocality anu ieflexivity aie two theoiies that featuie in many of these
postpiocessual uebates, anu both fiimly stake an inteiest in the notion of authoiity in
aichaeological piactice. These two postpiocessual theoiies weie uevelopeu in the giowing
iecognition that aichaeological sites anu ieseaich have multiple stakeholueis with vaiieu

41
inteiests in the past. Nultivocality liteially means 'many voices' anu is an ethical aigument that
aichaeologists shoulu pioviue a stage foi subaltein gioups to voice theii own inteiests oi
inteiests in the past (Bouuei 2uu8). Reflexivity is a methouological aigument that asseits that
scientific piactice shoulu be self-awaie anu accountable to its own contextual uevelopment anu
methou (Bouuei 2uuu; Tsekeiis 2u1u). Nultivocality anu ieflexivity both auuiess the question:
"how shoulu we iesponu to the fact that so many gioups want to tell uiffeient stoiies about the
site." (Bouuei 2uuu: 4). They offei what Bouuei calls "positionality", an aumission that one's
own position anu biases affect inteipietation; they aie a ciitique of anu enquiiy into taken-foi-
gianteu assumptions about what knowleuge is anu how it is foimeu (Bouuei 2uuS: S8). With
ieflexivity, stiess is geneially placeu on the act of self-examination oi self-ieflection, with a
ueepei questioning about what social assumptions oi biases may exist in methous oi stanuaiu
ways of thinking. With multivocality, the focus is on "changing piactices anu contexts so that
uisauvantageu gioups have the oppoitunity to be heaiu anu iesponueu to. It involves tiying to
move away fiom the methous anu piinciples that aie attuneu to the Westein voice. It involves
ethics anu iights" (Bouuei 2uu8: 196). Both of these theoiies, often inteilinkeu in
postpioccessual uiscouise, engage uiiectly with the notion of authoiity: they question who has
the powei to speak foi anu about the past, anu highlight how poweiful biases can impact the
aichaeological iecoiu.
In all of the theoietical schools anu stuuies expiesseu above, theie is a common
unueilying theme of authoiity, as it ielates to social asymmetiies that might affect
aichaeological inteipietation. As aichaeologists have iecognizeu theii own contextual anu
contingent position in society, they have also been foiceu to ienegotiate theii own actions anu
uecisions, thinking ueeply about the impact of the uiscipline on the mateiial they stuuy anu on
othei inteiest gioups aiounu them.

A>F>F #2.50/4.: 4- #/356708094368 Q2K14D34N84-7D
Thiee aichaeological subuisciplines aie of paiticulai inteiest to this thesis anu woithy
of note. These subuisciplines uiiectly engage with the notion of authoiity as it affects
aichaeological piactice anu inteipietations, anu they uiiectly ielate to the question behinu this
thesis: what is aichaeological authoiity, anu how uoes it impact the piouuction of
Eistorioqropbic analyses of aichaeology have become moie pievalent ovei the last thiity
yeais, anu authoiity has emeigeu as a piimaiy concein of ieseaicheis in this subfielu. The
populaiity of inteiest in the histoiy of aichaeology can be seen in iecent piojects such as the
uevelopment of the Bistoiy of Aichaeology Reseaich Netwoik (BARN), the Aichives of

42
Euiopean Aichaeology Pioject (AREA) funueu by the Euiopean 0nion, as well as the steauy
appeaiance of histoiiogiaphic stuuies in publications anu confeience papeis. Cuiiently, the
jouinal Antiquity also infoimally ieseives a section foi the publication of stuuies in the histoiy
of the aichaeological uiscipline (Faiiington 2uu9: 294). Such piojects have focuseu on not only
the histoiy of majoi anu minoi figuies in the fielu, but also auuiess the histoiical impact of
aichaeological piactice on the wiuei public in both social anu political teims (Tiiggei 1989;
Faiiington 2uu9: 182; Smith 2uu9). As Faiiington wiites about histoiiogiaphy anu the impact
of aichaeology in the mouein uay state of Isiael:
A histoiiogiaphic peispective also enables investigatois to unueistanu how a site came
to be as it is in teims of acauemic liteiatuie anu public piesentation; in othei woius,
how the site was cieateu as a site. It allows the investigatoi to be awaie of powei
stiuctuies within the uiscipline, anu to be awaie of how text cieates histoiy. (Faiiington
2uu9: 182)

Bistoiiogiaphic peispectives have openeu the uiscipline to sciutiny anu the examination of its
own piactices, ueconstiucting powei ielationships anu the oiigins of the uiscipline's authoiity
(Stout 2uu8). By stuuying how the piofession has uevelopeu anu by iuentifying the motivations,
biases anu powei ielationships that aie entangleu with piofessional status, the concept of
authoiitative ielations have become moie visible in aichaeological piactice. It is peihaps
unsuipiising that matteis of authoiity have been a piimaiy inteiest of aichaeological
histoiiogiaphy, since the notions of expeitise, witnessing anu institutional statuie have playeu a
majoi iole how the uiscipline has uevelopeu.
Arcboeoloqicol etbnoqropby has also been a giowing subfielu in aichaeological theoiy,
anu many stuuies have highlighteu conceins of authoiity in aichaeological methous anu
piactice. Nost ethnogiaphies of aichaeological piactice go beyonu the activity anthiopologists
obseiving anu iepoiting aichaeological activities, although stuuies of this type have been uone
(Bamilton 2uuu; Eiuui 2uu8). Rathei, the ethnogiaphies of aichaeological piactice becoming
moie pievalent touay aie: "a tians-uisciplinaiy oi even a post-uisciplinaiy anu tianscultuial
space foi engagement, uialogue anu ciitique.It uoes not so much aim at combining anu mixing
aichaeological anu ethnogiaphical piactices" (Bamilakis anu Anagnostopoulos 2uu9b: 7S). In
geneial, aichaeological ethnogiaphies have sought to ueconstiuct aichaeological piactices that
have become 'blackboxeu'. They attempt to look at excavation, iepoit wiiting anu othei
aichaeological methous with fiesh eyes, obseiving the way aichaeology opeiates within a social
context: "the ways in which |aichaeologyj is cieateu anu piouuceu tbrouqb paiticulai
ielationships, people, things, anu piactices" (Yaiiow 2uu9: 21). Seveial stuuies within this
subfielu have offeieu new insight about the way aichaeological piactices aie oiganiseu,
stiuctuieu anu institutionaliseu, as well as the way people leain aichaeology in piactical setting
(ueio 1996; Bamilton 2uuu; Neskell 2uuS; Eugewoith 2uu6; van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6;

43
Eiuui 2uu8; Bamilakis anu Anagnostopoulos 2uu9b). This fielu, like aichaeological
histoiiogiaphy, is a self-examination of aichaeological stanuaius anu settings of piactice. Issues
of authoiity, powei, anu iuentity emeige as conceins when ieseaicheis stuuy hieiaichical
chains of commanu, stuuent-teachei ielationships, anu the methous anu meaning behinu
concepts like aichaeological expeitise.
Finally, orcboeoloqicol beritoqe onJ representotion has also been a iapiuly expanuing
subfielu of inteiest in the uiscipline, anu authoiity has playeu an intimate pait of its uiscouise.
The politics of uisplay is a subject that has piofounu impact on aichaeology, since aim of most
aichaeological activity is the piouuction of public texts, museum exhibitions oi ieconstiuctions.
Foi many membeis of the public, museums, meuia anu othei 'authoiiseu' foiums of uisplay
ieflect a puie anu simple authoiity oi tiuth about the past, foi these institutions aie consiueieu
legitimate cultuial stoiekeepeis of knowleuge (Falk anu Bieiking 2uuu; Bein 2uuu). Recent
museological stuuies have aimeu to uemystify the museum by investigating the politics of
uisplay anu iepiesentation (Kaip anu Lavine 1991; Nosei 1999; Nosei 2u1u). A numbei of
othei stuuies have auuiesseu the powei anu piesence of aichaeological images (Nolyneaux
1997; Smiles anu Nosei 2uuS), anu "aichaeologists now speak of pictuies as theoiy-lauen,
knowleuge-geneiating contentions which stiuctuie peiceptions ofanu aichaeological
piactitioneis' engagements withthe past" (Peiiy 2uu9: 1u9). Expanuing iecognition about the
powei anu politics of uisplay has also emeigeu iegaiuing othei iepiesentative activities of
aichaeological piactice, like the cieation of maps oi site plans (Bateman 2uu6; Flexnei 2uu9), as
well as physical ieconstiuctions anu histoiic villages (}ameson 2uu4; uaiuen 2uu9). All of this
iecent woik has been uiiecteu at ieoiienting the way we think about objects, images anu the
iole of the ieseaichei in aichaeological uisplay anu iepiesentation, ciitiquing powei
ielationships in aichaeological inteipietation anu piactice.

A>U !56N.7/ !0-382D40-+ I2. S56. 4D #2.50/4.: 4-
#/356708094368 $/63.437R

It is ciitical to point out that, while authoiity has been iaiseu as a ciitical concein in the
uiscipline of aichaeology in so many pievious stuuies, iaiely, if evei, has the ioot concept of
authoiity itself been explicitly ueconstiucteu. Nost stuuies that have uealt with authoiity anu
powei ielations have focuseu piimaiily on uesciibing the innate powei stiuctuies within
excavation piactices (i.e. ueio 1996), oi explaining the ethical uangeis of blinu piofessional

44
authoiity in the piesentation of mateiial (i.e. Peiiy 2uu9). This thesis extenus this uiscouise by
contiibuting a stuuy on the exact mechanisms anu piocesses which constitute authoiity,
exposing what the teim 'authoiity' actually means in an aichaeological context. This
uisseitation is founueu on the piemise that aichaeological knowleuge is socially constiucteu,
anu it is conceineu with the way in which authoiity manifests in aichaeological oiganisation,
methous anu piactice. The iole of this ieseaich, iepiesenteu in the iemainuei of this
uisseitation, is to expanu an unueistanuing of how aichaeological 'facts' aie constiucteu,
explicitly looking at how anu why some aichaeological accounts come to be valueu as moie oi
less authoiitative.
This chaptei has intiouuceu the concept of knowleuge as a socially constiucteu
enteipiise. It has ueconstiucteu the teim 'authoiity' as it has been useu in tiauitional scholaily
ieseaich, anu it has offeieu a new way of thinking about the piouuction anu utilisation of
authoiity: as an accumulative affect anu an outcome of many uiffeient negotiations anu
tianslations by people anu things in a social netwoik. The next chapteis of this thesis exploie
this concept in uetail. Chaptei Thiee intiouuces the two case stuuies that this uisseitation uses
to uemonstiate authoiity in aichaeological piactice, anu it also intiouuces the methouology that
was useu foi this stuuy. Chapteis Foui anu Five analyse the piactice of two aichaeological
piojects in oiuei to illustiate the mechanisms anu piocesses that lie behinu the piouuction of
aichaeological authoiity anu authoiitative accounts of the past.
CBAPTER S NETB0B0L0uY ANB CASE ST0BIES

45
!"#$%&' %"'&&+
;7.5010809: 6-1 !6D7 Q.2147D

"lf tbis is on owful mess. tben woulJ sometbinq less messy moke o mess of Jescribinq it?"
(Law 2uu4: 1)
"lt wos six men of lnJoston
To leorninq mucb inclineJ,
Wbo went to see tbe Flepbont
{Tbouqb oll of tbem were blinJ),
Tbot eocb by observotion
Hiqbt sotisfy bis minJ." (Saxe 1878|187Sj)

F>= ,-./0123.40-
F>=>= ,-./01234-9 ;7.5010809:
0ne of the main expeiiments of this stuuy has been the constiuction of its
ieseaich uesign. Authoiity is a conceptual abstiaction. Bow uoes one uesign a piactical
stuuy to analyse a conceptual abstiaction. Noieovei, how uoes one examine the way
authoiity impacts anothei conceptual abstiactionknowleuge. The answei is that
these conceptual abstiactions piouuce anu impact a vaiiety of mateiial cultuie anu
social iesiuue. The ielationships between social inteiactions anu the mateiial piouucts
they piouuce can be obseiveu anu unueistoou even if the actual abstiactions
themselves cannot be quantifieu oi obseiveu. Foi this stuuy, in oiuei to stuuy social anu
mateiial 'siue-effects' of authoiity anu aichaeological knowleuge, I ielieu on an
inteiuisciplinaiy iange of ieseaich stiategies anu methouologies, uiawn fiom ieseaich
schools such as the Sociology of Scientific Knowleuge (SSK) in the fielu of Science anu
Technology Stuuies (STS) anu fiom subfielus like Aichaeological Ethnogiaphy (Latoui
anu Woolgai 1986; Latoui 1987; Law 1992; ueio 1996; Bamilton 2uuu; Yaiiow 2uuS;
Law 2uu4; Eugewoith 2uu6; Rountiee 2uu7; Bamilakis anu Anagnostopoulos 2uu9a).
As a social scientist tiaineu in both anthiopological aichaeology anu heiitage
management, my fielu encountei stuuying piesent-uay 'authoiitative aichaeological
piactice' has been a unique inteiuisciplinaiy expeiience, taking a iewaiuing, sometimes
fiustiating, anu quite peisonal jouiney thiough qualitative methouology. Ny use of
methou has been a complicateu exploiation, involving constant negotiations anu

46
ienegotiations with vaiious methouological appioaches. This uisseitation is the
inteiuisciplinaiy piouuct of my liteiaiy ieseaich anu wiiting at the 0niveisity of
Cambiiuge, my attenuance at numeious confeiences anu piesentations hosteu by both
piofessional anu alteinativeamateui aichaeologists, my fieluwoik obseiving amateui
aichaeologists in Bosnia- Beizegovina, anu my fieluwoik obseiving piofessional
aichaeologists at atalhoyk in Tuikey. This chaptei auuiesses my methouological
piocess, iuentifying the uiiection I ultimately took with my methouology, anu it
examines the outcomes anu effects that my choices may have hau on my oveiall
ieseaich piouuct. This chaptei is uiviueu by two methouological themes: the fiist is a
theoietical mouel that guiueu the way I conceptually appioacheu my ieseaich; the
seconu is the piactical way I appioacheu my fieluwoik stuuy. These two themes aie
inteiwoven in thiee sections. In the fiist section, I iuentify my two case stuuies anu
uiscuss the puipose of using a case stuuy baseu appioach to examine authoiity in the
aichaeological piocess. The seconu section auuiesses the theoietical fiamewoiks anu
consiueiations that playeu a majoi iole in the uevelopment anu implementation of my
ieseaich uesign. The thiiu section outlines the piactical methouology anu stiategies that
I useu in the piocess of my fieluwoik.

S.1.2 lntroJucinq o Cose-BoseJ HetboJoloqicol Approocb
I focuseu my methouology on the obseivation of authoiitative stiuctuies that
manifest in uecision-making, inteipietation anu piouuction of knowleuge in
aichaeological piactice. This stuuy pays paiticulai attention to the piouuceu 'final
piouuct' accounts
17
anu piesenteu inteipietations of what happeneu in the past, with an
aim of 'tiacing back' the social histoiy of how these accounts came to appeai in theii
'final' piesenteu foims. As explaineu in moie uepth below,
18
this stuuy is opeiationally
baseu on the iuea that contestation anu tension in a given piocess allow foi its inteinal
complexities to become moie tianspaient. It also ielies heavily on the unueilying
aigument that social abstiactions like 'authoiity' anu 'knowleuge' can be iuentifieu anu
unueistoou by stuuying the social inteiactions, netwoiks anu mateiial cultuie which aie
piouuceu by these conceptual abstiactions. Theiefoie, this stuuy is fiameu aiounu two
piactical, compaiative case stuuies, both of which aie involveu in vaiious levels of
inteipietive contestation: the Bosnian Pyiamius in visoko, Bosnia-Beizegovina anu the
atalhoyk Pioject, Republic of Tuikey. The aichaeological accounts piouuceu by both

17
See Section 1.1.2.1 foi a uefinition of a 'final piouuct' account of the past.
18
See Section S.S.2.

47
of these case stuuies aie the main focus of examination, anu the authoiity that manifests
in social inteiactions anu that impacts the piouuction of these accounts is the piimaiy
subject of this ieseaich.
To maximize the compaiative value of my case stuuies, I chose one case of
piofessional aichaeology anu one case of alteinative aichaeology. Both of these sites
have piouuceu theii own 'authoiitative' accounts of the past thiough theii piactices,
publications anu public piesentations. The fiist case stuuy is atalhoyk, an
inteinationally iegaiueu piofessional aichaeological site locateu neai Konya in the
Republic of Tuikey. atalhoyk is a complex Neolithic tell site with an equally complex
excavation histoiy anu legacy. The atalhoyk site was paitially excavateu in the 196us
by }ames Nellaait with the Biitish Institute at Ankaia, then ieopeneu again in 199S by
Ian Bouuei, fiist with the 0niveisity of Cambiiuge anu latei with Stanfoiu 0niveisity.
Touay, Bouuei continues ieseaich at atalhoyk, extenuing his own excavations anu
encouiaging ieseaicheis fiom othei univeisities to collaboiate on-site with theii own
inuepenuent excavations. atalhoyk piesents a unique oppoitunity to engage with the
issue of authoiity anu authoiitative aichaeological piactice, especially iegaiuing the
kinu of inteiactive authoiity that builus with tianslation anu site stiuctuie. The site has
a ueep-layeieu excavation histoiy anu holus an impoitant place in aichaeological
histoiy. 0pen almost any intiouuctoiy aichaeology textbook touay, anu you aie almost
ceitain to finu a iefeience to atalhoyk oi Ian Bouuei. The site has a unique
authoiitative status in the aichaeological community, anu its influence on aichaeological
thought, in ielation to its actual impact on aichaeological piactice, is nuanceu anu
complex.
The inteinational iecognition of atalhoyk in aichaeological theoiy can be
uiviueu by two geneial themes: fiist, the site has sensational aichaeological finus, which
have been matcheu by a few equally sensational inteipietive accounts of the past
piouuceu by the piimaiy site excavatois. Seconuly, the site unuei the cuiient uiiection
of Ian Bouuei has been situateu at the foiefiont of an 'expeiimental' exeicise in
postmouein theoiy anu piactice. Bouuei, consiueieu by most in the acauemic
community as the leauing figuie in 'postpiocessual' aichaeological theoiy, has bounu his
theoietical aiguments into his piactical excavation of atalhoyk. Bue to the cuiiency of
Bouuei's theoietical iueas anu expeiimental piactices, atalhoyk's place as an
'authoiitative' postpiocessual site holus a high uegiee of status anu piestige in acauemic
aichaeology, anu a gieat ueal of contestation has uevelopeu aiounu this attention. It is
this authoiitative status, anu the contestation that has uevelopeu fiom Bouuei's
postpiocessual theoietical agenua, that is of inteiest of this thesis. By examining

48
atalhoyk anu its excavatois' authoiity, this case stuuy offeis a moie nuanceu view of
how authoiity manifests anu uevelops in piofessional aichaeological piactice. This case
iaises impoitant questions about the natuie of aichaeological inteipietation that go
beyonu simply asking how uoes one iuentify executive powei, offeiing a ieseaich
oppoitunity to engage with a ueepei unueistanuing about the natuie of epistemic
authoiity anu how this connects to executive authoiity anu stiuctuial space within a
paiticulai uiscipline.
The seconu case stuuy in this uisseitation is a site of alteinative aichaeological
piactice calleu the 'Bosnian Pyiamius', locateu in the small town of visoko neai Saiajevo
in the cuiient Balkan state of Bosnia-Beizegovina. This pioject iepiesents an inteiesting
uynamic: on the one hanu, it has been labelleu as 'pseuuoaichaeology' by the
mainstieam piofessional aichaeological community anu thus is consiueieu to piouuce
non-authoiitative accounts of the past by those who consiuei themselves authoiiseu
piofessional expeits. Bowevei, the pioject uefies convention. Because of its iole in
wiuei Balkan socio-politics anu its peifoimative methous which uiaw on science as a
mastei uiscouise, it is appioacheu anu tieateu like an authoiitative site by manyif not
mostof the Bosnian public, by vaiious maiginal gioups in the wiuei inteinational
public, anu by a sizable numbei of accieuiteu inteinational scientific piofessionals. This
case uemonstiates how people in seaich of oi 'in possession of' authoiity can tuin into
poweiful consumeis anu piouuceis of authoiitative goous. Impoitantly, it auuiesses the
fact that authoiity can be mimickeu anu peifoimeu, anu how people often make
uelibeiate choices in how to peifoim, seek out oi unueimine authoiitative people,
things oi knowleuge. This contesteu site offeis tianspaiency into the way authoiity
opeiates, giving insight into why some aspects of aichaeological piesentation,
peifoimance anu socio-politics may leau ceitain accounts of the past to be accepteu oi
assumeu valiu.

F>=>F !56N.7/ %57H7D 6-1 Q./23.2/7
The following section of this chaptei offei the methouological consiueiations
anu souices behinu this ieseaich, anu they auuiess the cential methouological theme of
'contestation' which uiove the choice of case stuuies (Section S.2). Section S.S iuentifies
the aims, uelimitations anu backgiounu behinu this uisseitation's two case stuuies, anu
it iuentifies the piactical appioach that guiueu the collection of uata anu geneial
fieluwoik of this stuuy. This section also iuentifies the iesolution of ethical issues, as
well as limitations anu uifficulties that occuiieu uuiing piactical fieluwoik. The

49
conclusion of this chaptei (Section S.4) summaiises the aims anu appioach expiesseu in
this methouology.

F>A ;7.50108094368 !0-D417/6.40-D
F>A>= ;7.50108094368 Q02/37D
This section outlines some of the main the methouological souices anu
consiueiations I useu in my piactical appioach. I uiew on seveial souices both insiue
anu outsiue of the fielu of aichaeology as useful mouels anu theoiy to fiame my piactical
methouological appioach. The piimaiy aim of this stuuy was to iuentify what tuins
aichaeological accounts fiom simple iueas anu obseivations into 'authoiitative' factual
accounts about what happeneu in the past. Authoiity anu powei ielationships aie
conceptual abstiactions, theiefoie I uesigneu this stuuy so that I coulu obseive them
thiough the social inteiactions anu mateiial piouuceu in aichaeological piactice. All of
the mateiial anu social aspects involveu in the piouuction of aichaeological
knowleugefiom aichaeological iecoiuing anu mapping, excavateu mateiial fiom the
past, publications anu piesenteu piesentation sliues, to the social inteiactions that useu
these 'piouucts', such as inteiactive peifoimances given uuiing lectuies anu
piesentations to the public, the behavioui of aichaeologists as they excavateu anu
inteiacteu with mateiial, the social use of space anu social inteiactionsweie my
ieseaich 'aichive' fiom which I uiew my ieseaich 'uata'.
I aiiangeu my piactical fieluwoik aiounu the cential question: how uoes an
account of the past uevelop, anu what is the iole of peisonal anu institutional authoiity
in this piocess. All of my qualitative ieseaich methouology was oiienteu aiounu this
question. All ielateu ieseaich questions emeigeu in the fielu anu uuiing latei liteiaiy
ieseaich at Cambiiuge. In oiuei to appioach my ieseaich question, I neeueu to iuentify
what makes an account, oi any item oi peison in the aichaeological piocess,
authoiitative. Bow aie uata anu infoimation negotiateu, inteipieteu anu ieinteipieteu
in the piocess of 'uiscoveiy'. Bow aie uata accounteu foi anu manipulateu in the
piocess of stuuy. Bow uoes that uata enu up in the foimat of a 'final piouuct'
authoiitative account, such as a sliue on a confeience PoweiPoint, oi as a statement of
fact in a touiist biochuie. To answei these questions, I concentiateu my analysis of
authoiity in two aienas of aichaeological piactice: (1) the piactical acts in the fielu,
laboiatoiy, classioom oi wiiting uesk that leau to the piouuction of accounts of the past;
anu (2) the piesentations of 'final piouuct' accounts of the past, whethei active (such as

50
a confeience piesentation), oi passive (such as a piinteu uocument). I taigeteu anu
followeu specific 'final piouuct' accounts in my case stuuies that I thought weie
illustiative to my oveiall thesis. I uiew fiom two majoi theoietical fiamewoiks in oiuei
to uevelop my piactical fieluwoik methouology. The fiist was ueiiveu fiom
methouological uiscussions offeieu by Sociology of Scientific Knowleuge; the seconu I
uiew fiom the ueveloping subfielu of Aichaeological Ethnogiaphy.
S.2.1.1 Science onJ Tecbnoloqy StuJies {STS), Hoteriol lnscriptions onJ
Tronslotions, onJ tbe Actor-Network Tbeory

As uiscusseu in uepth in Chaptei 2 (Section 2.2.S), social constiuctivists in
Science anu Technology Stuuies (STS) have aigueu that knowleuge is piouuceu thiough
complex, inteiconnecteu social netwoiks. Fiom the eaily 198us, many STS ieseaicheis
contiibuteu to a cential ieseaich concept wheie "the social constiuction of knowleuge,
that is, the pioblem of how uecisions about the cieuibility of knowleuge claims anu
methous involve a mix of social anu technical factois" (Bess 2uu1: 2S4). In this appioach
to bettei unueistanu science as a social anu technical enteipiise, ieseaicheis tuin
inwaiu. They ethnogiaphically obseive the physical anu mateiial movements of
scientists engaging in the piactice of science itself. Since focus is placeu on the way
eviuence anu facts aie contingent on social events, ieseaicheis stuuy local uecision-
making piocesses that mateiially uevelop thiough scientific acts: the piouuction of
texts, the use of scientific tools anu laboiatoiy equipment, as well as the movements of
people themselves opeiating within theii physical lanuscape. This bouy of scholaiship
has engageu a wiue aiiay of methous anu epistemologies in oiuei to stuuy sociological
aspects of knowleuge piouuction, incluuing histoiiogiaphic, sociological, ethnogiaphic
anu ethnomethouological appioaches. In my own ieseaich methouology, I have uiawn
fiom many of these examples. Foi instance, Biuno Latoui's obseivational fieluwoik
methous (1986; 1987; 1988; 1999; 2uuS) weie paiticulaily insightful in the
constiuction of my own methouological uesign. In the now classic stuuy in the book,
loborotory life (1986), Latoui anu Woolgai ethnogiaphically obseive scientists at woik,
anu these obseivations methouologically infoim theii conclusion that science is a
socially constiucteu piactice. Reseaicheis like Anuiew Pickeiing have engageu
histoiiogiaphic anu sociological methous to stuuy how iueas uevelopeu in laboiatoiies
become socially establisheu as scientific fact (Pickeiing 199S). 0theis, such as Stai anu
uiiesemei (1989), have useu ethnogiaphic anu liteiaiy methous to stuuy the way
mateiial things can become iepiesentations oi tokens of meaning foi uiffeient social
gioups.

51
The Actoi Netwoik Theoiy (ANT) has been a paiticulaily lasting methouological
contiibution among such appioaches. ANT was uevelopeu by STS ieseaicheis as a
piactical way to examine anu think about the piouuction of knowleuge. ANT is a methou
foi stuuying geneial social piocesses anu outcomes. Latoui, one of the founuing
theoiists of ANT, states that it is a methou "about how to stuuy things.0i iathei how to
let the actois have some ioom to expiess themselves" (2uuS). }ohn Law explains fuithei,
"Beie is the aigument. If we want to unueistanu the mechanics of powei anu
oiganisation it is impoitant not to stait out assuming whatevei we wish to explain"
(Law 1992: 2). In othei woius, ANT begins by a ieseaichei looking at a given piocess
with 'fiesh eyes', ethnomethouologically obseiving actions like 'science' taking place in a
lab oi in the uevelopment of a museum uisplay as if the ieseaichei has nevei seen the
piocess befoie, with no assumptions about the ieasons foi the social inteiactions that
leau to its uevelopment. Powei ielations aie one of the piincipal uiscussions in ANT
ieseaich: "analysis of oiueiing stiuggle is cential to actoi netwoik theoiy" (Law 1992:
S). 0ne of the coie assumptions of ANT is that powei anu authoiity aie the iesult of
accumulateu, ueiiveu social inteiactions; they aie accomplishments oi outcomes of
social inteiaction, not possessable things. Law aigues that "we shoulu be stuuying how
this comes about - how, in othei woius, size, powei oi oiganisation aie geneiateu" in a
ielational anu uistiibuteu mannei (Law 1992: 2) by exploiing anu uesciibing the "local
piocesses of patteining, social oichestiation, oiueiing anu iesistance" (Law 1992: S).
}ohn Law states that ANT stiesses two impoitant points about the social
piouuction of knowleuge: relotionol moteriolity anu performotivity. By 'ielational
mateiiality', Law explains that ANT "takes the semiotic insight, that of the ielationality of
entities, the notion that they aie piouuceu in ielations, anu applies this iuthlessly to all
mateiialsanu not simply to those that aie linguistic" (Law 1999: 4). In othei woius,
ANT uiveiges fiom theoiies like post-stiuctuialism (which focuses piimaiily on
linguistic uiscouise) anu uelibeiately aims to iuentify how all of the piocesses anu
foiums in which vaiious actois anu mateiials'entities'aie inteiielateu,
ueconstiucting how they constantly engage with one anothei in a physical anu mateiial
way that piouuces scientific fact. By 'peifoimativity', Law explains that ANT highlights
"how it is that things get peifoimeu (anu peifoim themselves) into ielations that aie
ielatively stable anu stay in place" (Law 1999: 4). In othei woius, ANT simply aigues
that the piocess of knowleuge piouuction involves uiveise, inteilinkeu anu ielateu
entities which 'peifoim', anu thiough the act of peifoimance they become stabiliseu. A
ieseaichei looking at a complex piocess, like the uevelopment of a museum uisplay, can
use ANT as a methouological mouel to oiient theii stuuy. Foi this uisseitation,

52
inteiesteu in how 'final piouuct' accounts of the past become stabiliseu as authoiitative,
ANT is a veiy useful tool foi oiienting ethnogiaphic ieseaich in acauemic fielu, lab anu
piesentational settings.
Anuiew Pickeiing's ielateu stuuies on scientific piactice also offei a useful
theoietical mouel foi ieseaich methouology. Pickeiing's "basic image of science is a
peifoimative one, in which the peifoimancesthe uoingsof human anu mateiial
agency come to the foie" (199S: 21). In his book, Tbe Honqle of Proctice (199S),
Pickeiing not only acknowleuges the iole of the human in the piouuction of knowleuge,
but also stiesses the agency that mateiial things (such as instiuments oi aitefacts) have
on uata collection anu the constiuction of scientific fact. Paiticulaily impoitant to my
vein of ieseaich is Pickeiing's mouel of scientific piactice as a mangleu "uialectic of
iesistance anu accommouation", wheie "scientists aie human agents in a fielu of
mateiial agency. |anuj human anu mateiial agency aie iecipiocally anu emeigently
inteitwineu in this stiuggle" (199S: 21) . This is a point that aichaeologists such as
Anuiew }ones (2uu2) anu Shaion Webb (2uu2) have taken up in aichaeological
ieseaich. In }ones's woik on the social constiuction of aichaeological fact, foi example,
he aigues that:
|Tjhe mateiial woilu also opeiates with a uegiee of intentionality.while the
mateiial woilu may be obseiveu anu inteipieteu in a multiplicity of possible
ways, inteipietations aie not wholly open-enueu; the natuie of the mateiial
woilu iesists some kinus of inteipietation while it pioviues the means foi
otheis. (2uu2: 171)

This aigument, that the mateiial woilu actively influences anu constiains inteipietation
in aichaeological piactice, that science is a peifoimative piocess of iesistance anu
accommouation involving vaiious actois which aie both mateiial anu human, is
paiamount to my own methouological appioach.
Relateu to this aigument by social constiuctiviststhat scientific piactice,
people anu knowleuge have essential mateiialityis the iuea that you can actively tiace
such mateiiality by ethnogiaphically obseiving the physical movement of people anu
things in scientific piactice (Law 1992). By following the mateiial piouuction of
inscriptionsthe "types of tiansfoimations thiough which an entity becomes
mateiializeu into a sign, an aichive, a uocument, a piece of papei, a tiace" piouuceu in
scientific piactice (Latoui 1999: Su6-Su7), a SSK ieseaichei has a mateiial base to
witness anu analyse the piouuction of knowleuge by scientists. By witnessing the
tronslotion of these insciiptionsthat is, "all the uisplacements thiough othei actois
whose meuiation is inuispensable foi any action to occui.actois mouify, uisplace, anu
tianslate theii vaiious anu contiauictoiy inteiests" (Latoui 1999: S11)an SSK

53
ieseaichei can obseive the way vaiious inuiviuuals aiticulate anu negotiate theii own
powei anu authoiity in ielation to the mateiial piouuction of knowleuge. The concepts
of tianslation anu insciiption, as well as the cential tenant of ANT as a methouological
appioach, offei a conceptual fiamewoik foi ethnogiaphic stuuy of authoiity in the
piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge
The piimaiy usefulness of ANT anu ielateu STS methous foi this uisseitation is
in how it uiaws attention to the way multiple actois engage with one anothei on a
piactical level, auuiessing how scientific piactices move fiom the abstiact anu unstable
iealm of 'iueas' anu 'uata' into the iealm of 'inteipietation' anu 'fact' thiough the
stabilising act of appiopiiate peifoimance. Buiing my own ieseaich, I founu ANT to be a
useful mouel to fiame my own thinking about the way I witnesseu actois in the fielu
engage in the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge, especially since ANT stiesses the
'piactical mateiiality' of how facts come to exist as 'final piouucts'. Anni Buguale
explains in hei uiscussion of ANT: "Committees of all soits sit in iooms, uiink coffee, anu
shuffle thiough papeiwoik. Anu it is in anu thiough such mateiial aiiangements that
uecisions aie maue possible" (1999: 116). ANT uiaws attention to this procticol
moteriolity of knowleuge piouuction, anu this peispective offeis a new way of looking at
the piocesses anu social ielations that leau to stabiliseu piouucts, such as an
authoiitative account of the past publisheu in a highly iegaiueu jouinal.

S.2.1.2 Arcboeoloqicol Ftbnoqropby
0utsiue of sociological philosophy, my ieseaich methouology also uiew on
piactical methous fiom the subfielu of Aichaeological Ethnogiaphy. Ethnogiaphies of
aichaeological piactice piactically stuuy "the ways in which |aichaeologyj is cieateu anu
piouuceu tbrouqb paiticulai ielationships, people, things, anu piactices" (Yaiiow 2uu9:
21, emphasis in oiiginal). Seveial stuuies in aichaeological ethnogiaphy have offeieu
new insight about the way aichaeological piactices aie oiganiseu, stiuctuieu anu
institutionaliseu, as well as the way people leain aichaeology in piactical settings. I
uiew my own methouology fiom such stuuies (Boltoif 2uu2; Webb 2uu2; Yaiiow 2uuS;
Bateman 2uu6; Eugewoith 2uu6; Eiuui 2uu6; Boltoif 2uu6; van Reybiouck anu }acobs
2uu6; Yaiiow 2uu6; Bamilakis anu Anagnostopoulos 2uu9a). Foi example, van
Reybiouck anu }acobs (2uu6) stuuieu the socialisation anu euucation of tiainee
aichaeologists in a iescue excavation locateu in the town of 0ss in the Netheilanus. In
this stuuy the ieseaicheis followeu Latoui's actoi-netwoik theoiy, conuucting
ethnogiaphic fieluwoik in oiuei to tuin attention onto "the factual constiuction of social

54
agents", anu they useu paiticipant obseivation as a methou to stuuy excavations as
"places wheie obseivations aie tuineu into facts but also wheie inuiviuuals aie tuineu
into aichaeologists" (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6: SS). Lynn Neskell ielates that
such aichaeological ethnogiaphies aie 'hybiiu' stuuies in natuie, as they aie shoit
inteiactive ethnogiaphic stuuies that aim to "unueistanu how the value of the past is
calibiateu acioss a wiue social spectium" (2uuS: 82); they involve "holistic
anthiopology that is impiovisational anu context uepenuent. It might encompass a
mosaic of tiauitional foims incluuing aichaeological piactise anu museum oi
iepiesentational analysis, as well as long-teim involvement, paiticipant obseivation,
inteiviewing anu aichival woik" (2uuS: 8S).
Aichaeological ethnogiaphies often uiaw heavily on the concept of 'aitefact
biogiaphies'. Scholais like Aijun Appauuiai, foi example, have examineu the iole of
mateiial cultuie in social life, aiguing that "commouities iepiesent veiy complex social
foims anu uistiibutions of knowleuge" (1986: 41). In his woik Tbe Sociol life of Tbinqs,
Appauuiai aigues that objects tiavel thiough uiffeient aienas of value, anu that theii
uiffeient 'life stages' communicate complex context-uepenuent messages in a given
cultuie (Appauuiai 1986). Scholais like Igoi Kopytoff have aigueu that consumption
anu exchange aie communicative acts. Be emphasizes the iuea that objects may gain
social meanings in both the piocess of commouitizatongiving an object exchangeable
meaning "foi moie anu moie othei things, anu.making moie anu moie uiffeient things
moie wiuely exchangeable" (Kopytoff 1986: 7S) anu in a piocess calleu
singulaiizationwheie "Cultuie ensuies that some things iemain unambiguously
singulai, it iesists the commouitization of otheis; anu it sometimes iesingulaiizes what
has been commouitizeu" (1986: 7S). These iueas stiess the social natuie of both things
themselves anu the social categoiies involveu in the movement of mateiial thiough time,
space anu cultuie.
I uiew my own methouology fiom aichaeological ethnogiaphies that have taken
these ioot iueas of 'aitefact biogiaphies' anu applieu them to social-mateiial stuuies of
aichaeological categoiies anu piactice. Foi example, Coinelius Boltoif has tiaceu the
'life histoiy' of a potsheiu fiom its uiscoveiy to its final inteipietation by following the
sheiu thiough complex netwoiks of social ielationships, negotiations anu
mateiialisations until it becomes stabiliseu as a 'pot sheiu' in a site iepoit (Boltoif
2uu2). Anuiew }ones has useu appioaches fiom STS to stuuy how 'facts' aie cieateu anu
effectively 'blackboxeu' by aichaeologists (see }ones 2uu2: 29-SS). Bis 'biogiaphy' of
ceiamics fiom Neolithic 0ikney follows uiooveu waie fiom theii site of piouuction
thiough theii uiffeient ioles of consumptionin both the past anu piesentuntil they

55
become accounts of the past. Be illustiates how a methouological appioach using STS
theoiies of mateiiality anu scientific piactice, as well as using a stuuy of 'biogiaphies' of
aichaeological things anu categoiies, can contiibute to an analysis of how the mateiial
woilu opeiates with a uegiee of intentionality (}ones 2uu2: 1uS-182). I also uiew on
useful methous of obseivation useu by feminist wiiteis such as }oan ueio, who "biings
science stuuies anu ielateu constiuctivist appioaches togethei with feminist cognitive
theoiy to examine aichaeological fielu piactice anu the piouuction of aichaeological
fielu uata, ultimately to ieveal how the oiganisation of genueieu peisonnel in the fielu
insinuates itself in the cieation of aichaeological fact" (ueio 1996: 2S1).
Richaiu Banulei anu Eiic uable, who stuuieu 'histoiy making' at Colonial
Williamsbuig (1997) weie also helpful methouological souices. Banulei anu uable's
stuuy of Colonial Williamsbuig focuses on the way ieconstiuctions of the past aie
piouuceu within what they call 'social aienas'. Social aienas, as uefineu by Banulei anu
uable, aie the inteipietive spaces cieateu by institutions as well as inuiviuuals, wheie
knowleuge is piouuceu anu actively peifoimeu oi piesenteu. 0f paiticulai help to my
own woik has been Banulei anu uable's ieseaich uesign explicitly outlineu in the fiist
chaptei of theii book Tbe New Eistory in on 0lJ Huseum: Creotinq tbe Post ot Coloniol
Williomsburq (1997: 9-27), which involveu ethnogiaphically obseiving inuiviuuals in
these 'social aienas' of knowleuge piouuction. In oiuei to stuuy the "social piouuction of
museum messages" (1997: 1S), the ieseaicheis obseiveu people peifoiming in what
they calleu 'fiontline' anu 'backstage' social aienas. The ieseaicheis also accesseu
uocumentaiy anu aichival souices that weie piomoteu as 'final piouuct' inteipietations
of the past, anu they attenueu public piesentations to see public peifoimances of 'final
piouuct' inteipietations about the past (1997: 9-27). Because my own ieseaich involveu
two case stuuies that hau a similai aichive of uata to uiaw upon, I founu Banulei anu
uable's ieseaich uesign to be a close, piactical paiallel.
Pievious aichaeological ethnogiaphy stuuies have been uone specifically on the
aichaeological site of atalhoyk, anu they have also been of methouological woith to
my own ieseaich uesign. Shaion Webb's uoctoial ieseaich at the 0niveisity of
Cambiiuge (2uu2), on multiple inteipietations anu museum uisplays at atalhoyk, was
also stiuctuieu aiounu the concept of contestation, anu she uiiecteu qualitative
methous like infoimal inteiviewing anu paiticipant obseivation at the atalhoyk site
museum. Webb's museological stuuy pioveu to be a valuable mouel foi my own woik
obseiving ieseaicheis at atalhoyk at the excavation mounus anu in the uig house
laboiatoiies. Seveial othei tiauitional ethnogiaphies have also been uone at the site of
atalhoyk, pioviuing an inteiesting peispective fiom which to base my own

56
obseivations. 0guz Eiuui, foi example, attenueu anu obseiveu the site of atalhoyk as
an anthiopologist, wiiting a 'site uiaiy' foi his unconventional PhB uisseitation fiom
Columbia 0niveisity (2uu8). Eiuui's intellectual-liteiaiy uisseitation uiaiy pioviueu
insightful backgiounu obseivations on woiking anu conuucting an ethnogiaphic stuuy
at atalhoyk. It is notewoithy to say that I leaineu some things about what not to uo foi
my own methouology fiom Eiuui's woik: uo not sit by the siuelines anu simply watch
excavatois woik, theieby visibly tuining the excavatois anu specialists on site into the
anthiopological '0thei' oi specimens. In his ieseaich, Eiuui uesciibes how his seeming
lack of paiticipation cieateu an atmospheie akin to annoyance, if not actual hostility
between the obseivei anu obseiveu: "in the ait of sitting.I suiely become a featuie of
cuiiosity too. To them, my woik is peihaps like what theii woik is to me: fai fiom self-
eviuent in teims of itsgiounus of legitimacy." (Eiuui 2uu6: 1u6).
A moie tiauitional anu heavily iefeienceu example of ethnogiaphic fieluwoik
fiom atalhoyk is that of Caiolyn Bamilton's iepoit on 'faultlines' between excavatois
anu specialists in the excavation season of 1996. Bamilton conuucteu a limiteu, one-
month session of fieluwoik at the site uuiing the 1996 season anu obseiveu conflict anu
iifts between two majoi woiking gioups of the site: the fielu excavatois anu the
specialists (Bamilton 2uuu). Bamilton's pioject, as well as its insightful obseivations
about the natuie of knowleuge constiuction at the site thiough social inteiactions, was
much welcomeu anu veiy suppoiteu by uiiectoi Ian Bouuei, anu it has aiguably set the
stage foi many of the latei ethnogiaphies which have come thiough the site.

F>A>A !7-./68 ;7.50108094368 %570/:+ !0-.7D.6.40-
The cential concept useu in my methouological appioach is that of contestotion.
Contesteu piactices cieate a space of tianspaiency that can allow a ieseaichei to bettei
obseive why anu how some knowleuge seems to be moie oi less accepteu as
'authoiitative' by consumeis of that knowleuge. The iuea that contestation cieates a
winuow of tianspaiency is not new. Foi example, Biuno Latoui aigueu that 'science' as a
piocess usually opeiates so iigoiously anu efficiently that scientists iaiely question the
inteinal social complexities of theii own ioutine actions anu methous; they only
question theii uata anu iesults (inputs anu outputs). Latoui coineu the teim
'blackboxing' to uefine this piocess, wheie a mouel iuns so smoothly anu efficiently that
no one stops to question its inteinal complexities: "when a mattei of fact is settleu, one
neeu focus only on its inputs anu outputs anu not on its inteinal complexity. Thus,
paiauoxically, the moie science anu technology succeeu, the moie opaque anu obscuie

57
they become" (Latoui 1999: Su4). Accoiuing to the 'black box' theoiy, it is only when
contention oi conflict aiises, oi when a piocess goes awiy, that we can bettei examine
the inteinal complexities of that woiking piocess, bieaking uown the walls anu looking
insiue the 'black box' of oui noimal system of actions.
This theoiy of bieaking uown the 'black box' of ioutine by examining contesteu
case stuuies is paiticulaily fiuitful when stuuying acauemic contioveisy fiom the
peispective of social constiuctivism.
19
Stuait Blume, who has stuuieu scientific uisputes,
aigues that "Contioveisies in science seem to offei a ieseaich focus peimitting
concuiient exploiation of cognitive anu bioau social stiuctuial factois" (Blume 1977:
1S). This appioach seems especially appiopiiate when examining how a social
abstiaction like authoiity manifests in aichaeological piactice anu accounts; authoiity
by its veiy natuie ielates to social powei ielations anu social politics. Contesteu
piactices often leau to noticeable stiuggles ovei both executive contiol anu authoiity
ovei something (i.e. foi example, the use of lab space, the use of funuing, access to
physical mateiial oi space), as well as noticeable uiffeiences ovei epistemic authoiity
(i.e., the qualifications of a ieseaichei, the usefulness of an expeiimental methou, the
valiuity of an hypothesis).
Following this philosophy, aiguing that conflicts in a system allows its inteinal
complexities to become moie tianspaient, I intentionally stiuctuieu my ieseaich
appioach aiounu the case stuuies of atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius, which aie
two tension-iiuuleu aichaeological piojects, as uesciibeu above. Contesteu
aichaeological piactices anu accounts aie taken as the 'othei' in this stuuy: they weie
the piimaiy 'subjects' of my fielu ieseaich. I investigateu the complex negotiations,
tiansfoimations anu heteiogeneous acts that went into the piouuction of accounts of
the past in both case stuuies, anu I woikeu unuei the methouological theoiy that
contestation lays baie some of the intent behinu the choices that leu to 'final'
constiucteu foims of knowleuge. Ny piimaiy aim was to iuentify what tuineu selecteu
aichaeological accounts fiom simple iueas anu obseivations into 'authoiitative', factual
accounts about what happeneu in the past. These metboJoloqicol souices anu
fiamewoiks uiiectly affecteu the way I piactically appioacheu my stuuy, which is
fuithei uiscusseu in the next section..

19
See Sections 2.2.S, 2.2.6 anu 2.2.7 foi fuithei uiscussion on Social Constiuctivism.

58
F>F ;7.5010809: 4- O4781@0/J 6-1 B6.6 !08873.40-
F>F>= !6D7 Q.21: $6/6H7.7/D+ #4HD 6-1 B784H4.6.40-D
Ny two case stuuies weie not pickeu at ianuom; they weie chosen to be
compatible, so that when biought togethei in a uiscussion, iemaiks about theii
opeiation woulu pioviue meaningful conclusions in an analysis of 'authoiity'. The
stuuies of the Bosnian Pyiamius anu atalhoyk help illustiate the oveiall ieseaich
question: what is aichaeological authoiity anu how uoes it manifest in the piouuction of
aichaeological accounts of the past. This uisseitation is not simply piesenting two in-
uepth stuuies of contesteu aichaeological piactice; iathei, it uses the case stuuies as
illustiative examples that contiibute to an oveiall analysis of authoiity in aichaeological
piactice. The puipose of using two veiy uiffeient case stuuies is also not to pioviue a
univeisalist pictuie of aichaeological 'types', such as 'pseuuoaichaeological veisus
piofessional'. The aim is not to explicitly compaie two veiy uiffeient case stuuies; they
aie not uiiectly compaiable anu equal sites. Rathei, they aie complementaiy anu
uemonstiative examples foi this thesis foi a vaiiety of ieasons.
These two case stuuies aie compatible because of theii foim anu appeaiance.
Both sites aie sizeable aichaeological, eaith-moving opeiations, with unusually laige
teams anu a complex site histoiy. Both sites aie also veiy conscious examples of
aichaeological piactice; Ian Bouuei anu his team's veiy conscious appioach to
inteipieting anu piesenting the past of atalhoyk is well known, anu this piactice
ielates veiy closely to the veiy conscious piepaiation anu piesentation piouuceu by
Semii 0smanagic anu his team, whose public publications anu piesentations aie veiy
minuful of builuing a scientific piesence anu, as I founu uuiing my ieseaich, veiy
'pluggeu in' to cuiient tienus anu aichaeological language. This similaiity between two
sites that aie veiy minuful anu iesponsive to theii own inteipietations, at least in
appeaiance anu peifoimance, pioviues a fiim founuation foi a stuuy on authoiity in a
compaiable 'aichaeological' context. Both sites aie also well-iepiesenteu in meuia
souices anu publications, so a gieat ueal of 'final piouuct' accounts of the past exist foi
both sites. This allows a ieseaichei a gieat aichive of mateiial to access anu stuuy. Nany
of these accounts aie piouuceu by the piojects' own official oiganisations, but also by
othei people oi gioups who sit outsiue of the official team units also piouuce othei
accounts ielating to these sites. This offeis a chance to stuuy how sites anu inuiviuuals
attempt to maintain theii authoiity in the face of alteinative oi non-authoiitative
contestation anu uebate outsiue of the official team. Since both sites aie cuiiently
ongoing piojects, with iegulai piactice anu piouuction of knowleuge, both piojects

59
affoiueu me the oppoitunity to visit anu obseive live piouuction of knowleugeat the
actual sites of excavation, as well in spaces wheie inteipieteu accounts weie piesenteu,
such as confeience venues.
These two stuuies can also be vieweu as complementaiy, compaiative opposites
on eithei enu of the 'uemaication line'. In the philosophy of science, 'uemaication
ciiteiia' aie the chaiacteiistics that scholais have "useu to uiffeientiate science fiom its
counteifeit: if a uiscipline fails to meet one of these conuitions, then it juugeu to be non-
scientific" (Cuiu anu Covei 1998: 2). The act of 'uemaicating' oi categoiising authoiiseu
science is a mattei of authoiity in itself, foi who has the iight to juuge what is oi is not
counteifeit, anu who has the authoiity to uefine conuitions.
2u
As Cuiu anu Covei wiite,
"0ltimately uisciiminating between science anu its counteifeit uepenus on a uetaileu
unueistanuing of how science woiks" (Cuiu anu Covei 1998: 79), auuiessing the fact
that in oiuei to unueistanu what makes something 'scientific' veisus what is not
scientific, oi to uefine what is 'pseuuoscientific', one must fiist iecognise that both
science anu pseuuoscience aie piouucts of complex socio-political inteiactions anu
peifoimances. The Bosnian Pyiamius, as a case of pseuuoaichaeology, anu atalhoyk,
as a case of piofessional anu scientific aichaeology, piesent uiffeient angles of
aichaeological uebate ovei the constiuction of facts anu the piouuction of knowleuge.
Both sites, uespite theii given labels of 'pseuuoscientific' oi 'scientific' can be consiueieu
'authoiitative' in ceitain ciicles, anu 'non-authoiitative' in otheis, anu such contestation
is useful when appioaching an analysis of authoiity. In visoko, Bosnia, the pyiamiu
pioject was initially given full peimissions anu political suppoit by the national
goveinment, was tieateu as authentic anu authoiitative by many meuia outlets, was
given suppoit by many people with authoiitative cieuentials anu institutions behinu
theii names, anu was uiiecteu by a man who a majoiity of the Bosnian public consiueieu
to be an authoiity about the past uue to his cieuentials anu peifoimance as an
aichaeologist. In compaiison, atalhoyk is also an authoiitative site, suppoiteu by the
national goveinment, as well as by numeious political anu social institutions, anu
acknowleugeu by the entiie piofessional aichaeological community. Fuitheimoie, a
majoiity of meuia, the piofession anu the public also tieat Ian Bouuei as an authoiity
about the past. This thesis, using two sites on oppose siues of the uemaication line that
aie both cieating 'authoiitative' accounts of the past, examines funuamental tensions
behinu what makes someone an authoiiseu authoiity anu what makes an account of the
past authoiitative.

2u
See Sections S.2.1 anu 6.2.1 foi fuithei uiscussion on the authoiity of categoiies anu
categoiisation.

60
Also, inuiviuually, both sites also offei inteiesting tensions in theii political,
social anu conceptual backgiounus, iegaiuing the natuie anu oiigin of theii authoiity.
As mentioneu above, in both piojects, contestation aiises ovei the application of
methouology anu stanuaius of piactice, as well as ovei the valiuity of the 'final piouuct'
accounts of the past piouuceu thiough piactices like excavation anu piesentation. In the
Bosnian Pyiamiu case, the main contestation ievolves aiounu the uispaiate acceptance
of the site's accounts by the aichaeological community anu the inteinational public. The
piimaiy tension is ovei its label as anu categoiisation as 'pseuuoaichaeology' by
acauemics anu piofessional aichaeologists, while the geneial public sees the pioject as
moie oi less authoiitative anu authentic. In atalhoyk, contestation fiequently aiises in
the aichaeological community iegaiuing the site's epistemological anu theoietical
stance as a successful ieflexive, multivocal anu postpiocessual site. atalhoyk is often
quoteu as an authoiitative, textbook-quality example of scientific aichaeological
piactice; howevei, the site iepiesents itself as expeiimental anu pushing the bounus of
inteipietive piactice. This iesults in atalhoyk almost having two iuentitiesa site of
stanuaiu scientific methous veisus a site of expeiimental piacticeanu ceitainly iesults
in contestation ovei whethei the site's 'talk' matches its 'action'. Contestation at
atalhoyk has also involveu uisputes ovei public aienas anu access, with conflicting
inteipietations coming fiom gioups such as the uouuess Community, as well as the local
goveinment anu public who have questioneu who can oi shoulu have access to the site.
The epistemic contestation in the Bosnian Pyiamiu case stuuy is veiy public, anu
most uebate has been focuseu on whethei oi not the physical mateiial being excavateu
is, in fact, aichaeological at all. Bebates ovei the pioject's aichaeological mateiial
piimaiily take place on the Inteinet, in infoimal settings. In foimal settings, such as
confeience piesentations, conflict at visoko is usually stampeu out, anu inteipietation is
stabiliseu by the peifoimance of science anu influence of the 'acauemic'. Epistemic
contestation at atalhoyk, on the othei hanu, mainly takes place within piofessional
bounuaiies between piofessional aichaeologists in foimal acauemic settings; although
some contestation ovei 'final piouuct' inteipietations has been louuly voiceu on public
siuelines fiom alteinative aichaeological gioups, such as the uouuess Community.
Inteipietation at atalhoyk is often 'stabiliseu' in infoimal settings, such as public
museum anu site uisplays, anu public Inteinet foiums.
As a final note, thiee points of awaieness must be maue about the compatibility
anu use of these two case stuuies in this uisseitation. These points aie uiawn Susan
Phillips' (1994: 64) stuuy of social movements. Fiist, I oiienteu my focus on the
conveiging anu uiffeientiating elements within these stuuies, but alloweu ioom foi both

61
sites to be seen as epistemically inuepenuent. In othei woius, while this uisseitation
offeis points about each case stuuy that can be compaieu oi offset against the othei, it
uoes not intenu these sites to be seen as 'compaiable' oi 'similai' in any way beyonu
what they have to offei an analysis on authoiity. They aie meant to be seen as
compatible cases to the aigument, not compaiable cases in a univeisal sense. Seconuly, I
opeiateu unuei the assumption that any empiiical analysis of compatible case stuuies
shoulu be sensitive to the histoiical specificity of each. In othei woius, I appioacheu
each case stuuy by iecognising that it sits within a unique social context anu acauemic
climate, which must be auuiesseu in oiuei to establish a baseline foi fuithei analysis in
a given thesis. Thiiuly, I consiueieu the fact that any analysis of compatible case stuuies
shoulu also take into consiueiation the "life stage" of each case stuuy oi social
movement (Phillips 1994: 64). Both atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius aie in veiy
uiffeient stages of theii unique site uevelopment anu in theii histoiical situation anu
evolution in acauemia as a whole; theiefoie, any uiiect compaiability is limiteu.
Bowevei, an analysis that iuentifies the cuiient life stages anu social complexities of
inuiviuual sites can still offei a wealth of infoimation to a thesis which auuiesses them
as compatible, not compaiable case stuuies. I founu that many of the issues that aiise
fiom some of the main conceins about the use of case stuuies anu compaiability can be
iectifieu by situating each piimaiy case stuuy in its own inuiviuual, socio-histoiical anu
uevelopmental context.

F>F>A !6D7 Q.2147D+ B6.6 !08873.40-
S.S.2.1 Tbe Bosnion PyromiJs in visoko, Bosnio-Eerzeqovino
Ny initial ieseaich aim foi my fieluwoik in Bosnia-Beizegovina was to pioviue a
basis foi unueistanuing of how the visoko case stuuypopulaily known as the 'Bosnian
Pyiamius'was situateu in a complex socio-political enviionment in post-wai Bosnia. I
conuucteu intiouuctoiy ieseaich that alloweu me to iuentify some of the ways the
Bosnian Pyiamiu Founuation gatheieu uata, constiucteu knowleuge, piesenteu accounts
of the past, contiolleu theii image anu mimickeu aichaeological piactice in oiuei to
piomote the site's authenticity anu authoiity to a wiue public auuience (Piuitt 2uu7).
Ny initial two shoit fieluwoik visits to Saiajevo anu visoko opeiateu unuei stanuaiu
sociological guiuelines anu methous, although I uiu have some uifficulties anu
limitations, mostly issues iegaiuing planning anu tianslation (Piuitt 2uu7: 11-12). This
iounu of ieseaich contact with the Bosnian Pyiamius site seiveu as a pilot stuuy to see

62
what methouological appioaches uiu oi uiu not woik, anu it gave me gieatei awaieness
of the ethics involveu in fieluwoik piactice.
This eaily stuuy was baseu on two stints of fieluwoik in the spiing anu summei
of 2uu7. Foi fuithei ieseaich, I spent the summei of 2uu8 (}une-}uly anu the fiist half of
Septembei) in Saiajevo anu visoko in oiuei to complete a moie in-uepth stuuy on the
Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject. I collecteu publisheu uocuments anu biochuies, spoke with
membeis of the excavation team as well as with local touiist agencies anu membeis of
the public. I visiteu the site multiple times, both as an 'aveiage' touiist anu as an
'acauemic' visitoi.
21
I accesseu a laige volume of publicly available mateiial thiough
television anu piint meuia in Bosnia, as well as meuia piesenteu inteinationally thiough
the Inteinet. I also attenueu inuepenuent public events that piomoteu the Bosnian
Pyiamius, like the 2uu8 Saiajevo Film Festival, which pioveu veiy useful in my
awaieness of how the geneial Bosnian public peiceiveu anu ieceiveu the pyiamiu
pioject. Buiing my months in Saiajevo, I also attenueu a language couise so that I coulu
uevelop a bettei cultuial awaieness of the Bosnian language anu bettei iecognise
nuances in how the pyiamiu pioject was iepiesenteu in liteiatuie anu language.
Bowevei, I still ietaineu my tianslatoi fiom my pievious fieluwoik to help me tianslate
Bosnian uocuments anu inteiviews.
0vei the couise of the past thiee yeais, I also attenueu anu gatheieu uata fiom
public piesentations maue by Semii 0smanagic anu his team about the pioject. These
piesentations weie given in foimal anu political as well as infoimal anu alteinative
places, incluuing: the Bosnian Embassy in Lonuon, the 'Bistoiies & Nysteiies' alteinative
acauemic confeience in Euinbuigh, anu most impoitantly, the '1
st
Inteinational Scientific
Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius' hosteu by the pyiamiu Founuation in Saiajevo. The
lattei event, hosteu in Septembei 2uu8, was integial to my ieseaich anu unueistanuing
of the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject opeiation. It offeieu close contact with the many levels
of alteinative aichaeological community piesent at the site, paveu the way foi many
impoitant contacts in the alteinative acauemic aiena anu offeieu soliu insight into the
Founuation's 'scientific' image anu piactice. This event pioviueu me with the bulk of my
unueistanuing of the 'backstage', innei woikings of the pyiamiu Founuation. It fiimly
showeu how the 'final piouuct' accounts of pyiamius piesenteu in the meuia aie, in fact,
complex culminations of negotiations, uecision-making anu acauemic uebate. Ny
fieluwoik on this case stuuy helpeu me establish an illustiative backgiounu foi how

21
I foimally iuentify these two types of visits as uistinct by how I iepiesenteu myself to team
membeis anu volunteeis on site. Bepenuing on my visit type, I was offeieu veiy uiffeient
expeiiences in the way the excavation team manageu theii image anu piesenteu an authoiitative
piesence.

63
'authoiitative' accounts of the past aie, as Baxanuall (198S) puts it, complex 'by-
piouucts of activity' anu peifoimance.

S.S.2.2 (otolboyk in tbe Republic of Turkey
Ny exposuie to the site of visoko anu the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius was
long-teim anu ueep, with ovei foui yeais of inteiaction with the site anu pioject. Ny
exposuie to the site of atalhoyk was slightly uiffeient in natuie. While the Bosnian
Pyiamius is a ielatively new pioject (opeiating since 2uuS), atalhoyk is, on the othei
hanu, a pioject with a long, complicateu histoiy that stietches back to 1961. Because so
much about the atalhoyk site histoiy exists in piint, anu because so many othei
ethnogiaphies anu histoiies about atalhoyk alieauy exist foi ieseaich anu ieauing, I
aiiiveu at atalhoyk with a uecent unueistanuing of the site histoiy anu opeiation. Ny
goal foi conuucting piactical fieluwoik at atalhoyk was piimaiily aimeu at gaining
peisonal exposuie to the actual way the site opeiateu. By gaining exposuie thiough
paiticipant obseivation at the site, I hopeu to bettei unueistanu how the atalhoyk
past was being piepaieu foi public consumption in its 'backstage' aienas. Ny main
inteiest in the site was in the way issues of space, place anu access playeu into the
uevelopment of piofessional accounts of the past, anu how mateiiality affecteu the
iesistance anu accommouation of aichaeological authoiity. Ny ieseaich goal uuiing
fieluwoik at atalhoyk was to obseive the methouological stanuaius anu appioaches
actually in opeiation at the site, anu to unueistanu how authoiity was tianslateu
thiough space, things anu people. I aimeu to see fiist-hanu how alteinative anu non-
team gioupslike the uouuess Community, membeis of the public oi acauemics outsiue
of the main ieseaich team, as well as inuiviuuals oi subgioups within the official team
constiucteu inteipietations that competeu foi access to inteipietive space. atalhoyk
is famous foi its iallying call foi multivocality anu ieflexivity, anu so one of my piimaiy
inteiests in visiting the site was to have the oppoitunity to peisonally obseive how
vaiious voices aie utilizeu anu auuiesseu, as well as what kinu of authoiitative
uiscouises emeigeu thiough piocesses of negotiation in the piesentation of infoimation.
I liveu anu woikeu at the site of atalhoyk as an inuepenuent ieseaichei uuiing
the summei fieluwoik season of 2uu9. This fieluwoik (five weeks in }uly anu August)
was planneu to miiioi ethnogiaphies of a similai length pieviously conuucteu at the
site, most notably that of Bamilton in the 1996 season, Rountiee in the 2uuS season, anu
Eiuui in the 2uu6 season (Bamilton 2uuu; Rountiee 2uu7; Eiuui 2uu8). The fieluwoik
on site at atalhoyk alloweu me the oppoitunity to talk with the aichaeological team

64
anu with membeis of the public who visiteu the site, as well as the chance to see the
methous in opeiation, to obseive both piivate anu public on-site piesentation of
mateiial, anu to biiefly paiticipate in excavations. Like at visoko, my fieluwoik at
atalhoyk useu mixtuie of methous: ethnomethouological obseivation, the collection
of uocumentation, infoimal inteiviews anu paiticipant obseivation.
Both on site anu back at Cambiiuge, I accesseu a laige volume of publicly
available 'final piouuct' mateiial thiough meuia souices. I also attenueu seveial
piesentations given by membeis of the acauemic team, most of which weie given by
atalhoyk team membeis anu uiiecteu at uiveise membeis of the public who weie
visiting the site. I also obseiveu piesentations that weie given by membeis of the
atalhoyk team, meant only foi the atalhoyk team. I obseiveu uisplays at the
atalhoyk site museum (also calleu the visitoi Centie), anu accesseu site naiiatives
piesenteu in a vaiiety of uiffeient foiumsfiom those piesenteu on the official website,
to otheis piesenteu in alteinative settings, such as that of the 'viitual woilu' of SeconJ
life.
22
Finally, I also attenueu geneial acauemic confeiencessuch as the Euiopean
Association of Aichaeology annual meeting in 2uu8, the Association of Social
Anthiopologists confeience in 2uu9, as well as seminais hosteu in the Bepaitment of
Aichaeology in the 0niveisity of Cambiiuge, in oiuei to see membeis of the atalhoyk
team foimally piesent infoimation about the site to the geneial acauemic community.

F>F>F '7D76/35 Q./6.79:
In oiuei to conuuct piactical fieluwoik in my two case stuuies, I uevelopeu a
mixeu-methou qualitative ieseaich stiategy (Axinn anu Peaice 2uu6), piimaiily using
qualitative anu ethnomethouological appioaches. Nixeu-methou ieseaich stiategies aie
"those that aie explicitly uesigneu to combine elements of one methou, such as
stiuctuieu suivey inteiviews, with othei elements of othei methous, such as
unstiuctuieu inteiviews, obseivations, oi focus gioups in eithei a sequential oi a
simultaneous mannei" (Axinn anu Peaice 2uu6: 1). The main unit of stuuy in my
ieseaich piogiam weie the active piouuceis of aichaeological knowleuge, incluuing but
not limiteu to: piofessional anu amateui aichaeologists, excavating peisonnel, membeis
of the public who exeiciseu theii own agency in the piouuction of knowleuge, as well as
tbinqs employeu in the constiuction of knowleuge such as machines, instiuments,

22
A uigital pioject opeiateu by the associateu Beikeley team unuei Ruth Tiigham (atalhoyk
Reseaich Pioject (2u1uc) "Remixing atalhoyk.").

65
aitefacts oi mateiial cultuie, which actively influenceu the authoiity anu piouuction of
'final piouuct' accounts of the past.

S.S.S.1 Bocument Collection
0ne of my main ieseaich methous was uocument collection anu text analysis. In
this context, uocuments aie uefineu as "any pieseivable iecoiu of text, image, sounu, oi
a combination of these" which aie "piouuceu as pait of an establisheu social piactice"
(ten Bave 2uu4: 4), with the iuea that by using uocuments, the ieseaichei engages with
a consiueiation of some of the piocesses that piouuceu them. Foi this ieseaich, I
gatheieu many uocuments that weie 'final piouuct' accounts of the past: anything fiom
newspapei heaulines announcing uiscoveiies oi inteipietations, iecoiuings oi
sliueshows fiom public piesentations, images oi viueos that iecoiueu aichaeological
finus, public biochuies oi touiist pamphlets, as well as site iepoits, scientific aiticles
anu othei acauemic publications. Buiing anu aftei my fieluwoik, I also collecteu
uocuments that weie in the piocess of being uevelopeu (foi example, the 2009
(otolboyk Arcbive Report anu the 2008 lnternotionol Scientific Conference of tbe Bosnion
PyromiJs RoJiocorbon Botinq Report, which weie both being actively compileu while I
conuucteu fieluwoik at the sites), as well as uocuments that alieauy existeu in 'final'
foim by the time I accesseu them (foi example, all pievious aiticles anu iepoits
piouuceu by the atalhoyk pioject team, oi television iepoits othei such visual meuia
that aiieu on the Bosnian Pyiamius pioject). Such uocumentaiy mateiial pioviueu most
of the 'final piouuct' accounts fiom which I coulu access, pull apait anu ietiace the social
inteiactions anu uecisions that leu to theii piouuction.

S.S.S.2 Porticipont 0bservotion
While much of my case stuuy uata was souiceu fiom a uistance (i.e. collecting
uocumentation, liteiatuie anu viueo fiom meuia such as libiaiies anu websites), the
bulk of my unueistanuing of the cases took place uuiing fieluwoik, at the actual
excavation sites oi in vaiious public foiums wheie team membeis physically piesenteu
theii accounts of the past. Ny fieluwoik piimaiily involveu accessing the sites fiist-hanu
anu peisonally obseiving fielu piactice, accessing publisheu uocuments that weie
sometimes available exclusively on-site, anu attenuing the public piesentations of
aichaeological mateiial which coulu only be witnesseu at the uig site itself. Ny fieluwoik
activity was ethnogiaphic in natuie, in that I was "committeu to the close obseivation of

66
the actual, 'natuial' situations in which people live theii lives" (ten Bave 2uu4: 6), oi in
this case, the natuial spaces anu situations in which amateui anu piofessional
acauemics liveu out theii vocations.
Ethnogiaphy, in the bioauest use of the teim, is not "a paiticulai methou of uata
collection but a style of ieseaich that is uistinguisheu by its objectives, which aie to
unueistanu the social meanings anu activities of people in a given 'fielu' oi setting, anu
an appioach, which involves close association with, anu often paiticipation in, this
setting" (Biewei 2uuu: S9). Buiing my fieluwoik, I uesciibeu myself to those I
inteiacteu with as an 'ethnogiaphei' of aichaeological piactice foi a numbei of ieasons:
I gatheieu my uata thiough active paiticipation in a social enviionment, I immeiseu
myself in the uay-to-uay piocesses of the people anu piactices I was attempting to
obseive anu unueistanu, I conuucteu seiies of semi-foimal inteiviews while engaging in
many of the same on-site activities of my infoimants, anu I stiesseu that I was inteiesteu
in obseiving what people 'uiu' when they peifoimeu actions oi utteiances. Ny
ethnogiaphic methous uiew on two types of ethnogiaphic methouology:
ethnomethouology anu paiticipant obseivation.
Ethnomethouology is "the stuuy of the methous people use foi piouucing
iecognizable social oiueis.baseu on the theoiy that a caieful attentiveness to the
uetails of social phenomena will ieveal social oiuei" (Rawls 2uu2: 6). As a piactical
ieseaich methou, it is uesigneu to obseive the proceJurol aspects of inuiviuual anu
gioup behavioui, such uetaileu physical piocesses, oi acts of piactice, anu not just the
final outcomes oi inteipietations piouuceu thiough black-boxeu actions. In othei
woius, ethnomethouologists stuuy "overt octivities, what is 'scenic' (that is uiiectly
obseivable) to paiticipants, anu theii intelligibility anu oiganization" (ten Bave 2uu4:
27, emphasis in oiiginal). Foi my own ieseaich, the usefulness of ethnomethouology as
a methou was logical anu stiaightfoiwaiu. Ny ieseaich aimsto iuentify authoiity in
the social piouuction of knowleugenatuially ielieu upon the use of a methou which
woulu help me to iuentify actions anu piocesses in social oiganisations, anu which
woulu pioviue a useful platfoim fiom which to uiaw meaningful conclusions about
social oiuei, powei ielationships anu authoiity fiom these obseivations.
Ethnomethouology, as my piimaiy ieseaich appioach, pioviueu a fiamewoik that
guiueu the whole of my uata collection. Foi my fielu ieseaich in both visoko anu
atalhoyk, I engageu with the piojectsanu iepiesenteu myself to people on siteas
an ethnomethouologist, whose piimaiy inteiest lay in obseiving anu unueistanuing the
methous they useu, as well as the actions they took, to piouuce accounts of the past.

67
In my fieluwoik, I also useu paiticipant obseivation as a ieseaich methouology.
Paiticipant obseivation "involves uata gatheiing by means of paiticipation in the uaily
life of infoimants in theii natuial setting: watching, obseiving anu talking to them in
oiuei to uiscovei theii inteipietations, social meanings anu activities" (Biewei 2uuu:
S9). Foi ethnomethouology, tiauitionally the ieseaichei is ethnogiaphically uistanceu
fiom the ieseaich 'subjects' anu uelibeiately avoius any involvement oi intiusion on the
piocess being stuuieu (ten Bave 2uu4: 6). Buiing my time at my case stuuy sites,
howevei, I quickly founu that some level of peisonal involvement, unuei the methou of
paiticipant obseivation, was not only insightful to my oveiall ieseaich (e.g. when I
paiticipateu as a site excavatoi at atalhoyk anu thus coulu closely obseive the team's
excavating stanuaius), but in some cases it was an absolute necessity to paiticipate on
site if I was to gain any obseivational access to ceitain people, piocesses anu uata (e.g.
when I neeueu to iegistei anu peifoim as a confeience paiticipant in the 1
st
Scientific
Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius). Theiefoie, I founu the stanuaius bioauly
employeu by paiticipant obseivation, as well as ethnomethouology, an iueal
complement to my qualitative piogiam.
S.S.S.S lnformol lnterviews
Inteiviews aie a classic staple of qualitative ieseaich (ten Bave 2uu4; Axinn anu
Peaice 2uu6; Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9). Inteiviewing supplements obseivation by
asceitaining the peisonal views anu motivations of the people who aie involveu in the
social situation unuei stuuy. In my uoctoial ieseaich, I incoipoiateu a numbei of
infoimal, conveisational inteiviews into my oveiall fieluwoik piogiam. Because my
main ieseaich goal was to unobtiusively conuuct ethnogiaphic obseivation of the
people anu things involveu in the piouuction of accounts of the past, I uiu not
incoipoiate foimal inteiviewing into methouology, mainly because I founu it to be
inteiiuptive anu oveily iigiu foi my puiposes.
2S
Bowevei, on many occasions I uiu
conuuct infoimal inteiviews. I founu that casual, conveisational inteiviews with people,
using taigeteu questions that weie intenueu to open up conveisation anu asceitain
ieasons anu motives behinu my subjects' actions, was often integial to my oveiall
unueistanuing of the social activities that I obseiveu.

2S
Buiing my NPhil ieseaich at the Bosnian Pyiamius site, I maue a numbei of attempts to
conuuct foimal inteiviews in visoko with tape iecoiueis, anu I founu this to be unhelpful. Nost
local people anu team membeis uiu not iesponu well to being iecoiueu. Also, the iigiuity of
neeuing to access people in one setting foi a ceitain length uuiation of time clasheu with the
benefits of being able to giab people fluiuly so that infoimation came up oiganically, which I
founu moie useful to my obseivation of methous anu thoughts in action.

68
Inteiviewing is itself an active knowleuge-piouucing piocess by which
"inteiviewei anu inteiviewee thiough theii ielationship piouuce knowleuge. Inteiview
knowleuge is piouuceu in a conveisational ielations; it is contextual, linguistic,
naiiative, anu piagmatic" (Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 18-19). It is impoitant to note
that all of my infoimal inteiviews weie taigeteu anu 'active', in the vein of Bolstein anu
uubiium's (199S) aigument that inteiviews aie, by natuie, veiy active acts of
knowleuge 'piouuction', iathei than passive acts of knowleuge 'uncoveiing'. In each
inteiview conveisation, I was active in the knowleuge constiuction piocess though my
suggestions of topic, questions anu leaus in the couise of the naiiatives oi facts that
emeigeu thiough mutual inteiest, uigiession anu uiscussion. This piocess ultimately leu
each of my casual inteiviews to "become a conveisation, which stimulates inteiviewee
anu inteiviewei to foimulate theii iueas about the ieseaich topics anu to inciease theii
knowleuge of the subject mattei of inquiiy" (Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 16u).
In the couise of my ieseaich, I employeu two uistinct types of infoimal
inteiviewing stiuctuies: computei-assisteu anu conveisational. Ny computei-assisteu
inteiviews employeu the use of the Inteinet anu e-mail, which alloweu me to conveise
with people at a uistance, at asynchionous times. This pioveu to be useful in
maintaining multi-national conveisations ovei months oi yeais. I also founu that
computei-assisteu inteiviews alloweu people woiking in contioveisial settings
incluuing myselfto fiame theii thoughts exactly the way they wisheu, a point which in
itself offeieu inteiesting insight about the powei of piesentation anu the authoiity of
accounts. The obvious uiawback of this methou was that it uiu not involve "a bouily
piesence with access to non-linguistic infoimation expiesseu in gestuies anu facial
expiessions", which face-to-face inteiviews pioviue (Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 148-
149). Bowevei, my seconu inteiview methouconveisationaluiu allow access to
bouy language.
The bulk of my inteiviews weie conveisational anu piimaiily took place in the
fielu. These inteiviews usually consisteu of me, the inteiviewei, taking an inteiviewee
asiue foi a shoit while anu having a conveisation on a specific subject oi topic, usually in
a casual setting such as sitting in a caf oi stanuing by an aichaeological site. These
inteiviews usually hau thiee aims: to gain factual, conceptual anu uiscuisive
infoimation. 0btaining valiu factual infoimation was a cential pait of these
conveisational inteiviews; I wanteu to know who the peison was, wheie the peison sat
in any pioject hieiaichy, what actions the peison was taking, anu what ieasons oi
motivations lay behinu theii actions. These inteiviews weie also conceptual in natuie, in
that I sought to unueistanu how the inteiviewee conceiveu of a given situation oi of

69
ceitain social phenomena. These inteiviews seiveu "to uncovei iesponuents' uiscouise
mouels, that is, theii taken foi gianteu assumptions about what is typical, noimal, oi
appiopiiate" (see also uee 2uuS; Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 1S1). By asking my
inteiviewees, foi example, why they thought a given sequence of events was 'ouu' oi
'appiopiiate', oi by asking foi them to claiify how they uefine 'iespect' oi
'accountability', I gaineu inteiesting insight into some of the unueilying assumptions
anu social stiuctuies that weie opeiating on site.
In all of my infoimal inteiviews, I appioacheu my inteiviewees with a shoit
numbei of pieueteimineu questions, but these weie only useu to stimulate uiscussion.
By not foicing a stiict iegime oi stanuaiu list of questions on my inteiviewees, it
alloweu all inteiviews to iemain open anu auaptable to the piioiities anu infoimation
that emeigeu uuiing the couise of conveisation. None of my inteiviews weie voice
iecoiueu oi tapeu (as opposeu to the majoiity of the foimal piesentations that I
attenueu, which I uiu voice iecoiu). I founu this appioach to be veiy valuable, mainly
because it pieseiveu casual conveisation anu seemingly alloweu moie to emeige in the
couise of uiscussion. Since my ieseaich took place at contesteu anu often contioveisial
sites anu settings, I founu that, especially at visoko, tape iecoiueis weie not conuucive
to the fiee flow of conveisation.
At visoko, many of the amateui aichaeological pioject membeis weie,
unueistanuably, quite uefensive about theii woik anu excavations, anu they weie
especially waiy of outsiueis (especially foieigneis associateu with well-establisheu
univeisities) who tenueu to be hostile to theii amateui aichaeological activities.
Theiefoie, I founu that team membeis, volunteeis anu even membeis of the local visoko
community often became veiy neivous when I appioacheu them with tape iecoiueis.
Iionically, many woikeis anu volunteeis on site seemeu to ielish the attention of
cameias anu viueo iecoiuing by local meuia seivices, anu many alloweu viueo iecoiuing
fiom me when I was on site anonymously acting in the iole as 'inteiesteu touiist'.
Bowevei, when they knew I was a ieseaichei fiom Cambiiuge, I founu that often the
opposite ieaction occuiieu: on moie than one occasion, when I appioacheu potential
inteiviewees as a Cambiiuge ieseaichei, uiiect communication with me was avoiueu
entiiely, anu on some occasions I was politely askeu not to iecoiu conveisations. I also
founu that, even if inteiviewees weie willing to talk with me if I agieeu to pieseive theii
anonymity oi agieeu not to iecoiu the conveisation, just the mention of having a tape
iecoiuei with me coulu hampei oui futuie uiscussion. Eventually, I abanuoneu the use
of my tape iecoiuei entiiely in my summei fieluwoik in visoko, except when I attenueu
the '1
st
Inteinational Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius' in Saiajevo, in Septembei

70
2uu8, when I iecoiueu piesentations. By the time I began my fieluwoik atalhoyk in
the summei of 2uu9, I ueciueu to maintain the same stanuaius of casual inteiview anu
uocumentation. Theiefoie, at atalhoyk, as at visoko, my inteiview methouology
consisteu of infoimally conveising with membeis of the team anu public, then
immeuiately wiiting a seiies of post-inteiview notes, impiessions anu tiansciiptions
uiiectly aftei the conveisations took place.

F>F>U &.54368 '7D76/35 `241784-7D 6-1 ,DD27D
Since this uisseitation qualifies as a qualitative stuuy that impacts 'human
subjects', I followeu stanuaiu sociological ethical guiuelines that guiueu my awaieness
anu opeiation of: infoimeu consent, confiuentiality, consequences anu the iole of the
ieseaichei (APA 2uu2; Iphofen 2uu9; Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 68). This section
biiefly uetails some of the ethical guiuelines that I followeu in the couise of my ieseaich.
Although my uegiee piogiam uiu not iequiie me to submit an ethical ieview of my
woik, befoie I began my fieluwoik I obseiveu the ethical piotocols outlineu in the
Stanfoiu 0niveisity Institutional Review Boaiu (IRB) foi human ieseaich (BRPP 2u1u),
anu uuiing my fieluwoik I auheieu to the guiuelines set out by the Stanfoiu IRB boaiu.

S.S.4.1 lnformeJ Consent
In all infoimal inteiviews uuiing the couise of my fieluwoik, ieseaich
paiticipants weie infoimeu of the puipose of my investigations, namely that I was on
site as an ethnogiaphei inteiesteu in theii methous. In all my inteiviews, the
inteiviewees paiticipateu voluntaiily, with veibal agieement between me anu my
infoimants that I may incluue theii opinions in my woik. Theii statements, expiesseu in
this uisseitation piimaiily in Chapteis Foui anu Five, shoulu be iegaiueu as the
opinions anu piopeity of theii iespective owneis. In any cases wheie conveisations
weie oveiheaiu, oi views weie expiesseu in an non-stanuaiu oi non-inteiview context
in the couise of paiticipant obseivation, oi in the cases wheie paiticipants weie awaie
of iecoiuing but not awaie of the potential puipose oi use of my investigations, this
mateiial went thiough thiee stages of obseivation anu conuitioning: fiist, any mateiial
that showeu any potential iisk of auveise affect on the speakei was thiown out anu not
useu in my final uisseitation (see 'Consequences' section below); seconuly, any mateiial
that was oveiheaiu in the couise of paiticipant obseivation that uiu not pose any iisk to
the speakei oi pioject is explicitly noteu in my ieseaich as a 'non-inteiview context' anu

71
the speakei is kept anonymous in my final woik, with theii iuentity only kept in my
peisonal fielu notes; finally, this mateiial was peei-ievieweu by my supeivisoi anu
othei colleagues in the couise of piepaiing my uisseitation in oiuei to maintain anothei
layei of ieview anu assessment of this mateiial.

S.S.4.2 ConfiJentiolity
In all infoimal inteiviews, paiticipants weie maue awaie of the ieasons foi oui
taigeteu conveisations, anu any wishes they expiesseu foi confiuentiality weie always
iespecteu. As mentioneu in the section above, mateiial that was oveiheaiu oi 'pickeu
up' uuiing the couise of my paiticipant obseivation in fieluwoik was also kept
confiuential. Especially in the case of mateiial taken fiom chiluien,
24
I ueciueu to keep
that infoimation confiuential if useu in my uoctoial woik. I founu my use of
confiuentiality to be both enabling as well as uisabling: "Anonymity can piotect the
paiticipants, but it can also ueny them 'The veiy voice in the ieseaich that might
oiiginally have been claimeu as its aim'" (Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 7S). In the case of
my woik, I founu that iespecting the confiuentiality of my infoimants coulu make some
of the latei iefeiencing somewhat uifficult, since I have to iely on using names like "one
of the excavatois" oi "one of the pyiamiu confeience oiganiseis". This makes connecting
'anonymous' people, hieiaichies, oiganisations anu iueas in my ieseaich moie uifficult;
howevei, confiuentiality allows foi me to both ethically avoiu any iisk to my infoimants
as well enables me to use theii contiibutions in my ethnogiaphic stuuy.

S.S.4.S Consequences
By following the Stanfoiu IRB ethical guiuelines, I was maue awaie of the
potential iisk anu consequences of my ethnogiaphic ieseaich on 'human subjects'.
Buiing the collection of infoimation fiom the people unuei stuuy, I tiieu to also
maintain a subjective awaieness about any infoimation that was given to me,
auveitently oi not:
Fiom a utilitaiian ethical peispective, the sum of potential benefits to a
paiticipant anu the impoitance of the knowleuge gaineu shoulu outweigh the
iisk of haim to the paiticipant anu thus waiiant a uecision to caiiy out a stuuy.
This involves a ieseaichei's iesponsibility to ieflect on the possible
consequences not only foi the peisons taking pait in the stuuy, but also foi the
laigei gioup they iepiesent. The ieseaichei shoulu be awaie that the openness
anu intimacy of much qualitative ieseaich may be seuuctive anu can leau

24
In the iaie cases that I engageu with chiluien, the mateiial was always fieely given.

72
paiticipants to uisclose infoimation they may latei iegiet having shaieu. (Kvale
anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 7S)

As Kvale anu Biinkmann note, ethnogiaphic fieluwoik often involves openness anu
intimacy.
2S
In cases wheie I latei felt that one of my infoimants might iegiet something
they saiu, especially when it might involve a given iiski.e. latei uifficulties with theii
employeis, peeis, the meuia, etc.I intentionally left this mateiial out of my final
uisseitation, using it only to infoim my own peisonal awaieness of my case stuuy
backgiounu.

S.S.4.4 Role of tbe Reseorcber
Buiing the couise of my fieluwoik, I maintaineu an awaieness of my iole as a
ieseaichei anu the ethics that I shoulu abiue to: "Noially iesponsible ieseaich behavioi
is moie than abstiact ethical knowleuge anu cognitive choices; it involves the moial
integiity of the ieseaichei, his oi hei sensitivity anu commitment to moial issues anu
action" (Biinkmann, quoteu in Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 74). 0ne of the piimaiy aims
of my ieseaich, alongsiue piotecting my infoimants, was to abiue by a iigoious stanuaiu
of methouology myself, having a stiict auheience to scientific quality: "publishing
finuings that aie as accuiate anu iepiesentative of the fielu of inquiiy as possible. The
iesults iepoiteu shoulu be checkeu anu valiuateu as fully as possible, anu with an effoit
towaiu a tianspaiency of the pioceuuies by which the conclusions have been aiiiveu at"
(Biinkmann, quoteu in Kvale anu Biinkmann 2uu9: 74).
These foui categoiies of ethicsinfoimeu consent, confiuentiality,
consequences anu the iole of the ieseaicheiweie useu as a fiamewoik "when
piepaiing an ethical piotocol foi a qualitative stuuy, anu they |weiej useu as ethical
ieminueis of what to look foi in piactice when uoing inteiview ieseaich" (Kvale anu
Biinkmann 2uu9: 76). The ethics of iespecting my infoimants, as well as iespecting my
own iole as ieseaichei with high stanuaius in the ethical piouuction of knowleuge,
seiveu to guiue my fieluwoik methouology.

2S
Beie I am also iefeiencing paiticulai occasions when things weie tolu to me while subjects
weie unuei the influence of alcohol. While I believe the things they saiu to be tiue anu ielevant to
my ieseaich, I am not incluuing this mateiial foi ethical ieasons, because of the latei iegiet these
inuiviuuals might have, oi the iisk that this infoimation might pose to theii employment if this
infoimation was tiaceu back to them.

73
F>F>V a4H4.6.40-D 6-1 B4<<4328.47D &-302-.7/71 4- .57 O4781
Thiee significant limitations affect this stuuy. Fiist, this stuuy is mixeu-methou
anu multiuisciplinaiy, meaning it affects multiple uisciplines within acauemia anu has
multiple potential auuiences. Since this ieseaich examines piesent-uay piactice of a
uiscipline which impacts the way the past is inteipieteu, it falls within the uisciplinaiy
iealms of science stuuies, sociology, anthiopology, as well as aichaeological theoiy.
Thus, I engageu with all the auvantages anu uisauvantages of uiawing upon uiffeient
methouologies anu theoietical links fiom moie than one fielu. While I hope that this
woik can be insightful to all of these fielus, ultimately, this woik veiy much aimeu at anu
intenueu foi an auuience with an inteiest in aichaeological theoiy anu heiitage
management. This is a stuuy of how aichaeology opeiates touay, anu it has most uiiect
ielevance to those who aie inteiesteu in how the fielu of aichaeology is piesenteu,
inteipieteu anu how enu-piouuct accounts of the past aie piouuceu, which aie matteis
of concein in the heiitage subuiscipline in the fielu of aichaeology. The piimaiy
contiibution of this stuuy iegaius how powei ielationships aie uevelopeu anu how
authoiity affects the piouuction of knowleuge, anu theiefoie this woik aims to
contiibute to a gieatei self-awaieness about the iole of authoiity in the piactice of
aichaeology touay.
The issue of multiuisciplinaiity causeu some uifficulties when I woikeu in the
fielu. I founu that many of my infoimants on site, both in visoko anu at atalhoyk,
expiesseu confusion about my ieseaich pioject anu aims, notably about how I was a
ieseaichei coming fiom the fielu of aichaeology whose inteiest was in investigating
methous of the piesent-uay, not in investigating the past that they weie stuuying. In
visoko, pioblems aiose when I tiieu to explain my ethnogiaphic inteiests to an amateui
auuience: many of the people woiking with the 'Bosnian Pyiamius' pioject founu the
concept of uoing an ethnogiaphy of aichaeological piactice veiy foieign, anu they weie
waiy of a 'mainstieam' acauemic stuuent watching theii contioveisial activities. In
atalhoyk, I also hau uifficulties when I expiesseu my pioject as an ethnogiaphy of
aichaeological piactice, which was suipiising to me, since atalhoyk has hau a long
histoiy of ethnogiapheis attenu the site anu iepoit on methous anu activities of the
excavatois anu specialists. Buiing my stay on site, especially initially, some people
withuiew fiom socialising oi inteiviewing with me uuiing woik houis, peihaps uue to
woiiies about misiepiesentation anu accountability (c.f. Beiggien 2uu9).
Aftei acknowleuging this pioblem uuiing the couise of my fieluwoik, I founu the
concept of bounJory objects to be a useful methouological tool to cope with this
uifficulty. The concept of 'bounuaiy objects' comes fiom the woik of Susan Leigh Stai

74
anu }ames uiiesemei, who useu this concept in a stuuy of a museum populateu by
people woiking in uiffeient social aienas (Stai anu uiiesemei 1989). In theii aiticle,
Stai anu uiiesemei finu that the "cieation of new scientific knowleuge uepenus on
communication as on cieating new finuings. But because these new objects anu methous
mean uiffeient things in uiffeient woilus, actois aie faceu with the task of ieconciling
these meanings if they wish to coopeiate" (1989: S88). In my own woik, I useu what
Stai anu uiiesemei call 'bounuaiy objects', objects that have a uiffeient meaning foi
each social actoi who engages with them, yet seive as a common uenominatoi foi
uiscussion anu coopeiation in woik.
In my ieseaich I founu that, although membeis of the atalhoyk oi Bosnian
Pyiamiu community may not fully unueistanu my ieseaich, they uiu unueistanu when I
inviteu them to uiscuss a conciete object oi event. Foi example, when I askeu a Pyiamiu
team membei foi theii opinions oi expeiiences about the uiscoveiy of a ceitain
'aitefact', they woulu unueistanu the object anu event in question anu woulu often
glauly infoim me about the event. Similaily, at atalhoyk, I founu that by focusing on
specific events oi aitefactssuch as the uiscoveiy of a specific buiial oi the movement
of specific 'clustei' mateiial
26
thiough lab spacethe team membeis seemeu to
unueistanu my inteiest anu glauly walkeu me thiough the piocess of finus hanuling. In
both such examples, the objects anu events in question weie bounJory objects. To the
excavatois anu team membeis in both sites, the aitefacts I askeu about weie pait of
theii expeiience of a given event; these aitefacts constituteu uata anu eviuence that
infoimeu the membeis' opinions about what these objects weie useu foi in the past.
Bowevei, to me, as an ethnogiaphic ieseaichei, I was inteiesteu in the piocess anu
hanuling of the objects uuiing anu aftei the event uesciibeu, as well as how the team
membei was uesciibing anu infoiming me about the object in the piesent. The hanuling
anu the uesciiptions of the objects weie offeiing me 'uata' about powei ielationships
anu souices of authoiity in the aichaeological piocess. Foi both a given team membei
anu myself, the uiscussion anu hanuling of objects anu events weie meaningful;

26
The use of clustei mateiial is uiscusseu fuithei in Section 4.2.2.S. At atalhoyk, 'clusteis' of
aichaeological mateiial weie not my oiiginal oi intenueu taiget of ieseaich at the site. Initially, I
founu accessing sites anu people uifficult uue to unceitainty about my iole on site as an
ethnogiaphei. To solve this pioblem, I useu 'clusteis' of aichaeological mateiial as a 'bounuaiy
object', using one aitefactual categoiy as an aibitiaiy way to give me access to a vaiiety of labs.
At atalhoyk, clusteis aie by natuie maue up of a vaiiety of uiffeient mateiial: foi example,
human iemains mixeu with obsiuian anu faunal iemains woulu be a 'clustei'. By following the
movement anu piocessing of clustei mateiials on site, I hau a way to stait uiscussion in
inteiviews anu a ieason to access uiffeient lab spaces. This way, I was able to move fieely
between the labs anu moie fieely inteiview team membeis on the site, without scepticism oi
confusion about my aims anu iole at the site.

75
howevei, we weie each auuiessing veiy uiffeient meanings aiounu the same object.
Thus I founu the concept of 'bounuaiy objects' to be vital to my uata collection
methouology uuiing fieluwoik.
Anothei limitation that affecteu my ieseaichwhich piimaiily conceineu my
woik on the visoko case stuuywas that of language tianslation. Any ieseaich woiking
with a foieign language has many inheient pioblems. While I have tiieu to minimize
miscommunication by iestiicting my ieseaich piimaiily to English-speaking contacts
anu English liteiatuie, some tianslation fiom the oiiginal Bosnian was inevitable. I useu
one piimaiy tianslatoi, Amna Bauziabuic, thioughout the entiie couise of ieseaich. She
accompanieu me thioughout much of my fieluwoik, tianslateu my questions back to
non-English speakeis, anu tianslateu quotes fiom Bosnian liteiatuie anu meuia souices.
Buiing fieluwoik in visoko, I biiefly useu a seconu tianslatoi on one occasion, which
tuineu out to be uisastious when she began to fight anu uebate with my ieseaich
subjects in visoko ovei the inteipietation of ceitain aitefacts. This hampeieu some of
my futuie woik at the site foi a numbei of weeks.
27
Aftei this inciuent, I ietuineu to my
fiist tianslatoi, anu all othei tianslation was computei-assisteu with the help of online
piogiams such as uoogle Tianslate.
28
While I have uone eveiything possible to minimize
eiiois in tianslation, I iecognise that it is always possible that some may have occuiieu.
A thiiu limitation that affecteu this stuuy is that of specificity anu case stuuies.
As mentioneu above in Section S.S.1, I chose two specific case stuuies foi a numbei of
ieasons, incluuing theii high-piofile natuie, the contiast of a 'pseuuoscientific' site anu a
'mainstieam' site, as well as the aspect of theoietical contestation that both case stuuies
contiibute to the uiscussion of authoiity in this thesis. Neveitheless, the question
iemains as to whethei these two sites aie 'iepiesentative' of a uiscussion on the bioau
topic of authoiity in aichaeology, anu theiefoie whethei conclusions in this thesis can
be geneialiseu. This limitation is geneially chaiacteiistic of ieseaich that involves case
stuuies, iepiesenting the "'cential tension' in science between uiveigent viewpoints anu
the neeu foi geneializable finuings" (Stai anu uiiesemei 1989: S87). Bespite the
oveiaiching connections that I make in this woik iegaiuing the entiiety of the
'aichaeological piocess', this uisseitation is not able to examine eveiy facet of eveiy
stage of the aichaeological piocess; it is constiaineu by time anu space, anu it is meant
to contiibute to anu open up a much laigei uiscussion about the natuie of authoiity in
aichaeological piactice.

27
I uiscusseu this inciuent anu the methouological issues it iaiseu in an (unpublisheu) papei
piesenteu to the Cambiiuge Beiitage Reseaich uioup in Fall 2uu9.
28
http:tianslate.google.com

76
To alleviate the pioblem of auuiessing such a laige anu abstiact topic, I
naiioweu the focus of my stuuy on specifically looking at authoiitative accounts of the
past anu the way authoiity manifests theii piouuction. This is a taigeteu uiiection in the
much bioauei scope of the piouuction of knowleuge in aichaeology. I also taigeteu two
specific case stuuies anu specific aichaeological 'moments' in both of them in oiuei to
offei a soliu uiscussion on this topic with conciete examples. By making selections, this
stuuy is inheiently a constiucteu peispective, anu it is awaie of this stance. This stuuy is
not meant to be an exhaustive uiscussion of the meaning of the teim 'authoiity' in
aichaeology, noi is it meant to iepiesent the whole of eithei case stuuyothei stuuies
have focuseu on the ueep uevelopment of each (Balton, Baines et al. 1968; Boob 198S;
Baines 1986; Colliei 1992; Bamilakis 1999; Chiistiano 2uu4). Rathei, this ieseaich aims
to engage inteiuisciplinaiy, qualitative methouologies ueveloping in fielus such as STS in
oiuei to examine the complex constiuction of knowleuge in the aichaeological piocess
anu to bettei unueistanu how stiuctuies of authoiity play into the piouuction of
accounts of the past.
This ieseaich is only one small stuuy of a much laigei theoietical pioblem. Like
the paiable of the thiee blinu men who each touch anu uesciibe one uiffeient pait of a
whole elephantone uesciibes the tail as a iope, one uesciibes the leg as a tiee, anu one
uesciibes the tiunk as a snake
29
this ieseaich only touches on a small pait of a much
laigei pictuie anu yet contiibutes its one inteipietative pait of a whole. As Richaiu
ueeitz has saiu, it is "not necessaiy to know eveiything in oiuei to unueistanu
something" (ueeitz 197S: 2u), anu this ieseaich, while it may peihaps only feel out the
veiy beginnings of a much laigei ieseaich question, offeis an unpieceuenteu analysis of
situateu theoiy with suppoiting eviuence fiom two compaiative case stuuies. A case
stuuy-baseu appioach, as uesciibeu above, is a useful anu piouuctive enteipiise that
auus uetaileu knowleuge about a pioblem in a laigei issue. As Nietzsche has aigueu:
"The more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, uiffeient eyes, we
can use to obseive one thing, the moie complete will oui 'concept' of this thing, oui
'objectivity' be" (Nietzsche 1969 |1886j: 119). This ieseaich is founueu on the
obseivation anu analyses of paits anu builus towaius a gieatei unueistanuing of
authoiity in the aichaeological piocess anu how authoiity impacts the acceptance of
knowleuge about the past.

29
One of the most famous versions of this parable is the 19th century poem "The Blind Men and the
Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe (18161887). See lines at the introduction of this chapter.

CBAPTER 4 ATALB0Y0K AS A CASE ST0BY

77
!"#$%&' O)b'+
#2.50/4.: 6D #332H286.71M %/6-D86.71 6-1
Q.6K484D71+ Y6.685Z:[J 6D 6 !6D7 Q.21:

"By wbot outbority ore you Joinq tbese tbinqs?" tbey oskeJ. "AnJ wbo qove you outbority to Jo tbis?
- Naik 11:28

U>= ,-./0123.40-
U>=>= ,-./0123.40-+ #2.50/4.: 6D #332H286.71M %/6-D86.71 6-1 Q.6K484D71
This chaptei aigues that in aichaeology, the piouuction, exchange anu
consumption of messages involve a numbei of social piocessesnotably, insciiption,
tianslation anu blackboxingwhich affect the way knowleuge stabilises into soliuifieu,
authoiitative 'final piouuct' veisions of oiiginal fluiu iueas anu piactices. This chaptei
uemonstiates that authoiity is iooteu not only in people, but in mateiial actois anu
systemssuch as the methous of insciiption anu tianslation, anu in the agency of
nonhuman actois like mateiial cultuiewhich cieate anu stabilise authoiity in the
piouuction of knowleuge. This chaptei employs the case stuuy of atalhoyk, Republic
of Tuikey as an illustiative example.
The atalhoyk pioject, unuei the uiiection of Ian Bouuei, is a contioveisial
aichaeological excavation. Nost of its highest-piofile contioveisies touay often uo not
involve uebate ovei inteipieting accounts of the Neolithic past (although scientific
scuffles ovei uata uo take place, as with most aichaeological piojects). Insteau, a gieat
ueal of uebate ievolves aiounu how the site opeiates anu what bettei methous oi
appioaches can oi shoulu be taken to piouuce moie faithful knowleuge about the past.
Aichaeological ieseaich at atalhoyk is an example of veiy consciousoi ieflexive
aichaeological piactice. The site has a histoiy of uelibeiate engagement with the concept
of authoiity, asking questions like: how can peisonal biases impact the outcome of
authoiitative accounts of the past. Bow can aichaeological knowleuge be bettei
impaiteu uiiectly to the public. Biiectoi Ian Bouuei's stiong opinions about the way the
entiie uiscipline of aichaeology shoulu opeiate have maue him a poweiful, if

78
contioveisial piesence in the fielu. Bis authoiitative voice has impacteu the way
aichaeology has been taught anu piesenteu to geneiations of aichaeology stuuents ovei
the last twenty yeais, making him a key figuie in 'postpiocessual' theoiy (Renfiew anu
Bahn 2uuu: 44-4S; Wylie 2uu2: 16-17, 171). This fiamewoikof conscious
methouological uebate, histoiy of uialogue with issues iaiseu by aichaeological
authoiity, anu authoiitative piesence in the fielumakes atalhoyk a paiticulaily
well-auapteu case stuuy foi this thesis. By going one step beyonu moie tiauitional
uebates ovei authoiity, anu by examining the piactice anu piesence of atalhoyk's
scientific authoiity in uepth, this chaptei aigues that epistemic anu executive authoiity
in aichaeology is something that is physically accumulateu anu tianslateu thiough the
accessing anu naiiowing of physical anu intellectual spaces.

U>=>A !6D7 Q.21: $6/6H7.7/D+ '787P6-. $/0G73. I63J9/02-1
atalhoyk is a Neolithic tell site in the Republic of Tuikey locateu neai the city
of Konya in Cential Anatolia. The woiu 'atalhoyk' means 'foikeu mounu', which
accuiately uesciibes the site's two connecteu eaithen mounus full of Neolithic mateiial
cultuie: the laigei anu oluei Neolithic East mounu, anu the latei Chalcolithic West
mounu. The site was uiscoveieu by aichaeologist }ames Nellait, who excavateu laige
sections of the East Nounu between 1961 anu 196S. 0nuei his uiiection, atalhoyk
quickly became inteinationally iecogniseu foi a numbei of ieasons.
Fiist, the site was unusually laige anu complex foi such an eaily uate, anu this
leu to Nellaait's claim that atalhoyk was the "woilu's fiist city",
Su
as well as the claim
that this site was one of the eailiest settlements to uomesticate plants anu animals
(Shane anu Kuk 1998; Bouuei 2uuu: S). Seconuly, the site has been a souice of
sensational finus, thanks to exceptional pieseivation of iaie eaily ait anu unusually
aiiangeu cultuial habitus. Nellait uiscoveieu sculptuies anu paintings in what he calleu
"shiines". Nellaait inteipieteu uepictions of uecapitateu humans being eaten by
vultuies anu "muials uepicting men puling the tongues anu tails of auiochs anu stags" as
signs of funeial iites anu social behavioui (Shane anu Kuk 1998: 4S). Be also
inteipieteu a Neolithic gouuess cult fiom female figuiines founu in the mounus.
Nellaait's giaphic finuscoupleu with his equally giaphic uesciiptions anu
inteipietationsput atalhoyk on the acauemic map.

Su
The iuea of atalhoyk as a 'city' has been uisputeu anu uebateu in Ian Bouuei's moie iecent
pioject, anu it is now moie commonly iefeiieu to as a laige 'settlement'.

79
The site is also famous not just because of Nellait's woik, but because of the
ciicumstances of his suuuen uepaituie in 196S aftei the so-calleu 'Boiak Affaii'. By most
accounts, this affaii involveu a mysteiious woman nameu Anna, who supposeuly
showeu Nellait a set of illicit antiquities, fiom which he latei publisheu illustiations, anu
then she uisappeaieu. Because he was nevei able to piouuce eviuence these antiquities
oi finu Anna heiself, anu because he was unable to uefenu his publication of the claimeu
aitefacts, the goveinment foiceu Nellait to quit his excavations anu leave Tuikey. This
stoiy uiew a gieat ueal of attention to the site of atalhoyk (Baltai 2uu6: 44-S4). It is
notewoithy that this eaily histoiy of the sitefull of Nellait's sensational finus, his
equally sensational claims anu finally his sensational uepaituieaie the founuations of
atalhoyk's fame, status anu inteinational iecognition.
Fiom its uiamatic past anu into its piesent histoiy, atalhoyk has come to holu
attention anu influence in the iealm of aichaeological theoiy. The cuiient pioject, unuei
the uiiection of Ian Bouuei, is iepiesentative of 'postpiocessual' aichaeological theoiy,
anu it is seen as a site that "well illustiates the changing appioaches to aichaeology in
the seconu half of the 2u
th
centuiy" (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44). Ian Bouuei, who
continues atalhoyk excavations touay as his piimaiy aichaeological pioject, has been
calleu "the most influential figuie in the post-piocessual movement of the 198us anu
199us" (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44). Bouuei has built his own caieei, fame anu
piofessional authoiity aiounu his postpiocessual theoiies anu expeiimental
aichaeology. atalhoyk is the site wheie he has actively tiieu to put his theoietical
aiguments into piactical opeiation. The atalhoyk pioject touay has two majoi aims.
Fiist, it piomotes the unique anu sensational aichaeological finus fiom the
mounus, aiguing that "the site is an inteinationally impoitant key foi oui unueistanuing
of the oiigins of agiicultuie anu civilisation" (0nline Nission Statement, atalhoyk
Reseaich Pioject 2u1ub). The pioject aigues that atalhoyk is of global heiitage
impoitance: the site actively tiies to auuiess pioblems iaiseu not only by the site's
aichaeological inteipietations, but also by heiitage management issues, such as the
neeu to focus on conseivation anu public access to aichaeological piacticethus, the
pioject is saiu to have "a wiuei applicability to many sites in the Eastein Neuiteiianean"
(0nline Nission Statement, atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2u1ub). This agenua aims foi
atalhoyk to be iecogniseu as ciitically impoitant to Tuikish anu global histoiy, anu it
aims foi the site to be seen as iepiesentative of cuiient heiitage management tienus. To
that enu, the atalhoyk team has investeu a gieat ueal of ieseaich towaiu solving
pioblems of access anu piesentation, such as in how to integiate theii woik with local
Tuikish communities (Baitu 2uuu; Natthews, Bastoif et al. 2uuu; Shanklanu 2uuu), anu

80
in how to involve 'othei' voices anu inteipietations of inteiest gioups outsiue of the
aichaeological community in the inteipietive piocess (Rountiee 2uu7; Atalay 2uu9).
Bouuei has auvocateu foi the aichaeological uiscipline to become moie engageu
with multiple oi alteinative peispectives of the past. Bouuei anu his team have stiesseu
that the accounts of the past that they piouuce aie inteipietive anu speculative in many
ways, anu they iecognise that theie aie alteinative accounts of the past that challenge oi
compete with theii own inteipietive space (Bouuei 2uuS; Rountiee 2uu7). In a conciete
step towaius tianspaiency, the atalhoyk pioject makes uata fiom the pioject quickly
available on its website.
S1
Nembeis of the public anu othei acauemic piofessionals can
immeuiately access the site excavation iepoits anu uata. Bouuei's team hopes that
tianspaiency of theii aims anu woik will fuithei public involvement anu theoietical
engagement with the mateiial. This was a paiticulaily novel anu giounubieaking iuea in
the eaily stages of Bouuei's excavations in the eaily 199us, when aichaeological
infoimation uistiibuteu to the public via the Inteinet was a iaie anu new concept. 0n a
moie theoietical level, Bouuei also pushes foi a piogiam of 'multivocality'. Be seeks to
"allow moie open-enueu anu multivocal appioaches to the inteipietation of the site as a
whole, allowing not only uiffeient specialists to have a voice, but also the local
inhabitants" (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44). This openness extenus as fai as allowing of
alteinative public gioups such as the Nothei uouuess community to have theii views
"iespectfully enteitaineu by the excavatois, even if they uo not shaie them" (Renfiew
anu Bahn 2uuu: 218). Bowevei, as this chaptei examines moie in uepth, uespite much
talk about engagement anu multivocality, the site in piactice still ietains ultimate
authoiity ovei how accounts of the atalhoyk past aie piesenteu.
The seconu aim of the atalhoyk pioject is to biing postpiocessualism to beai
in the site's piactical opeiation. Bouuei's pioject began with the ambitious aim to
completely ieoiganise excavation piactice, so that it coulu be fiee of some of the moie
oveit anu intentional moues of peisonal mouein bias. Bouuei aimeu to:
|Bjevelop a moie flexible anu open appioach to stiatigiaphic excavation.he set
out uelibeiately to avoiu the eaily uivision by the excavation uiiectoi of the
obseiveu stiata into closely uefineu "phases" anu "units" - the moie stanuaiu
piactice - with the uiiectoi thus taking ultimate iesponsibility foi the
stiatigiaphic inteipietation (a piactice which some postpiocessual ciitics have
seen as authoiitaiian). (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44)

Bouuei initially aigueu foi a complete ievamp of methouological fiamewoiks at his site,
like excavation categoiies. The iuea was that the atalhoyk excavations coulu be a new
expeiiment in conceptualising excavation piactices. Computei iecoiuing, site uiaiies

S1
http:www.catalhoyuk.com

81
anu new uatabasing methous weie implementeu "to allow moie inteiactive
stiatigiaphic inteipietations" (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44). Foi example, insteau of
using tiauitional iecoiuing categoiies like 'miuuen' oi 'heaith', the team insteau useu
bioauei categoiies like 'pit' oi 'fiie instalment' in oiuei to inuicate these featuie finus.
The iuea was that by using moie geneial teiminologies anu moie open theoietical
fiamewoiks, the mateiial cultuie was fieeu fiom immeuiate biases, which weie
instinctive in the oiiginal teiminologies, such as the notion of a 'heaith' as a cential,
homey, waim space of uomestic inteiaction.
S2

Finally, atalhoyk is inteinationally iecogniseu foi being a pioject that has
anu can affoiuexcellent stanuaius in scientific methouology anu piactice. Because of
the site's inteinational ieputation as a cutting-euge site with innovative piactice, it has
been able to uiaw a numbei of ieputable institutions, ieseaicheis anu funuing bouies.
Each fieluwoik season, neaily a hunuieu ieseaicheis attenu the site, uoing oiiginal
stuuies in anything fiom enviionmental ieseaich on vegetation anu phytolith iemains
(Beckeis, Riehl et al. 2uu9), to biological anthiopological ieseaich on local genetic
ielationships (Pillouu 2uu9), to ethnogiaphic obseivation of mouein uay aichaeological
piactice (Bamilton 2uuu; Eiuui 2uu6; Eiuui 2uu8). The attenuance of so many
specialists, who woik at the specially uesigneu uig house laboiatoiies alongsiue the
excavatois foi the whole season, is unique at atalhoyk. Buiing my own ieseaich on
the site, I heaiu one visitoi exclaim that the uig house, with all of its specialists anu
micioscopes anu well-oiganiseu facilities, lookeu like a "NASA space camp!" (site visitoi,
peisonal communication, 2u1u), anu this sentiment has been echoeu in othei
anthiopologists' obseivations at the site.
SS
Because of the iigoious stanuaius anu
theoiy-lauen piactice at atalhoyk, the unusually high status anu attenuance of
ieseaicheis fiom piestigious institutions, anu its sizeable funuing fiom unusual uonois
like the visa anu Boeing companies, atalhoyk has been inteinationally iegaiueu as an

S2
See Section 4.S.S. foi fuithei uiscussion of this activity in actual piactice. Buiing my fieluwoik,
this stuuy founu that some team membeis felt that these bioau categoiies collapseu back into
moie tiauitional categoiies ovei time. The 'pits' that iesembleu 'miuuens' weie, in the enu,
inteipieteu to simply be miuuens by the team who excavateu the iecuiiing mateiial. Theiefoie
the bioauei 'open' categoiies collapseu back into these moie tiauitional ones as familiaiity with
the mateiial lenu stability to moie soliu inteipietations (site specialist, peisonal communication:
2u1u).
33
Anthropologist Oguz Erdur had a similar interview during his own fieldwork. From his doctoral
dissertation, Erdur writes:
Even I myself was scoffed at by an elderly archaeologist: Oh dear! Why arent I surprised? Seems
like, everybodys going to Everybody-knows-land nowadays! Another [Turkish archaeologist] was
more subtle, regarding at least my quest: Thats no real archaeology over there, Im telling you; its
more like a NASA camp! The money, the labs, the tools, the people... Its all surreal! We the locals
could never even attempt something like that. Would we even want tothat of course is another
story. (Erdur 2008: 557)

82
authoiitative pioject with the iesouices anu skills necessaiy to uo 'goou' scientific
aichaeology.
The piimaiy goals iaiseu by Bouuei's atalhoyk piojectthat of flexible anu
ieflexive inteipietation in site piactice, as well as the impoitance of allowing multivocal
inteipietation anu aichaeological accesshave a gieat ueal to uo with authoiity. Not
only uo these theoiies uiiectly engage with the notion of authoiity anu the questions
that authoiity iaisessuch as who shoulu be alloweu to access the mateiial past, to
speak foi anu inteipiet the past, to utilise iesouices that aie souiceu fiom the past,
etc.
S4
but they also affect the authoiitative status of the site itself. atalhoyk touay
uiaws most of its attention fiom its uelibeiate engagement with issues of executive
authoiity, contiol, access anu epistemic authoiity. These issues affect a ueepei, anu yet
unexamineu, ioot concein of wbot outbority is in ielation to aichaeological piactice,
which has been not explicitly uiscusseu by the atalhoyk team. This thesis uses
atalhoyk to auuiess the ioot causes anu effects of authoiity on the piouuction of
aichaeological knowleuge. This chaptei uoes not just auuiess authoiity as a symptom of
othei issues, like peisonal bias, genueiing of accounts oi pioblems of physical access to
site iemains, which have been cential conceins of pievious ieseaich. Rathei, this
chaptei offeis a uetaileu examination anu analysis of authoiity fiom social stiuctuie anu
inteiaction (Section 4.2), an examination of how authoiity manifests thiough the
piocesses of insciiption, tianslation anu blackboxing which stabilise anu soliuify iueas
into aichaeological accounts (Section 4.S), anu ultimately aigues that authoiity is a
cumulative piocessan outcome of the iesistance anu accommouation of people anu
things in intellectual anu physical space (Section 4.4).

U>A #2.50/4.: </0H Q03468 Q./23.2/7 6-1 ,-.7/63.40-
U>A>= %57 Q03468 !0-D./23.40- 0< O63.D 6-1 .57 O63.268 !0-D./23.40- 0<
Q03468 #97-.D

Ethnogiapheis Baviu van Reybiouck anu Biik }acobs have wiitten that
"Excavation seems not so much a piocess of solvoqinq but of soliJifyinq" (2uu6: S4,
emphasis in oiiginal). Aichaeological sites aie the physical spaces wheie aichaeological
piactices tuin piles of uiit anu iubbish into knowleuge about the past. Aichaeological

S4
Issues that have been pieviously intiouuceu in liteiatuie (Bamilakis 1999, Rountiee 2uu7,
Webb 2uu2).

83
piactice is fai fiom an opeiation of simple salvage; it is the making of something new
anu soliu fiom something olu anu incomplete, the cieation of naiiatives anu histoiies
that soliuify oui unueistanuing about what happeneu in histoiy (Bamilakis 1999;
Yaiiow 2uuS; Eugewoith 2uu6; Bamilakis anu Anagnostopoulos 2uu9b).
The concept of soliuifying offeis thiee points of inteiest to this thesis: (1) fiist,
aichaeological facts aie soliu foims of knowleuge that aie socially cieateu, anu like in
any social enueavoui, the piouuction oi soliuification of aichaeological facts is affecteu
by social asymmetiies of powei anu authoiity. (2) Likewise, aichaeologists aie factually
constiucteu social agents: "Social actois uo not pieceue natuial constiucts but aie as
much the outcome of scientific piactice as aie facts" (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6:
S7). In othei woius, facts may be cieateu oi soliuifieu thiough the social inteiaction of
people anu things in an inteiielateu netwoik, but people can also become oi soliuify into
factual thingslike 'aichaeologists'thiough theii paiticipation in an appiopiiate
netwoik of people anu things. Thus, the piocess of fact-constiucting itself can uiiectly
impact the factual status anu authoiity of people. (S) Finally, the way authoiity is
foimeu in intellectual powei oi contiol emeiges fiom the inteiplay of (1) anu (2)the
soliuification of facts in the scientific piocess (often by expeits), anu the soliuification of
agents who factually become aichaeologists oi othei expeits, who thus gain the
authoiity to piofess those facts. These piocesses uiiectly affect the executive anu
epistemic authoiity of inuiviuuals, collective gioups oi institutions, anu the accounts of
the past that they piouuce.
The iuea that aichaeological facts aie socially cieateu is not new;
SS
anu since
facts aie socially cieateu, authoiity must be a majoi playei in the piouuction of
knowleuge. Questions theiefoie iemain: wheie anu how uoes authoiity manifest anu
affect the knowleuge piouuction piocess. Bow impoitant aie powei asymmetiies in
both the piouuction anu consumption of aichaeological accounts. Authoiity is integial
in the way facts aie constiucteu anu ieceiveu. Fuitheimoie, sometimes we foiget that
"excavations aie not only places wheie obseivations aie tuineu into facts but also wheie
inuiviuuals aie tuineu into aichaeologists" (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6: S7,
emphasis auueu). Authoiity manifests in this mutual constitution of actois anu facts
thiough the inteiielationships between social asymmetiies in this netwoik.
Foi example, facts in aichaeology mateiialise out of essentially nothing (the
unknown oi un-founu) anu become something (the uiscoveieu mateiial thing, the
known, something inteipieteu) by theii inteiaction with people who give them meaning

SS
See Section 2.2.

84
thiough categoiies anu naiiatives (ueio 1996; Yaiiow 2uuS). Facts also gain authoiity
anu status thiough theii association with a ieliable excavatoi oi site specialist. van
Reybiouck anu }acobs use an example of how a uiscolouiation in the sanu becomes a
'posthole' when a ieliable expeit finus anu iuentifies it. Naming a uiscolouiation a
'posthole' is the cieation of a new fact, changing a finu fiom nothing into something.
Peitaining to point (1) above, the 'fact' of a 'posthole' is socially constiucteu thiough the
complex institutional anu peisonal associations that lie behinu why an excavatoi is
consiueieu a ieliable expeit, someone competently able to iuentify a pothole. Such a
'fact' also has status simply because the categoiy of 'postholes' aie consiueieu woithy of
attention by the uiscipline of aichaeology foi socio-histoiical ieasons. Peitaining to
point (2), the aichaeologist in this example who finus a 'posthole' is also a factually
constiucteu social agent. She gains authoiity anu status thiough hei inteiactions anu
associations with a uiscolouiation in the sanu. By valiuating a uiscolouiation as a
'posthole', anu by using the appiopiiate tools anu peifoiming the appiopiiate
behaviouis of an aichaeologist, she is aiticulating anu maintaining hei own piofessional
iuentity. If hei fellow aichaeologists concui with hei finus thiough theii witnessing anu
tiusting of the sinceiity anu competence of hei iuentificationanu if this inteiactive
piocess between the excavatoi, the mateiial anu hei peeis is iepiouuceu ovei time
then hei authoiity as a competent expeit becomes moie anu moie establisheu. Both the
aichaeologist anu the posthole in this scenaiio "mutually aiticulate each othei; they
emeige simultaneously fiom actual piactice" (van Reybiouck anu }acobs: S7). The
aichaeologist neeus the posthole as much as the posthole neeus the aichaeologist in
oiuei to maintain piofessional authoiity, status anu iuentity.
This point is fuithei expanueu by the fact that (S) with both inuiviuuals anu
institutions, executive anu epistemic authoiity is ueiiveu fiom this inteiaction between
the social constiuction of facts anu the factual constiuction of social agents on a much
laigei scale, in a complex netwoik of people, things anu motivations. The entiie
'uiscipline of aichaeology' is an institutionaliseu, iecognisable categoiy of piactice, a
netwoikeu system of all the micio-inteiactions anu inteiielations between mateiial
iemains, tools, technology, iueas anu philosophy about the past, anu the human actois
who call themselves aichaeologists. As aichaeologist Thomas Yaiiow wiites,
"aichaeologists cieate the objectivity of the aitefacts anu featuies they excavate by
themselves embouying aichaeological conventions, skills anu knowleuge" (Yaiiow
2uuS: 66). Within the uiscipline, facts anu actois aie mutually constituteu.


85
U>A>A Q03468 #/7-6D 0< #2.50/4.: 6-1 $/63.437 6. Y6.685Z:[J
4.2.2.1 Structure onJ Spoce
Like most aichaeological piojects, the atalhoyk Piojectwhich incluues the
aienas of aichaeological mateiial in the eaith, the uig house laboiatoiies, the machines
anu tools, as well as people who woik in these spaces anu with these thingsis pait of a
complex system anu society, a cultuie opeiating unuei the awaieness that they 'uo
aichaeology' anu woik as 'aichaeologists' hanuling 'aichaeological mateiial'. Thomas
Yaiiow auuiesses the fact that, "the site, composeu of aitifacts, is itself also an object oi
aitifact" (Yaiiow 2uu6: 24). People often iefei to 'the site', 'the uig', 'the uig house' anu
even 'the aichaeology' as if it weie an object, subject oi aitefacta uistinct categoiy oi
iecognisable unit. The iuea that an aichaeological 'site' is a specific cultuial thing is an
unueistanuing that impacts, enables anu constiains the way we unueistanu anu
appioach any aichaeological place oi mateiial. Sites aie seen to be uistinct, bounueu,
accessible spaces; they aie physical units of the lanuscape wheie people go to iuentify,
access, utilise, stuuy anu contest mateiial cultuie fiom the uistant past. The mateiial
itself aiticulates the site as an orcboeoloqicol space.
People who intenu to access aichaeological spaces foi the puipose of 'uoing
aichaeology' opeiate as pait of a wiuei netwoik of people anu associations, anu those
who iuentify themselves as aichaeologists opeiate in socially uistinct ways that classify
anu iepiesent theii actions as aichaeological. People who aie not aichaeologists befoie
they begin woik at an aichaeological site can become aichaeologists thiough the
embouiment anu peifoimance of what it is to be an aichaeologist: thiough the
enactment of aichaeological methous, the access of aichaeological space anu mateiial,
anu the use of tools iuentifieu as aichaeological (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6). In
this way, aichaeology is a social cultuie that is intimately connecteu to the iuea of what
an aichaeological space is, what aichaeological mateiial is, who an aichaeologist is anu
what it is to peifoim aichaeological acts. Authoiity in this context involves the powei
asymmetiies that aie built into this social cultuie.
Buiing my time at atalhoyk in the 2uu9 fielu season, I founu that the
aiiangement of physical space anu the movements of people anu things thiough this
space uiamatically affecteu the way knowleuge was piouuceu at the site. The stiuctuie
of physical anu intellectual space at atalhoyk impacteu how oi why people oi things
helu authoiity anu status. Netwoiks of people anu things weie uiiectly impacteu anu
shapeu by spatiality, by the movement of people anu things thiough physical space.

86
The iuea that physical anu intellectual stiuctuie affects human anu mateiial
agency is also not new. Scholais, woiking paiticulaily in the late twentieth centuiy, have
uevelopeu anu uebateu theoiies ielateu to stiuctuialism, post-stiuctuialism anu agency.
Stuuies in stiuctuie anu agency have uiscusseu how the patteineu aiiangements of
social life anu physical space limit oi influence the choices anu oppoitunities of
inuiviuual agents, anu impoitantly, they have auuiesseu how this might impact the
piouuction of knowleuge. In aichaeological piactice, theoiies of stiuctuiation have
focuseu on how human patteins might be iecognizeu in the mateiial past (Renfiew anu
Bahn 2uuu: 486). Some aichaeologists have ciitically aigueu that stiuctuialism limits
inteipietations to uialectics oi pattein categoiies like cookeuiaw, uaiklight, leftiight,
manwoman, which might bias aichaeologists, unueimining the nuanceu anu vaiieu
complexities anu uiffeiences of social unueistanuing that humans helu in the past
(Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 486). Bowevei, theie aie iemaining questions that lie beyonu
this woik on stiuctuialism, such as: how aie human power relotions onJ outbority
enableu oi constiaineu by stiuctuie anu space. Bow uoes the stiuctuie of physical anu
intellectual space impact aichaeological methous anu the piouuction of knowleuge.
These lattei questions weie foiefiont as I obseiveu the inteiaction of people anu
mateiials at the site of atalhoyk uuiing theii 2uu9 fielu season. I obseiveu the
procticol moteriolity of knowleuge constiuctionthe use of the physical things anu
space as munuane as the social use of coffee cups anu lunch table space, to the most
scientific use of micioscopes anu Bunsen buineis as well as laboiatoiy spaceanu I
examineu how aichaeological piactice ielieu on a plethoia of uiffeient powei
ielationships, hieiaichies, gioups anu inuiviuuals who all inteiacteu in physical spaces
with physical things. To quote Anni Buguale again: "Committees of all soits sit in iooms,
uiink coffee, anu shuffle thiough papeiwoik. Anu it is in anu thiough such mateiial
aiiangements that uecisions aie maue possible" (1999: 116). Executive anu epistemic
authoiity at atalhoyk opeiates on vaiious levels, by inuiviuuals as well as collective
gioups anu institutions. Theie aie the team membeis who piouuce knowleuge on site,
the local anu extenueu scientific community who cieate anu sustain a uiscouise about
the Neolithic past anu who uebate piesent aichaeological methouology, the geneial
public who ielate to the site, anu the goveinment who authoiises its uiscouise thiough
laws anu social piomotion.
Buiing my stay at atalhoyk, I iuentifieu anu obseiveu social aienas of
knowleuge piouuction. The teim 'social aiena of piactice' is uiawn fiom Banulei anu
uable's stuuy on Colonial Williamsbuig, wheie a 'social aiena' is a uefineu space "in
which many people of uiffeiing backgiounus continuously anu ioutinely inteiact to

87
piouuce, exchange, anu consume messages" (1997: 9). In the 2uu9 atalhoyk fielu
season, vaiious gioups engageu with accounts of the Neolithic past as well as with
accounts of contempoiaiy aichaeological piactice anu methou. The piouuction,
exchange anu consumption of knowleuge in eveiy social aiena uiiectly impacteu the
way the aichaeologists on site anu the public unueistoou anu inteipieteu the Neolithic
past. Inteiactions within anu between each social aiena not only establisheu why some
mateiials anu accounts weie moie hanuleu oi weie moie poweiful than otheis at the
site, but also establisheu why ceitain gioups anu inuiviuuals appeaieu to have moie oi
less authoiity ovei otheisboth in teims physical oi executive authoiity, as well as
inteipietive oi epistemic authoiity. The next subsections iuentify some of the social
aienas at atalhoyk, wheie messages anu inteipietations weie piouuceu, exchangeu
anu consumeu: the excavation site, the uig house, on-site public aienas anu off-site
physical anu viitual public spaces.

4.2.2.2 Tbe (otolboyk Fxcovotion Site os o Sociol Areno of KnowleJqe ProJuction
In 2uu9, when I obseiveu woik at atalhoyk, the two East anu West 'foikeu
mounus' foimeu the piimaiy 'site of atalhoyk'. At ioughly 1uu,uuu squaie feet, the
site was consiueiably laige. The excavation space on the mounus hau been uiviueu by
uiffeient teams, unuei inuiviuual uiiectoiship anu institutions (such as
CambiiugeStanfoiu, Beikeley, Istanbul, Team Poznan fiom Polanu, etc.), who each
opeiateu uiffeient tiench sections that weie attiibuteu as theii 'own'. All of these
inuiviuual excavations anu mateiial iemains still fell unuei the ultimate uiiection anu
authoiity of Ian Bouuei, who was the heau atalhoyk Pioject uiiectoi, anu who hau the
authoiisation to be 'site uiiectoi' fiom the Tuikish uoveinment. In 2uu9, the East
Nounu was uiviueu by two uistinct teams, the Stanfoiu excavations iun by Ian Bouuei
anu his iight-hanu fielu uiiectoi Shahina Faiiu, anu a seconu team calleu Team Poznan
fiom Polanu, who mainly useu this season as a stuuy season to catch up on post-
excavation woik in the laboiatoiies. The West Nounu was similaily uiviueu (theie was a
S0NY Buffalo tiench, anu also a sepaiate Tuikish team tiench, but only the foimei
excavateu in the 2uu9 season while I was theie, anu both teams still fell unuei the
ultimate authoiity of Ian Bouuei's uiiectoiship).
Two of Ian Bouuei's Stanfoiu-iun tienches on the East Nounu hau expensive
peimanent shelteis constiucteu ovei them, singling them out as the piimaiy pioject uig
sites. The tienches unuei the peimanent shelteis weie the sites that touiists weie
uiawn to, anu many of the houses unuei both shelteis hau been excavateu only to a

88
ceitain point anu then left with the intent to be pieseiveu, manageu anu uisplayeu foi
public consumption. Buiing this season, seveial othei tienches on the East mounu weie
'closeu' anu non-opeiativelike the laige oveigiown cut section left by }ames Nellaait's
activities (196us) anu the in-filleu sections by Ruth Tiigham's BACB team fiom Beikeley
(1997-2uuS), which weie only visible if iuentifieu by a site expeit. 0thei tienches, like
the active section in the West Nounu by Petei Biehl anu Eva Rosenstock's team fiom
S0NY Buffalo, only hau tempoiaiy shelteis. Nembeis of the public weie ioutinely not
inviteu to visit the West Nounu excavation space.
The excavation tienches weie uiveise aienas of social piactice, wheie issues of
expeitise anu epistemic uepenuence weie negotiateu in uiffeient ways, on uiffeient
levels, by uiffeient teams anu people. Buiing this season, because of constiaints on time
anu uisseitation space, I founu it most ielevant to focus on the Bouuei excavations that
occuiieu in 2uu9 on the East Nounu. The 2uu9 season was oiiginally oiganiseu to be a
"stuuy season", with focus on ieseaiching post-excavation uata fiom pievious yeais:
As the 2uu9 season was piimaiily a stuuy season, |newj excavations took place
in thiee aieas only in the South Aiea on the Neolithic East Nounu anu Tienches
S anu 8 on the West Chalcolithic Nounu. The stuuy season ian fiom 1Sth }une
until the enu of }uly uuiing which time teams woikeu on post-excavation
analyses in piepaiation foi the publication of foui new volumes coveiing the
excavations in the 4u4u Aiea, South Aiea, TP Aiea anu IST Aiea excavateu fiom
2uuu to 2uu8. The aim of the phase of woik in piepaiation foi publication
auuiesseu the social geogiaphy of the settlement anu laigei community
stiuctuie. (Faiiu 2uu9: 7)

As Faiiu wiites, the stuuy season was meant to be focuseu on post-excavation
piepaiation foi publication, so excavations on the East Nounu in 2uu9 took place only
unuei the South Sheltei, anu many aichaeologists on site iefeiieu to these excavations
as a 'bonus' uig.
The excavation site was the immeuiate space wheie aichaeological mateiial was
fiist founu, examineu anu iemoveu by excavatois. 'Excavatois' in this instance consisteu
of a gioup of piofessionally hiieu anu tiaineu excavatois who weie attenueu by
appienticing stuuents with uiffeient skills anu backgiounus, incluuing a gioup of
unueigiauuate stuuents fiom Stanfoiu 0niveisity, a gioup of tiaining aichaeologists
fiom univeisities anu institutions in Tuikey, as well as a few inuepenuent ieseaicheis,
such as myself. Local Tuikish fielu hanus weie also piesent; they woikeu seasonally anu
pait-time, with minimal aichaeological tiaining. These local fielu hanus (often alongsiue
the Stanfoiu unueigiauuates, who weie the 'bottom of the iung' in the site hieiaichy
while on theii fielu school) sifteu anu baggeu the mateiial fiom the uiit buckets, which
containeu the majoiity of eaith iemoveu fiom the site.

89
All of these inuiviuuals came togethei in the excavation space, wheie they
physically inteiacteu with mateiial iemains fiom the Neolithic. 0n an inteipietive level,
all of these inuiviuualsfiom the piofessional who ueciueu wheie to uig anu when to
iecoiu, to the fielu hanu anu stuuent who ueciueu what to bag anu what to thiow fiom
the sifteismaue active uecisions, negotiations anu choices about how to hanule the
mateiial as they founu it, anu they maue immeuiate inteipietations about what the
mateiial in the excavation context 'means'. Bouuei has long iecogniseu the poweiful
position that this places excavatois in: his signatuie claim is that fiist impiessions anu
inteipietations begin "at the tiowel's euge" (Bouuei 2uuS: S8). In some ways, the
excavatois hau the most immeuiate anu iaw executive powei anu authoiity at the site,
at least in the initial stages of inteipietation. They weie the fiist to access mateiial
iemains, the fiist to see them anu touch them, holuing the powei to ueciue what
mateiial to cut into, what to keep oi uestioy, anu what to uo with the mateiial they
founu. This powei, of couise, affecteu the 'final piouuct' inteipietations that came out of
this fielu season, foi specialists coulu not stuuy what was not saveu, anu the entiie
pioject's uata aichive was founueu on the iecoius anu insciiptions
S6
that weie taken in
the fielu. Bowevei, the authoiity of this social aiena was also iegulateu by a whole tacit
system of iules anu accountability. People 'uiu aichaeology' as if theie was a 'iight'
appioach, a 'coiiect' way to take samples, a 'coiiect' way to bag oi sieve, a 'coiiect'
system of uefeiiing uecisions to the authoiity to those with moie oi less expeitise oi
expeiience.
S7
This uefeience took two foims.
Fiist, the excavatois gave exteinal uefeience to the gieatei institution of
aichaeology. The uiscipline as we know it touay is a piouuct of geneiations of socio-
political anu uisciplinaiy context anu uevelopment. The iecoiuing anu excavating
methous useu at atalhoyk uuiing the time I attenueu the excavations weie stanuaiu
techniques that have been moie oi less accepteu as 'tiieu anu tiue' methous in the fielu
of aichaeology. I saw little uiffeience fiom the excavation piactices at atalhoyk than
those methous I hau seen oi useu in othei excavations anu fielu piojects. Thioughout
histoiy, the uiscipline of aichaeology has uevelopeu anu naiioweu these techniques as
ieliable, noimal oi 'coiiect', anu so they holu a high uegiee of authoiity in the fielu
thiough the histoiy of theii use anu continueu acceptance. The atalhoyk excavatois,
while in the poweiful position of ueciuing what anu how things weie saveu oi uestioyeu

S6
See Section 4.4.1 foi uetaileu uiscussion on inscriptions.
S7
Refeience the Faunal Laboiatoiy piactice flow chait |Figuie 8j, which illustiates this kinu of
uefeience to expeiience anu authoiities.

90
in uigging, weie constiaineu anu limiteu by the institutional authoiity of aichaeological
uisciplinaiy piactice.
Seconu, theie was also an uefeience to the inteinal stiuctuies of executive
hieiaichy anu socio-political context of the excavation site. It was unueistoou that the
entiie pioject opeiateu unuei the authoiity of the Tuikish goveinment, which legally
owneu the site anu hau full contiol anu owneiship of all the mateiial uneaitheu anu
stuuieu. Theie was the authoiity of Ian Bouuei, the uiiectoi who contiolleu all of the
stiingspuise stiings, acauemic stiings, publication stiings, anu who hau ultimate say
ovei what acauemic activities took place at the site. Theie was the fielu uiiectoi Shahina
Faiiu anu the piofessional excavatois, who helu piimaiy executive authoiity ovei the
excavation uig spaces. Theie weie the site specialists who helu authoiity ovei vaiious
intellectual (anu sometimes physical) aienas, with authoiity naiioweu by the
categoiiestypes of iemains uneaitheu. Finally, theie was the public anu visiting
scholais, who often helu authoiity ovei the consumption of messages piouuceu in the
excavating spaces, especially when they weie vocal in iecommenuations oi changes.
Each of these inteinal gioups helu authoiity in a hieiaichy of uefeience anu in specific
uomains of piactice.
Specifically at the atalhoyk uig site, the piactice of excavating with such a
uiveise gioup of people maue foi an uynamic aiena of executive anu epistemic
authoiity. In 2uu9, Ian Bouuei iaiely attenueu the uigs peisonally. When he uiu, he was
usually giving site touis to visitois, oi he obseiveu the tienches fiom the siuelines anu
askeu the excavatois questions. Bis uiiectoiship seemeu to involve moie 'behinu-the-
scenes' manageiial woik: visiting the specialist labs anu inteiviewing his team membeis
to gathei a bioau unueistanuing of the site activity anu scientific piogiess, peifoiming
his iole as a site oiganisei who hiieu anu fiieu, aiianging anu attenuing impoitant
meetings with the goveinment iepiesentatives anu funuing bouies, giving touis anu
piesentations to the public, inteiacting intellectually with visiting anu attenuing
ieseaicheis, anu woiking on publishing books oi aiticles that gave an oveiaiching
naiiative of the site's histoiy anu the pioject's methouology. The actual excavation
aiena was insteau the uomain of Shahina Faiiu, the fielu uiiectoi anu iight-hanu to Ian
Bouuei, who hau been woiking at the site since 199S (Baltai 2uu6: 122).
The excavation hieiaichy began with Faiiu as the highest epistemic anu
executive authoiity on the mounus, then extenueu uown to othei membeis of the
piofessional excavating team who hau a gieat ueal of expeitise anu expeiience
excavating as contiact aichaeologists, then to the specialists anu giauuate stuuents who
weie excavating foi theii own ieseaich oi inteiest anu who hau institutional backing,

91
then to the fielu school stuuents who weie leaining excavation foi the fiist time, anu
then finally to the fielu hanus, who sifteu, nevei touching a tiowel. Both the executive
authoiity anu the epistemic authoiity of these gioups was tacitly iecogniseu in the oiuei
of this hieiaichy, with the exception that an elite coie gioup of the piofessional
excavatois weie iecogniseu to have fielu skills (but not manageiial skills) on the same
level as Faiiu.
Foi the majoiity of excavating woik in the 2uu9 fielu season, specialists
iemaineu in the uig house to woik (except the conseivationists). When site specialists
weie calleu up fiom the uig house to take samples foi theii woik, oi to lenu
inteipietation oi auvice on something founu uuiing the uigusually in the setting of a
"Piioiity Toui" (when an usual oi spectaculai finu was uneaitheu)it was because
theii expeitise was iecogniseu anu valueu because theii epistemic authoiity in some
way 'tiumpeu' that of the fielu excavatois. Bowevei, in the case of excavating fieluwoik
itself, the executive authoiity of the piofessional excavatois on site was nevei 'tiumpeu'
by specialiststhe excavation site was theii uomain, the uig house was the piimaiy
uomain of the specialists, anu all of this was a tacit unueistanuing between the gioups.
This iegulation of authoiity in sepaiate tacit 'uomains', albeit inteilinkeu anu with
bluiiy euges, may have emeigeu as a positive compiomise oi iesolution to the long
histoiy of tension between excavatois anu specialists on site (Faiiu 2uuu: 27-29;
Bamilton 2uuu).

O492/7 A+ &L36P6.40- D4.7 2-17/ .57 Q02.5 Q578.7/> ,6- "0117/ 94P4-9 6 D4.7 .02/ .0 6 9/02N
0< .02/4D.D> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

92
4.2.2.S Tbe (otolboyk Biq Eouse os o Sociol Areno
At atalhoyk, the uig house was the place wheie excavateu mateiialaftei
being uissecteu, baggeu anu categoiiseu by the excavatoiswent uiiectly foi post-
excavation stuuy anu analysis by the laboiatoiy specialists. The uig house was also
space foi post-excavation uatabase iecoiuing by the fielu excavatois, as well as living
anu accommouation space foi all membeis of the East Nounu anu West Nounu piojects.
Buiing the 2uu9 fielu season, it was also the piimaiy place foi the exchange of iueas,
especially because this was a Stuuy Season, anu the majoiity of post-excavation activity
took place in the uig house. Exceptions incluueu the biief inteiaction between
excavatois anu specialists on the mounus uuiing the Site Touis anu Piioiity Touis, oi in
the special ciicumstances when uiiectois oi specialists weie calleu in to offei expeitise
about specific finus.
The physical uig house was situateu at the base of the East Nounu, locateu on a
ioau that leu into the neaiby village of Kkkoy. The builuing was uiviueu into
laboiatoiies, living aieas anu iecieational spaces. The uig house was open in plan,
suiiounuing a couityaiu anu a coveieu veianua. This encouiageu social inteiaction, as
people coulu socialise on the veianua anu immeuiately access all othei living anu
laboiatoiy aieas thiough the couityaiu. Immeuiately outsiue of the uig house (in 2uu9),
theie was a set of exteinal builuings, incluuing the 'expeiimental house' (Stevanovic
2uu6), a makeshift paity bai foi social activities (which was latei tuineu into a stoiage
sheu) anu seveial laige stoiage aieas. The main woiking aieas foi the team weie in the
laboiatoiies, the iooms which lineu two entiie siues of the uig house. These laboiatoiies
weie aiguably the most impoitant aienas foi the last stages of the knowleuge
piouuction piocess at atalhoyk. In these iooms, the specialists anu excavatois uiu
post-excavation stuuy anu inputteu iecoius into the uatabase, sciutinizeu anu stuuieu
selecteu aitefacts in uetail, uiscusseu theoiies anu inteipietations, illustiateu anu
iepiouuceu mateiial in text anu visual foims, anu ieauieu the site inteipietations anu
naiiatives foi publication.
The laboiatoiies weie ioughly aiiangeu by a uivision of aichaeological mateiial,
such as faunal iemains, human iemains, obsiuian, conseivation, etc. In 2uu9, the
specialists spent the vast majoiity of theii woiking time in theii own inuiviuual
laboiatoiy, closely inteiacting with membeis of theii own specialist team, unless they
neeueu to consult anothei membei of the piojectoften moie an exception than the
noim. 0thei gioups woikeu in the uig house as well, such as the fielu excavatois who

93
hau theii own laige seminai ioom foi post-excavation analyses,
S8
anu the West Nounu
oi Polish teams, who woikeu togethei in one laboiatoiy as a complete team unit. As one
of my inteiview subjects
S9
explaineu, the team was uiviueu in the uig house aiena "like
collective pous that woik togethei".
As a physical constiuction oi lanuscape, the uig house was uesigneu anu oiueieu
in specific way, with the space uoleu out in specific ways foi specific ieasons. Nost of
that ieasoning seemeu to be baseu aiounu mateiial types like stone iemains oi human
iemains. Focus on these mateiial 'types' was moie a piouuct of the way aichaeologists
in the uiscipline aie geneially tiaineu to specialise in specific mateiial types iathei than
whole featuies oi units (i.e., focus on 'lithics' oi 'bone' insteau of whole 'buiials' oi
'clusteis' that incluue multiple mateiial types). This setup of uig house space affecteu
inteipietation, because people who specialiseu in a specific inteiest, such as faunal
iemains oi human iemains, piimaiily gatheieu anu woikeu in theii own laboiatoiies foi
the bulk of the woikuay, establishing a social 'pou-like' base of opeiation. Natuially,
human ielationships anu inteinal hieiaichies foimeu within each spatial 'pou'.
Netwoiks of people anu things weie uiiectly impacteu anu shapeu by spatiality, by the
movement of people anu things thiough physical space, anu this affecteu what kinu of
intellectual engagement occuiieu between humans, mateiial anu final piouuct
inteipietations.
0thei gioups beyonu the atalhoyk team also inteiacteu with mateiial anu
people at the uig house. 0ne notable gioup weie acauemic visitois, incluuing geneial
aichaeologists, stuuents of aichaeology, anu specialists that weie not atalhoyk team
membeis but who came to obseive the activities at the uig house oi mounus. Buiing my
stay, a numbei of uiffeient acauemic gioups like this came to see the site, on a
metaphoiical pilgiimage to view 'postpiocessual aichaeology in action'. Foi example,
team membeis of a neighbouiing excavation in the Konya iegion iun by Piofessoi
Nicholas Postgate fiom Cambiiuge visiteu the site, anu stuuents fiom this gioup tolu me
that they weie 'exciteu to see the famous site'. Anothei gioup involveu a teaching
classioom of piofessois anu unueigiauuate stuuents fiom a New Yoik univeisity, who
weie given a long toui of the site, anu who askeu many questions about postpiocessual
methous anu the ielations between the Tuikish authoiities anu atalhoyk's excavation
peimits. 0n anothei occasion, a postgiauuate stuuent fiom a ueiman 0niveisity who
hau an inteiest in woiking with the team in the futuie came to obseive woik foi a uay

S8
This space was wheie the excavatois inputteu all of the hanu-wiitten plans anu finus sheets
into the pioject-wiue uatabase, so that eveiy team membei coulu have access to the excavation
uata thiough a netwoikeu inteinet system, iun out of the uig house auministiativeIT office.
S9
This inteiviewee was a ietuining ethnogiaphic ieseaichei anu excavatoi at the site.

94
anu speak with membeis of the team about aichaeological ethnogiaphy. All of these
'ieseaich pilgiims', as I came to call them, weie expiessly inteiesteu in the site foi its
aichaeological value, anu its authoiity as a notewoithy site incluueu in most
intiouuctoiy aichaeology textbook 'pantheons'. Buiing my time at the site, many in
these gioups uiiectly inteiacteu with aichaeologists at the uig house, asking questions
to the uiiectois anu to othei appioachable team membeis, anu in some cases auueuoi
tiieu to auuto the intellectual uiscussions, peihaps influencing knowleuge piouuction
on site.
Anothei social gioup, which I uefineu as having 'intimate local inteiest' in the
pioject, also inteiacteu with knowleuge piouuction in the uig house. This gioup
incluueu people fiom the geneial, non-aichaeologically tiaineu public, such as people
fiom the neaiby village of Kkkoy anu othei Tuikish membeis of the public who uiu
constantly inteiact with the site in specific outieach piogiams.
4u
Nany of these membeis
of the public inteiacteu closely with team membeis anu site mateiial anu hau a vesteu
inteiest in the pioject, but they uiu not have specialist knowleuge. I founu that
aichaeologists themselves gaineu gieatly fiom this collaboiation. By inteiacting with
local populations, team membeis bettei unueistoou how they themselves woikeu oi
engageu in theii own subject mattei, making them ieflect on the implications anu
necessity of collaboiating with local populations. Some of these implications weie latei
ievieweu anu uiscusseu in the last pages of the 2uu9 Aichive Repoit (atalhoyk
Reseaich Pioject 2uu9). The uig house was the piimaiy aiea wheie this public gioup
was able to inteiact with team membeis anu aichaeological mateiial. All non-team
membeis weie iestiicteu fiom access to most of the laboiatoiies anu stoiage spaces on
site (this iestiiction was usually unspoken, but unueistoou).
41

The most impoitant spaces in the uig house stiuctuie weie two main iooms that
opeiateu like 'hubs' foi the physical netwoik of people, mateiial anu space. The fiist was
the Finus Room laboiatoiy |see map, Figuie Sj. This ioom helu a numbei of uesks foi
vaiious specialists, incluuing people woiking on finus, figuiines anu the illustiatois. The
Finus Besk, howevei, was the ciitical place wheie all excavateu mateiial was
immeuiately taken aftei excavation was finisheu foi the uay. The Finus specialist's job
involveu iecoiuing all uata fiom the aitefact bags into the uatabase, then ieuistiibuting
the mateiial fiom the Finus Room to the vaiious othei laboiatoiies foi post-excavation
analysis. Foi example, when a gioup of vaiious mateiial types weie founu in a single

4u
Some locals weie employeu by the pioject to uo seivices like cooking, cleaning oi sifting.
0theis came as pait of specific outieach piogiams to involve local communities in the knowleuge
piouuction piocess.
41
See Section 4.S foi uiscussion on access issues.

95
contextwhich was iecoiueu as a single featuie calleu a 'clustei'the finus woulu be
geneially iecoiueu togethei in the fielu as one finu on a context sheet, then the uiffeient
mateiial types woulu be sepaiately baggeu (obsiuian in one bag, human iemains in
anothei, stone beaus in one bag, bone beaus in anothei) anu then taken in a bucket to
the Finus Room. The Finus specialist then woulu input all of the iecoiueu uata (which
she woulu finu wiitten on slips of papei in the finus bags, iecoiueu by the excavatois
eailiei that uay in the fielu as they baggeu the mateiial) into the site uatabase. Then she
woulu split the bags up anu uistiibute the mateiialobsiuian, human iemains, faunal
iemains, ceiamics, etc.to the vaiious laboiatoiies wheie the uiffeient specialists
woikeu on analysing mateiial types. In essence, hei iole was to tiansfei the physical
single context into the uatabase, anu then tiansfei the mateiial on foi moie uetaileu
stuuy.
Theoietically, the iuea is that the uiffeient mateiials in a clustei, aftei it is
iecoiueu, is foievei insciibeu into the same context just by going into the uatabase. The
iuea is that by bieaking up the mateiial, the specialists can each examine it anu input
moie uata into the uatabase, with moie inteipietive authoiity attacheu to it because of
the specialists' foimal tiaining in mateiial types. The bieaking up of mateiial shows how
impoitant a theme it is in aichaeology to inscribe infoimation into a viitual oi
iepiesentative foim, anu shows the poweiful assumption that this is the most efficient
way to maximise infoimation.
42
Bowevei, whethei this methou in any way actually
helpeu inteipietation was uebatable. When I askeu team membeis how finus enueu up
back 'togethei' to be inteipieteu fiom multi-type featuies like a clustei, the answei was
scatteieu. In the case of a piofounu finu, like the Plasteieu Skull Buiial (see Section 4.4.S,
below), wheie mateiials like human iemains anu faunal iemains weie founu togethei, it
was veiy likely that they woulu be inteipieteu as one entiie unit, since it was likely to be
a much uiscusseu finu anu woulu quickly finu its way into piint (Bouuei 2uu6; Bouuei
2u1ub: 129). Bowevei, when I askeu some team membeis how things like stone beaus
anu bone beaus founu togethei as pait of a biacelet in a giave woulu come back togethei
as 'a biacelet' in the inteipietive piocess, since they woulu have been sepaiateu in the
Finus Room anu sent to uiffeient labs foi piocessing as 'stone' oi 'bone', the answei was
less suie. The usual way the 'coming togethei' of site mateiial happeneu, seveial team
membeis tolu me, was uuiing the Biscussion Season (which was scheuuleu foi the
futuie yeai of 2u1u). In the Biscussion Season, team membeis come togethei to sit
aiounu anu uiscuss mateiial, inteipieting it on a geneial team platfoim anu ieauying it

42
See Section 4.4.1 foi fuithei uiscussion on the impoitance of insciiption.

96
foi publication. Theoietically, the team membeis saiu, this is the place anu time foi the
'coming togethei' of mateiial like clusteis. Bowevei, moie than one specialist aumitteu
by the enu of oui conveisations that the likelihoou of something like stone beaus anu
bone beaus coming back togethei on a less than spectaculaily inteiesting finu was 'a bit
of a hit oi miss' (site specialist, peisonal communication 2uu9).
These uiscussions implieu to me that the uistiibution of mateiials via the
methou of uiviuing things by mateiial 'type' uiu impact the piouuction of knowleuge at
the site, anu this impact woulu affect what 'accounts' of the past weie ultimately cieateu
anu uistiibuteu by the atalhoyk team. This appioach of stuuying the past also implieu
that the authoiity anu piestige of ceitain clusteis oi finusanu the likelihoou that they
woulu make that last step fiom being 'iaw uata' to 'accounteu foi' in final piouuct
publicationsiemaineu in the hanus of inuiviuual excavatois anu specialists who may
oi may not think about them in the futuie, anu who may oi may not have a louu enough
authoiitative voice uuiing the uiscussion seasons to make these finus memoiable to
those who woulu wiite the most soliu, piestigious oi authoiitative aiticles.
The seconu impoitant ioom of the uig house was the team office. This was the
space wheie the site fielu uiiectoi Shahina Faiiu hau hei main auministiative
woikspace, anu wheie the IT teiminals weie locateu. When speaking with Ian Bouuei,
he tolu me that the auministiative ioom was the opeiational "neive centie" of the uig
house. Not only was the auministiative office the place wheie papeiwoik was fileu anu
official business was checkeu, stampeu anu communicateu, but it was the place wheie
auministiative anu oiganisational team iecoius weie kept. This was the executive hub
of the uig house, anu people woulu go to this centie to infoim the manageiial level of the
site hieiaichy about theii wheieabouts, neeus oi plans. The uatabase was a cential
system anu netwoik foi all membeis of the siteholuing authoiity ovei infoimation
access in both physical anu intellectual ways. In oui conveisation, Bouuei iefeiieu to
the uatabase as an 'amazing inteilockeu thing' that connects eveiybouy on the site,
linking the viitual site iecoius with the physical actions of all the team membeis
woiking on site. Be explaineu in goou humoui that when the uatabase went uown oi
bioke, eveiything in the uig house seemeu to shut uown. People woulu suuuenly emeige
fiom theii uaik laboiatoiies anu come out onto the teiiace oi veianua, waiting foi the
iecoiu system to be fixeu so that they coulu get back to woik. This technology was vital
to the way excavateu mateiials weie insciibeu, anu these insciiptions weie ciitical to
the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge. The social space anu woik inteiaction at
atalhoyk was physically alteieu oi limiteu by the availability of technology anu viitual
space, which was centieu in both the IT office, as well as in the communal 'ethei' of the

97
site space. This kinu of inteiaction, with its ieliance on tools like the uatabase anu on
systems of piactice like centialiseu iecoiuing, showeu how the uig house was a
stiuctuial, physical space that iauically affecteu the way people on site woikeu, anu the
way people physically woikeu iauically affecteu the way they socially piouuceu
knowleuge on site.

O492/7 F+ %54D 4D 6 H6N D50@4-9 .57 97-7/68 86:02. 0< .57 149 502D7> /*-0-1+2 3+4 5#,*$)6'
#7 $") 8+$+2"9':; $)+3< ,4=+$)6 +1= 3#=-7-5+$-#16 $# $") 3+4 3+=) &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

4.2.2.4 Public Spoces: 0nsite Fxpert Witnessinq onJ Public Fnqoqement ot tbe Biq
Eouse onJ Fxcovotion Sites

The excavation sites anu the uig house weie also uistinct social aienas foi on-
site public engagement. At the excavation sites, two laige tienches on the East Nounu
hau peimanent shelteis: the 4u4u Aiea anu the South Aiea. Buiing the 2uu9 fielu
season, I attenueu anu obseiveu the woik of a gioup of conseivatois whose main effoits
that season went towaiu the continueu cleaning anu pieseivation of houses unuei the
'4u4u Sheltei'. This sheltei coveieu seveial houses that weie intenueu foi futuie

98
excavation, along with seveial othei houses that weie intenueu foi long-teim
conseivation in a 'museum-like' way (peisonal communication 2uu9, conseivatoi). The
4u4u Sheltei hau tiauitional aichaeology witnessing platfoims (Noshenska 2uu9),
walkways anu touiist uisplays. They weie uelibeiately left open anu active, inviting both
people insiue anu outsiue of the piofession to come see the site anu leain fiom uisplays,
to intellectually inteiact with the aichaeology anu to potentially engage with
inteipietation moie closely. I say 'potentially', because while the uig sites weie left open
anu welcoming foi people to entei anu view, they weie also set up to physically uiviue
the public fiom the woiking aichaeologists. Foi the most pait, the visiting public that I
obseiveu uuiing my time at the site weie moie passive spectatois than active witnesses,
in the teiminology useu by Noshenska in his stuuy on how aichaeological 'witnessing
platfoims' can be aienas of public engagement (2uu9).
Public gioups coulu also visit the uig house, although they hau veiy limiteu
access. 0ne coinei of the uig house helu the visitoi Centie, often calleu the 'museum'
(Webb 2uu2). The visitoi Centie houseu a small collection of aitefact casts anu ieplicas,
anu it offeieu wall posteis that simply intiouuceu the site inteipietations foi public
consumption. This ioom was ielatively small anu baie, with not a gieat ueal of
significant infoimation |Figuie 4j. Insteau, when I was piesent in 2uu9, a membei of the
excavation team (usually a high-level uiiectoi like Shahina Faiiu oi Ian Bouuei) anuoi
a site guaiu woulu accompany visitois aiounu the site, supplementing theii visitoi
Centie expeiience with veibal infoimation anu inteiactive question-anu-answei
sessions. The visitoi Centie anu the Expeiimental Bouse weie public uomains, while the
laboiatoiies anu the living aieas weie the piivate uomains of the atalhoyk pioject
team. These two uomains (publicpiivate) weie sepaiateu by a small, unlockeu baiiiei
uooi insiue the uig house (see Section 4.S.2 on site access, below).

99

O492/7 U+ ,H697 0< .57 Y6.685Z:[J c4D4.0/ !7-./7 \68D0 J-0@- 6D .57 Q4.7 ;2D72H]> "7/7M
Q5654-6 O6/41 94P7D 6 873.2/7 .0 .76357/D </0H .57 %2/J4D5 !28.2/68 O02-16.40- %76357/
%02/D 4- AWWX> !"#$# #12-1) +$> "$$4>??@@@.5+$+2"#',;.5#3?1)@6?4*)66A*)2)+6)ABCCD."$32

4.2.2.S 0ffsite Sociol Arenos: loborotories, Huseums, Press onJ virtuol Spoces
Anothei sepaiate but ielateu aiena of knowleuge piouuction was in the off-site
laboiatoiy spaces, wheie vaiious team membeis took mateiial foi fuithei
inteipietation. In many cases uuiing my stay at atalhoyk, I watcheu mateiial being
boxeu anu taken away to offsite labs, whethei to conseivation labs at the neaiby Konya
Nuseum oi to scientific laboiatoiies as fai away as Stanfoiu oi Coinell 0niveisities in
the 0niteu States. This mateiial, which was examineu in vaiious laboiatoiies oi
piesenteu to the public in museums like the Konya Nuseum in Tuikey, was intentionally
stuuieu anu then insciibeu into a piesentational foim (texts, illustiations, uisplays) foi a
wiue inteinational public that inteiacteu with the mateiial off-site. Some of this mateiial
enueu up in acauemic aienas, such as in acauemic textbooks oi confeience
piesentations, wheie atalhoyk mateiial was uelibeiately ciafteu to meet the neeus
anu expectations of this bioauei inteiesteu acauemic public.
0thei mateiial enueu up in public aienas foi gioups that I came call the 'casual
offsite public'. This public consisteu of people who hau a moie oi less inuiiect oi casual
inteiest in the site, who paiticulaily inteiacteu with atalhoyk mateiial thiough theii
exposuie to the populai jouinals, magazines oi newspapei inteiest aiticles. Foi
example, such inuiviuuals might be biowsing a magazine anu stumble into an aiticle on
atalhoyk, oi they might finu a link to the website, oi acciuentally stumble acioss the

100
site thiough viitual social spaces like the SeconJ life online viitual atalhoyk
ieconstiuction expeiiment, which was set up by Ruth Tiigham at Beikeley |Figuie Sj.
These gioups often leaineu about anu inteiacteu with atalhoyk without any initial
goals oi aims, anu without much pievious inteiest oi knowleuge about the site. I founu
that these gioups uiu affect knowleuge piouuction anu inteipietation of atalhoyk
mateiial, foi they weie always a consiueieu auuience when the team cieateu anu
uistiibuteu geneial news ieleases, biochuies, websites anu viitual ieconstiuctions.
Seveial offsite atalhoyk inteipietive expeiiments, piogiams anu seivices giew
uiiectly fiom this ielationship with the casual public, such as Tiigham's SeconJ life
pioject (atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2u1uc).

O492/7 V+ Q3/77-D50. 0< .57 I7/J787: d'7H4L4-9 Y6.685Z:[Jd P4/.268 N/0G73. 0- Q730-1 a4<7>
E3+0) 7*#3 $") F)@ G)H-5# I$+$) J1-K)*6-$' L2+3#0#*=# @)&6-$)>
"$$4>??136,+.)=,?$-#4)$)?+*5"+)#2#0-5+2M*)5#16$*,5$-#16MB?


101
U>F #2.50/4.: </0H #337DDM QN6.468 !0-D./64-. 6-1
!0-D7-.
U>F>= %57 #2.50/4.: 0< QN6.468 !0-D./64-. 6-1 !0-D7-.
This section aigues that, at atalhoyk, the way any given peison oi gioup
occesseJ the site was peihaps the most funuamental way aichaeological authoiity was
aiticulateu. It was a piimaiy way that people anu mateiial became uistinguisheu as
impoitant, influential oi authoiitative. Issues of access weie of cential impoitance to the
way the pioject was iun, anu cential to the way inuiviuuals anu units of the atalhoyk
team uefineu theii own iuentityanu authoiityby establishing, opening oi iestiicting
its own physical anu intellectual boiueis. Buiing my fieluwoik, the impoitance of
consent in the iole of builuing anu contiolling authoiity became appaient. The question
aiose: who has the authoiity to give oi iestiict access to aichaeology. Funuamentally,
access is a mattei of inuiviuuals oi gioups ielating themselves to social powei
asymmetiies, foi one peison oi gioup is always asking (oi uemanuing) to ieceive
consent to access aichaeology fiom anothei peison oi gioup who allows access,
meaning that the lattei has contiol anu authoiity ovei space oi mateiial.

4.S.1.1 Pbysicol Access onJ Control
0n the most funuamental level, access to the physical site of atalhoyk anu its
Neolithic iemains, in teims of the management of simple pioximity of inuiviuuals to the
site itself, was a somewhat uifficult affaii. The 'Remixing atalhoyk ' websitewhich
piomotes the viitual existence of the BACB pioject's SeconJ life viitual atalhoyk by
iaising the uistance anu access pioblems of the actual atalhoyk mounustates:
It takes moie than 24 houis of tiavel time to get fiom Califoinia to Tuikey, anu
then moie than an houi to uiive fiom the neaiest uiban aiea to atalhoyk.
visitois aie welcomeu at the visitoi Centei, but must be escoiteu thioughout
theii toui of the site. Few people get to woik at the mounu itself. Aichaeologists,
howevei expeiienceu, cannot woik theie without official peimission fiom the
Tuikish goveinment. A fence suiiounus the mounu anu a guaiuhouse piotects it.
(atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2u1uc)

As this BACB bluib explains, physical access to the site was complicateu by a numbei of
factois, but paiticulaily: uistance foi non-locals, owneiship anu peimissions iights.
Bistance is an obvious issue iegaiuing access to aichaeology. The atalhoyk
site mounus aie locateu in the iuial Konya piovince in the Republic of Tuikey, in the
centie of the countiy, fai fiom any majoi aiipoit oi touiist ioute. Even foi ielatively

102
local populations (such as people in the cities of Konya, Ankaia oi Istanbul), the site is
uistant. No public tianspoitation goes uiiectly to the site; once you take public tianspoit
to majoi towns, the only way to get to the site is by taking ielatively expensive taxis oi
to pie-aiiange touiist agency tianspoit fiom cities like Konya, the neaiest laige city
(Sukm by cai), oi in umia, the neaiest local town (1ukm by cai).
Pioximity anu ease of accessas necessitateu by geogiaphical, financial oi social
ieasonsnatuially cieates a uynamic wheieby those who take the initiative to be
piesent at the site have moie potential access to the physical place anu mateiial. Those
who have the inteiest anu iesouices to get to the site aie few in numbei, anu they often
come with specific aims anu inteiests. While at a glance this may seem like a banal
connection between 'accessing the site by being at the site', its impoitance ielating to
executive authoiity can accumulate on moie nuanceu levels. Foi example, when a site is
so physically uifficult to access, you might iaise the question: who might actually be able
visit the site othei than those who have enough money anu iesouices to get to it. What
uoes this uo to the executive anu epistemic authoiity, influence, status anu powei
ielationships of those who can peisonally visit the site anu those who cannotthe
'haves' veisus the 'have nots'. Since knowleuge piouuction is a socially inteiactive
piocess, anu since aichaeological authoiity is accumulateu fiom the inteiaction between
humans anu mateiials, might this powei imbalance skew uata anu conclusions towaiu
those who have the iesouices anu abilities to access the oiiginal site.
Piojects like the BACB viitual atalhoyk ieconstiuction on the online viitual-
woilu piogiam SeconJ life anu Ian Bouuei's inteiactive website
4S
have maue the
attempt to extenu access of the site's uata to those who may not have the financial oi
physical abilities to see the site in peison. Bowevei, iegaiuless of the intent, this cieates
a uynamic poweiknowleuge imbalance between those who have seen the site 'fiist
hanu' veisus those who have notfoi two ieasons. Fiist, theie is epistemic powei in
simply having close, intimate access to aichaeological mateiial, fiom the iuea that 'the
closei you can get to the mateiial, the bettei anu moie authoiitative youi inteipietation
will be'. This is the authoiity of piime souices, the iuea that if you 'come see foi youiself'
anu actively witness aichaeological mateiial, then you have moie authoiity to speak
expeiientially about a subject mattei. A iepiouuction oi an account, no mattei how
caiefully attenueu, is always uistanceu fiom its souice mateiial. The cieation of a

4S
http:www.catalhoyuk.com

103
iepiouuction is a social affaii, always involving choices, negotiations anu some kinu of
inteipietation, so all infoimation fiom a iepiouuction is ieceiveu seconu-hanu.
44

A seconu poweiknowleuge imbalance fiom uistance anu pioximity comes fiom
the fact that those who uo attenu a uifficult-to-access site often have taken gieatei
lengths anu effoit to ieach it, which usually coiielates to having a gieatei vesteu inteiest
oi stake in the aichaeology. Foi a site like atalhoyk, the foieign (anu Tuikish)
aichaeologists who go to gieat lengths to obtain peimits anu visas, funuing, space anu
time in theii scheuules, among othei effoits in oiuei to physically visit oi woik at the
mounus anu uig house, usually have moie stake in the aichaeology anu the knowleuge
that is piouuceu theie. Impoitantly, they asseit theii stake by pbysicolly occupyinq the
site each summei anu actively influencing activities anu inteipietation taking place
theie, ueciuing what aichaeology to keep oi uestioy, simply because they have
occupying contiol anu authoiity ovei that physical space. Similaily, highly inteiesteu
gioups like the uouuess Community membeis who go to gieat social, economic anu
physical lengths to visit the site have gaineieu iespect, authoiity anu positive attention
(as well as negative attention in the foim of teiiitoiial uistain by local populations anu
aichaeologists who uisagiee with theii social behaviouis anu beliefs, see Webb 2uu2)
foi theii effoits to be physically piesent anu close to the site. The fact that physical
piesence anu pioximity incieases authoiity, anu that uistance fiom the site anu mateiial
uecieases authoiity, also ielates to temporol issues, uiscusseu below.
Foi those membeis of the aichaeological community anu the geneial public who
uo manage to physically attenu the site, the issue of pioximity to actual physical iemains
is compounueu by theii limiteu fieeuom of access aftei they aiiive on site. Nost notably,
peimissible site access is heavily contiolleu, both by the aichaeological pioject anu by
the Tuikish goveinment. Chain fences guaiu anu iestiict the bounuaiies of the site, anu
a guaiuhouse sits on the only open anu accessible gate. The fences piotect the iemains
fiom vanualism anu illicit collection, anu they pievent any unauthoiiseu visitation to the
site. Authoiisation is most heavily contiolleu anu iuleu by the Tuikish goveinment: only
team membeis with goveinment peimits aie alloweu to excavate anu live at the site;
anu the goveinment ueteimines who is alloweu on site, what mateiial they aie alloweu
to keep, anu wheie they aie alloweu to go at paiticulai times. Bowevei, in piactical fielu
aichaeology piactice, consent to access aichaeological space anu iemains comes uown
to peimissions unuei the contiol of high levels of the team hieiaichy (like uiiectoi Ian
Bouuei oi fielu uiiectoi Shahina Faiiu) anu the Tuikish site guaius baseu in the site

44
See Section 6.2.S foi uiscussion on fiist hanu anu seconu hanu knowleuge piouuction anu the
concept of epistemic uepenuence.

104
guaiuhouse anu the local village. Accoiuing to goveinment iegulations, all visitois anu
site aichaeologists must be escoiteu aiounu the site by Tuikish site guaius. This iesults
in all non-team membeis having theii physical (anu aiguably intellectual) expeiience of
the site explicitly uiiecteu anu contiolleu by theii site guiues, whethei they aie guiueu
by uiiectois Bouuei oi Faiiu, oi solely by the Tuikish site guaius.
4S

Buiing my fieluwoik, asymmetiies in executive authoiity weie obviously
manifest in the way the stiict Tuikish guaiu-accompaniment iule was ielaxeu foi some
inuiviuuals in eveiyuay piactice. Foi example, in 2uu9, it was common anu obviously
allowable foi Ian Bouuei oi Shahina Faiiuas well as a hanuful of team membeis who
hau been woiking at the site foi a veiy long timeto walk up to the site mounus
unaccompanieu by a Tuikish guaiu oi iepiesentative. Foi a new team membei like me,
oi even a specialist who was only ietuining to the site foi a seconu oi thiiu yeai with
little business on the mounus, it woulu be impeimissible to visit the mounus alone aftei
woiking houis. Inappiopiiate access coulu leau to being kickeu off the pioject. While
some iules weie negotiable oi coulu be ielaxeu (see next section), otheis weie not, such
as the ban on caiiying of unauthoiiseu mateiial off the site.
46
Buiing the quiet woiking
houis of the non-excavating fielu season, it was possible foi ceitain people oi gioups
foi example, the conseivation teamto get away with attenuing the site without a guaiu
if it was obvious that they hau woik they neeueu to uo at the uig site. Buiing active
excavation woikuays, theie weie enough high-level supeivisois anu uisiuption of the
mounus that only non-team membeis neeueu to be escoiteu by site guaius oi uiiectois.

4.S.1.2 Fxecutive onJ leqol Consent
As intiouuceu above, buieauciacy anu teiiitoiial iights complicate uiiect access
to the physical site mateiial iemains at atalhoyk. Executive powei ovei space anu
mateiial at atalhoyk is a mattei of owneiship, anu the Tuikish goveinment holus
absolute authoiity ovei the site mateiials uue to its poweiful owneiship claim. Bespite
being almost entiiely filleu with Neolithic iemains, atalhoyk sits on geogiaphical
space that is the soveieign teiiitoiy of the Republic of Tuikey, anu uue to socio-

4S
See Section 4.S.1.S foi fuithei uiscussion on this point.
46
In his dissertation, gradate student Oguz Erdur recounts an announcement made by Shahina Farid in
2005, and I was given a similar mandate in 2009: We are constantly being watched! [Farid]
explained, Always be polite and answer all questions. If you pick something up from the ground, do
make sure to throw it back. It is forbidden to import archaeological or geological finds out of Turkey. If
you get caught with something you yourself might consider unimportant, a piece of stone or obsidian,
just anything, you might get blacklisted. Youd never be allowed into this country again (Erdur 2008:
75).

105
histoiical anu geogiaphical ieasons, it is linkeu to the countiy's heiitage. The
goveinment ie-stakes this claim yeaily with by uoling out peimits, visas anu
peimissions of access to foieign aichaeologists anu visitois to the site, anu the
goveinment asseits the high stanuaius of piactice that one must woik unuei if they aie
alloweu to iemain. Tuikish goveinment officials (woiking off-site, in consulates anu
goveinment auministiation) have ultimate authoiity ovei the peimissions foi who is
alloweu peimits to stay on site anu uig into the eaith, anu who is alloweu to take
mateiial off the site anu out of the countiy foi ieseaich puiposes. Famously, in one fielu
season when the political climate between uieece anu Tuikey was paiticulaily tense, all
team membeis of uieek citizenship who applieu to woik at Catalhoyk that yeai weie
uenieu visas by the Tuikish goveinment. No ieasons foi this action was given by the
Tuikish goveinment, but it is ieasonable to suimise that this was a political move
having nothing to uo with the inuiviuual uieek woikeis anu eveiything to uo with laige-
scale national politics (atalhoyk team membei, peisonal communication 2uu9).
0fficially, the Tuikish national iepiesentatives who live on-site alongsiue the
team have the executive authoiity to ueciue who can touch what, when, wheie anu how.
Regaiuing aichaeological iemains, it is the on-site Tuikish iepiesentative who ueciues
which aitefacts aie sent to the Konya anu Ankaia museums, anu what stays behinu at
the uig house to be stuuieu oi left in stoiage. All mateiials consiueieu inteiesting oi
impoitant aie mobiliseu anu change status at the point of a fingei of the Tuikish
iepiesentative in the uig house: they eithei become piizeu museum objects, in special
neeu of conseivation anu attention to uetail foi uisplay, oi they become seconu-class
aitefacts in neeu of peimanent stoiage, put away in the uaik anu only seen by
aichaeologists who incluue them in theii uata.
Bespite the iigoious iules anu executive contiol by Tuikish officials, in actual
piactice the movement of the team anu the authoiity of the site's opeiation is nuanceu
anu complex. Bouuei anu his team aie given woik peimits with ielative ease, uue to the
high-piofile natuie of the site.
47
To my knowleuge, othei than the now infamous ban on
uieek woikeis, no othei qualifieu applicants to atalhoyk who have been pie-
appioveu by Bouuei's pioject team have been uenieu access. By uenying uieek

47
In his PhB, the Tuikish stuuent 0guz Eiuuui tells Ian Bouuei in an inteiview that: "I uon't
think this pioject is pione to being closeu uown at all |by the Tuikish goveinmentj, as you
suggest you sometimes aie afiaiu of. That is, of couise, unless some huge anu unfoieseen scanual
happeneu somehow. But I uon't think that feai is necessaiily too well-funueu since, |atalhoyk j
feeus veiy much into the whole uiscouise of 'our contiibution' to the stuuy of the human past. It's
the flagship of that uiscouise actually. You aie helping the ministiy enoimously, feeuing into that
uiscouise anu the piiue that theie is this woilu-famous multi-national pioject we'ie hosting in
oui countiy anu these foieigneis founu oui countiy, this site in oui countiy, significant enough to
poui so much money into this business" (Eiuui 2uu8: 262).

106
excavatois anu specialists access to an aichaeological site, Tuikish nationalists in the
buieauciatic hieiaichy weie flexing theii muscles, making a veiy obvious statement
about theii executive authoiity in oiuei to asseit a political point. Yeais latei uuiing the
2uu9 season when I was piesent, the Tuikish goveinment hau pioposeu new laws that
woulu "iequiie that each excavation season last at least 4 months anu that a Tuikish co-
uiiectoi be appointeu foi each uig" (Baltai 2uu9). This announcement appeaieu to be, at
least at the outset, moie a mattei of ieu tape, changing little actual piactice oi executive
stiuctuie on site; the Tuikish uiiectoi was moie about a uisplay anu asseition of
executive iight anu authoiity. This auueu piesence was moie a ieasseition by the
Tuikish authoiities that they contiolleu aichaeological teiiitoiy in the iegion, anu that
foieign aichaeologists weie theie by peimission only. It was unueistoou uuiing my time
at atalhoyk that, at any time, the Republic of Tuikey coulu ueciue to take the contiol
of the excavation entiiely out of the hanus of the foieign teams woiking theie.

4.S.1.S Fpistemic onJ lntellectuol Access onJ Consent
Access to an aichaeological site anu its mateiial cultuie is also a necessaiy pait
of epistemic authoiity anu pait of the knowleuge piouuction piocess. Because
knowleuge is piouuceu thiough social anu mateiial means, a scientist must have some
uegiee of access to mateiialagain, the closei the betteiin oiuei to justify his oi hei
own hypotheses anu conclusions. When I fiist aiiiveu on site at atalhoyk, about a
thiiu of the way into the 2uu9 fielu season, the impoitance of the authoiity of consent
anu access in ielation to aichaeological space anu mateiial became paiticulaily
appaient. 0n my fiist uay, I aiiiveu alone by taxi anu set foot in the uig house in the
miuule of a noimal, bustling woiking uay at the site. Because Ian Bouuei was not
piesent at the site, anu because the fielu uiiectoi Shahina Faiiu was busy, a woman
nameu }ules, who was the Finus Auministiatoi, gave me an initial intiouuction to the
site.
}ules woikeu out of the ciucial Finus Room laboiatoiy (see Section 2.2.S), so she
was an iueal oi pivotal peison foi sociol occess to the site. Because of hei position as the
Finus Assistant, }ules hau executive anu epistemic access to all of the uig house
laboiatoiies, because hei job was to uistiibute uiffeient aitefact types to the uiffeient
labs. All mateiial fiom the excavation sites went uiiectly to hei uesk in the Finus Room,
then she ie-uistiibuteu the mateiial out to all of the othei laboiatoiies by type. This
maue the Finus Assistant something of a executive 'gatekeepei' of all mateiial on site.
This gatekeepei iole gianteu hei a goou ueal of executive authoiity to contiol, giant oi

107
iestiict the movement of mateiials thiough the uig house. }ules, paiticulaily, was also a
chaiismatic peisonality anu a ietuining team membei (see Section 4.S.S, below),
iesulting in hei holuing 'social capital' with othei team membeis. This chaiismatic
authoiity gianteu hei moie social access anu influence with othei team membeis than,
foi example, a peison like me who was aiiiving foi theii fiist uay. Bei peisonal histoiy
as a ietuining team membei gave hei stiongei ioots on the site, so she natuially helu
moie social authoiity than me. The fact that }ules took me by the hanu anu intiouuceu
me to vaiious membeis of the laboiatoiies, anu to otheis in iecieational spaces like the
site bai, meant that I was gianteu sociol occess anu given geneial social consent to be on
the site. I was also given a space to sleep, met my ioommates, shown the appiopiiate
places foi woik anu socialisationessentially, I was gianteu some social authoiity to
inteiact with otheis in this community anu cultuie of aichaeologists thiough the social
intiouuction given by }ules the Finus Assistant.
I founu that social consent to access physical anu social space in an
aichaeological pioject is ciitical foi two ieasons. Fiist, aichaeology is a social anu team-
baseu activity, anu thus intiouuction anu social consent is necessaiy in oiuei to access
any epistemological anu physical activity in the fielu. Seconuly, social consent is a vital
gateway to executive consent, allowing a peison fieeuom of access to mateiial. To
expanu on this last point, }ules's intiouuction to the site was a tacit consensual
agieement that I was a new anu shoulu leain the new social iules anu my place in this
social cultuie, but also iecognition that I was now an incluueu team membei. I was given
a space to woik in a laboiatoiy, anu a space to sleep anu eat in the accommouation;
theieby I was gianteu physical access to the piivate team spaces of the uig house. This
consent to access the piivate spaces anu woik aieas of the uig house was a key step into
my allowance of access. It was tacitly unueistoou that I helu less executive authoiity
than the otheis upon aiiiving, by the simple fact that I was iequiieu to gain social
consent to access these teiiitoiial spaces in the uig house.
Bowevei, even this giant of social consent anu social access still uiu not give me
any iights to access aichaeological mateiials, oi to use woikspace anu to inteiact with
people uuiing woik houis (iathei than in off-woik social houis). I still neeueu consent
of access given by a gieatei epistemic anu executive authoiity in the site hieiaichy, by
someone with moie authoiity than }ules. It was not until seveial houis latei that same
uay that I met in moie uetail with Shahina Faiiu, the camp anu fielu uiiectoi, anu only
then uiu I obtain moie executive occess to the site. }ules openeu social consent foi me to
be at the site anu to inteiact in social spaces. It was Faiiu, though, who was accepteu by
otheis at the site as being the ieal gatekeepei foi executive anu authoiitative access to

108
aichaeological mateiial anu woiking spaces, uue to hei high position in the site
hieiaichy as camp managei.
48
Faiiu assigneu me a uesk foi woik, anu she intiouuceu
me to the main office anu to most of the excavatois woiking in the same laboiatoiy as
my uesk space. Since this consent to woik was given by one of the top membeis of the
site hieiaichy, it affecteu the uegiee of executive occess I hau at the site. At this point, I
was not only given a social place, but also a woik space so that I coulu 'uo aichaeology'
alongsiue the iest of the team. It was a veiy physical intiouuction anu gianting of limiteu
authoiity to access the site, the mateiials anu the othei team membeis woiking theie.
This peifoimance of gianting anu gaining consent foi executive access to mateiial was
also obvious at latei times that season, such as uuiing the stait of the excavations, when
I was given moie oi less authoiity to touch specific aichaeological mateiial oi to
excavate in paiticulai places when I woikeu unuei the uiiection anu authoiity of my
tiench supeivisois.
Finally, aftei my conveisations with Ian Bouuei, I was gianteu moie executive
anupaiticulailyepistemic occess to the site. Shoitly aftei aiiiving, I spoke with
Bouuei about my ieseaich anu ieasons foi being at the site (I was an attenuing team
membei who hau askeu to join the pioject, iathei than a team membei who hau been
sought out by the pioject to join foi a paiticulai puipose). Buiing oui conveisations,
Bouuei seemeu to accept my epistemic ieasons foi being on site anu to accept my
ieseaich questions as valiu ones. When it became cleai to Bouuei that conuucting
obseivations anu inteiviews woulu be my cleaiest path to answeiing some of these
questions, he intiouuceu me to seveial key team membeis whom he thought might give
me epistemological (anu peihaps mateiial) access to what I was seeking. Piactically, this
consent involveu Bouuei walking with me to a few laboiatoiies anu physically
intiouucing me (peisonal piesence, hanu shakes anu heau nous) to those team
membeis, who in tuin agieeu to speak with me. It was an infoimal anu casual affaii.
Bowevei, this veiy physical anu uiiect consent with team membeis gieatly facilitateu
my access to both people anu mateiial uuiing woiking houis. Aftei the intiouuction anu
epistemic consent by the site uiiectoi, I founu that team membeis weie latei much moie
likely to put asiue what they weie woiking on in the moment anu make themselves
ieauily available to inteiview. Impoitantly, foi my own ieseaich, a complete cocktail of
executive, epistemic anu sociol consent maximiseu my authoiity (oi potential foi

48
It shoulu also be noteu that theie was yet anothei stage of 'iesistance anu accommouation'
(Pickeiing 199S) in the consensual piocess of aichaeological access. While Faiiu was able to
giant me consent to access mateiial on a high level, it was still up to inuiviuual specialists in
specific laboiatoiies to giant me access to aichaeological mateiial that they weie actively using
oi foi things that they might have expeitise on hanuling (i.e. a bioken pot unuei conseivation).

109
authoiity) on the site, anu alloweu me the closest accessanu gieatei fieeuom to
accessaichaeological mateiial, oi at least talk closely with the expeits who uiu have
that fieeuom of access. I confiimeu that, stiuctuially, authoiity opeiates thiough such
gatekeepeis who can giant oi fuithei consent to access physical anu epistemological
space.

U>F>A $2K843 #337DD 6-1 !0-D7-.
A high level of public involvement anu uemociatic (oi 'multivocal') contiibution
has long been a concein at atalhoyk. Ian Bouuei has aigueu that "Suboiuinate gioups
who want to be involveu in aichaeological inteipietation neeu to be pioviueu with the
means anu mechanisms foi inteiacting with the aichaeological past in uiffeient ways"
(Bouuei 1992: 186). Along these lines, in piactice, Bouuei has instituteu inteiactive
public touis of the atalhoyk excavation site, has establisheu outieach piogiams foi
local anu school gioups anu has suppoiteu community piojects, foi both aichaeological
communities as well as the geneial public. In the 2uu9 fielu season alone, the site
welcomeu a visualisation pioject team iun by image expeit Stephanie Nosei fiom
Southampton, a summei school pioject foi local Tuikish schoolchiluien that piomoteu
cultuial heiitage awaieness, a collaboiative paiticipatoiy community ieseaich pioject
on sustainable aichaeology iun by specialist Sonya Atalay fiom the 0niveisity of Illinois,
which incluueu a pioject using local women's community gioups anu inteins fiom the
neaiby village of Kkkoy, as well as suppoiting geneial community anu aichaeology
ieseaich by inuepenuent scholais anu giauuate stuuents (Aichive Repoit, atalhoyk
Reseaich Pioject 2uu9: 162-179).
Bowevei, in the 2uu9 fielu season, while obseiving some of the visiting gioups, I
felt that most weie moie passive spectatois than 'active witnesses'
49
engageu in
inteiactive oi multivocal inteipietation. Two active public gioups caught my paiticulai
attention when I visiteu the site anu illustiate this point: one was a 'casual public' gioup,
anu the othei might be calleu a 'close inteiest' gioup. To explain the fiist, I obseiveu two
sets of Ameiican schoolteacheis who weie visiting atalhoyk on a teachei-stuuy toui
with the Tuikish Cultuial Founuation. These schoolteacheis hau a casual inteiest in the
site; many of them taught piehistoiy to young stuuents in Ameiica, anu the Tuikish
Cultuial Founuation gave them an immeisive pan-Tuikey toui that taught them about

49
The concept of 'active witnessing' is uiscusseu by uabiiel Noshenska (2uu9).

110
Tuikish histoiy anu piehistoiy. Fiom speaking with the piogiam oiganiseis, I leaineu
that atalhoyk hau consistently been on the piogiam touis foi seveial yeais.
When I attenueu the teacheis' touis, given by Shahina Faiiu anu Ian Bouuei,
iespectively, on two sepaiate occasions in 2uu9, the Teacheis' inteiaction with the site
was almost entiiely that of passive spectatois. They weie fiist shown the visitoi Centie.
Shahina Faiiu (anu Ian Bouuei with the next gioup) supplementeu the uisplays with a
lectuie, anu then showeu them the insiue of the expeiimental hut, again supplementing
the lack of uisplays with a lectuie. The teacheis weie then taken up to the mounus anu
they walkeu aiounu the caiefully maikeu visitoi paths anu weie shown the uisplays.
They weie also given lectuies unuei the two main excavation shelteis. These lectuies
weie inteiactive only insofai as the teacheis weie willing to ask questions, anu when
questions weie askeu, they weie usually given a piompt anu uiiect answei. When the
gioup was taken aiounu the site, they weie lectuieu to with the uefeience of a
teacheistuuent ielationship. The peison giving the lectuie, again usually Ian Bouuei
anu Shahina Faiiu, suppoiteu this authoiity anu stiuctuie by often physically sepaiating
themselves fiom the public gioupwith the gioup stanuing on platfoims above the site,
but the lectuiei stanuing uown on Neolithic giounu, physically accessing the iemains
|Figuie 6j. 0nuoubteuly this setup was aiiangeu foi ieasons of safetyfoi both the
public anu foi the conseiveu aichaeology. The iesult of hunuieus of visitois accessing
the giounu woulu be uisastious to the Neolithic iemains anu ill-auviseu foi
aichaeological conseivation. Bowevei, iegaiuless of the necessity oi intent, the outcome
ceitainly ieinfoiceu typical authoiitative stiuctuies of piofessionalpublic
inteipietation on site. This public gioup in this context was peihaps not pioviueu with
the "means anu mechanisms foi inteiacting with the aichaeological past in uiffeient
ways" (Bouuei 1992: 186), anu this teacheistuuent anu inteiactionspectatoi setup
was typical of most gioups that I obseiveu who came to visit atalhoyk that season.
This is a point which, along with iaising issues about contiol anu authoiity of
access, also iaises connecteu issues with the postpiocessual authoiity of the site (see
Section 4.1.2). Pievious uebate in the fielu has questioneu the 'talk' veisus 'action' of the
atalhoyk postpiocessual piogiam, anu situations like this teacheistuuent
aiiangement of public uisplays anu lectuies at atalhoyk aiguably unueimine theii
own authoiity in postpiocessual aiguments foi multivocality. 0n the one hanu, the
public was given intimate access to the experts of the piojectthey weie guiueu by the
site uiiectoi, foi instance, who is one of the highest expeits at the site, with his intimate
knowleuge of the pioject anu as the peison who holus gieatest executive authoiity of
anyone besiues the Tuikish iepiesentative. But the public was not given access to the

111
physical iemains themselves, noi given the oppoitunity to inteipiet the past in theii
own ways, oi to offei theii voices to the piesumeu 'multivocal' mix. The question iaiseu
by such an aiiangement is, what exactly uo we mean by giving people outsiue of the
aichaeological community "the means anu mechanisms foi inteiacting with the
aichaeological past in uiffeient ways". atalhoyk is famous foi technologically opening
its boiueis anu bounuaiies thiough such 'means anu mechanisms' as the publically
available website, anu the BACB SeconJ life viitual woilu ieconstiuction. Bowevei, this
is always seconuaiy access to uata anu yet anothei step iemoveu fiom the
'inteipietation at the tiowel's euge'. This is a pioblem long iecogniseu by Ian Bouuei in
his own theoietical liteiatuie, but which, to my obseivation in 2uu9, hau not been fully
uealt with oi negotiateu by Bouuei oi his coie team, beyonu the initial outline of a
pioblem, at least iegaiuing geneial oi casual public gioups.

O492/7 ^+ "0117/ 94P4-9 6 D4.7 .02/ .0 .76357/D 0- 6 %2/J4D5 !28.2/68 O02-16.40- %02/>
!"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$>

A seconu public gioup that I obseiveuwho I call a 'close inteiest' gioupwas
given moie involveu anu intimate inteiaction at the site. Examples of a 'close inteiest'
gioup incluueu membeis of the local Tuikish community, whose close association with
the site meant the pioject was moie inclineu to open bounuaiies anu encouiage

112
inteiaction, as well as othei gioups like the uouuess Community. I founu notewoithy
inteiactions between the atalhoyk team anu a uouuess Community gioup that visiteu
in the 2uu9 fielu season. The uouuess Community is aiguably both a suboiuinate anu a
stakeholuei gioup, anu a gieat ueal has been wiitten about theii involvement with the
site uuiing Bouuei's excavations (Webb 2uu2; Rountiee 2uu7). In }une 2uu9, a small
gioup (seven oi eight people) on a Nothei uouuess toui came to the site, anu it was
cleai that they hau phoneu aheau to scheuule a time to visit. When they fiist aiiiveu,
they weie waimly (anu ielatively intimately) gieeteu anu then given toui of the
mounus, much like the Ameiican teacheis. Bowevei, unlike the teacheis, they weie also
alloweu back into some 'piivate' aieas of the uig house, such as the back vegetable
gaiuen anu the uining hall. They weie also offeieu tea anu welcomeu to sit at the lunch
tables, anu an inteiactive uiscussion about site mateiial took place. The composition of
this gioup uiscussion incluueu the seven oi eight membei uouuess toui gioup, Shahina
Faiiu, myself, anu latei Scott Bauuow, a team aichaeologist.
0ne of the notable exchanges of this gioup uiscussion ievolveu aiounu a human
skull that hau iecently been 'ieuiscoveieu' by a team membei who was inventoiying
}ames Nellait's human iemains collections fiom the 196us. This skull was iemaikable in
that it hau been staineu with biight ieu pigment. Initially the team thought the pigment
was common ieu ochie, but aftei the skull hau been analyseu using PXRF machine (oi,
as one team membei uesciibeu it to me, "was zappeu with the science fiction lasei that
tells you its mineial composition"), the team uiscoveieu that the pigment was actually
cinnabai, a common oie of meicuiy that woulu have been poisonous to piocess anu
hanule |Figuie 7j. This inteiesting scientific conclusion hau only been ieacheu in the
pievious few uays, so Shahina Faiiu biought the skull to the attention to the uouuess
gioup as they weie casually uiinking tea in the uining hall. The offhanu mention tuineu
into a table uiscussion that incluueu topics like whethei oi not cinnabai was caiiieu on
the silk tiaue, whethei oi not silk was tiaueu in the Neolithic, anu what kinu of
symbolism coulu be maue fiom the pigment maik on the ieu Nellait skull. Aichaeologist
Scott Bauuow, who hau founu the skull uuiing his inventoiy, was calleu to the table, anu
he biought his computei full of images of the skull to show the gioup. The gioup askeu
the aichaeologists many questions about the mineial makeup of the pigment anu the
finu, anu in tuin they tiieu to offei inteipietations. It was notewoithy that the uouuess
gioup was given moie intimate team infoimation anu finuings that woulu not have been
tolu to most public gioups. Bowevei, they weie not given access to the oiiginal human
iemains: they saw only photogiaphs on Scott's computei, even though the oiiginal
mateiials weie sitting in a neaiby ioom. This was a cleai communication of executive

113
authoiity by both the aichaeologists, but also by the Tuikish authoiities, who have a
histoiy of tension with the uouuess Community anu who may not have likeu them
accessing aichaeological mateiial (Webb 2uu2).
0ne of the moie inteiesting (anu peihaps steieotypical) exchanges between the
team anu the uouuess gioup involveu a uouuess gioup woman who was at that time an
anthiopology piofessoi at Nichigan State 0niveisity. Aftei biiefly examining the photos,
the uouuess membei suggesteu that the cinnabai was useu foi healing puiposes,
because the stiipe acioss the biow is on a veiy eneigetic pait of the bouy anu that many
cultuies highlight that aiea of the bouy foi healing puiposes. Scott pointeu out that the
pigment was painteu ovei anu into the eye socket, which inuicateu the peison was ueau
anu ueflesheu befoie being painteu. This causeu the woman to pause anu think, anu a
few moments latei she insisteu that peihaps the Neolithic owneis coulu have painteu
the skull anu then put it on a shelf in the house anu still kept it as a symbolic oi eneigetic
object that iepiesenteu healing. Scott anu Shahina Faiiu weie unconvinceu. Bowevei,
this was an example of an inteipietive negotiation of uata anu an epistemic engagement
by the uouuess community, an exchange between the gioup anu aichaeologists. Foi me,
this exemplifieu a situation wheie the pioject attempteu to give a suboiuinate oi public
gioup gieatei access oi the "means oi mechanisms" to actively engage with mateiial.
Bowevei, when obseiving this inteiaction, I iealiseu that the uouuess gioup was given
only access to seconuaiy photos of the mateiial anu access to the expeits who hau been
piivy to the oiiginal mateiial. I still felt that foi the most pait these two gioups weie
uoing a gieat ueal of talking, a goou amount of listening, but theie was little
absoiptionoi uesiie to cieate an agieeu account of the paston eithei siue. The
aichaeologists helu the cleai authoiitative giounu anu weie not inteiesteu in giving
much space foi alteinative inteipietations, othei than making suie the 'close inteiest'
gioup felt iespecteu anu weie given attention that went above anu beyonu an aveiage
public gioup, like the Ameiican teacheis.
In tuin, the uouuess gioup uiu not seek access to the oiiginal mateiials, although
some membeis of the gioup seemeu to have a uefeatist attituue when it came to
inteiaction anu inteipietation. 0ne gioup membei iecalleu to me, foi example, an
instance when hei colleague hau maue an aitistic bannei to be placeu in the museum,
but the bannei cuiiently sits hiuuen in a uiawei in the uig house. When explaining this
to me, the uouuess membei iecalleu the bannei with a positive tone anu attituue, but
then this memoiy leu to a less positive uiscussion about the histoiical lack of inclusion
of uouuess mateiial anu inteipietations in the site's visitoi Centie. A uouuess gioup
membei tolu me that, in the oiiginal uesign of the museum, theie was no inclusion of

114
any alteinative inteipietations, anu so theii gioup contesteu (paiticulaily by wiiting
comments in the visitoi book). Theii effoits anu contestation weie iewaiueu, anu the
aichaeological team soon uesigneu a fieestanuing inteipietive panel, which then was
placeu on a tempoiaiy easel in the ioom (as opposeu to on a fixtuie moie peimanently
attacheu to the wall). The tempoiaiy natuie of the fieestanuing uisplay, iiggeu on the
collapsible easel, was noticeable when I visiteu in 2uu9. In a latei conveisation with
Shahina Faiiu, she confiimeu this account, but auueu that when the team auueu the
uisplay panel in the museum aftei complaints, the uouuess community was still not
entiiely happy, since the team hau useu phiases like "Nothei uouuess Woishippeis"
insteau of appaiently moie appiopiiate teims "uouuess Community". The team then
coiiecteu this mistake by piinting the coiiect woius onto white sticky papei anu then
physically sticking the new woius ovei the olu woius on the panel.
Foi me, this account of sticky-tapeu woius anu banneis hiuuen in uiaweis
offeieu a tangible example of the physicalspatial uimensions of inteipietive
contestation involving site access. At atalhoyk, the aichaeologists' attempts to engage
in multivocality with the uouuess community manifesteu in small-scale physical anu
mental powei stiuggles. The atalhoyk team asseiteu its authoiity ovei both physical
iemains anu inteipietation in its iestiiction anu accommouation of uig house space.
They easily iepiesenteu a paiauoxical piactical aiiangementthey seemeu to think it
was "ieasonable to abanuon abstiact objectivity anu make tiials of iesistance
commensuiable.Talk to people, unueistanu them, peisuaue if necessaiy; insteau of
pationising them by playing expeit" (Shanks anu Bouuei 199S: 2u). Bowevei, they uiu
so by foicing a setting wheie the uouuess gioup felt iespecteu, but wheie no one was
foolish enough to think that the aichaeologists weie attempting to engage in a uialogue
of commensuiability oi weie not 'playing expeit'. In this setting, the lines weie cleaily
uiawn, anu the aichaeologists asseiteu theii inteipietive authoiity ovei mateiial things
anu physical space.


115

O492/7 _+ $50.0 0< .57 $64-.71 QJ288M .6J7- K: Q30.. "6110@M </0H .57 AWWX #/354P7 '7N0/.
\Y6.685Z:[J '7D76/35 $/0G73. AWWX+ =A_]>

4.S.2.1 Public,Privote Bomoins onJ tbe Norrowinq of Access
In geneial, public space at atalhoyk was obviously sepaiateu fiom the iest of
the woiking space in the uig house. A small baiiiei uooi not only uiviueu the public
fiom the expeits, but also (whethei intentional oi not) singleu out a status anu uivision.
Access to the uig house anu aichaeological mateiial was physically naiioweu by how
much executive authoiity you hau on the site. Fiist, theie was the baiiiei uooi, which
only ceitain visitois weie alloweu past uuiing woiking houis.
Su
Alloweu visitois
incluueu the Tuikish locals who weie involveu in the community paiticipation piojects,
the uouuess Community gioups anu touiing aichaeological teams fiom neaiby sites
(such as the pioject team unuei the uiiection of Nicholas Postgate), the teachei-stuuent
gioups in univeisity-level aichaeology piogiams, anu inuepenuent ieseaicheis in
aichaeology who weie contemplating futuie ieseaich at atalhoyk. All of these gioups,
it shoulu be stiesseu, neeueu to have pieviously scheuuleu appointments to access moie
piivate aieas of the site beyonu the baiiiei uooi. Casual visitois anu othei non-
univeisity-level teachei gioups weie iaiely alloweu access beyonu the baiiiei. Even
when the special inteiest gioups, such as othei aichaeological teams oi the uouuess
gioups, weie alloweu access beyonu the baiiiei, they weie geneially kept out of the labs
anu stayeu in the public living anu iecieation spaces, like the uining ioom, the veianua
anu the seminai ioom. Pait of this contiol ovei space anu teiiitoiy was uue to the

Su
Enteitainment gioups, such as visiting Whiiling Beivishes, weie alloweu past the baiiiei uooi
uuiing non-woiking houis.

116
authoiity exeiteu by the Tuikish goveinment anu the Tuikish iepiesentative on site;
howevei, anothei pait of this iegaiueu puie epistemic anu executive authoiity helu by
the team membeis, who wanteu peace anu no one botheiing them while they woikeu.
Even if you maue it past the baiiiei uooi anu helu the blessing of the
goveinment, space anu access on site still naiioweu uepenuing on who you weie.
Publicpiivate access to oll of the laboiatoiies, foi example, was the uomain of only high
membeis of the 'site hieiaichy' like Faiiu oi Bouuei. Foi otheis, laboiatoiies weie
tacitly iestiicteu to woikeis in theii own iespective laboiatoiy teams. Foi example, as
an ethnogiaphei, I was given a uesk anu space to woik in the seminai ioom with the
fielu excavatois. I unueistoou this to be my woiking uomain, anu this was the one
laboiatoiy that I hau the authoiity to access without question oi comment. Bowevei,
when I woulu entei the Faunal oi the Buman Remains laboiatoiy, it woulu uiaw
significant attention, anu I woulu neeu to state ieasons foi my intiusion, because I hau
no ostensible authoiity to be theie.
When I askeu membeis of the pioject team to explain theii feelings about this
kinu of teiiitoiiality on site, most of them weie initially ieluctant to comment, oi woulu
begin commentaiy on intellectuol teiiitoiy anu publishing iights. This ieluctance uiu not
come fiom sensitivity to teiiitoiiality, but iathei the oppositethey uiu not notice the
tight uivision of space anu uomains until it was pointeu out to them, because theie was
an unueilying assumption that this was simply the way space shoulu be uiviueu anu
opeiateu in an aichaeological opeiation.

U>F>F %7HN0/684.:
A final uivision of space that shoulu be mentioneu is that of temporolity, which
offeieu a veiy palatable uivision of authoiity at atalhoyk while I was on site in 2uu9.
Tempoiality is a sense of space too: a uay is uiviueu by the timing of events, the
movement of things anu people, anu moments of appiopiiate behavioui. The most
ielevant issue iegaiuing tempoiality hau to uo with the uuiation oi numbei of times
that any given excavatoi oi membei of the public (like the uouuess Community) hau
visiteu the site. Longei uuiation oi iepeateu visits to the site incieaseu the executive
anu epistemic authoiity of any peison. 0ne excavatoi tolu me that she felt that status on
site often "moie oi less uiviueu by the people who have been heie foi a while anu the
people who haven't" (ietuining team membei, peisonal communication 2uu9). Nany of
ieseaicheis, such as myself, weie only on site foi one fielu season anu weie new to the
pioject community. 0theis hau been with the pioject almost fiom its inception,

117
ietuining yeai aftei yeai, basing theii entiie caieeis on theii annual atalhoyk
ieseaich. It was cleai that ietuining ieseaicheis, whethei on theii seconu yeai oi theii
tenth, geneially hau moie social anu executive authoiity, as they hau been able to gain
social cuiiency with moie ietuining membeis, anu they hau gieatei expeiience with the
iules anu inteiacting in the physical pioject space. They also often hau moie epistemic
authoiity as well, since theii expeiience with the site anu mateiial was accumulative
ovei time. While the team 'lab heaus' weie ultimately in chaige of theii own laboiatoiy
spaces, in some cases othei matuie anu ietuining team membeis who weie not official
'lab heaus' seemeu to holu almost equal authoiity anu status on site. This was
paiticulaily the case with some membeis of the faunal anu human iemains labs. The
coiielation seemeu to be that gieatei time at the site equalleu gieatei expeiience, anu
gieatei expeiience leu to gieatei expeitise, anu gieatei expeitise leu to gieatei
epistemic authoiity, which in a scientific pioject like atalhoyk, equateu to gieatei
piesence anu executive authoiity to access social anu physical spaces.
While the woiu 'teiiitoiiality' was sometimes uebateu in my inteiviews, the iuea
that theie was a uivision of status anu social oiuei at atalhoyk baseu on piesence
permonence veisus tronsiencewas not uebateu. atalhoyk is an unusually laige
opeiation, with as many as a hunuieu official team membeis uiifting in anu out of the
uig house each fielu season, each with uiveise anu complex inteiests anu ieasons foi
being on site. The instability of so much uiveisity anu movement has been commenteu
upon befoie. In 2uuu, Shahina Faiiu wiote, "Instability within the pioject was seen to
iesult fiom seveial factois: the constant change of peisonnel on a yeaily basis, anu
thioughout the season the aiiival anu uepaituie of uiffeient teams woiking to theii own
scheuule. Also the methouologies themselves" (2uuu: 27). In hei commentaiy, Faiiu is
ciitical of so much movement, aiguing that the uestabilizing "was founu to be unneiving
anu unsettling" anu that "The 'fluiuity' in the wiitten iecoiu, howevei, iesults in big
uiffeiences in iecoiuing fiom one yeai to the next, iequiiing constant ievision of
pievious seasons |sicj uata anu at some stage this piocess may become incompatible"
(2uuu: 27). She points out that "Bouuei inteipiets this as a goou thing, aiguing that:
"'.a lack of stability is necessaiy if a ciitical appioach is to be taken anu if the pioject is
to iemain iesponsive to a changing woilu aiounu it'" (2uuu: 27; Bouuei 2uuu).
S1

Regaiuless of the implications foi methouology oi inteipietation, the constant
movement of new team membeis, who came anu woikeu alongsiue the constant
piesence of otheis that hau maintaineu a continuity woiking theie, cieateu a social

S1
See Section 4.4.4 foi fuithei uiscussion on Bouuei's piactical actions on the theoiy of
instability in inteipietive piactice.

118
oiuei anu hieiaichy baseu on peimanence veisus tiansience. The sense of peimanence
manifesteu in things as basic as cups in the sink of the uig house teaioom. Those who
weie ietuining to the site hau peisonal mugs oi cups, while new team membeis hau to
foiage foi a mug to have tea, anu they hau to quickly leain which mugs weie off-limits
because some team membeis weie teiiitoiial if anothei team membei useu theii
peisonal mug. Eventually, new team membeis who stayeu with the pioject long enough
puichaseu theii own mugs anu kept them in the teaioom, claiming social space as theii
own. Netaphoiically, this sense of physical teiiitoiy anu space opeiateu in similai ways
in the laboiatoiy anu in epistemological space. Retuining team membeis hau often
pieviously stakeu claims to uesks, methouologies anu social hieiaichies, anu they hau
ceitainly stakeu expeiiential claims as to what 'went on befoie' anu 'how things aie
uone' on site.
Also, the instability of constantly ieintiouucing new team membeis to methous
as well as social anu woik spaces iesulteu in a constant teachingappienticing piocess
at the site. Buiing excavation, the ietuining senioi excavatois hau to constantly uevote
some of theii time to tiaining not only the untiaineu fielu school unueigiauuates fiom
Stanfoiu 0niveisity, but also hau to teach any expeiienceu excavatois who weie joining
the atalhoyk pioject foi the fiist time how to excavate accoiuing to atalhoyk
methous anu piotocol. While Bouuei might have intenueu, oi might aigue, that this
constant ie-teaching of methous woulu enable constant team inteiaction with the
piocess by which stuuents weie taught, theiefoie enabling ieflexive uialogue with
methou, I founu the opposite to actually be taking place. Insteau, I founu that the
constant ie-teaching of methous iathei secuieu those methous fiimly anu
authoiitatively in place. The constant ie-teaching soliuifieu a piocess by which people
saiu 'this is the way we teach newcomeis' anu 'this is what we uo at atalhoyk', theieby
blackboxing methous into stable 'ways things aie uone' iathei than opening them to any
ieflexive consiueiation.
Foi methouology anu epistemology, this manifesteu in two notable ways: one
was the way that the laboiatoiies weie splinteieu into 'pous' with unique woik cultuies,
anu anothei was the way that time affecteu inteipietation, both methouologically anu
on a final 'final piouuct' level. Regaiuing the foimei, a goou example is how the Faunal
laboiatoiy opeiateu. In 2uu9, the Faunal lab was almost militaiistic in uetail, anu veiy
well oiganiseu. The team opeiateu unuei stiict opeiation pioceuuies anu iules. Boxes of
new faunal iemains woulu come into the faunal laboiatoiy fiom the Finus Room, anu
then go thiough a iigoious scientific piocess of sciutiny anu iecoiuing. They hau a flow
chait of appiopiiate piotocol, with 'checking' moments when authoiities (supeivisois

119
oi team leaueis) weie iesponsible foi assessing whethei oi not pioceuuie hau been
followeu appiopiiately at ceitain levels, oi whethei inteipietations by moie junioi
membeis weie accuiate at ceitain points of the woik flow |see ieu boxes in the faunal
pioceuuial flow chait, Figuie 8j. This iobust team stiuctuie opeiateu much uiffeiently
than, say, the Conseivation laboiatoiy, which was also a multi-peison team, but which
hau a much moie fluiu anu uemociatic pioceuuie. At some point, Bouuei suggesteu to
me that the Faunal lab was stiuctuieu this way because of the peisonalities who weie
involveu, in all likelihoou iefeiiing to the 'lab heaus' who oiganiseu the Faunal lab
authoiity anu cieateu the flow of piactice.
Such a stiuctuie showeu how ietuining membeis anu longei uuiations of time
spent with mateiial cementeu authoiity in a specific laboiatoiy cultuie. I woulu aigue
that this authoiity accumulateu natuiallyiepeateu inteiaction with familiai mateiial
stabiliseu inteipietations, anu authoiity was gaineu thiough this time-gaineieu ability
to iuentify mateiial in the appiopiiate categoiies. Fuitheimoie, I woulu aigue that this
militaiistic stiuctuie anu hieiaichy of authoiity in the Faunal Laboiatoiy uevelopeu
somewhat natuially because of the type of mateiial involveu. The iuentification of faunal
iemains is entiiely categoiicalit involves the uelibeiate soiting of bones into pie-set
gioups, which aie uevelopeu fiom an unueistanuing of bones fiom known mouein
animals. The key to faunal iuentification is peisonal expeiience in iecognising the
uiffeience between bones as similai as those of, say, a goat anu a sheep (which is so
uifficult that at atalhoyk, they often get lumpeu into a 'sheepgoat' categoiy if the
specialist is unsuie, oi if the skeletal iemains aie less complete). This ability to
unueistanu the pie-set categoiies anu the ability to accuiately iuentify unknown, newly
founu iemains uevelops with expeiience, anu expeiience uevelops ovei iepeateu
inteiaction with mateiial ovei time. It is no wonuei that the ontological setting in this
scenaiiothe type of mateiial, anu the type of activity involveu in being 'faunal
specialist' in the Faunal Laboiatoiyuiiectly enableu anu constiaineu the way peisonal
anu institutional authoiity accumulateu thiough time in this specific laboiatoiy cultuie.
Buiing my stay at the site, it was also suggesteu that 'time' (paiticulaily ielating
to the extent of expeiience anu uuiation of time at the site) also affecteu the inteipietive
piocess anu the site philosophy as a whole. 0ne example emeigeu fiom a uiscussion
with a team membei who hau been ietuining to the site foi a numbei of yeais. In one
conveisation, he mentioneu that theie weie eaily attempts at atalhoyk foi site 'labels'
to be neutialiseu uuiing excavation iecoiuing piacticein othei woius, if a team founu
a giant waste pit oi founu a fiieu cooking space, these aieas weie initially supposeu to
be calleu 'pits' iathei than 'miuuens'. A teim like 'fiie installation' was supposeu to be

120

O492/7 e+ O62-68 N/03712/68 <80@ 356/.M 2D71 K: .57 Y6.685Z:[J <62-68 86K0/6.0/: .76H>
*0.7 .57 /4941 D./23.2/7 6-1 .57 /71 K0L7D @4.5 d3573JN04-.Dd> ,. 4D 68D0 D49-4<436-. .0 N04-.
02. .57 -0.6.40- 0- .57 D417 <0/ .57 3573JN04-.D+ f41768 g H0/7 <0/ -7@ N70N87f> O6H4846/4.:
@4.5 H6.7/468D 6-1 H7.501D K/771D D.6K484.: 6-1 62.50/4.: 4- .57 J-0@87197 N/0123.40-
N/037DD> I5*))1 6"#$ 5#,*$)6' #7 $") 8+$+2"9':; ()+3 =+$+&+6) +*5"-K)>

121
useu iathei than the teim 'oven' oi 'heaith', because of the stiong connotations attacheu
to the lattei woius. The iuea was that, by using moie open language, team membeis
coulu cognitively keep associations between featuies anu woius open foi gieatei
inteipietive flexibility anu ieflexivity. Bowevei, the team membei aigueu that ovei time
the site aichaeological mateiial hau become iepetitive anu familiai, so that when the
team ian acioss such featuies, they thought they weie cleaily miuuens anu ovens.
Because of theii familiaiity with the iecuiiing mateiial, the team hau abanuoneu most
of the 'open' categoiies anu hau collapseu back into using these specific categoiies like
'miuuen' oi 'oven'.
In this case, I woulu aigue that the uuiation of time that the whole pioject hau
spent at the site hau cieateu a familiaiity with the aichaeology, anu this hau causeu a
funuamental shift in methouology anu inteipietive piacticea stabilising effect. While
the open categoiies might have been a goou expeiiment at the beginning of the pioject,
the iecuiiing physical piopeities of the mateiial cieateu a stabilising authoiity of the
inteipietations themselves. I woulu aigue that any fuithei use of 'open' categoiies in
such a scenaiio woulu only become new teims foi the same mental categoiies oi
inteipietations. In such a case, the physical mateiial uiiectly limiteu oi constiaineu any
inteipietive categoiy that might be useu oi uevelopeu. Authoiityin both the iuea of
inteipietive categoiies anu in the inteipietive piocessmanifesteu thiough this
stabilisation, wheie time anu familiaiity only fuithei cementeu an unueistanuing of the
physical iemains.
Anothei example of how the authoiity of time uuiation at the site hau affecteu
inteipietation involveu an instance when the excavation fielu team was iunning thiough
pievious seasons' woik in theii lab uuiing the stuuy season. When iunning thiough the
pievious yeai's uata anu the Baiiis Natiix chaits, one team membei iuentifieu an
opening in one of the Neolithic walls, which appeaieu to be an access leauing out into an
outuooi giounu space. She was having uifficulty explaining this opening without calling
it an 'access' oi a 'uooi'. atalhoyk is famous foi its naiiative uesciibing exotic
Neolithic houses that weie built with no stieets oi siue uoois, with the builuings only
accessible fiom small openings in the ioofs. 0n this occasion, the fielu excavatois hau an
infoimal uiscussion about this mysteiious opening in the wall. The aiea on the wall
appeaieu to be built without biicks, but they coulu not agiee that the space was a
uooibecause (they kept insisting) atalhoyk hau no uoois. At one point, one of the
excavatois mentioneu that Shahina Faiiu was "quite cioss" at the mention of a possible
siue access uooi, because 'atalhoyk cultuie hau no stieets'. This iuea hau been
ingiaineu anu establisheu thiough many yeais of expeiience anu fieluwoik. It appeaieu

122
that Faiiu hau saiu with authoiity that this was not a stieet, because theie weie no
stieets, because in the long histoiy of the pioject no stieets hau nevei been founu. The
gioup ultimately useu the woiu "heiesy" to (jokingly) uesciibe this uebate, anu aftei a
peiiou of momentaiy uiama anu humoui, the issue was put to iest with uiffeient (anu
less contioveisial) teiminology, anu the atalhoyk iecoiu was spaieu of any fuithei
mention of stieets oi siue uoois. This example iepiesenteu the authoiity of familiaiity,
the authoiity of iepetition that the mateiial hau ovei inteipietation, anu the authoiity of
those who hau gieatest executive contiol at the site because of theii long uuiation of
expeiience with that mateiial.
In both of these cases, the inteipietive outcome of scientific piactice manifesteu
fiom a netwoik of opeiations between people anu mateiials. Inteipietations anu
accounts weie stabiliseu by the authoiity of those who hau expeiienceu the site fiist-
hanu foi a long uuiation of time, fiom iepeateu ontological inteiaction with
aichaeological mateiial that was iepetitive in natuie, theiefoie allowing iecognisability,
anu finally, fiom the negotiation of authoiity between the vaiious team membeis who
weie assessing oi inteipieting that mateiial. Bighei status peisonalities (team leaueis
oi othei expeiienceu ietuining team membeis) hau authoiity that was often baseu in a
longei uuiation of time anu expeiience with the site, which iesulteu a stiong piesence
anu gieatei epistemic powei ovei the piouuction of knowleuge.

U>F>U ?-0@4-9 h02/ $8637+ %57 $0@7/ 0< QN637M Q./23.2/7 6-1 B4P4D40- 6.
Y6.685Z:[J

At atalhoyk, people coulu establish a footholu of authoiity in thiee ways. Fiist,
a kinu of piagmatic authoiity coulu be gaineu by quickly leaining the ioutines of the site
oi place in a laboiatoiy. By socially anu iitually integiating, a peison coulu builu
peisonal status anu ieputation as a competent inuiviuual, leauing to gieatei authoiity.
In uaily piactice at atalhoyk, eveiyone on site hau a niche anu a space, anu they
quickly leaineu the appiopiiate ioutines anu languageat the iisk of appeaiing
'aimless' if they uiu not peifoim. At one point in the 2uu9 season, a few of the Stanfoiu
unueigiauuate fielu school stuuents weie founu to be 'goofing off' anu avoiuing woik.
0ne of the (authoiitative anu longstanuing) lab specialists mentioneu that this
behavioui coulu affect the stuuents' feeuback anu iecommenuations by othei team
membeis. The specialist continueu explaining that atalhoyk, like many excavation
teams, often opeiateu as a watchful, tacit social 'panopticon' (hei woiu), wheie
eveiyone is awaie of eveiyone else at any given point of time, assessing theii

123
tiustwoithiness anu competence. While this might be a uiamatic inteipietation, in
actual piactice, authoiity on site uiu appeai to opeiate in a watchful fashion: while on
the one hanu, team membeis with the titles like 'leauei' oi 'uiiectoi' uiu elicit an
appiopiiate authoiity anu following baseu on theii institutional positions, othei
membeis weie simply iegaiueu as moie competent oi able anu hau been consistent in
gaining status anu authoiity by viitue of uoing the appiopiiate actions foi a significant
uuiation of time. In the 2uu9 season, the Stanfoiu stuuents who acteu as enthusiastic
anu able appientices gaineu gieatei authoiity ovei the couise of the season, which
manifesteu in how they weie tieateu anu what iesponsibilities they weie given, while
those who slackeu off weie often uiscusseu as having pooi woik ethic, theii authoiity
anu social status lessening ovei time.
Nost impoitantly, such authoiity opeiateu within the pbysicol anu structurol
opeiation of the site. Authoiity was most likely to be quickly accumulateu by a team
membei who was consistently peifoiming the appiopiiate behaviouis of a competent
aichaeologist. Such behavioui legitimiseu theii self-piesence, because they weie
woiking coiiectly within the stabiliseu methouology at the site. Authoiity was even
moie quickly anu wiuely gaineu if they hanuleu mateiial in ways that otheis at the site
ueemeu was appiopiiate. Authoiity was less likely to be gaineu when a peison
unueimineu social stiuctuies, cieateu new oi innovative inteiactions, oi testeu
bounuaiies. Any behavioui involving iisk oi change, especially when it involveu the
hanuling of piecious aichaeological mateiial, was not well-ieceiveu anu woulu likely not
iaise the authoiity oi status of a peison on site.
People coulu also establish a footholu of authoiity by builuing a sense of alteiity
veisus self. Alteiity went beyonu the categoiisation of people as 'piofessional' oi
'alteinative' anu involveu the uefinition of space, peisons, piactices anu authoiity on the
site into inclusiveexclusive categoiies. uioups weie uiviueu by teams, specialisms,
laboiatoiies anu sometimes even by nationalities. This happeneu often acciuentally, but
also intentionally. By acciuentally, I iefei to the way some age gioups anu piofessional
gioups weie often foimeu by viitue of who one might ioutinely inteiact with on a uaily
basis, often a piouuct of scheuules that hau happeneu to align, oi woik space that was
ianuomly assigneu to team gioups. Retuining team membeis (fiom pievious yeais of
excavation) often ate at the same lunch table because of fiienuships that hau uevelopeu
ovei time, anu laboiatoiy gioups often staiteu anu stoppeu woik at the same time,
theiefoie bonuing as a 'pou' anu cieating socially exclusive units. At atalhoyk, fielu
excavatois weie mostly Biitish, theiefoie a 'Biitish gioup' was veiy piesent on site, as
weie the 'Stanfoiu stuuents' gioup fiom Ameiica who weie uniteu by age, nationality

124
anu expeiience |see photo in Figuie 9j. Again, gioups like those of specific nationalities
weie often foimeu somewhat acciuentally, uespite the ieality of theii extant categoiy
anu exclusive bonu. The Biitish fielu excavatois, foi example, weie often askeu to join
the pioject because of pie-existing socialwoik netwoiks, fiom a cuiient team
membei's peisonal knowleuge of a foimei colleague's competence anu goou piactice.
0n a moie uelibeiate level, sometimes entiie atalhoyk teams intentionally stuck
togethei in social anu woik settings, such as the West Nounu Team. The West Nounu
Team woulu, foi the most pait, woik togethei, eat togethei anu socialise togethei,
mostly uistinct anu sepaiate fiom the iest of the East Nounu Team. This uivision was
cieateu because of the veiy ieal geogiaphical uistance that sepaiateu the East anu West
Nounus in the atalhoyk lanuscape, anu it impacteu the social anu inteipietive
exchange that occuiieu between these two gioups. This kinu of 'cultuie cieation' is not
unique at atalhoyk; Coinelius Boltoif iecoius veiy similai scenaiios at his excavation
site at Nonte Polizzo in Westein Sicily, wheie he aigues that "Leaining such iules of the
game, oi tacit knowleuge, can be of ciucial significance" in youi ability to succeeu as an
aichaeologist (Boltoif 2uu6). At atalhoyk, the social anu spatial inteiaction between
such gioups uiiectly affecteu what peisons oi specialisms weie piesent in any given
physical space at any given timeanu impoitantlythis inteiaction affecteu what iueas
anu intellectual mateiials weie exchangeu uuiing social anu woik houis.


125

O492/7 X+ B6/.D @4.5 I/4.4D5 6-1 #H7/436- -6.40-68 <869DM 6-1 6 %2/J4D5 K77/> %57D7
D:HK08D 0< /73/76.40- 68D0 /7N/7D7-.71 D0H7 0< .57 14P4D40-D K754-1 9/02ND .56. @0/J71
6D .495. 2-4.D 0- D4.7> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

Finally, theie was a uistinction in space anu stiuctuie between those who weie
aichaeologists, anu those who weie notpublic veisus piivate, expeit veisus novice,
obseivei veisus paiticipant. Regaiuless of intent, vaiious public gioups weie physically
sepaiateu in space (see Section 4.S.2, above), which piomoteu olterity. Because the site
was uiviueu in public veisus piivate spaces, it naiioweu anu coulu be limiteu in access.
This leu to a uistinct 'us' veisus 'them' feeling that peimeateu when public gioups
visiteu the site. The uouuess Community, foi example, while welcomeu anu actively
incluueu in the site, weie still pait of an entiiely uiffeient social anu intellectual gioup.
Both gioupsaichaeologists anu the uouuess Communitystuck togethei anu kept
within theii own bounuaiies when they visiteu the site, anu only team membeis like
Shahina Faiiu anu Scott Bailow, who weie scheuuleu to talk with them oi who weie
specifically inviteu, attenueu them. Aftei the uepaituie of the uouuess uioup, many of
the othei atalhoyk team membeis weie exciteu to heai that the uouuess gioup hau
visiteu anu weie cuiious, but alteiity seemeu to keep the two gioups fiom mingling at
any othei time. Such alteiity anu social bounuaiies extenueu beyonu just subaltein
gioups like the uouuess community, extenuing even to piofessional gioups that came to
visit. 0ne notable example was an aichaeological team of a neaiby excavation iun by

126
Nicholas Postgate fiom Cambiiuge, which incluueu many postgiauuate anu
unueigiauuate stuuents. Like the uouuess community, they weie alloweu back into the
moie piivate aieas of the uig house, incluuing the uining ioom anu weie given biief
touis of the labsanu also like the uouuess community, theii expeiience was contiolleu
anu heavily guiueu in space anu time, anu theii access anu uuiation at the site was
limiteu. This was paitially uue to the stiict iules anu watchful eye of the Tuikish
goveinment iepiesentative, but also uue to the natuie of the site as a woiking space
wheie people uiu not want to be botheieu. In some cases, this was also aiguably because
innei-ciicle team membeis enjoyeu the fiuits of being an acauemic whose woik anu site
was woith witnessing, anu who appieciateu the hieiaichical sepaiation that comes fiom
who is alloweu to be a paiticipant veisus just a viewei in that setting.
A main outcome of my obseivation anu fieluwoik at atalhoyk was that space
anu the physical consent anu stiuctuie of any expeiiential plane can gieatly auu oi
ueciease inuiviuual oi gioup authoiity baseu puiely on who executively contiols oi
naiiows the access of that physical space. Contiol of space uiiectly affects the
piouuction of knowleuge. Who is alloweu to get closest to mateiial anu who is alloweu
to engage with expeits oi non-expeits uiiectly affects what uialogues even have the
oppoitunity to aiise. Bouuei himself has toucheu on this subject befoie, by iecognising
that "inteipietation begins at the tiowel euge" (i.e. that moie uiiect anu physical ieach
of the mateiial in question bieeus moie 'close' anu aiguably moie 'accuiate'
inteipietation, lenuing the paiticipant moie authoiity). Bowevei, uespite
acknowleuging this, a iecognition of the way piofessional authoiity is octuolly operotinq
has been little uiscusseu. 0utieach piogiams may be uesciibeu anu celebiateu by the
pioject in theii newsletteis anu aichive iepoits (Atalay 2uu9), but the basic
funuamentals of bow one peison is physically enableu to touch mateiial while anothei
peison is not, anu how such a uiffeience actually effects inuiviuual anu collective
authoiity in the constiuction of knowleuge, I founu to be a hazy anu skimmeu subject at
the site. This lack of iecognition of the octuol operotion of physical things, the mateiial
natuie of inteipietation, anu the accumulation of authoiity was also piesent in the
inteipietive piocess as well as the methouological setup of the site. The next section
uiscusses this in moie uetail.


127
U>U ,-D3/4N.40-M %/6-D86.40- 6-1 I863JK0L4-9+ #2.50/4.:
4- .57 Q08414<436.40- 0< '7N/7D7-.6.40-D 4-.0 #3302-.D
U>U>= #2.50/4.: .5/0295 .57 Q.6K484D6.40- 0< $/63.437D
In aichaeology, the piouuction, exchange anu consumption of acauemic
messages involve a numbei of social piocessesnotably, inscription, tronslotion anu
blockboxinqwhich affect the way knowleuge stabilises into soliuifieu, authoiitative
'final piouuct' veisions of oiiginal fluiu anu piocessual iueas. Scholais like Biuno Latoui
(1987) anu Nichael Callon (1986) coineu these teims fiom theii obseivations of natuial
scientists at woik in the fielu anu laboiatoiy. lnscription is the act of cieating new
mateiial piouucts that iepiesent the actions anu iueas behinu the social piouuction of
knowleuge. Foi example, in aichaeology, the cieation of site iecoius, like elevation plans
oi uIS maps, foimalise oi insciibe a moment of excavation activity, theieby iepiesenting
a foui-uimensional souice (mateiial iemains excavateu at a specific moment of time) as
a two-uimensional text oi illustiation. Tronslotion is the piocess by which vaiious actois
engage with, negotiate anu make choices about how to use an iuea, aitefact oi a moment
to benefit theii own aims oi auvantage. Foi example, a uouuess Community membei
anu an aichaeologist might each inuiviuually view a female figuiine founu at atalhoyk
anu tianslate theii own meaning anu inteipietation of that object foi theii own
puiposes. By tianslating the figuiine to the auvantage of theii own view of the
ontological anu social woilu, they fuithei auvantage theii own authoiitative positions
within theii own social gioup. Blockboxinq is the piocess in which methous anu
insciiptions become set as an authoiitative stanuaiu oi noim, a 'way of uoing ieseaich'
which goes unquestioneuuntil something goes wiong oi contestation biings issues
about the way a system opeiates to the foiefiont. This section expanus the example of
atalhoyk in oiuei to auuiess the way these thiee piocesses can opeiate in the
uiscipline of aichaeology. It also highlights wheie anu how authoiity impacts the
inteipietation of aichaeological knowleuge thiough these methouological piocesses.
Anuiew Pickeiing likens the social piouuction of knowleuge to an inteiactive
stiuggle between human anu mateiial agents, wheie "scientists aie human agents in a
fielu of mateiial agency.|anu wheiej human anu mateiial agency aie iecipiocally anu
emeigently inteitwineu" (199S: 21). It is thiough this iecipiocal inteiactionsocial
piactices involving the ioutines of examination, obseivation, uata-collection, analysis,
piesentation anu publicationthat "things get peifoimeu (anu peifoim themselves)
into ielations that aie ielatively stable anu stay in place" (Law 1999: 4). Stabilising
knowleuge into authoiitative accounts is an active anu peifoimative piocess, wheieby

128
the fluiu actions anu ielationships of scientific activity become stabiliseu into foimal
enu-piouucts. Like in the Aichive Repoit fiont page photogiaph |Figuie 1uj, wheie
human anu mateiial agents aie inteiacting within pieuefineu space, it is thiough
peifoimeu activity itself that knowleuge is constiucteu.

O492/7 =W+ O/0-. 30P7/ N50.09/6N5 0< .57 AWWX Y6.685Z:[J #/354P7 '7N0/.> ?-0@87197 4D
63.4P78: N7/<0/H71 .5/0295 .57 N/037DD7D 0< 4-D3/4N.40- 6-1 ./6-D86.40- \Y6.685Z:[J
'7D76/35 $/0G73. AWWX]>

U>U>A #2.50/4.: 4- ,-D3/4N.40- 6-1 %/6-D86.40-+ Q08414<436.40- .5/0295
'7N/7D7-.6.40-M !4/3286.40- 6-1 ;0K484D6.40-

The piouuction of texts oi iepiesentations is often iefeiieu to by Science anu
Technology Stuuies (STS) ieseaicheis as the piocess of inscription. In aichaeology,
textual oi iepiesentative piouucts, like museum uisplays oi aichive iepoits, aie
fiequently the most stable outcomes of oui knowleuge piouuction piocess. To
paiaphiase Law, inscriptions aie the systems anu peifoimances that iesult in new
mateiials. New mateiials aie seen to be ielateu to 'the oiiginal substance' of the
scientific activity, but aie seen to be things that summaiise oi 'insciibe' the oiiginal
activities anu mateiials into new foims (Law 2uu4: 2u). These new foims aie the 'enu
piouucts' that emeige fiom scientific activitythe most notable of which aie texts. The
focus of much pievious STS ieseaich has been on the scientific piouuction of texts. As
}ohn Law wiites, "Eneigy, money, chemicals, people, animals, instiuments, tools,

129
supplies, anu papeis of all kinus, move into the laboiatoiy. At the same time, people anu
(uiffeient) papeis anu maybe instiuments, togethei with uebiis anu waste, move out.
Lookeu at as a system of mateiial piouuction, then, the majoi piouuct of the laboiatoiy
tuins out to be texts" (Law 2uu4: 19, emphasis in oiiginal).
In aichaeology, like in natuial science, we cieate texts fiom oui scientific
activity: site iepoits, scientific iepoits, scientific jouinal aiticles anu books. In
aichaeology we also piouuce othei mateiial enu-piouucts to supplement oi extenu
beyonu oui texts, such as maps anu illustiations, site plans anu elevation chaits,
museum uisplays anu physical ieconstiuctions, all of which aie insciibeu new 'piouucts'
that aie baseu on oiiginal mateiial, which infoim 'knowleuge' about the past. The
aichaeological piactice of inscription iegaius "all the types of tiansfoimations thiough
which an entity becomes mateiializeu into a sign, an aichive, a uocument, a piece of
papei, a tiace.They aie always mobile, that is, they allow new tianslations anu
aiticulations while keeping some types of ielations intact" (Latoui 1999: Su6-Su7).
Pivotal activities of aichaeological woik involve the piouuction of insciiptions like
notes, uiawings, images, texts anu uatabases.
A classic example is the uiscoveiy of a pot in an excavation. Aftei its uiscoveiy,
the pot's uimensions aie fiist uiawn into a site plan anu iecoiueu on a context sheet by
an excavatoiinsciibeu into a new two-uimensional papei iecoiu anu image. The pot
may be iemoveu anu its context may be uestioyeu, but insciiption iemains as a mateiial
iepiesentation oi 'knowleuge' about that moment of time. In some cases, the actual pot
may go into stoiage, while the insciiptions aie stuuieu in post-excavation woik, with the
only iefeiences to the oiiginal pot in a uatabase iecoiu oi uIS systemfuithei
insciiptions. Latei, when the uatabase numbeis, photogiaphs anu uIS uata of the pot aie
tuineu into uesciiptive text in an acauemic aiticle, it is yet again insciibeu in the new
foim of a text. The pot has tuineu fiom a mateiial aitefact into a viitual insciiption; it is
now a tangible text, but a viitual ieality. Such insciiptions unueipin the entiie notion of
what it is 'to uo aichaeology' anu what is 'the aichaeological iecoiu'. We have come to
iely heavily on insciiptions foi oui eveiyuay uiscouise anu oui inteipietive piactice
(Bateman 2uu6). An insciiption can be utiliseu foi an aiiay of uiffeient puiposes that
extenu beyonu the oiiginal mateiial fiom which it is baseu. Foi example, a site plan
captuies a moment of excavation in time, iecoiuing in a moie uuiable iepiesentation
something that will soon be uestioyeu. A site plan is also something that is
compaiatively mobile, unlike, say, the oiiginal excavateu Neolithic plastei flooi that it
iepiesents. A plan can be copieu anu uistiibuteu to a fai gieatei numbei of peopleanu

130
thus the value an insciiption comes uown to its iepiesentational anu mobile
impoitance.
The use, powei anu authoiity of insciiptions often comes uown to theii
ielationship to tronslotion, an activity that often actively uses insciiptions. Biuno Latoui
explains that the concept of tianslation "iefeis to all the uisplacements thiough othei
actois whose meuiation is inuispensable foi any action to occui.actois mouify,
uisplace, anu tianslate theii vaiious anu contiauictoiy inteiests" (Latoui 1999: S11).
The teim tianslation iefeis to the activity wheieby actants (people, things, aitefacts,
machines, tokens, anything in a netwoik) aie changeu so that they can woik with oi
against one anothei, foige alliances anu geneially ciiculate. Tianslation is a piocess oi
activity thiough which executive anu epistemic authoiity is effectively built, changeu oi
unueimineu by vaiious human anu mateiial actois.
In the 2uu9 fielu season, I obseiveu two majoi types of tianslation at
atalhoyk. 0n the one hanu, theie was the physical ciiculation anu tianslation of things
anu people. I highlighteu some of these negotiations involving space, stiuctuie anu
access in the pievious section in this chaptei. Thiough the tianslation of physical
thingsthat is, thiough an inuiviuual's negotiation of theii own ielationship to things,
othei people anu theii unueistanuing of social anu physical spacepeople at
atalhoyk aiticulateu the woilu aiounu them, managing theii own place within the
site's social oiueis anu hieiaichies, anu manipulating aitefacts anu insciiptions to
maximise benefit to theii own aims anu goals.
Foi example, in oiuei foi an aichaeologist to gain authoiity, he woulu always
hanuleoi tianslatean aitefact in such a way that it woulu maximise benefit to his
own peison. An unueigiauuate appienticing stuuent, foi example, might simply make
suie that he excavates an aitefact in the most logical anu safest way possible, hanuling it
unuei the appiopiiate piotocol anu with caie, then piopeily insciibing a iecoiu of the
finu in the site uatabase befoie stoiing it piopeily in the stoiehouse. By tianslating an
aitefact in such an 'appiopiiate' way, this stuuent gains authoiity. 0theis highei in the
site hieiaichy might note his skill anu competence, iaising his epistemic authoiity in the
eyes of his peeis, anu eventually they may giant him moie executive authoiity to access
the site if he shows continueu competence with aitefacts. Similaily, the stuuent's tiench
supeivisoi woulu manage the aitefact thiough (anu above anu beyonu) the stuuent,
manipulating it in such a way that the iecoiu of the aitefact was insciibeu piopeily in
the site uiaiies oi was appiopiiately uocumenteu in the enu-of-season Aichive Repoit,
which might be in hei chaige. Fuithei uown the line, a site specialist might physically
stuuy the oiiginal object, oi peihaps just insciiptions (like site plans, photogiaphs,

131
uiagiams, etc.), anu then iefeience the object in a iepoit oi jouinal aiticle. The
specialists' aim in this situation woulu be to ally themselves to the objects anu to the
insciiptions of those objects in oiuei to cieate eviuentiaiy suppoit foi a laigei
intellectual inteipietive aigument about the Neolithic past. By uoing this, the specialist
woulu tianslate the aitefact into something biggei anu moie poweiful: an
inteipietation, pait of a laigei account of the past, a 'contiibution to knowleuge'.
Similaily, Ian Bouuei as uiiectoi may take the textual accounts of the aitefact wiitten by
the specialists (he may sometimes also look at the oiiginal object, oi sometimes only use
the inuiiect insciiptions of that object) anu make even laigei 'meta' inteipietations
about the Neolithic past. These meta inteipietations woulu, again, appeai as insciiptions
in 'final piouuct' books oi iepoits. The tianslation of the insciiptions fiom 'nothing' into
'something impoitant' woulu maximise the authoiity of all of the mateiials involveu: the
oiiginal finu, the eviuentiaiy insciiptions, anu the final piouuct text itself. This act of
tianslation woulu also place a gieat ueal of weight anu tiust upon the aichaeological
methouologies anu piocesses of insciiption involveu, lenuing status anu authoiity to all
of those inuiviuuals who hanuleu the mateiial, cieateu insciiptions, anu tianslateu
mateiial along the way.
This lattei point touches on the seconu majoi type of tianslation that goes on at
atalhoykthat of tianslating the aichaeological site piofile itselfmaximising
benefit to the pioject itself thiough a high uegiee of ciiculation anu tianslation of what I
woulu call 'atalhoyk as an Insciiption'. What I mean by this iegaius the fact that
atalhoyk anu Ian Bouuei both have a high uegiee of 'name bianu' ciiculation in
acauemiaspecifically in acauemic aienas that uebate how aichaeology is theoietically
anu methouologically piacticeu at the site. This name iecognition iegaius both }ames
Nellaait's past sensational cultuial-histoiical piactice, as well as Ian Bouuei's piesent
postpiocessual school. Because the site has such a high piofile anu high uegiee of
ciiculation,
S2
the site itself has become a label oi an insciiption that has been utiliseu
anu tianslateu by vaiious acauemics foi theii own benefit anu authoiity. Aichaeologists
woiking at the site gain authoiity thiough theii exposuie anu ability to uiscuss 'what
actually happens' with methou at atalhoyk anu can 'expeitly' uiscuss the Neolithic
mateiial iemains that they aie now familiai with. ulobal aichaeologists in the classioom
also use the sitebecause it is high-piofile anu thus moie easily known oi

52
Oguz Erdur recounts in his PhD: There are more archaeologists here per square meter than
anywhere else in the world, its been claimed. (Certainly mockery.)Envy and mockery accompany
interest and attentionI myself was scoffed at by an elderly archaeologist: Oh dear! Why arent I
surprised? Seems like, everybodys going to Everybody-knows-land nowadays! (Erdur 2008: 557).


132
iecognisableas leveiage in uebates foi oi against postpiocessual methous anu theoiy.
Such elevateu attention aiounu the site seems to have iesulteu in two things.
Fiist the site, by viitue of a high piofile anu its insistence on gieatei
methouological tianspaiency, has geneiateu a gieat numbei of uiffeient types of actois.
Because Bouuei invites anthiopologists anu geneial sciutiny, anu aigues foi 'new
methous' to be implementeu in a postpiocessual piogiam that is claimeu to be 'moie
iight' than otheis, the atalhoyk pioject has attiacteu people who engage with the site
mateiial foi uiffeient ieasons anu who insciibe things in uiffeient ways. Foi example,
the PhB stuuent 0guz Eiuui attenueu the site in 2uu6 in oiuei to unueistanu Tuikish
iuentity anu to wiite a ciitical anthiopological uiaiy of site activity (Eiuui 2uu6; Eiuui
2uu8), anu Caiolyn Bamilton attenueu the site to unueistanu what she calleu
anthiopological 'fault lines' that iuptuieu between fielu excavatois anu specialists
(Bamilton 2uuu). Neanwhile, in 2uu9 giauuate stuuents Naiin Pillouu anu Sheena
Ketchum attenueu the site to stuuy Neolithic human iemains anu clay iemains,
iespectively, anu weie solely at the site to gain a uoctoial uegiee anu accieuitation foi
theii woik on iuentifying anu inteipieting Neolithic mateiial (Ketchum anu Boheity
2uu9; Pillouu 2uu9). I myself attenueu the site in the 2uu9 fielu season to stuuy the
movement of people anu things, with my own motivation to obseive site stiuctuies anu
authoiity, anu to giain uoctoial accieuitation foi my own woik. 0thei membeis like
Shahina Faiiu woiks yeai iounu on the pioject to both manage the elaboiate
uocumentation anu gioups of people, as well as to uig as a fielu excavatoi to leain moie
about the Neolithic past (Baltai 2uu6: 122-12S). Ian Bouuei openeu the site anu
continues to attenu the pioject because it iepiesents his piactical-theoietical piogiam
of postpiocessual excavation. This list iepiesents only a fiaction of the hunuieu oi so
excavatois, specialists anu membeis of the public who attenu the site each season. This
multiplication of people anu puiposes at the site has iesulteu in moie people in
attenuance, moie people tianslating the site foi theii own means anu puiposes, anu the
piouuction of moie insciiptions.
I founu this situation to be somewhat pioblematic, because a seconu iesult of the
site's postpiocessual methou meant that theie was also an explosion of insciiptions at
the site, uue to this encouiagement of multivocal inteipietations anu instability, an
active uesiie to inteiact with new meuiums anu methous. 0n the one hanu, I woulu
aigue that the state of having many insciiptions can be positive. Any peison wishing to
finu an insciiption of pievious mateiial can easily finu a host of insciiptions at the site
on any one finuuiaiy entiies, uatabase entiies, textual accounts, photogiaphs,
illustiations, uisplays, etc. They can use a plethoia of uocuments anu iecoius to examine

133
anu then tianslate mateiial accoiuing to theii own aims anu puiposes. Bowevei, I woulu
also aigue that this plethoia of 'stuff' is pioblematic. It has also iesulteu in 'too much'
uata oi insciiptions, too many accounts foi any one team membei oi even one whole
team to get a hanule on, fully uigest oi compiehenu. As aichaeologist Coinelius Boltoif
has noteu, the site has ieacheu a kinu of uata satuiation, wheie "Noie effoit goes into
managing the uocumentation than the site.People may spenu moie time watching
viueos of each othei anu navigating thiough huge aichives than looking at paiticulai
featuies of the site" (quoteu in Chanulei 2uu2). While Bouuei might actively encouiage
the activity of enuless insciiption because of his iuea that "a lack of stability is necessaiy
if a ciitical appioach is to be taken anu if the pioject is to iemain iesponsive to a
changing woilu aiounu it" (Bouuei quoteu in Faiiu: 27), I woulu aigue that a kinu of
entiopy ensues.
While Bouuei enuoises instability within his team anu his own site piactices
(Baltai 2u1u), he has iionically also aigueu the opposite point: that 'having things'that
is, cieating objects, aitefacts anu mateiial thingsbieeus a kinu of chaotic instability
(Bouuei 2uu9b). In his B.B. Young lectuie at the Association of Social Anthiopology in
the Commonwealth Confeience in Biistol 2uu9, Bouuei iefeiieu to instability anu things
in the Neolithic. Be aigueu that uuiing Neolithic, people began making many things, anu
that this intiouuction of mateiial possessions anu objects seemeu to bieeu a geneial
cluttei, seemingly making life moie unstable foi the inhabitants of Neolithic atalhoyk.
I woulu ask Bouuei, what is uiffeient fiom the Neolithic to now. Why woulu this
piinciple not apply to humans woiking touay, uoing aichaeology anu cieating
knowleuge. Why woulu having so many things not bieeu chaos touay, as he suggests
they uiu in the Neolithic, anu why woulu having moie instability anu moie insciiptions
leau to moie steauy, stable anu authoiitative accounts of the pastas he seems to
suggest in his aigument that "a lack of stability is necessaiy if a ciitical appioach is to be
taken" (Bouuei quoteu in Faiiu: 27). It can only be assumeu that Bouuei thinks that a
'ciitical appioach' anu 'instability' in this context iefeis to a kinu of consensus anu
stabilization bieu thiough ciitical peei ieview. Bowevei, by constantly bieaking apait
any consensus that uoes stabilize thiough peei ieview, by continually foicing instability
ovei anu ovei again, he seems to be unueimining his own authoiityanu the authoiity
of the site of atalhoyk as a iepiesentative of postpiocessual aichaeology. This is an
aigument that I will iefei back to in the conclusion of this chaptei (Section 4.S).
The question iemains: with such instability of 'too many things', too many
accounts anu too many peisons, what actually seems to be happening to inteipietation
at atalhoyk. Bo moie things anu moie accountsmoie things anu moie entiopy

134
make authoiity moie accountable. Boes the instability of piactice actually make the
piouuction of knowleuge itself a moie stable enteipiise. The next section ueconstiucts
these questions using specific examples fiom piactice at atalhoyk. I aigue that, while
atalhoyk uoes make goou on its woiu of cieating instability anu cieating multiple
pathways to knowleuge, it seems to simultaneously blui oi collapse the iuea of creotinq
of multiple inscriptions with the iuea of suppoiting oi even engaging with multivocolity.
What is in fact happening at the site is that while multiple insciiptions aie being cieateu,
only one tianslationoi moie coiiectly one seiies oi one pathways of tianslationis
actually being actively useu by the aichaeological team, as iegaius an authoiitative
account of the Neolithic past. In othei woius, only one authoiity oi authoiitative
pathway is piesent in a given 'final piouuct'. Bouuei has not aigueu against such
singulaily authoiitative pathways (in fact, he has aigueu veiy stiongly foi a kinu of one-
stanceu authoiity amiust a sea of alteinatives:
It uoes seem possible to aigue foi a ceitain authoiity but be involveu in a pluial,
multivocal uebate. It uoes seem possible to bieak uown bounuaiies, anu move to
netwoiks anu flows, without losing impact anu puipose. (Bouuei 2uuu: 14)

But in the same bieath, theie seems to be little acknowleugement by Bouuei oi his team
about whose ultimate authoiity is actually being stakeu anu claimeu in any one
situation. Theie has been no acknowleugement of the fact that theii plethoia of
insciiptions aie so many anu so gieat that they often get lost in a ciowu of 'too many'.
This usually iesults in the team collapsing back into a moie simple oi stieamlineu
accounting piocess, wheie they limit themselves to only ceitain insciiptions foi ease of
access, iesulting in something of a 'stanuaiu' (shall I even say, 'piocessual') scientific
piouuction of knowleuge. I aigue that ultimately at atalhoyk, any one peison ielies on
one convenient set of knowleuge insciiptions anu one pathway oi voice when
constiucting theii own peisonal unueistanuing of the site uata. This piocess of 'pathway
tianslation', anu a ieliance on simple anu uiiect authoiity, impacts the constiuction of
scientific knowleuge at atalhoyk.


135
U>U>F %57 %/6-D86.40-M $/0123.40- 6-1 !2//7-3: 0< '7N/7D7-.6.4P7 %54-9D+
%57 &L6HN87 0< .57 $86D.7/71 QJ288 I2/468

An example of such 'authoiitative pathway' tianslation in actual piactice at
atalhoyk can be seen in the case of the Plasteieu Skull Buiial.
SS
This case stuuy
exemplifies how a wealth of insciiptions (uocumentations, photogiaphs,
ieconstiuctions, textual accounts), baseu on mateiial iemains uiscoveieu in excavation
in 2uu4, became an authoiitative 'final piouuct' account of the past.
S4
The buiial was
biought to my attention in an inteiview with Ian Bouuei in 2uu9. In conveisation, he
mentioneu a specific exchange that hau occuiieu between himself anu a fielu excavatoi
eailiei that uay in the seminai ioom, which he iecogniseu as being an executive
authoiity issue. Accoiuing to Bouuei, an expeiienceu anu competent excavatoi was
examining uata fiom pievious fielu seasons anu was unsuie about how to inteipiet a
singulai instance of aichaeological iecoiuing. The excavatoi was checking iecoius fiom
the 2uu4 season, piepaiing the mateiial foi final inteipietation in the next seiies of
majoi site publications. This fielu excavatoi was a highly tiaineu piofessional but,
accoiuing to Bouuei, she seemeu to lack the confiuence in hei own authoiity to
inteipiet the past when the iecoiu seemeu unusual oi extiaoiuinaiy. So she hau calleu
in Bouuei anu Shahina Faiiu to authoiise hei inteipietation, to pioviue exteinal
confiimation anu uiiection (although Bouuei saiu to me that he thought hei opinion anu
inteipietation was equal to his own in this instance). In telling this stoiy, Bouuei
seemeu to be implying that he thought this case was of inteiest because of the way a
numbei of peisonality issuesinuiviuual peisonalities, the level of peisonal secuiity in
one's own inteipietive ability, the peisonal neeu foi valiuation by gieatei authoiities at
the sitecoulu impact authoiity anu the inteipietive iecoiu. Bowevei, I thought this
exchange was much moie inteiesting because of the way in which authoiity anu agency
affecteu the tianslation, inteipietation anu ieception of inscriptions, anu in the way

SS
I was not able to peisonally witness the actual uneaithing of these iemains in 2uu4. Bowevei, I
chose this example because of the wealth of olreoJy inscribeJ aichaeological iecoius of this finu
that existeu when I was fiist intiouuceu to it, as well as 'final piouuct' publisheu accounts of it
that alieauy existeu in books anu iepoits by 2uu9. I also hau access to some of the oiiginal team
membeis who excavateu, insciibeu anu initially stuuieu the mateiial when it was uneaitheu in
2uu4, anu who ielayeu theii accounts of uiscoveiy to me in inteiviews uuiing my fieluwoik.
S4
By 'final piouuct', again, I uon't mean to imply that any of the excavatois oi Ian Bouuei evei
thought that inteipietations of this buiial shoulu be unueistoou as an entiiely 'finisheu',
confiuent account oi a closeu book. But it was ceitainly tianslateu anu iepiesenteu as a polisheu
account in publisheu booksiepoits in oiuei to iepiesent an authoiitative anu stabiliseu
naiiative.

136
negotitation of authoiity uiiectly impacteu the piouuction of aichaeological of
knowleuge.
In oiuei to continue this line of aigument, I latei met with the fielu excavatoi,
who was still poiing ovei the iecoius. She tolu me that the pioblematic issue at hanu
iegaiueu the exact placement of a ceitain buiiala skeleton holuing the plasteieu skull,
which was uneaitheu in 2uu4. While ie-checking the 2uu4 Baiiis Natiix chait iecoius,
she hau iealiseu that the Baiiis Natiix anu seveial othei iecoius fiom the 2uu4 season
seemeu to suggest that the female skeleton (founu clutching a plasteieu skull, the only
plasteieu skull evei founu at atalhoyk) was buiieu fiist in a miuuen, anu then the
founuations of a house weie built on top of the buiial |see Appenuix C foi a sample of a
Baiiis Natiix chaitj. The excavatoi knew that this sequence was unpieceuenteu at
atalhoyk, because buiials weie usually cut uiiectly into plastei platfoims insiue of
houses that weie alieauy builtnot cut into miuuens, oi unuei whole house
founuations. A miuuen cut with this unusual buiial of a woman with a plasteieu skull
meant this buiial was a uniqueoi as the team latei inteipieteu it, impoitantevent.
The fielu excavatoi checking the iecoius wanteu to make suie she was "getting the uata
iight" befoie it became soliuifieu in the iecoiu (peisonal communication 2uu9).
Theiefoie she calleu in 'highei authoiities' like Bouuei anu Faiiu to confiim anu
authoiise hei inteipietation. This inciuent biought up a numbei of inteiesting points
about the authoiity of stabilisation thiough insciiptions anu tianslation in
aichaeological piactice.
Fiist, the main issue with the iecoius was that uetails of the event itself weie
hazy. The buiial was uncoveieu at the enu of the 2uu4 fielu season, anu because of time
anu financial constiaints, the team was on a time ciunch anu so only the plastei skull
was lifteu anu conseiveu in its entiiety. The whole featuie |1S17jwhich incluueu the
skeleton, the plasteieu skull, anu a giave goous clustei with things like a leopaiu claw
was sepaiateu, anu the plasteieu skull went to the museum. The oiiginal iecoius, mostly
wiitten by fielu aichaeologist Simon NcCann, stateu that the giave "appeais to have
instigateu the builuing of platfoim F1Su1. Cut into miuuen ueposits fiom the phase of
builuing below this is a cleai example of buiial piactice ueteimining the constiuction
anu aichitectuial eiection" (atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2uu4: Featuie 1S17, online
uatabase iecoiu). |See Appenuix A anu Bj. When askeu to iecheck the uata in 2uu9, a
few inteiesting issues aiose foi the fielu excavatoi who was tiying to stabilise the
official iecoius. Fiist, the fiim account of the platfoim buiial as cut into a miuuen iathei
than a platfoim seemeu accuiate fiom the oiiginal iecoius, piimaiily the Baiiis Natiix.

137
Bowevei, Simon's site uiaiy fiom the next yeai's (2uuS) season uig, which finisheu the
excavation of Builuing 42 (atop the buiial), stateu that:
"I was stiuck by the fact that all oui oiiginal iueas about the buiial with the
plasteieu skull F1S17,weie that it hau gone in pie layout of the platfoims,
F1Su12 anu piioi to any soit of activity within the house but we haun't
consiueieu whethei the house itself was built! So I checkeu the matiix to make
suie I haun't lost it, founu that theie was no uiiect stiategiaphic ielationship
between the buiial anu the eastein wall, they weie both the fiist things to
happen. (It is entiiely possible that I may have got this wiong but lets just
imagine foi a while that I know what I'm uoing)". |sicj (atalhoyk Reseaich
Pioject 2uuS: Excavation Biaiy Entiy, online uatabase iecoiu)
|See Appenuix Bj

This iecoiu shows that the official account of the buiial unuei the founuation iests
solely on (1) Simon's memoiy, which he aumits is hazy anu only stabiliseu one yeai aftei
the event in 2uuS, anu moie fiimly, (2) the Baiiis Natiix chait that he iecoiueu in 2uu4.
All of the textual foimalisations of Simon's account seems to appeai in 2uuS, a full yeai
aftei the oiiginal iecoiuing anu excavation that happeneu at the enu of the 2uu4 fielu
season. Foi an aichaeologist like the fielu excavatoi in 2uu9, who was iechecking the
iecoius five yeais latei, this seemeu potentially pioblematic, hence hei insistence to me
that she "wanteu to get the uata iight".
Inteiestingly, the initial account of the buiial unuei the platfoim hau alieauy
been stabiliseu in a numbei of uocuments that hau been publisheu befoie this fielu
excavatoi's 'iechecking of uata' in 2uu9. Bei checking anu questioning the iecoius weie
only a seconuaiy contestation, puiely to settle the official account foi the moie
authoiitative site volumes that weie to be publisheu in the upcoming seasons. Two of
the alieauy publisheu accounts beai special mention. Fiist is an illustiation by }ohn
Swoggei, the site illustiatoi. As Simon NcCann wiote in his 2uuS site uiaiy (same as
above), the buiial unuei the founuations suggesteu (foi him):
.a public, communal event, possibly laying claim to that of a piece of ieal estate,
oi public uue the impoitance of that peison (skull, female oi both). I mentioneu
this to }ohn Swoggei eailiei touay anu he saiu that the ieconstiuction he uiu of
the buiial was without walls so peihaps we weie thinking along the same lines.
(atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2uuS: Excavation Biaiy Entiy, online uatabase
iecoiu) |See Appenuix Bj

While Swoggei's ieconstiuction |Figuie 11j uiu not auuiess the founuation issue, it uiu
foimalise all of this speculation anu fluiu aichaeological activity into a veiy stiiking anu
stable image of "what the buiial lookeu like" at the time of inhumation. It
uecontextualiseu the buiial away fiom houses anu any othei human activity that might
have taken place.


138

O492/7 ==+ i05- Q@0997/ED 4882D./6.40-D 0< .57 Y6.685Z:[J N86D.7/71 DJ288 K2/468> )- .57 87<.
4D .57 N86D.7/71 DJ288M 0- .57 /495. 4D .57 DJ288 6D <02-1 4- .57 <288 K2/468 30-.7L.>
E22,6$*+$-#16 #12-1)> "$$4>??3'@)&.$-65+2-.5#.,;?N0"6-22,6$*+$-#1?0+22)*'AO."$3

A seconu anu moie notable publisheu account was piouuceu by Ian Bouuei. In his book
Tbe leoporJs Tole: Reveolinq tbe Hysteries of (otolboyk, he stateu fiimly that:
The plasteieu skull was founu helu in the aims of a woman who hau been placeu
in a pit as pait of the founuation of a new builuing.This builuing (Builuing 42)
was unusual in that it was built ovei a miuuen. The founuation ueposit seemeu
to imply that if one coulu not eiect a builuing ovei an ancestial builuing one
coulu eiect one ovei an ancestoi. The way that the plasteieu skull occuiieu in a
single pitgiave, anu the way that it was helu by a single inuiviuual, contiast
stiongly with similai iites in the Levant anu southeast Tuikey.We cannot be
suie that the featuies iesembleu a specific histoiical peison, although the shape
of the nose seems highly uistinctive. (Bouuei 2uu6: 148)

These two accountsespecially the latteiaie authoiitative in theii soliuaiity. They uo
not belie the unueilying issues that the latei fielu excavatoi seemeu to have with the
official site iecoiu, wheie the founuation account iesteu heavily on one insciiption of
the oiiginal buiial placement (the Baiiis Natiix chait, which even the oiiginal excavatoi
was ielying upon to jog his memoiy about the oiiginal excavation in 2uuS). Thus, the
Baiiis Natiix chait in this scenaiio might be calleu an 0bligatoiy Passage Point. The
next section explains what this means, as well as the "moments of tianslation" wheie
this account of 'founuation buiial' initially built authoiity anu then finally cementeu into
an agieeu-upon anu stabiliseu authoiitative account.
The teim 0bligatoiy Passage Point was coineu in a stuuy by Nichael Callon on
the 'scallops anu the fisheimen of Biieuc Bay' (Callon 1986). In this stuuy, Callon cites

139
foui "moments of tianslation" that can be uisceineu wheie actois in his case stuuy
"impose themselves anu theii uefinition of the situation on otheis". These moments aie:
(a) pioblematisation: the ieseaicheis sought to become inuispensable to othei
actois in the uiama by uefining the natuie anu the pioblems of the lattei anu
then suggesting that these woulu be iesolveu if the actois negotiateu the
'obligatoiy passage point' of the ieseaicheis' piogiamme of investigation;

(b) inteiessement: a seiies of piocesses by which the ieseaicheis sought to lock
the othei actois into the ioles that hau been pioposeu foi them in that
piogiamme;

(c) eniolment: a set of stiategies in which the ieseaicheis sought to uefine anu
inteiielate the vaiious ioles they hau allocateu to otheis;

(u) mobilisation: a set of methous useu by the ieseaicheis to ensuie that
supposeu spokesmen foi vaiious ielevant collectivities weie piopeily able to
iepiesent those collectivities anu not betiayeu by the lattei. (Callon 1986: 196)

While these 'moments of tianslation' aie veiy case-specific to Callon's stuuy of scientists
stuuying scallops in Biieuc Bay in Fiance, they offei a useful template foi examining the
tianslation of authoiity anu stabilising of accounts in the case of the plasteieu skull
buiial at atalhoyk.
In the case of the plasteieu skull buiial (to paiaphiase Callon's stuuy), a single
questionwas the buiial placeu befoie the builuing of house founuations, oi uiu it occui
within a noimal house plastei platfoim buiial.was "enough to involve a whole seiies
of actois by establishing theii iuentities anu the links between them" (Callon 1986: 2uS).
The vaiious actoisthe plasteieu skull buiial, Simon, Bouuei, Swoggei, Faiiu, the
Baiiis Natiix, the illustiationsbecame inuispensible to the fielu excavatoi, who founu
heiself caught between an oiiginal account anu a potential contestation of that account.
The fielu excavatoi also founu heiself in the uncomfoitable position of being a
'gatekeepei', a peison whose inteiests of all othei actois lay in hei aumittance of the
pioposeu ieseaich inteipietation. Insteau of embiacing hei position as an gatekeepei
(as Callon seems to aigue the scientists in the Biieuc Bay case weie actively uoing to
fuithei theii authoiity), she sought fuithei allies anu confiimation of hei position,
allying some of the iesponsibility of the gatekeepei iole onto anothei figuie of authoiity.
Bypothetically, as the uiagiam of this piocess |Figuie 12j shows, "pioblematization
uesciibes a system of alliances, oi associations, between entities theieby uefining the
iuentity anu what they 'want'" (Callon 1986: 2u6). In this case, each membei of the
gioup oi actoi has some kinu of 'ioau block' oi challenge in oiuei to pass this 0bligatoiy
Passage Point question, anu have a stake in the issue at hanu. Foi the fielu excavatoi, hei

140
'ioau block' anu stake was hei position of authoiity to confiim oi ueny the founuation
account of this buiial.
In Callon's oiiginal Fiench teiminology, the next 'moment of tianslation' comes
in interessmentthat is, the "gioup of actions by which an entity.attempts to impose
anu stabilize the iuentity of the othei actois it uefines thiough its pioblemization"
(1986: 2u7-2u8). In the atalhoyk example, the fielu excavatoi attempteu to join foices
with all of the othei actois in oiuei to attain a ceitain goal: namely, "getting the uata
iight". She enacteu a piocess wheieby she soiteu thiough all of the pievious iecoius anu
insciiptionsphotogiaphs, site plans, site uiaiies, as well as consulteu with othei site
authoiities like Faiiu anu Bouueiin oiuei to coiioboiate the Baiiis Natiix chait anu
the hazy accounts maue by Simon five yeais eailiei. Like Callon's case of Biieuc Bay,
"these inteiessment uevices extenu anu mateiialize the hypothesis maue by the
ieseaicheis" (1986: 2u9)in this case, the insciiptions weie utiliseu to
extenumateiialize the hypothesis that the buiial was cut into a miuuen anu then house
founuations weie establisheu on top of the buiial, which was an unusual site activity. As
Callon explains, "The inteiessement, if successful, confiims (moie oi less completely)
the valiuity of the pioblematization anu the alliance it implies" (1986: 21u). In the case
of the plasteieu skull buiial, aftei negotiating the vaiious iecoius anu insciiptions of the
mateiial, anu aftei allying hei own piocess with that of othei authoiities, the fielu
excavatoi agieeu with the valiuity of the oiiginal pioblemetizing question.
The moment of 'eniolment' uesciibeu by Callon is wheie "social stiuctuies
compiising both social anu natuial entities aie shapeu anu consoliuateu" (1986: 211),
wheie vaiious actois anu mateiials align in 'ioles' that aie "uefineu anu attiibuteu to
actois who accept them. Inteiessement achieves eniolment if it is successful. To
uesciibe eniolment is thus to uesciibe the gioup of multilateiial negotiations, tiials of
stiength anu tiicks that accompany the inteiessements anu enable them to succeeu"
(1986: 211). In the case of the plasteieu skull buiial, when the fielu excavatoi negotiateu
the mateiial anu actois, eveiy agent aligneu in agieement with the hypothesis that the
buiial was placeu befoie the founuation. She eventually confiimeu the oiiginal account
that "What can be saiu about this giave is that it appeais to have instigateu the builuing
of platfoim F1Su1. Cut into miuuen ueposits fiom the phase of builuing below this is a
cleai example of buiial piactice ueteimining constiuction anu aichitectuial eiection"
(atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject 2uu4: Featuie 1S17, online uatabase iecoiu), an act of
confiimation that then stabiliseu anu, thus, outboriseJ the account into an authoiitative
veision. If she hau fuithei contesteu the hazy authoiity of this mateiial fiom hei ieview
of the past iecoiuagain, it was only founueu on the Baiiis Natiix anu Simon's

141
memoiy, anu the ieliability of the lattei was contesteu even by Simon himself in the
2uuS site uiaiiesit might have cieateu some fuithei uisiuption to the authoiity of the
publisheu accounts anu images that hau alieauy been piouuceu. In this case, the
moment of 'eniolment' oi alignment of insciiptions might have playeu out an entiiely
uiffeient stoiy, with some allies peihaps linking to the fielu excavatoi's contestation anu
otheis not. Foi example, if she thought she hau founu ieasonable eviuence to suggest
Simon's memoiy was misguiueu, then Bouuei peihaps might have listeneu to hei
contestation anu backeu hei account, allying with hei anu the new accounts of the
mateiial. At that point the Baiiis Natiix anu the pievious illustiations anu accounts
woulu not be 'eniolleu' oi aligneu as allies to the fielu excavatois
negotiationcontestation. Insteau, the uiviue might have playeu out in something of a
'battle of authoiity' between those insciiptions anu actois auvocating the founuation
account, anu those actois like the fielu excavatoi anu Bouuei who auvocateu against it.
In such a case, the actois with gieatei social weight anu executive anu epistemic
authoiity, like the newly tuineu Bouuei, woulu likely have weighteu the authoiity on
theii siue, with futuie publications auvocating against the founuation buiial, oi
uiopping the account completely fiom futuie publications.
The issue of eniolment leaus to Callon's final 'moment of tianslation' calleu
'mobilisation', wheie he asks: "Who speaks in the name of whom. Who iepiesents
whom..as with the uesciiption of inteiessement anu eniolment, only a few iaie
inuiviuuals aie involveu" (1986: 21S); thus, theie is a mobilisotion anu authoiity of
allies. Similaily with the plasteieu skull buiial case stuuy, iepiesentation is a key
component of the seconu stabilisation of the founuation buiial account. Like the scallops
of Biieuc Bay, some actois aie silent, while otheis speak oi iepiesent theii inteiests.
When the fielu excavatoi was poiing ovei the iecoius anu negotiating the oiiginal
account of the founuation buiial, the plasteieu skull buiial uiu not speak foi itself, but
iathei the inscriptions anu iecoius of it weie iepiesentative of the oiiginal event.
Similaily, Simon as a peison uiu not speak uiiectly foi himself to the fielu excavatoi in
2uu9, but iathei his inscriptions oi iecoius (in the foim of Baiiis Natiices, site uiaiies
anu othei excavation iecoius like context sheets anu photogiaphs) iepiesenteu his
memoiy anu his account of the pioblematization. Because the fielu excavatoi was a
contesting figuie in this specific case stuuy, she became the piimaiy mobilising actoi,
upon whose account (which was expecteu to mateiialise thiough hei 'iechecking the
iecoius' job in the post-excavation assignment in the 2uu9 stuuy season) iesteu eithei
the eniolment anu inteiessment of the pioblematization, oi the uiveigence anu
contestation of that anu the mobilisation of uiffeient actois, a piocess which woulu then

142
cieate an entiiely new set of allies that woulu align with a negation oi alteiation of the
pioblematization. As Callon explains in his example, "To mobilize, as the woiu inuicates,
is to ienuei entities mobile which weie not so befoiehanu. At fiist, the scallops,
fisheimen, anu specialists weie actually all uispeiseu anu not easily accessible. At the
enu, thiee ieseaicheis at Biest saiu what these entities aie anu want" (1986: 217).
Similaily at atalhoyk, at the onset, the mateiials of the plasteieu skull buiial
incluuing the vaiious iecoius, the Baiiis Natiix chait, Simon, Faiiu, Bouuei, as well as
the vaiious alieauy-publisheu stable 'final piouuct' accounts of the buiialweie
mobiliseu by the fielu excavatoi anu came togethei in the piocess of hei negotiation
with all of the mateiial, anu in hei final acceptance of it 'as-saiu' by the Baiiis Natiix
chait.
In this specific case stuuy, the fielu excavatoi was uncomfoitable with hei
'gatekeepei' oi spokesman iole, anu the authoiity that it entaileu. Thus, she calleu in
Bouuei anu Faiiu to help fulfil that iole as 'authoiities', who coulu, in pait oi in whole,
take ovei some of the iesponsibility of veiifying the pioblematization. A similai paiallel
uoes not appeai in Callon's account of the scallops of Biieuc Bay. In Callon's example, he
states that "Thiee men have become influential anu aie listeneu to because they have
become the 'heau' of seveial populations" (1986: 216). In the case of the plasteieu skull
buiial, it seems that the stoiy is moie complex than just a case of powei oi authoiity in
the hanus of a peison in chaigeit comes uown to that peison's own negotiation of
theii position, anu in cases like the fielu excavatoi anu the plasteieu skull buiial, she
was not entiiely comfoitable the gatekeepei authoiity iole she founu heiself in. In
Callon's example, the actois aie entiiely active in theii attempts to gainei anu secuie
allies to gain authoiity, anu in theii attempts to gain the most active iole as the
'gatekeepei' mobilising oi iepiesenting agent. In the plasteieu skull example, the fielu
excavatoi founu heiself in this iole, but she insteau mobiliseu otheis to valiuate the
pioblematization anu negotiateu hei own authoiity. In multiple instances, the fielu
excavatoi felt that she neeueu to uefei to Simon, "because he was the one who excavateu
the buiial" (fielu excavatoi, peisonal communication 2uu9). It was Simon's closeness to
the mateiial that lent him authoiity in the eyes of the fielu excavatoi, anu it was his
memoiy anu account, his act of witnessing as well as his Baiiis Natiix iecoius, upon
which the entiie potential contestation woulu iest. The fielu excavatoi seemeu to feel
that hei own authoiity on this mattei was unueimineu by hei seconuaiy ielationship to
this paiticulai oiiginal finu; she uiun't have Simon's fiist-hanu 'I was theie' powei. This
is also why she ueciueu to tuin to Faiiu anu Bouuei, so that she woulu have 'authoiities'
as allies to step in anu confiim oi ueny hei own negotiations anu inteipietations. It was

143
this last-stage lack of confiuence in inteipietive positioning that Ian Bouuei was ciitical
of, foi he implieu that he thought the fielu excavatoi was equally qualifieu to make an
inteipietive juugement baseu on the iecoius.
This example piesents seveial lessons. Fiist, along similai lines of aigument as
Callon in his Biieuc Bay stuuy, "Tianslation is a piocess befoie it is a iesult.It also
peimits an explanation of how a few obtain the iight to expiess anu to iepiesent the
many silent actois of the social anu natuial woilus they have mobilizeu" (1986: 224). By
examining tianslation in the case of the plasteieu skull buiial, it becomes appaient that
authoiity builus anu accumulates aiounu specific actois anu specific aiiangements oi
negotiations of iueas. In the case of the fielu excavatoi, she enueu up in a poweiful
iepiesentative spokespeison oi 'gatekeepei' position, with the authoiity to eithei
confiim oi invaliuate Simon's account of the plasteieu skull buiial unuei the house
founuation. But impoitantly, what this example uemonstiates that goes beyonu Callon's
Biieuc Bay stuuy, is that in aichaeology (1) inscriptions play an enoimously impoitant
iole in the piouuction anu tianslation of authoiitative accounts of the past, anu that (2)
ceitain fuithei gatekeepei authoiities, like Faiiu oi Bouuei, can be uiawn into an
analysis to be gatekeepei spokespeisons oi iepiesentatives as executive anu epistemic
'authoiities', anu theii 'authoiity' positions affect the piouuction oi stabilisation of 'final
piouuct' accounts. Regaiuing the fiist point, insciiptions aie so ciitically impoitant in
aichaeology because the uiscipline is such a uestiuctive piocess. Exact ieplication of an
'aichaeological piocess oi expeiiment' is nevei possible in aichaeological methous.
Because aichaeology is such a uestiuctive piocess, (anu what mateiial we uon't uestioy,
we heavily manipulate to tuin into uisplays), we aie often left only with insciiptions anu
iepiesentations of oiiginal excavations. This means theie must always be something of
an 0bligatoiy Passage Point in the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge which
involves the pioblemetization of using insciiptions to valiuate accounts of the past.
Authoiity in the uiscipline touay is founueu on this piocess.
Aichaeology, as it is piacticeu now, foices objects to 'be spoken foi', taking
oiiginal mateiial anu tuining it into insciiptions anu iepiesentations, which aie then
negotiateu by vaiious actois. Nost of the mateiial actois involveu in aichaeology aie
ueau oi silent things, anu they must be enliveneu anu enableu thiough theii
mobilisation. By uniting anu compaiing these insciiptions with othei objects anu
insciiptions, this mobilisation can help cieate a moie full anu uynamic unueistanuing of
the past. The iole of authoiities is ciitical in this piocess of mobilisation, since vaiious
spokespeisons make assumptions that (a) the past 'shoulu' be oi 'wants' to be spoken
foi, anu that (b) the objects anu insciiptions must pass thiough obligatoiy passage

144
points that the spokespeisons (oi gatekeepeis) contiol. In the example of the plasteieu
skull buiial, the aichaeologists involveu in the knowleuge piouuction piocess make the
automatic anu immeuiate assumption that the mateiial iemains shoulu 'be spoken foi'.
In Callon's example of the scallops in Biieuc Bay, the scollops "themselves expiess
nothing. Bowevei they enu up having, like the fisheimen, an authentic spokesman"
(1986: 21S), which aie the thiee ieseaicheis involveu in the stuuy of scallop
uevelopment. Callon nevei questions the authoiity of whethei oi not scallops shoulu be
spoken foi in the fiist place, noi why the thiee ieseaicheis weie able to claim that
authoiity in theii ioles as gatekeepeisspokespeisons sitting at the bottleneck of the
initial pioblematizeu question at the obligatoiy passage point. Similaily, at atalhoyk
in the case of the plasteieu skull buiial, the aichaeologists claim an initial iole of
authoiity simply by peifoiming the iole of spokespeisons foi the past, anu by physically
contiolling the mateiial anu the iecoius upon which the question of the buiial is baseu.
This leaus to the next lesson fiom the plasteieu skull buiial example: not oll
spokespersons or octors ore equol to otbers. Not all actois aie equal anu committeu. In
the case of the plasteieu skull buiial at atalhoyk, some actois anu insciiptions aie
moie active spokes-agents, who have powei ovei moie passive mateiial cultuie oi
insciiptions. The Baiiis Natiix chait, foi example, is one of the most active anu poweiful
spokes-agents in this case, uue to its stable iole as the 'most ieliable' witness to the
event (aftei Simon aumits his memoiy is hazy in 2uuS anu he himself ielies back on the
chaits to iefeience the excavation events); it is an obligatoiy passage point thiough
which all othei actois must pass. Similaily, the fielu excavatoi becomes an active agent,
because she sits in the key 'gatekeepei' iole that ueciues what account is oi is not 'valiu';
all mateiial must pass thiough hei appioval, anu she will stabilise all of the fluiu
negotiation anu contestation into a 'checkeu' anu 'final piouuct' account. Ian Bouuei,
also, is a veiy active agent, foi he is uiawn in by the fielu excavatoi to be 'an authoiity'
who confiims oi uenies the mateiial eviuence, anu he has motivation to keep the
oiiginal account intact, since he hau pieviously publisheu such a fiim account of it in his
highly authoiitative book in 2uu6.
Each of these poweiful agents 'tianslate' the insciiptions, objects anu accounts
that they aie committeu to negotiate, anu uo so in a way that will benefit themselves oi
theii own place in the system. The fielu excavatoi wants to make suie that she "gets the
uata iight" anu calls foi othei peei confiimation, because it is in hei benefit to not have
hei authoiity questioneu at a latei time. It is theoietically in Bouuei's benefit to uo the
same, because the founuation-buiial account has alieauy been foimally stabiliseu in his
own 2uu6 publications. Finally, it is in the benefit of the Baiiis Natiix insciiption to be

145
confiimeu as 'valiu', because if its account of the founuation buiial was 'invaliu', then the
matiix coulu be seen as a pooi iepiesentation oi 'wiong' insciiption, opening a huge can
of woims about the natuie of the Baiiis Natiix chait as a ieliable methou, oi Simon's
ability to piopeily iecoiu excavation featuies. In all of these cases, these moie poweiful
authoiities oi agents holu powei because they sit in bottleneck, oi naiiow points of
passage wheie insciiptions aie negotiateu, wheie they confiim oi iestiuctuie accounts.
This exemplifies how in many cases, aichaeological authoiity is necessitateu, anu
inheiently a mattei baseu upon, the setting of up bottleneck anu obligatoiy passage
point moments, wheie humans meuiate foi mateiial cultuie, anu insciiptions meuiate
foi humans.
A final lesson fiom this exploiation comes fiom Callon's question in moblization,
"Who speaks in the name of whom. Who iepiesents whom." (1986: 214), which is a
question of ultimate authoiity. An initial iesponse in the plasteieu skull buiial case
stuuy is that the fielu excavatoi is speaking in the name of all of the insciiptions, the
oiiginal mateiial anu the oiiginal excavatois, as well as foi the entiie atalhoyk team
when hei valiuation of the account is publisheu in the next seiies of official site
publications (still foithcoming).


146

O492/7 =A+ B469/6H 0< .57 N/0K87H6.4j6.40- 0< .57 N0D.g7L36P6.40- C/73573J4-9E N/037DD 0<
.57 Y6.685Z:[J N86D.7/71 DJ288 K2/468> *0.7 .57 C96.7J77N7/E N0D4.40- 0< .57 O4781 &L36P6.0/
6-1 .57 )K8496.0/: $6DD697 $04-.M 6-1 -0.7 .57 C62.50/4D4-9 N/7D7-37E 0< ,6- "0117/ 6-1
Q5654-6 O6/41M @50 @7/7 K/0295. 4- 6D C62.50/4.47DE .0 30-<4/H .57 P68414.: 0< .57
<02-16.40- K2/468 63302-.> ("-6 =-+0*+3 -6 &+6)= #1 G-5"+)2 P+22#1Q6 *)4*)6)1$+$-#1 #7 $")
65+22#46 #7 R*-),5 R+' SP+22#1 ODTU> BCVW.

Bowevei, an even moie specific anu ielevant answei ielates thiough this question
who iepiesents whom. In actuality, Ian Bouuei iepiesents the fielu excavatoi, anu
becomes aiguably a moie poweiful authoiity anu voice in this case, because he is uiawn
in by the fielu excavatoi to supplement, authoiise anu be an ally foi hei own
spokespeison iole. Be is also the highest gatekeepei anu holuei of authoiity in the
whole atalhoyk pioject, the iepiesentative of all the othei iepiesentatives in this
team effoit, a fact which caiiies gieatei implications foi how the accounts of the past aie
piouuceu at the site. It is Bouuei's penultimate account of the plasteieu skull that shows
up in a glossy bounu volume in 2uu6; it is his account (along with fielu uiiectoi Shahina
Faiiu) that fiist intiouuces the plasteieu skull finu in the 2uu4 Aichive Repoitboth
accounts that appeai in high-piofile public meuia outletsanu it is this authoiity that
most stabilises the account anu lenus it the most weight, authoiising it as a 'final
piouuct' account of the past. What is happening at atalhoyk is that, while multiple
insciiptions aie being cieateu anu while multiple actois aie engageu anu necessaiy to

147
piouuce knowleuge, only one tianslationoi moie coiiectly, one pathway oi seiies of
tianslations thiough an obligatoiy passage point, anu thiough moie oi less poweiful
gatekeepeisis most active anu authoiizing any account of the past. While
inteipietation may "begin at the tiowel's euge", it can only enu aftei passing thiough the
appiopiiate piocessing, being lent the appiopiiate weight anu status by an authoiizeu
souice anu spokespeison.

U>U>U #- ,//730-3486K87 !0-./6143.40-R B4/73.40- P7/D2D ;28.4P03684.: 6.
Y6.685Z:[J

The authoiity of the atalhoyk pioject, as it stanus touay, iests on one ciitical
tension. The postpiocessual piogiam piomoteu by Ian Bouuei is baseu on the concept
of tianspaiency in the intellectual piocess: tianspaiency of methou, tianspaiency of
space anu stiuctuie, tianspaiency of the human anu mateiial netwoiks anu activities
that piouuce knowleuge in the piactice of aichaeology. Bowevei, too much contiol ovei
that tianspaiency at atalhoyk has hau an un unueimining effect on the oveiall
authoiity of Bouuei's postpiocessual piogiam.
Bouuei has aigueu, "We cannot impose an authoiity baseu on an objective
science. Rathei, we have to aigue an authoiity in teims of a well-infoimeu
unueistanuing of the uata" (Bouuei 2uuu: 14). Buiing my 2uu9 fieluwoik at atalhoyk,
this authoiity of "well-infoimeu unueistanuing" most poweifully manifesteu in how
much time an inuiviuual oi team spent with the site anu the mateiial, anu how close
they coulu get to it, which piactically affecteu the authoiity of peisons anu accounts.
Peihaps even moie impoitantwhich aie often neglecteu in Bouuei's peison-centiic
appioach to aichaeological inteipietationaie the nonhuman anu mateiial actois anu
netwoiks which cieate anu stabilise authoiity thiough theii own agency anu
constiaints. In my obseivation of site activity at atalhoyk, these aspects heavily
influenceu the way mateiial was hanuleu anu impacteu inteipietation. People who hau
been at a site foi a longei uuiation anu who hau woikeu with mateiial foi longei
amounts of time, oi those who hau moie uiiect access to oi expeiience of ceitain things,
weie assumeu to have a moie 'well-infoimeu unueistanuing' of the Neolithic past, an
impoitant leveiage of authoiity at the site. Impoitantly, theie was stobility to these
people, in the way theii piactices anu unueistanuings coulu collapse into familiai
ioutines oi settings. This stability emeigeu thiough theii constant negotiation anu
inteiaction with ioutines, mateiials anu ontological bounuaiies. Paiauoxically this

148
stabilisation of space, mateiial, people anu authoiity seemeu to biing up a conflict with
the postpiocessual appioach at the site.
Bouuei has consistently aigueu that stiuctuial instability shoulu be piesent in
oiuei to maximise cieative input anu to challenge inteipietationsa kinu of 'iesistance
anu accommouation' that he has theoiizeu woulu leau to moie thoiough oi accuiate
ienuitions of the past. The iuea behinu this is that, thiough constant consiueiation anu
ienegotiation in the wake of unstable methous, some kinu of stiongei consensus will
eventually aiise. This at the outset is the aigument foi peei ieviewthat multiple voices
leauing to consensus makes foi a stiongei oi 'moie coiiect' aigument. Bowevei, Bouuei
has paiauoxically continueu to tiy to take this setup one step fuithei by aiguing that this
consensus-foiming is no goou, anu that "a lack of stability is necessaiy if a ciitical
appioach is to be taken anu if the pioject is to iemain iesponsive to a changing woilu
aiounu it'" (Bouuei quoteu in Faiiu: 27). The paiauox in this situation is inevitablefoi,
aftei consensus is stabiliseu thiough familiaiity with mateiial, then forcinq it to become
unstable again unueimines the authoiity that has alieauy accumulateu anu stabiliseu.
In teims of stiuctuial stability, Bouuei has pieviously aigueu that "it is
impossible to iemain simply a seivice pioviuei oi a meuiatoi.0ne is foiceu, then, to
take a stanu" (2uuu: 11), iecognising the neeu foi aichaeologists to piomote theii own
stable anu unifieu accounts of the past baseu on mateiial eviuence, while still allowing
othei voices to cieate meaning foi theii own gioups on theii own teims. Bowevei, in the
same bieath, he aigues that:
|Tjhe notion of 'the site' is one of the main builuing blocks of aichaeological
knowleuge anu aichaeological authoiity. Aichaeologists talk of 'my site'; they
say 'come anu visit my site', oi 'what site aie you uigging at the moment'. Theie
is some notion in these statements of owneiship.But at atalhoyk we see the
site uispeise.vaiieu gioups, with theii uiffeient inteiests anu expectations
appioach the site, they constiuct uiffeient veisions of it which aie only paitly
iooteu in the finus maue at the physical location calleu atalhoyk .The
bounuaiies aiounu the uiscipline aie eioueu, anu the encloseu self-sufficiency of
the acauemy is punctuieu. (2uuu: 1u)

Bouuei sees atalhoyk as a uiffeient kinu of site, one that meets the challenge of
opening tianspaiency of methou to both insiue anu outsiue challenge, allowing a
contestation of authoiity anu stiuctuial instabilities anu uivisions, in oiuei to cieate a
kinu of stiength that emeiges fiom moie peei ieview, which will elevate the site's
authoiity thiough multiple voices anu contestation. Again, the iuea is that constant
multiplicity anu instability will bieeu a kinu of authoiity anu bettei stabilitya paiauox.
Bis main point is peihaps, "Rathei than being ueciieu as chaotic, this uiveisity is
welcomeu since it is piefeiable to a single peispective anu monolithic appioach" (2uuu:

149
9). Again, this is the aigument of peei ieview, the aigument that moie agieement
cieates moie accuiacy oi valiuity, anu that uisagieement oi contestation makes piactice
anu eiiois moie tianspaient, which can then be contesteu anu fixeu thiough consensus.
But the question that emeiges fiom this stance is, what happens when you foice
instability anu multiplicity at a site that simultaneously stiesses the impoitance of
empiiical authoiity. The postpiocessual agenua at atalhoyk has been heavily
consumeu with the theoiy of multivocality anu of ieflexivity. So much so that Ian Bouuei
has pusheu stiongly foi one new paiauigm in aichaeological thinking, anu he has
become a 'foiemost figuie in postpiocessual theoiy' (Renfiew anu Bahn 2uuu: 44),
stiessing this paiauigm of multivocality, multiple voices, a lack of stability that is
'necessaiy' to aichaeological inteipietation. Bave these iueals in theoiy have panneu out
in actual piactice. Bas piactice at atalhoyk ieally encouiageu tianspaiency anu
multiple inputs, oi uoes it ieally foice oi comply to just one tiajectoiy, one gatekeepei
oi authoiitative voice, one seiies of iepiesentative spokespeisons who holu ultimate
authoiity at the site. Accoiuing to what I witnesseu in teims of space, tianslation anu
stiuctuie at the site, I woulu say that tianspaiency at the site is heavily contiolleu by
this authoiitative vision oi voicebut not the authoiity of this actual piactice.
This vision peihaps is no moie obvious than in the most iecent changes that
have happeneu at the site, fiist announceu in the summei fielu season of 2u1u, one yeai
aftei my ethnogiaphic stuuy of the site. Aftei speaking with the team leaueis, Ian
Bouuei sent out a team-wiue email that stateu:
I feel stiongly that the pioject neeus new eneigy - that is new questions, new
theoietical peispectives, ciitiques of what we have come to take foi gianteu,
new methous. Peihaps we coulu have achieveu this without peisonnel change
but I uo not think that woulu have assuieu the new eneigy, the new winuows
into atalhoyk. (Bouuei 2u1ua)

This commentaiy followeu with the announcement that Bouuei hau fiieu all of his team
leaueis. Bouuei's uecision affecteu most of the specialists on the site who heaueu the
vaiious laboiatoiy communities oi 'pous', such as human iemains, faunal iemains,
obsiuian, ceiamics, aichaeobotany, anu so foith. Fielu excavatois weie alloweu to keep
theii positions, although accoiuing to one team membei who askeu to iemain
anonymous, some of the fielu excavatois weie consiueiing not ietuining to the uig out
of loyalty to theii fiienus on the team who hau been fiieu (anonymous team membei,
peisonal communication 2u1u).
Accoiuing to Bouuei's email, anu in subsequent piess, the ieason he ueciueu to
fiie his team was foi puiely intellectual, theoietical anu inteipietive ieasons; he was not
uissatisfieu with the woik of his team leaueis, but iathei, "it was time foi a shake-up...It

150
has been a ieally iemaikable team," Bouuei says, "I have felt ovei iecent yeais that the
pioject was getting comfoitable with itself anu so not challenging each othei oi me oi
the assumptions that we weie all taking foi gianteu" (quoteu in Baltai 2u1u) |See
Appenuix Bj. Bouuei's feeling that the pioject aichaeology was becoming 'moie
comfoitable' aligns with what I obseiveu anu uiscusseu with vaiious team membeis
uuiing my ethnogiaphy of the 2uu9 fielu season. Familiaiity with the mateiial at
atalhoyk was stabilising into a moie settleu unueistanuing of the past, anu gieatei
uuiation of time anu familiaiity with space anu mateiial also stabiliseu inuiviuual
inteipietations of team membeis, cieating 'authoiities' at the site (who weie mainly
ietuining team leaueis anu othei specialists). Bowevei, fiom what I coulu gathei fiom
speaking with membeis of the team in 2uu9, longstanuing membeis of the team might
aigue that they hau eaineu theii expeitise anu authoiity to, say, iecognise a 'miuuen'
fiom a meie 'pit' on the site, anu an aibitiaiy opening oi 'access' in a builuing fiom a
'stieet', thiough theii yeais of expeiience. By his actions,
SS
Bouuei seems to think that
the collapse of open inteipietive categoiies was not, in fact, bieu fiom familiaiity oi
expeitise at all, but iathei "assumptions" anu a "taking foi gianteu" of categoiies by a
team that has become uisinteiesteu in his postpiocessual challenge to maintain
instability in the aichaeological methou. Bis move seems to suggest that the only way
inteipietation can peihaps 'woik bettei' is to biing in an entiiely new set of people who
have "new eneigy".
Accoiuing to the piess, this was a suuuen anu abiupt uecision, anu "Nany team
membeis, some of whom have been woiking with the pioject since the miu-199us, aie
stunneu anu confuseu" (Baltai 2u1u). 0ne team membei iepoiteuly calleu it "the night
of the long knives" (quoteu in Baltai 2u1u). Because "Such a mass uismissal is highly
unusual at long-iunning aichaeological excavations" (Baltai 2u1u), this uecision
spaikeu a host of commentaiy within the public anu the aichaeological community.
Aftei the initial piess announcement, online foiums flooueu the web with commentaiy
like the Twittei comment: "Nass uismissals at Catal Boyuk. Bouuei wants new bloou
(himself excluueu)" (Laisson 2u1u). 0n one news website which announceu the initial
online piess ielease, people flooueu the page with online commentaiy. Some of the moie
ielevant selections ieflect highly emotional opinions about Bouuei's use of executive
authoiity |See Appenuix Bj:

SS
Beie I stiess that this is an assumption bieu fiom the aumitteuly small amount of inteiview
mateiial cuiiently available in the public uomain about his uecision to fiie his team.

151
Emm, moybe tbe Jirector bimself neeJs to step osiJe to let new blooJ in ot tbe very
top!

l tbink tbis move wos brilliontly Hocbiovellion. Brovo!

.Tbe quy ot tbe top is responsible for leoJersbip, if it isn't workinq tben it is ElS
foult, not tbeirs'. Wbot sort of leoJersbip Jo you proviJe? None, it woulJ oppeor.

ReqorJless of wbot one tbinks of EoJJer's "intellectuol couroqe" or bis intentions,
tbis strikes me os exceptionolly poor leoJersbip on EoJJer's port. lf be truly bos
"felt over recent yeors" tbot tbe teom wos qrowinq complocent, tben it wos bis job
os Jirector to motivote tbe teom to cbollenqe eocb otber, EoJJer, onJ tbeir sboreJ
ossumptions.l feel truly sorry for tbe teom members wbose borJ work certoinly
bolstereJ EoJJer's coreer.

.Eos tbe reliqiosity of orcboeoloqy qot so fervent tbot you con iqnore tbe reol-life
impocts of sockinq so mony people? As obvious os it seems, EoJJer imposes bis
oqenJos on oll speciolists so surely qettinq o proxy 6ronJ Hoster to fill bis own
sboes is tbe more obvious onswer? l om sure tbere ore tbinqs beneotb tbe surfoce
bere beyonJ tbeory, but if tbis is tbe poroJiqm Jiq tbot be plonneJ, tben surely tbe
rest of us ore buqqereJ wben it comes to recyclinq our stoff every few yeors...

.Well if lon bimself resiqneJ, onJ tbe project took on o new Jirector, tben new
questions, perspectives onJ metboJs woulJ be even more quoronteeJ, woulJn't
tbey?

|sicj (Baltai 2u1u)

Nost of these comments seem to be highlighting the fact that Bouuei seems to be forcinq
new voices into the mixtuie of his own site stiuctuie. If his agenua is to open the site to
new inteipietation, he is unuoubteuly making this happen by contiolling which voices
aie to be piesent at the site by evicting othei voices that he thinks aie complacent oi
oveily stable. This cieates a conunuium. Some of the othei comments on the same piess
ielease iuentify the othei siue of this coin:

l tbink it is o brilliont move. Tbe point is to qet ot tbe trutb of tbis site not prop up
reseorcbers. Tbis work will be left to bistory. lt neeJs to be exboustive.

lf tbe situotion is os it is representeJ bere, tben EoJJer is to be proiseJ for bis
intellectuol couroqe. Eowever, events in recent yeors on otber fielJs bove sbown
tbot scientists ore not immune to ulterior motives onJ 'biJJen oqenJos.'

(Baltai 2u1u)

Commentaiy like this highlights the unueilying question: what is aichaeology ieally
about if not encouiaging bettei inteipietation. If Bouuei ieally thinks that
inteipietation is being unueimineu by complacency at his site, might not a mass eviction
be justifieu. By fiiing his whole team, Bouuei seems to think yes, his uuty as an

152
executive authoiity is to encouiage a moie accuiate inteipietation of the past, anu he
seems to think that instability is the means to that enu. Bowevei, when ieflecting upon
the octuol ieality upon which executive anu epistemic authoiity of aichaeological
piactice is baseuwhich I have ueconstiucteu in the pievious sectionsthe whole
situation cieates a conunuium foi Bouuei.
While Bouuei seems to be encouiaging a process involving uisoiuei, entiopy anu
multiple lines of thinking, he is ultimately still aiming foi one proJuct: a soliuifieu
account of knowleuge. 0nuei the theoiy of multivocality, the iuea is that by incluuing
many voices of challenge, the piocess of contestation will cieate bettei claiity, oiuei anu
moie iobust accounts of the past thiough peei ieviewa piocess, I must point out,
which funuamentally iests on stabilisation. Nultiplicity anu peei ieview shoulu leau to a
stiongei consensus; they aim to soliuify a 'best inteipietation' of the available uata,
cieating an authoiitative vision of the past. The soit of iauical multivocality that Bouuei
is seeking thiough his actionsfoicing instability, fiiing anu shaking up his teamiun
countei to his piimaiy goal of empiiical authoiity. As I aigue in this chaptei, empiiical
authoiity uemanus stabilisation. Inuiviuuals in the scientific piouuction of knowleuge
gain authoiity by engaging in the 'appiopiiate' behaviouis, by hanuling objects in
'appiopiiate' ways, anu by following pathways of tianslation in the inteipietive piocess.
They inciease theii authoiity thiough time anu familiaiity with mateiial that
ontologically constiains theii inteipietations. The pioblem with Ian Bouuei's paiauigm
of continuous instability is that he is tiying to foice instability once again aftei authoiity
has accumulateu thiough this stabilisation of mateiials, insciiptions, tianslations anu
people. Regaiuless of his fiustiation with the piocess of stabilisation, anu iegaiuless of
his uesiie to cieate new 'mess' anu instability with a new team, it will inevitably stabilise
again if the site is to continue to cieate authoiitative accounts of the past. Thus, by
continually tiying to foice instability aftei his team has alieauy accumulateu anu
stabiliseu things, people anu inteipietations, he is actually unueimining his own
authoiityanu unueimining the authoiity of those peisons anu mateiials that woikeu
haiu at cieating empiiical authoiity in the fiist place.


153
U>V !56N.7/ !0-382D40-
U>V>= !0-382D40-D 0- #2.50/4.:+ %57 ,HN0/.6-37 0< *0-g"2H6- #3.0/D 6-1
Q.6K484.: 4- .57 $/0123.40- 0< #2.50/4.6.4P7 ?-0@87197

Science stuuies scholai }ohn Law has aigueu that a majoi enu-piouuct of science
is authoiity itself. Be wiites, "Anu the puipose of all this. It is to piouuce statements
that caiiy authoiity, that tell about the outsiue woilu" (Law 2uu4: 27). This chaptei has
aigueu that, in the uiscipline of aichaeology, authoiity manifests thiough the piocesses
of stabilisation, insciiption, tianslation anu blackboxing. The piouuction of knowleuge
in aichaeology has a puipose: namely, to piouuce texts oi othei piouucts like
ieconstiuctions oi museum uisplays, which aie weighty anu authoiitative, valiuating
theoiies oi tiumping othei texts. Authoiity is an ultimate enu-goal of scientific activity,
embeuueu in both the piouuction anu the consumption of texts anu othei scientific enu-
piouucts. Authoiity is paitially stiuctuial, anu that stiuctuie comes fiom the
negotiations anu tianslations of mateiial anu people anu iueas thiough space. Authoiity,
as an outcome of social access anu constiaint as well as a mattei of tianslation, impacts
the way knowleuge settles into stable, authoiitative anu authoiiseu foims.
This chaptei took the case stuuy of atalhoyk anu useu Latoui's 'tianslation
mouel' (Latoui 1986: 266-269; also see Section 2.2.4 in this uisseitation) to show how
authoiity is an accumulateu affect fiom many uiffeient actois, inteiactions anu
outcomes in a given netwoik. This chaptei maue thiee linkeu contiibutions. The fiist is
the iuentification anu exposing of many unueilying mechanisms thiough which
authoiity is piouuceu anu maintaineu at an aichaeological site, auuiessing the ioot
causes anu conceins of authoiity in the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge.
Seconuly, this chaptei aigueu foi the impoitance in acknowleuging of the full iange of
actois that aie instigateu in authoiity. In most pievious stuuies of aichaeological
authoiity, the only actois piesent in any uebate aie people. Past uiscussion ovei
authoiity at a site like atalhoyk has followeu human impact on human authoiity
contesting issues of human access, inuiviuual iights ovei inteipietation, anu local
ielations. Bowevei, as this chaptei uemonstiates, authoiity is a complex piocess that
accumulates fiom the inteiactions of both human anu nonhuman actois. The ontological
woilu has as much impact, anu places as much constiaint upon, authoiitative
inteipietation as the humans that inteiact with it. Social, physical anu tempoial
uimensions of aichaeological piactice, like the uivision of space, uuiations of time anu
the hanuling of mateiials, impact the way authoiity is accumulateu anu tianslateu by
inuiviuuals. At atalhoyk specifically, Ian Bouuei has long iecogniseu the impoitance

154
of authoiity in the aichaeological piocess, but he has conceptualiseu a site anu a piactice
wheie the piimaiy actois aie human. Insteau, I aigue, the most influential actois in the
piouuction of knowleuge aie methous anu piogiams of insciiption anu tianslation,
which cieate both the necessaiy stabilisation foi authoiitative knowleuge as well as
'authoiities' who can claim expeitise oi powei in epistemic authoiity.
0n a methouological level, the natuie of the 'Finus Assistant' iole is a ciitical
example of the impoitance of nonhuman actois in inuiviuual authoiity. At atalhoyk,
the iuentity of a Finus Assistantwho has the iaie powei anu authoiity to entei any
laboiatoiy oi excavation site without much attention oi questioncenties aiounu hei
iole as a specialist who ueals with 'finus'. As uiscusseu in Section 4.2.2.S, all newly
excavateu mateiial at atalhoyk is fiist taken to the Finus Besk, wheie the Finus
Assistant then iecoius all of the uata fiom the aitefact bags into the uatabase. Then she
takes the mateiial in boxes anu ieuistiibutes them into all of the appiopiiate laboiatoiy
iooms. Bei iole is to tiansfei a physical single context into the uatabase, anu then
tiansfei the mateiial on foi moie uetaileu stuuy. The Finus Assistant's iuentity, access,
accountability anu authoiity at the site is entiiely uefineu by the mateiial that she
inteiacts with. Bei authoiity to entei all of the laboiatoiies comes fiom hei authoiity as
a 'gatekeepei' of that mateiial. She is watcheu by otheis anu gains oi loses status anu
authoiity baseu on hei appiopiiate tianslation of this mateiial, anu baseu on hei
methou in tuining the oiiginal finus into appiopiiate insciiptions that go into the cential
uig house uatabasea technology anu insciiption that all team membeis iely upon. It is
ciitical to note that the piocessual, nonhuman, physical, mateiial, spatial anu tempoial
aspects of hei ioleas well as hei peifoimative inteiactions in a netwoik of both
human anu nonhuman thingsaie all mangleu anu inteilockeu in hei iuentity anu hei
authoiity as an aichaeologist anu a 'knowleuge piouucei'. Similaily, on an inteipietive
level, the example above (Section 4.4.S) of the fielu excavatoi anu hei authoiity in the
inteipietation of the plasteieu skull buiial shows the impoitance of mateiial
insciiptions on the piouuction of a 'final piouuct' account. In this case, the fielu
excavatoi was involveu in a kinu of 'iesistance anu accommouation' (Pickeiing 199S) of
humans anu nonhumans, wheie the naiiowing of inteipietive access, the 'voice' of
nonhuman actois like insciiptions, anu the socio-politics of a site hieiaichy playeu
ciitical ioles in the authoiity of final piouuct accounts. Aichaeological authoiity is
necessitateu by, anu inheiently a mattei of, bottleneck anu obligatoiy passage point
moments of tianslation, wheie humans meuiate foi mateiial cultuie, anu insciiptions
meuiate foi humans.

155
Finally, this chaptei aigues that empiiical authoiity uemanus stabilisation. 0sing
the case of atalhoyk, this chaptei uemonstiateu that authoiity is cieateu anu
maintaineu thiough the stabilisation of inteipietations, which aie both enableu anu
constiaineu by the ontological woilu. In 2uu9, the people at atalhoyk who helu the
gieatest epistemic authoiity weie those who hau spent moie time at the site, who hau
moie familiaiity anu expeiience with iepetitive mateiial. In a scientific pioject like
atalhoyk, this stability equateu to gieatei piesence anu executive authoiity to access
social anu physical spaces. Inteipietations anu accounts weie stabiliseu by the authoiity
of those who hau expeiienceu the site fiist hanu foi a long uuiation of time, fiom
iepeateu ontological inteiaction with aichaeological mateiial that was iepetitive in
natuie, theiefoie allowing iecognisability, anu finally, fiom the negotiation of authoiity
between the vaiious team membeis who weie assessing oi inteipieting that mateiial.
Thus, highei status peisonalities (team leaueis oi othei expeiienceu ietuining team
membeis) hau authoiity which iesulteu a stiong piesence anu gieatei epistemic powei
ovei the piouuction of knowleuge.
This ieality of stabilisationanu its impoitant iole in the authoiity of
knowleuge piouuctionstill goes unacknowleugeu by Ian Bouuei, as he continues to
seek out ways to cieate instability in his site stiuctuie. Bouuei's cuiient theoietical
mouel ielies on the aigument of contestation as a means towaiu bettei tianspaiency, on
a mouel of multivocality that leaus to consensus thiough peei ieview. Bowevei, by
neglecting the nonhuman actois anu methous that lenu stiuctuie, iepetition, familiaiity
anu stability to the knowleuge-piouuction piocess, he is in essence unueimining his
own inteipietive authoiity by continuing to uniavel the veiy piocesses that cieateu
empiiical authoiity foi himself anu his team in the fiist place. The most influential actois
in knowleuge piouuction aie the methous anu piogiams of insciiption anu tianslation
that cieate both the stabilities anu authoiities that he seems to iesist. Bis mouel of
iauical multivocality iuns at ouus with his site's thoioughly scientific anu stable
methous. Bouuei's own empiiical authoiity comes fiom the way his methous anu team
aie piouucing iecognizable anu uefenuable outcomes, anu any empiiical uefence of his
own theoietical anu inteipietive mouels must come fiom that stability. In shoit, what
this case shows us is that authoiity is an outcome of complex social anu physical factois,
that nonhuman actois anu piocesses play a ciitical iole in stabilizing anu establishing
that authoiity, anu that this sense of stability is cential to the maintenance of authoiity
ovei time.


156
U>V>A O4-68 !0-382D40-D 6-1 '7<873.40-D 0- .54D Q.21:

Finally, it is impoitant to ieflect on the successes anu failuies of this stuuy of
authoiity at the atalhoyk pioject. This stuuy contiibutes oiiginal anu uistinct ieseaich
to a host of pievious atalhoyk ethnogiaphic stuuies. But in some ways, it also fails to
piesent a fully coheient analysis of authoiity at atalhoyklaigely uue to the
inteiesting natuie, histoiy anu tiajectoiy of the atalhoyk pioject itself.
Fiist, it is impoitant to auuiess the uistinctiveness of this thesis's aigument in
light of pievious stuuies of the atalhoyk pioject. As uiscusseu in uetail eailiei in this
thesis (see Section 2.S.S, Section S.2.1.2 anu Section S.S.2.2), the atalhoyk pioject has
been something of a magnet foi ethnogiaphic anu ieflexive stuuies of its aichaeological
piactice. Paiticulaily as uiscusseu in Section S.2.1.2 anu Section S.S.2.2 of this thesis,
pievious stuuies contiibuteu methouological anu intellectual woith to my own ieseaich
uesign. Notable similai stuuies incluue the woik of Shaion Webb (2uu2), whose uoctoial
uisseitation focuseu on multiple inteipietations anu museum uisplays at atalhoyk.
The anthiopological uisseitation by 0guz Eiuui (2uu8), whose liteiaiy 'site uiaiy'
stiesseu issues of Tuikish nationalism anu an outsiuei's peispective of aichaeological
piactice, also offeieu inteiesting methouological anu intellectual insight. Peihaps the
most citeu ethnogiaphic stuuy of atalhoyk is Caiolyn Bamilton's analysis of 'fault
lines'iifts anu conflicts between excavatois anu specialists on site (1996).
Ethnogiaphic attention has continueu up until the piesent uay. Since my stuuy in 2uu9,
two new stuuies of note appeaieu in the 2u1u atalhoyk Aichive Repoit: a stuuy calleu
Fvoluotion of reflexive metboJs by Bjoin Nilsson & sa Beiggien, which assesses the
success oi failuie of ieflexive methous thioughout atalhoyk's long histoiy, anu
anothei stuuy calleu Proctices of orcboeoloqicol knowleJqe proJuction ot (otolboyk
2010 by Tonia Baviuovic, which (like my own ieseaich) uiaws on SSK-oiienteu methous
but focuses specifically on excavation piactices at the site (atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject
2u1ua: 1S8-1S9). In the 2u1u Aichive Repoit, these two buuuing stuuies iepiesent
'things to come' on the atalhoyk ieseaich agenua, but they also iepiesent meiely the
'latest' in a piolifeiation of site ethnogiaphies.
The fact that theie have been so many ethnogiaphies of atalhoyk piactice in
the fiist place is an impoitant issue to consiuei. Ian Bouuei has openly encouiageu
ieflexive stuuy at the site. Because he is so welcoming, many ethnogiaphic ieseaicheis
finu the invitation anu oppoitunity to stuuy aichaeological piactice at atalhoyk
almost iiiesistible. Because the site has a long histoiy of ethnogiaphic tiauition,
extenuing that woik seems to be a unique oppoitunity. Bowevei, at the enu of my own

157
woik I finu that I question: with all of these similai stuuies, what is ieally uistinct in
auuing yet anothei ethnogiaphy to the pile. In answeiing this question, I finu that my
own stuuy has its successful contiibutions, along with some notewoithy failuies.
A uistinct anu successful aigument in this thesis is that the constiuction of
authoiity in aichaeological piactice is an inheiently messy, monqleJ onJ moteriol affaii.
This thesis uemonstiates that authoiitative knowleuge ielies upon the inteiielations of
ueeply embeuueu, active, messy mateiiality as well as humans to constiuct
aichaeological knowleuge. As aigueu thioughout this chaptei (climaxing in Section
4.4.S), aichaeological authoiity uemanus stabilisation, which is amasseu anu soliuifieu
fiom a veiy messy anu mangleu inteiaction of humans, mateiials anu piocesses like
insciiption anu tianslation. This thesis uistinctly aigues that the ontological woilu
intiuues upon human action anu thought in aichaeological methouology, anu that the
constiuction of authoiitative knowleuge ielies upon the stabilizing mateiial limitations
placeu upon human inteiactions anu piocesses ovei time.
0nlike pievious ethnogiaphic stuuies of atalhoyk, this stuuy uistinctively anu
foicefully highlights the impoitance of moteriol actois anu piocesses of inteiaction in
the piouuction of knowleuge in aichaeology. Pievious stuuies of atalhoyk have been
fai too focuseu on the agency of human actois, iepiesenting aichaeological
inteipietation as a human-centiic affaii. By uiawing on insights fiom othei uisciplinaiy
methouologies such as SSK, this stuuy aigues that oui focus shoulu be ieoiienteu to
acknowleuge the active piocesses of insciiption anu tianslation in oui own piactice.
Nuch moie thought shoulu be given to the fact that we as humans opeiate in messy anu
complicateu ways, in a mangleu mateiial woilu, wheie humans, mateiials, instiuments,
institutions anu peisonalities all mateiially inteiielate anu inteiact to piouuce
knowleuge. Peihaps most impoitantly, it shoulu be iecognizeu that, in all of this messy
ieality, aichaeological piactice also accumulates the messy anu amoiphous by-piouuct
of 'authoiity'a highei oi lowei status attacheu to the peiceiveu anu peifoimeu
'coiiectness' oi powei of paiticulai knowleuge anu iueas (the peifoimance anu
ieception of authoiity is a topic moie closely uiscusseu in the next chaptei, Chaptei S).
No pievious ethnogiaphies of atalhoyk have so stiongly auuiesseu the impoitance of
mateiial agents in aichaeological methou, the piocesses anu powei of tianslation anu
insciiption, anu the unbiiuleu messiness of the aichaeological piocess that is not only
inheient in the constiuction of knowleuge but ciucial to the piouuction anu
sustainability of authoiity.
0nlike pievious stuuies, this chaptei also builus the uistinct aigument
(climaxing in Section 4.4.4) that many pievious ieflexive stuuies of the atalhoyk

158
pioject have confuseu anu conflateu uiffeient concepts of multivocality. As uiscusseu in
Section 2.S.2., the theoiies of multivocality anu ieflexivity aie cential postpiocessual
themes of the atalhoyk excavations. These theoiies uiiectly engage with the notion of
authoiity, questioning who has the powei to speak foi anu about the past. They ask,
"how shoulu we iesponu to the fact that so many gioups want to tell uiffeient stoiies
about the site." (Bouuei 2uuu: 4). They aie a ciitique of taken-foi-gianteu assumptions
about what knowleuge is anu how it is foimeu (Bouuei 2uuS: S8). With ieflexivity,
stiess is geneially placeu on the act of self-examination oi self-ieflection of oui own
methous. With multivocality, the focus is on "changing piactices anu contexts so that
uisauvantageu gioups have the oppoitunity to be heaiu anu iesponueu to. It involves
tiying to move away fiom the methous anu piinciples that aie attuneu to the Westein
voice. It involves ethics anu iights" (Bouuei 2uu8: 196). Bowevei, as aigueu in Section
4.4.4, the authoiity of the atalhoyk pioject's use of ieflexivity anu multivocality now
iests on a ciitical tension. The postpiocessual piogiam piomoteu by Ian Bouuei is
baseu on the concept of tianspaiency in the intellectual piocess: tianspaiency of
methou, tianspaiency of space anu stiuctuie, tianspaiency of the human anu mateiial
netwoiks anu activities that piouuce knowleuge in the piactice of aichaeology.
Bowevei, too much contiol ovei that tianspaiency at atalhoyk has tenueu to
unueimine the oveiall authoiity of Bouuei's postpiocessual piogiam.
This thesis uepaits fiom pievious ethnogiaphic stuuies of atalhoyk by making
the uistinctive aigument that theie is no ieal 'multivocality' happening at the siteat
least, not in any sense of tiue commensuiability oi ieal 'powei shaiing' (see Section
4.S.2). While Bouuei's postpiocessual piogiam of ieflexivity has succeeueu (in the fact
that he anu many membeis of his team have actively steppeu back to consiuei anu
ieflect upon theii own impact on the aichaeology they piouuce, which has been a
successful exeicise), I stiongly uisagiee that theie is any piogiam of commensuiable
'multivocality' at the site. Foi example, ethnogiaphies by the longtime site membei
Sonja Atalay have focuseu on conuucting "community-baseu paiticipatoiy ieseaich in
aichaeology", oi CBPR. In hei 2u1u aiticle, Atalay wiites that "The CBPR pioject in
atalhoyk offeis an excellent example of CBPR's successful application to aichaeology"
(2u1u: 421) anu that CBPR is about "uemociatizing knowleuge" (2u1u: 426). 0nlike
such oveily cheeiy anu peifoimative stuuies, this thesis aigues (see Section 4.4.4) that
'multivocality' at atalhoyk has been a misuseu anu conflateu iuea which neeus to be
openeu anu auuiesseu in a moie appiopiiate way. Fiom what I witnesseu on-site, team
membeis at atalhoyk aie not piacticing any kinu of ieal 'multivocality' noi aie they
ieally 'uemociatizing knowleuge'. Rathei, they aie engaging in non-empowereJ

159
lnJiqenous orcboeoloqy, a teim coineu by Bonna Yates in hei uoctoial uisseitation
(2u1u). Accoiuing to Yates:
In non-empowereJ lnJiqenous orcboeoloqy the aichaeologist ietains uecision-
making powei. Fiist, in this mouel, the aichaeologist has appioacheu the pioject
with theii own questions that auuiess theii own ieseaich agenua. The
aichaeologist makes the choice to contact the Inuigenous community, but it is
likely that excavation coulu take place without consultation. Nothing specific
foices the aichaeologist to look foi Inuigenous input, anu if peimission to
excavate is uenieu by an Inuigenous gioup, the aichaeologist can choose to
ignoie the uenial. The balance of powei is not shifteu, as some commentatois
seem to believe. (Yates 2u1u: 22)

In hei thesis, Yates specifically ciiticizes souices by both Atalay anu Bouuei, paiticulaily
on the assumption that all local communities natuially wont oi neeJ aichaeologists to
giaciously 'consult' with them, anu in the fact that they have yet to consistently
acknowleuge that the balance of powei in a 'consultation' always siues in favoui the of
the aichaeologists, with no ieal uemociacy in uecision-making (Yates 2u1u). Yates's
mouel of non-empowereJ lnJiqenous orcboeoloqy contiasts with the alteinative mouel of
empowereJ lnJiqenous orcboeoloqy, wheie local gioups can asseit significant contiol
ovei both excavation methouologies anu final inteipietive outcomes. At atalhoyk, one
can aigue that Tuikish stakeholueis have peihaps foiceu aichaeologists to inteiact
moie with the local community anu consiuei theii neeus, anu that Bouuei's "at the
tiowel's euge" commentaiy has acknowleugeu the aichaeologist-favouieu powei
balance of any consultation; howevei, uespite these uepaituies fiom Yates's mouel, I uo
think that it is faii ciiticism to aigue that the community aichaeology piacticeu at
Catalhoyuk is non-empowereJ, in that it is solely poweieu byanu the iesult ofthe
ieseaich self-inteiests of inuiviuual atalhoyk team membeis.
The teim 'multivocality' simply means incluuing 'multiple voices' in
aichaeological piactice, anu inueeu, this is what many community-baseu stuuies at
atalhoyk aie setting out to uo (Webb 2uu2; Bouuei 2uuS; Rountiee 2uu7; Bouuei
2uu8; Atalay 2uu9; Atalay 2u1u). But when I visiteu the pioject in 2uu9, I only founu a
cacophony of 'multiple voices' existing in paiallel. Rathei than finuing any tiuly
commensuiable multivocality at atalhoyk, I insteau founu that inteipietation anu
methou was heavily contiolleu by one authoiitative vision oi voice. As uetaileu in
Section 4.S.2, while pievious liteiatuie has aigueu that it is "ieasonable to abanuon
abstiact objectivity anu make tiials of iesistance commensuiable.Talk to people,
unueistanu them, peisuaue if necessaiy; insteau of pationising them by playing expeit"
(Shanks anu Bouuei 199S: 2u), I insteau founu a kinu of 'paiallel' multivocality
piacticeu at atalhoyk, wheie multiple voices weie being 'alloweu' oi 'sought out', but

160
weie not ieally integiateu into final inteipietations oi methouology. As uesciibeu in
Section 4.S.2, the aichaeologists 'conuucteu multivocality' by cieating a setting wheie
outsiuei gioups, like the Nothei uouuess community, felt iespecteu anu hau the
oppoitunity to auu theii voices to a geneial uiscussion. Neithei siue was foolish enough,
though, to think that the aichaeologists weie tiying to engage in a uialogue of
commensuiability oi weie not 'playing expeit', oi wheie outsiuei oi alteinative iueas
woulu have ueep impact on the aichaeologists' final inteipietation of the mateiial
iecoiu.
S6
In the specific setting I obseiveu between the uouuess Community anu
aichaeologists at the site in 2uu9, the lines weie cleaily uiawn, anu the aichaeologists
asseiteu theii inteipietive authoiity ovei mateiial things anu physical space.
Bouuei has pieviously aigueu that "Suboiuinate gioups who want to be
involveu in aichaeological inteipietation neeu to be pioviueu with the means anu
mechanisms foi inteiacting with the aichaeological past in uiffeient ways" (Bouuei
1992: 186). But as I aigue in moie uetail latei in Chaptei 6 (Section 6.S.1), the veiy
sentence stiuctuie of this comment ieveals that Bouuei anu his team aie in the
authoiitative position of proviJinq suboiuinate gioups with 'means anu mechanisms'
while suboiuinate gioups aie at the ieceiving anu uisauvantageu enu of this piocess,
uealing with whatevei means oi mechanisms they aie alloweu oi allotteu. The team's
intent to empowei membeis of suboiuinate gioups stems fiom a ieal uesiie to allow
gieatei accessibility anu fieeuom to aichaeology, anu I uo think suboiuinate gioups
have felt empoweieu in some ways thiough theii collaboiation with the site. Bowevei, it
must still be iecogniseu that this empoweiment is always contiolleu by those who aie
highei in the social hieiaichy of aichaeological piactice. This is a point I ievisit in moie
uetail in Chaptei 6. Foi now, I aigue that it is time foi the pioject to iecognize the
impoitant uistinction between two alteinative uses of the teiminology
'commensuiable multivocality' veisus simply 'iespectful oi paiallel multivocality'anu
to auuiess the meiits anu failuies of its own iuealism.
This biings me to ieflect on some of the ielateu shoitcomings of my own
ieseaich. In some ways my stuuy fails in its aims to piesent a fully coheient analysis of
authoiity in aichaeological piactice. I woulu aigue that this has happeneu in pait
because of uifficulties navigating the unique natuie of the atalhoyk pioject itself. 0ne

S6
Impoitantly heie, I again stiess the powei of the mateiial anu ontological woilu that intiuues
upon human inteipietation. Aichaeologists tiaineu in scientific methous feel constiaineu by the
ontological stabilisation of eviuence, thus 'multiple voices' have much less of an impact on
aichaeologists as they aie empiiically tiying to 'inteipiet' oi 'unueistanu' uata. Aichaeologists
put gieat attention anu stiess on the mateiial woilu that they stuuy, which constiains anu
enables theii inteipietations.

161
failuie of this stuuy has involveu the limiteu time that I hau available foi fieluwoik.
Simply because I spent less than a full season at the site, I hau only a shoit time to 'uiop
the bucket in the well to uiaw watei'. Any time that a ieseaichei spenus only a shoit
peiiou of time uoing fieluwoik, paiticulaily in the miuule of a longei woik season in the
miuule of a much longei multi-yeai pioject, the iesults will be necessaiily constiaineu in
scope. This woik, then, is meiely a sample, insteau of a moie complete vision of the
uetaileu anu intiicate piocesses that contiibute to the piouuction of authoiity at
atalhoyk. Ny limiteu stay at the site has also affecteu my stuuy in a moie subtle way:
in some ways, this stuuy fails in its aims to piesent a fully coheient analysis of authoiity
because the atalhoyk pioject is a paiticulaily complicateu, uisconnecteu, tangleu,
messy, scatteieu anu uisintegiateu place.
As I aigue in Section 4.1.2 of this thesis, the atalhoyk pioject has cieateu an
unusually laige multiplicity of things anu peoplesite uiaiies anu uatabase images,
community foiums anu websites, expeiimental houses anu viitual ieconstiuctions,
visual text anu visitoi platfoims, a geneial explosion of insciiptions at the siteuue to
the encouiagement of multivocal inteipietations, the encouiagement of instability in
people anu piactice, anu an active uesiie to constantly inteiact with new meuiums anu
methous. While this plethoia of 'stuff' allows any ieseaichei to have a host of iecoius at
hanu to examine anu then tianslate accoiuing to theii own aims anu puiposes, it also
cieates a sense of chaos at the site. While Bouuei has actively encouiageu enuless
insciiptions because of the iuea that "a lack of stability is necessaiy if a ciitical appioach
is to be taken anu if the pioject is to iemain iesponsive to a changing woilu aiounu it"
(Bouuei quoteu in Faiiu: 27), I aigue that a kinu of entiopy ensues. Two things iesult.
Fiist, the laige numbei of people who have access to the atalhoyk pioject, who
speak foi the pioject anu the activities taking place, means that moie 'buzz' oi sense of
woith anu value has been geneiateu aiounu the pioject, compaieu to uiscussion aiounu
many othei similaily sizeu excavations. Nuch of atalhoyk's authoiity anu the piestige
of Bouuei's postpiocessual piogiam ielies on a continuous uiscussion in acauemic
liteiatuie anu intiouuctoiy textbook mateiials.
S7
Iionically, this stobilisinq effect of
continuous uiscussion that giounus atalhoyk's acauemic authoiity, even though so

S7
I woulu also aigue that, paiauoxically, the oveiwhelming anu slippeiy natuie of 'too many'
insciiptions might be the ieason theie has been much less 'buzz' anu acauemic uiscussion about
the pioject ovei time. The pioject aiguably ieacheu its peak of acauemic uiscussion in the late
199us. Peihaps the uecline of inteiest in the acauemic community is uue to the 'too many'
insciiptions anu voices at the site, as it becomes moie anu moie uifficult to ieally get a sense of
what is actually happening on site oi who is actually contiibuting at any given time, anu this
geneiates confusion ovei how this mouel of chaotic methou might be useful oi helpful when
extenuing this mouel to othei excavating piactices.

162
much of that discussion is about the project's purported instability. By having so many
ieseaicheis attenu the site, continuously conuucting new ieseaich anu speaking foi the
pioject, anu by continually having the name of atalhoyk iepeateu anu cementeu in
'authoiitative' intiouuctoiy texts anu classioom teaching, the pioject anu its many
cential peisonalities become moie anu moie conciete anu stabiliseu in acauemic canon,
thus cieating anu sustaining a sense of authoiity. It is impoitant to note that this piocess
itself is a messy, mangleu anu complicateu affaii, involving inteiwoven people, places,
things, peisonalities, loyalties, texts, time anu mateiials. I aigue that the pioject's
stiongest moments of authoiity come when all of the mess anu mangle stabilizes in just
one authoiitative voiceusually Bouuei'swhich iises out of the chaos, soliuifying the
insciiptions anu messy methou in one foimal book oi iepoit naiiative. Touay, a new
ieauei oi visitoi to the site is fiist confionteu with an oveiwhelming instability of
people anu gieat confusion ovei 'too many' insciiptions. In the heat of this confusion
anu entiopy, the ieauei then stumbles acioss the soliu foimal intiouuctions in iepoits
anu the haiubounu books publisheu by Bouuei oi the coie team, anu these come as a
cool ielief. Theie is a stiong sense of authoiity when one stable voice iises up out of the
chaos, appeaiing to unueistanu it all.
Foi my own ieseaich, I founu that this constant piactical chaos, this constant
instability of new people anu things tumbling in anu out of the site while offeiing 'new
iueas', has also cieateu a stiong performonce of what postpiocessual aichaeology shoulu
'look like' in the fielu. As a visiting ieseaichei only on-site foi a shoit peiiou of time, I
peiceiveu a sense of showmanship at the site. This peifoimance manifesteu most
stiongly when I obseiveu outsiue aichaeology gioups visiting on what I calleu a
'pilgiimage' to see 'postpiocessual aichaeology in action' (see Section 4.2.2.S). These
aichaeology gioups, often heavy with stuuents, woulu come to see the atalhoyk
excavations anu laboiatoiies; they woulu ask questions to the site uiiectois with a hope
to 'contiibute', then uepait without having much impact on the site specialists, who
mostly just wanteu to get on with theii woik in quiet laboiatoiies.
This sense of peifoimance fuithei manifesteu as I went thiough my five weeks
as a 'site ethnogiaphei'. When I fiist aiiiveu on site, I felt a sense of unease when I was
immeuiately labelleu as 'anothei ethnogiaphei' anu my woik was, at times, quietly
iesisteu by aichaeologists who weie tiieu of being watcheu anu stuuieu (although it
must be saiu that my questions weie nevei uismisseu oi iejecteu, anu people waimeu to
me the longei I stayeu at the site). Foi example, many of the ietuining membeis
expiesseu a slight sense of exaspeiation anu humoui when they fiist met me: 'yet
anothei ethnogiaphei showing up foi uuty'. Buiing my time theie, I got the sense that

163
many of the atalhoyk team membeis weie simply a 'peifoiming foi the
anthiopologist'. In my fielu notes on Bay Two, I wiote:
Really inteiesting conveisation I just hau |withj one of the human iemains
specialists who is shaiing a ioom with me. She mentioneu jokes that went
aiounu about what exactly I'm uoing - anu askeu uiiectly, almost bluntly, what
exoctly it is that I woulu be uoing heie.: woulu I woulu be walking aiounu the
site with a notepau anu clipboaiu looking at eveiyone as if they weie monkeys.
She saiu that she anu a few otheis weie in the showeis this moining, anu then
suuuenly theie was no watei. They jokeu that maybe they shoulu all go out in
the veianua with buckets of watei anu splash it on themselvesthen the
ethnogiaphei coulu come anu watch the piimitives 'uoing theii thing'.

0n the same uay, my fielu notes ielate a sepaiate conveisation with anothei
uisillusioneu specialist who tolu me that the team specialists ieally just felt like "miuule
management" woiking away on aichaeological uetails uay in anu uay out, while " highei
poweis" watcheu anu maue commentaiy. The specialist saiu that many membeis of the
team often "just felt like amoeba in Bouuei's Petii uish", since the uiiectoi continueu to
uisiupt the site by "inviting contioveisy foi the sake of his next papei". This sense of
uisillusionment, which was iife at the site when I visiteu in 2uu9, no uoubt contiibuteu
to Bouuei's uecision to fiie most of his team to biing in "new eneigy" (see Section 4.4.4).
This ieality means that my own stuuy has ceitainly faileu in some ways to fully
pin uown the complex mangle of authoiity at the site of atalhoyk. I aigue that this
aichaeological pioject is peihaps overly sciutinizeu: it is too stuuieu, too obseiveu. It
piouuces too many voices, which aie nevei fully integiateu, because theie is too much
instability anu too many insciiptions to manage. As I aigue in Section 4.4.2, because of
this confusion anu instability, the team usually collapses back into a moie simple anu
stieamlineu accounting piocess as they inteipiet uata, wheie any one peison
necessaiily ielies on only one convenient set of insciiptions oi one set of voices when
constiucting theii own unueistanuing the site uata. 0ut of all of the chaos anu 'too many
things', emeiges just one authoiitative voice foi simplicity's sakeanu it is this ielief in
the stability of one stiong authoiitative voice lifteu above chaos that the tiue authoiity
of the pioject lies.
Thus, in the same continueu vein, my ieseaich has simply contiibuteu yet
anothei insciiption to the mess anu tangle of the atalhoyk pioject. I, too, have been
foiceu to iely on only one set of insciiptions oi limiteu seiies of events to stake my own
aiguments. In this way, my own stuuy is unueimineu because of the limitations in tiying
to get a giasp on 'too much' uata. The site is so stuuieu, so sciutinizeu, so insciibeu that
any compiehensive account of the pioject's authoiity thiough time anu space woulu be
a mammoth unueitaking, iequiiing an enoimous amount of time anu familiaiity with

164
the sitewhich peihaps goes above anu beyonu anything a new ieseaichei might be
able to peifoim. Peihaps only a longstanuing, stable anu ietuining membei of the site,
like Shahina Faiiu, coulu offei something iemotely close to a compiehensive uiscussion
on the constiuction of authoiity at atalhoyk.
Finally, I woulu aigue that my ieseaich is ultimately unueimineu because it is
only a stuuy of a peifoimance. People anu things at atalhoyk opeiate in a complex
web of piactice thatto any new ieseaicheiis meiely a peifoimance of an iuea of
what methous anu spatial setup 'shoulu be like' at the site, anu not what is actually
happening. I uo think that this chaptei has in some small way sciatcheu the
peifoimative suiface of atalhoyk anu begun a uiscussion on the pioject's authoiity,
but I also think that its iesults might be compiomiseu by the fact that I have been
stuuying people who aie oveily awaie of my obseiving eyes, oveily tiaineu to 'ueal with'
being obseiveu, anu who have simply peifoimeu 'postpiocessual aichaeology in action'.
Because of these uifficulties unueitaking ieseaich at atalhoyk, this chaptei uoes in
some ways fail to piesent a fully compiehensive analysis of authoiity. Bowevei, it
contiibutes a soliu illustiation of just how tiuly messy anu mangleu aichaeological
piactice can be, anu it stiongly aigues that authoiity in the entiie uiscipline iests on the
stabilizing of moteriol peifoimances anu inteiactions of things anu people. The next
chaptei, which focuses on the case to the Bosnian Pyiamius, extenus this uiscussion of
peifoimance anu paiticipation in the constiuction of authoiity in aichaeological
piactice.
CBAPTER S TBE B0SNIAN PYRANIBS AS A CASE ST0BY

165
!"#$%&' O,c&+
#2.50/4.: 4- $084.43D 6-1 $7/<0/H6-37+
%57 I0D-46- $:/6H41D 6D 6 !6D7 Q.21:

"ln orquments for bypotbeses, os oqoinst textbook expositions of finJinqs, tbe best scientists sounJ
like bonest, intelliqent lowyers onJ like principleJ, mutuolly respectful people enqoqeJ in politicol
controversy." (Nillei 1987: 1SS)

"Tbe conceptuolisotion onJ representotion of tbe post is frouqbt witb Jifficulty, not simply becouse
of tbe poucity of tbe Joto, but becouse tbe construction of bistory, written or orol, post or present, is
o politicol oct." (Whitelam 1996: 11)

V>= ,-./0123.40-
V>=>= ,-./0123.40-+ #2.50/4.: </0H !0-.7L.M ,-D.4.2.40-D 6-1 Q0340g$084.43D
0sing the case of atalhoyk in the pievious section, I explaineu how authoiity
manifests thiough the piocesses of insciiption, tianslation anu the stabilisation of fluiu,
complex scientific piactices. Authoiitative things, people anu accounts in such a case aie
fiist negotiateu in localiseu aienas, in the tianslations of people woiking with the
physical woilu anu unuei social institutions of scientific piactice; howevei, authoiity in
the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge is yet moie complex. In some cases,
inuiviuuals oi collectives aie often uiawn to chaiismatic leaueis anu social movements
in the hope to attain some measuie of authoiity oi benefit fiom authoiity. People in
seaich of oi 'in possession of' authoiity can tuin into poweiful consumeis anu
piouuceis of authoiitative goous. Authoiity can also be mimickeu anu peifoimeu, anu
people often make uelibeiate choices in how to peifoim, seek out, oi unueimine
authoiitative people, things oi knowleuge.
The lattei points biing up the specific question that uiives this chaptei: what is
happening in a case like the Bosnian Pyiamius. In Bosnia, a gioup of people (anu in
paiticulai, one inuiviuual) has successfully piomoteu an image of aichaeological
authoiity, even though theii inteipietations of excavateu mateiial have no ontological
significance. The amateui Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has helu a uominant oi
'authoiitative' position in populai cultuie, ovei moie 'justifieu' accounts of the past
piomoteu by piofessional aichaeologists. Aichaeological authoiity, then, funuamentally

166
iests on exteinal social contexts which affect the ieception of accounts with the geneial
public. The issue of authoiity in aichaeological piactice goes beyonu just how actois
might tianslate mateiial anu 'gatekeep' powei in localiseu aienas of piactice. This
chaptei aigues that in cases like the Bosnian Pyiamius, aichaeological authoiity is
uiawn fiom performotive anu porticipotory acts that aie contextual in natuie. Socio-
politics plays a ciucial iole in the way authoiity can be cieateu anu tianslateu by
aichaeologists, as well as by amateuis anu membeis of the geneial public, anu in the
way accounts aie successful at gaineiing authoiity in public aienas. This stuuy
uemonstiates that, by uiawing on institutions of social authoiity anu science as a mastei
uiscouise, epistemic anu executive authoiity can be constiucteu anu maintaineu on the
basis of peifoimance anu paiticipation.
The fiist section of this chaptei intiouuces the iuea of authoiity behinu the act of
classification, the powei in uiviuing what is authentic, authoiiseu anu authoiitative fiom
what is not in a scientific uiscipline like aichaeology. The seconu section uses the case of
the Bosnain Pyiamius to illustiate the iole of socio-politics anu institutions in the
tianslation of authoiity, anu it aigues that politics have a majoi impact in the
constiuction anu maintenance of aichaeological authoiity, especially ielating to the
geneial public. The thiiu section aigues that scientific authoiity is, in laige pait, uue to
appiopiiate peifoimance, anu the success oi failuie of authoiity can come uown to how
one uiaws on the appiopiiate scientific acts, institutions of legitimisation anu the iuea of
science as a mastei uiscouise. This last point, iegaiuing science as a mastei uiscouise, is
fully expanueu in the final section of this chaptei, using the specific case stuuy of the
iauiocaibon iesults piesenteu at the 1
st
Inteinational Scientific Confeience of the
Bosnian Pyiamius.

V>=>A !6D7 Q.21: $6/6H7.7/D+ '787P6-. $/0G73. I63J9/02-1
In 2uuS, a Bosnian-Ameiican businessman anu alteinative histoiian nameu
Semii 0smanagic maue inteinational news heaulines when he announceu that he hau
uiscoveieu the laigest anu oluest man-maue pyiamius in the woilu. These ancient
pyiamius, he claimeu, aie locateu in the small town of visoko, Bosnia-Beizegovina, 2u
miles noithwest of Saiajevo |Figuies 1S, 14j. 0smanagic has iuentifieu five pyiamiual-
shapeu hills locateu in the visoica iivei valley, which he has claimeu aie technological

167
feats of a Paleolithic
S8
Bosnian supeicivilisation (BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6; ICBP
2uu8). The laigest of the puipoiteu pyiamius, visoica Bill, is 18S.S meties high. If
genuinely man-maue, this woulu make it the laigest pyiamiu in the woilu, as Khufu's
pyiamiu in Egypt is only 146.S meties. 0smanagic ienameu all of the pyiamiual hills in
the valley with titles like 'Pyiamiu of the Sun' anu 'Pyiamiu of the Noon', because they
supposeuly iesemble the Naya step pyiamius in Nexico. Accoiuing to 0smanagic, the
thiee laigest pyiamius puipoiteuly foim a peifect tiiangle, anu the foui siues of the
laigest 'Pyiamiu of the Sun' align to the foui caiuinal points of the Eaith's compass. Bis
hypothesis also claims that these pyiamius aie connecteu by an intiicate unueigiounu
tunnel netwoik, anu the walls aie auoineu with the woilu's eailiest wiiting anu letteis
that iesemble ancient Noiuic iunes. 0smanagic has associateu two othei sites with
visoko: a hypothetical 'iock quaiiy' site in the village of uoinja viatnica, anu a iivei
iavine neai Zenica filleu with ancient 'mysteiious stone balls' (0smanagic 2uu7c;
0smanagic 2uu7a).
These sensational claims aie a bit of a two-heaueu }anus: on the one hanu,
0smanagic anu his team stiess that theii pioject is scientific, baseu in ontological ieality
anu physical tiuth. 0n the othei hanu, 0smanagic anu his team consistently connect the
pioject to new age mysticism, fiinge beliefs, alteinative aichaeologies anu esoteiica. Foi
example, the pioject ieleases "Scientific Repoits" as well as meuia coveiage of the
pioject as a genuine scientific aichaeological enteipiise (0smanagic 2uu7b; ICBP 2uu8;
Pazuui 2uu8) |See Appenuix Bj, while simultaneously piesenting itself as a site with
'mystical' anu 'mysteiious piopeities with connections to eneigy beams, cosmic foices
anu geological anomalies (Coppens 2uu8a; Coppens 2uu9). Bespite the fiinge
associations, the scientific anu physical ieality of the Bosnian Pyiamius is by fai the
most pievalent naiiative pusheu by Semii 0smanagic anu his team, anu it is aiguably
the 'scientific' anu 'empiiical' account of the site that holus sway anu authoiity in the
eyes of the geneial Bosnian public.
Semii 0smanagic is oiiginally fiom Saiajevo. Be holus a Nasteis uegiee in
politics anu economics, anu in 2uu9, he uefenueu a PhB fiom the 0niveisity of Saiajevo
on unconventional fiinge theoiies about the Naya (0smanagic 2uu7b; 0smanagic 2uu9).
0smanagic settleu in Bouston, Texas befoie the Yugoslav Civil Wai (1992-199S) anu
now owns a successful metal constiuction business that oveisees 1uu employeesan

58
The exact dates for these pyramids have varied over time by pyramid supporters, with little
consistency. In some cases Osmanagi! also refers to the pyramids as having a Neolithic date or as
being built by the Illyrian civilisation around 12,000BC (Coppens 2009); however, in this thesis I use
the term Palaeolithic to reflect the radiocarbon dates of around 34,000 BC that have been heavily
promoted by Semir Osmanagi! and the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation (see Section 5.5.2).

168
accomplishment ieflecting his consiueiable skill as an entiepieneui. Regaiuing his
aichaeological backgiounu, 0smanagic claims to have stuuieu pyiamius aiounu the
woilu in his fiee time ovei the past 2u yeais anu is the authoi of seveial woiks of 'fiinge'
aichaeology (Foei 2uu7) |See Appenuix Ej. Bis book Tbe WorlJ of tbe Hoyo, foi example,
suggests that the Naya weie uescenueu fiom aliens fiom the Pleiaues, "inheiiteu
knowleuge fiom theii ancestois at Atlantis anu Lemuiia (Nu)", anu that "pyiamius
eiecteu on these eneigy potent locations enableu the Naya to be closei to the heavens
anu to othei levels of consciousness" (0smanagic 2uuSc; 0smanagic 2uuSb: 7u). Nost of
0smanagic's alteinative histoiy woiks espouse the same genie of 'fiinge' iueas
(0smanagic 2uuSa).

O492/7 =F+ ;6N D50@4-9 .57 8036.40- 0< c4D0J0 4- I0D-46g"7/j790P4-6> G+4 &' ()*+ !*,-$$>

169

O492/7 =U+ %54D 430-43 4H697 0< c4D0J0 @6D .6J7- 4- =X_FM 6-1 4. 4D @4178: 14D./4K2.71
0-84-7M 4- N:/6H41 K/0352/7D <0/ .02/4DH 6-1 CD347-.4<43 D.2147DEM 6-1 0- .02/4D. N0D.36/1D
6-1 0.57/ D02P7-4/D> %54D 4D .57 H0D. D.2--4-9M D./6495.g84-71 D417 0< c4D0k436 "488
\/7-6H71 $:/6H41 0< .57 Q2-]> ,-3417-.688:M .54D 4D 68D0 .57 H0D. N50.09/6N571 6-987 0<
c4D0k436 "488> ("-6 -6 + 7*))2' =-6$*-&,$)= -3+0).

0smanagic's pyiamiu theoiies quickly gaineu local anu national attention anu
suppoit, incluuing suppoit fiom the inteinational alteinative histoiy community (Foei
2uu7; Coppens 2uu9). Nost piofessional aichaeologists, howevei, have since agieeu
that 0smanagic's theoiies aie not suppoiteu by any eviuentiaiy mateiial founu at the
site, uespite 0smanagic's claims to the contiaiy (Bohannon 2uu6a; Rose 2uu6b). Nost
mainstieam aichaeologists uefine the site as 'pseuuoaichaeology', an act of amateui
aichaeological piactice that "invokes the auia of scholaiship without being scholaily in
fact anu bluis the uistinction between ieal scholaiship anu 'alteinative' output" (}oiuan
2uu1: 288-289). In spite of the negative piofessional acauemic ieaction, 0smanagic's
pioject has continueu to opeiate anu thiive thiough to the yeai 2u1u, with continueu
backing fiom the Bosnian public, meuia anu goveinment (Piuitt 2uu7; Woouaiu 2uu7a).
0se of mass meuia has been the single most impoitant ieason that infoimation
anu suppoit foi the pyiamiu pioject spieau so iapiuly. Piint news fiist ieleaseu anu
uistiibuteu Semii 0smanagic's stoiy, anu television anu Inteinet meuia fanneu the
uebate between suppoiteis anu opposition. Bebia Spitulnik wiites: "Nass meuia.aie at
once aitifacts, expeiiences, piactices, anu piocesses. They aie economically anu
politically uiiven, linkeu to the uevelopments in science anu technology, anu like most

170
uomains of human life, theii existence is inextiicably bounu up with the use of language"
(Spitulnik 199S: 29S). Inteiactions that 0smanagic's team, the geneial public,
politicians, acauemics anu othei gioups have hau with the meuia have cieateu a
complex web of peifoimance, contiibution, theatiicality anu uistiibution.
Naik Rose of the Aichaeological Institute of Ameiica wiites of the initial piess
inteiest: "The stoiy has swept the meuia, fiom the Associateu Piess anu the BBC, fiom
papeis anu websites in the 0.S. to those in Inuia anu Austialia" (2uu6b). Nost of these
initial iepoits uemonstiateu suppoit foi the pioject. Accoiuing to Rose: "Eveiy majoi
meuia outlet that initially coveieu this stoiy got it wiong. It's cleaily ciackpot stuff, but
appaiently nobouy botheieu to check the stoiy" (quoteu in Woouaiu 2uu7b). Eventually
biggei news outlets staiteu checking the stoiy anu ieleaseu moie sceptical iepoits;
howevei, local newspapeis, "uon't have science uesks.Bosnian aichaeologists uismiss
the majoiity of local jouinalists as ill-euucateu. Bence Apiil's Avoz heaulines like 'The
pyiamiu will be visible by the enu of the yeai'" (Kampschioi 2uu6: 27).
Television meuia was the most influential in spieauing suppoitive infoimation
to a wiue auuience (0smanagic 2uu7c). Woouaiu iepoits, "Feueiation television, the
laigest Saiajevo-baseu netwoik, pioviueu extensive coveiage, anu soon thousanus of
people weie visiting visoko eveiy uay" (2uu7b). Local meuia stations also aiiangeu foi
'face-offs' between 0smanagic anu mainstieam aichaeologists anu uistiibuteu many
suppoitive campaigns foi his site (0smanagic 2uu6). Foieign television netwoiks like
ABC auveitiseu exciteu piogiams that woulu "tiavel to Bosnia to follow this mouein uay
Inuiana }ones" (ABC 2uu6). 0smanagic was quick to use his new clout with the piess,
tiavelling aiounu the woiluto places like Eastei Islanu, Peiu, Englanu, anu }oiuan
with Bosnian Tv to cieate uocumentaiies that boosteu his site's piofile (0smanagic
2uu7c) |See inteiview tiansciipt in Appenuix Ej. In the meantime, othei piivate gioups
ieleaseu piofessional uocumentaiies about the Bosnian Pyiamius (BBR 2uu7). Local
newspapeis ielisheu the attention fiom foieign piess, exaggeiating foieign inteiest: "all
local television news shows tiumpeteu the piesence of CNN, AP, Reuteis, anu the BBC
without mentioning that most outlets coveieu it as a cute human inteiest stoiy"
(Woouaiu 2uu7b). With inteinational meuia attention fuelling the local meuia,
excitement anu positive piess spieau the stoiy like fiie. Almost oveinight, 0smanagic
became the masteiminu anu postei boy of a national sensation. |Figuie 1Sj


171

O492/7 =V+ )DH6-694l 302/.D K0.5 .57 80368 \87<.] 6-1 <0/749- \/495.] %787P4D40- $/7DD>

Naik Rose wiites, "one might have thought that the Ice Age Bosnian pyiamiu
stoiy woulu collapse like a bau souffl, but no. Nainstieam meuia has become somewhat
moie ciitical of stoiies emanating fiom visoko, but much of the ieal woik in uissecting
the claims has appeaieu on blogs anu message boaius, such as The Ball of Na'at" (Rose
2uu6a). While the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject gatheieu foice anu populaiity thiough piint
anu television foimats, 0smanagic's bau aichaeology was exposeu mostly in online
foimats. The Inteinet has become the biggest meuia foi those who oppose the pyiamiu
pioject, unuoubteuly because of its inteiactive anu uynamic foimat. Anti-pyiamiu
websites come in thiee types: inuepenuent websites uevoteu to anti-pyiamiu
sentiments, blog postings anu commentaiy on peisonal websites, anu foium
commentaiy attacheu to pieviously establisheu websites (Feagans 2uu7; Reece 2uu7;
Iina 2u1u). Websites like ln tbe Eoll of Hoot opeiate a geneial list of aiticles anu foium
uiscussions that uispute alteinative histoiy stoiies foi the geneial public. Hoot's
uevelopei, Katheiine Reece, says she built the site to "help those people who weie
seaiching foi the tiuth about histoiy to have an easily accessible 'mainstieam' countei
to these 'alteinative' claims" (2uu6:1uS). Bei foium has featuieu heateu anu emotional
uebate about pseuuoscience at the Bosnian Pyiamius site. 0thei websites anu blogs like
IRNA (Iina 2u1u) continue to ielease fiequent bouts of news, infoimation anu eviuence-
baseu aiguments against the pyiamiu pioject.
In 2uu6, 0smanagic establisheu an officially iegisteieu 'Aichaeological Paik:
Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation' (iefeiieu to this uisseitation as simply 'the
Founuation'), establishing a fully-fleugeu business anu auministiation centie. Bis team
of SS to 8u inuiviuuals, uepenuing on the season, is mostly composeu of amateuis with
an inteiest in histoiy, but also incluues PhB holueis fiom countiies such as Egypt anu
Russia (0smanagic 2uu7c; ICBP 2uu8). The Founuation has maintaineu that its ultimate
(Image courtesy of Gabriele Lukacs:
http://www.magisch-reisen.at/pyrm.gif)

(Image courtesy of Beth Kampschror:
http://www.archaeology.org/0607/abstracts/bosnia.html)


172
goal is to establish visoko as a majoi touiist attiaction anu get the pyiamius listeu as a
0NESC0 woilu heiitage site (Kosmo 2uu9). The team iuns fully invasive anu extensive
excavations in uoinja viatnica, anu at visoica anu Pljeevica Bills in visoko ('Pyiamiu
of the Sun' anu 'Pyiamiu of the Noon', iespectively). Inteinational piofessional
aichaeologists have paiticulaily ciiticizeu the Founuation's haphazaiu anu uestiuctive
excavation methous. 0smanagic's amateui team has uamageu genuine meuieval anu
iion age aichaeological iemains in the visoko hills in theii seaich of 'pioof' of ancient
pyiamius (Rose 2uu6b). Suppoiteis anu opponents alike have compaieu 0smanagic to
Beiniich Schliemann: his suppoiteis piaise 0smanagic's ueteimination foi puisuing his
vision uespite objections fiom the establisheu acaueme (in iefeience to Schliemann's
backgiounu as a passionate amateui). Bis opponents iefeience Schliemann's penchant
foi uestioying all aichaeological eviuencefiom meuieval to Romanthat stoou
between him anu his sought-aftei Tiojan stiatigiaphy. |Figuie 16j
0smanagic anu his Founuation publish voiaciously: eveiything fiom scientific
iepoits aimeu at a geneial public auuience to touiist biochuies aiming to boost business
in the iegion. 0smanagic has lectuieu at Bosnian Embassies thioughout the woilu
(0smanagic 2uu7a), has hosteu his own sizeable inteinational scientific confeience
(ICBP 2uu8) anu has maue fiequent appeaiances in local schools anu on television (ABC
2uu6). The pyiamiu phenomenon in Bosnia was initially seen as an oveiwhelming
success, biinging in impoitant positive economic changes to the post-wai town of
visoko (Foei 2uu7; Woouaiu 2uu7a; Woouaiu 2uu7b). Nuch of the enthusiasm behinu
the pioject has involveu the money it biings to the iegion thiough touiism. Bosnia
expeiienceu a gieat ueal of suffeiing in the iecent wai (1991-199S), which uiviueu the
countiy ethnically anu politically, leaving its citizens veiy insecuie anu its goveinment
politically uisjointeu: "Feais, hatieus, memoiies, giief foi the ueau, nostalgia foi the lost
native places anu homes, shatteieu uieams, insecuiity, uisappointment, pessimism aie
continuing to haunt eveiybouy" (Zhelyazkova 2uu4: 17). In this context, the pyiamiu
pioject has pioviueu a positive, unifying symbol foi post-wai Bosnian nationalism,
holuing significant authoiity in the iegion because of its useful iole in a national anu
ethnic uialogue (Piuitt 2uu7).


173

O492/7 =^+ &L36P6.40- D4.7 6. $8G7m7P436 "488 \/7-6H71 $:/6H41 0< .57 ;00-]> !"#$# &' ()*+
!*,-$$.

The questions that emeige fiom this situation aie uifficult. Who has the iight to
Bosnia's past. Who has the authoiity to use Bosnia's past. This pioject is unuoubteuly
helping Bosnia's economy. 0n the othei hanu, it is unuoubteuly uisiupting, anu peihaps
uestioying, genuine aichaeology in Bosnia. This scenaiio foices us to ask uistiessing
questions: might an imagineu site like the Bosnian pyiamius be wortb moie than ieal
aichaeology. Who has the iight to put a value on it. Who has the authoiity to own oi
excavate aichaeological space, oi to constiuct naiiatives baseu in aichaeology (oi at
least in the notion of what 'aichaeology' might entail). This site is an economic anu
social asset to uiffeient gioups in Bosnia, with uiffeient values foi uiffeient ieasons. Foi
many politicians anu membeis of the public, the question is not whethei oi not the
pyiamius aie ieal, but iathei if people will come to see it, spenu money in the touiist
shops, anu use it as a cultuial anu economic aitefact. Foi otheis the site's veiy existence
questions funuamental iueas about goveinment, peisonal contiol anu acauemic
authoiity.
This case stuuy also iaises impoitant questions about the powei of
iepiesentation anu peifoimance, anu the appiopiiate 'piesence' anu 'piesentation' of
aichaeological accounts. The peifoimative aspects of this case, coupleu with the
paiticipatoiy involvement by membeis of the public, offeis an inteiesting contiast to the
iuea that 'facts' anu 'valiuity' aie objective concepts that might exist outsiue of a social

174
context, which involves politics of 'convincing'. Insteau, we aie foiceu to involve
complex aienas of authoiity such as peifoimance anu uisplay in oiuei to explain why
the Bosnian Pyiamiu account of the past has been so successful anu accepteu. While my
pievious woik on this case stuuy foi my NPhil uisseitation (Piuitt 2uu7) focuseu on the
socio-political heiitage conceins that this pioject has iaiseu, this thesis is piimaiily
conceineu with the questions iaiseu by the site's constiuction anu maintenance of
epistemic anu executive authoiity in Bosnia.

V>A #2.50/4.: I754-1 !6.790/47D 6-1 #8.7/4.:
V>A>= %57 #2.50/4.: K754-1 !86DD4<436.40- 6-1 I02-16/47D+ #/35670809: 6D
6 ?-0@87197g$/01234-9 !28.2/7

Aichaeology ueiives its social iuentity fiom the way specific people, things anu
actions aie classifieu as being orcboeoloqicol. As a uiscipline, aichaeology gains
authoiity fiom its classification as a knowleuge-piouucing cultuie; people anu things
within the uiscipline holu authoiity fiom theii status within this categoiy. As Bowkei
anu Stai wiite, "to classify is human.a classification is a spatial, tempoial, oi spatio-
tempoial segmentation of the woilu" (1999: 1-11). As humans, we categoiise the woilu,
often tacitly, by soiting activities anu mateiials into classification. By uoing so, we cieate
social anu moial oiuei out of the woilu we expeiience. Categoiies aie uefineu, cieateu
anu sustaineu by theii social iepiouucibility. The iuentity of aichaeology as a uesciiptive
categoiyanu a uisciplineis maintaineu, uphelu anu iecieateu moment by moment
by the social ie-enactment of its methou anu meaning. Aichaeology is iuentifiable as a
subject by the acts that society ueems aie aichaeological, by the spaces anu the
mateiials that aie ueemeu to be aichaeological, anu by the tangible piouucts of the
system that aie ueemeu by geneial social consensus to be appiopiiately aichaeological.
The iuentity of aichaeology as a categoiy can change oi evolve, but only thiough
legitimate means, anu only thiough consensus by the majoiity of people who accept
changes to aichaeology as an appiopiiate categoiy. If theie is no social consensus on a
categoiy, oi if the legitimate means aie contesteu, powei stiuggles may aiiseas
exemplifieu in the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius. Such a case iaises questions about the
veiy natuie of categoiies, consensus, anu who has the authoiity to pick anu choose what

175
is oi is not 'appiopiiate', which can leau to uebates about who has the executive
authoiity to access oi altei physical space oi giounu.
The act of iuentifying anu classifying aichaeology is impoitant: the veiy act of
cieating a classification oi naming things oi people within the categoiy is inheiently a
'uiving piactice'. 'Biviuing piactices', conceptually populaiiseu by Foucault (c.f. Foucault
196S; Foucault 1979; Foucault 1982; Rabinow 1984: 8-11), involve the constiuction of
inclusive lists of things anu actions which oiient, stiuctuie anu uefine what it is to be oi
to uo somethingsay, 'to be' an aichaeologist is a uefinitive categoiy that necessaiily
excluues eveiything that is 'othei'say, what it is 'to not be' an aichaeologist, oi to be a
pseuuoaichaeologist, foi example. As Foucault has aigueu, 'uiviuing piactices' have an
essential poweiknowleuge ielationship. The act of classifying sets up categoiies of
inclusionexclusion, cieating ielationships of asymmetiic powei. The veiy natuie of
uiviuing objects anu acts as appiopiiately oi inappiopiiately unuei a classification
cieates an immeuiate imbalance of authoiity: on the one hanu, what is classifieu as
aichaeological has the powei of uefinition, anu on the othei hanu, all the excluueu
activities of the iest of the woilu have the poweiless state (ielative to the categoiy) of
being simply 'othei'.
S9
Thus, theie is a gieat ueal of powei vesteu both in tbe stote of
beinq classifieu anu in wbo bos tbe power to name oi choose the categoiies.
A case like the Bosnian Pyiamius is innately tieu to the authoiity of categoiies.
Scholais like Reba N. Soffei have aigueu that, "in the long iun, the success of a uiscipline
is not ueteimineu by its poweis of piotection oi pationage", but iathei "successful
piofessions have maintaineu a monopoly ovei a special bouy of knowleuge anu skills.of
a ieal benefit to the public" (1982: 8u1). When an 'alteinative' case of aichaeological
piactice like the Bosnian Pyiamius clashes with 'piofessional' piactice, it can piovoke
hostile ieactions fiom those who see themselves as piotecting the bounuaiies anu
iepiouucibility of the uiscipline. That is especially so when an alteinative case, though it
may lack fiuelity to the tiuth, is neveitheless aiguably "of a ieal benefit to the public". A
site like the Bosnian Pyiamius challenges the social authoiity that lies behinu the
bounuaiies, contiol, influence anu teiiitoiy of the uiscipline of aichaeology.

S9
This is not to say that all the iest of the 'othei', non-aichaeology things have no powei unuei
othei names, only that in the immeuiate instance of classification anu naming, they have less
powei than the things iuentifieu in the nameu categoiy.

176
V>A>A !56887-94-9 !6.790/47D+ $/0<7DD40-68 #2.50/4.: 6-1 #8.7/-6.4P7
#/356708094368 !864HD

6u
Competing 'alteinative' aichaeological claimsclaims that sit outsiue of the
geneially iecogniseu categoiy of 'aichaeology'have existeu since the beginning of
aichaeology's piofessional uevelopment (Feuei 2uu2). Nany of these claims, howevei,
have been neglecteu by mainstieam aichaeology as insignificant siue issues, only
notewoithy as examples of bau aichaeology oi laughable enteipiises. This neglect has
been ciitically challengeu in the last few yeais. Aichaeologists have begun to see the
value, anu peihaps necessity, of stuuying alteinative claims to the past. Influences fiom
Naixism to postmoueinism, inuigenous iights anu values, anu heiitage institutional
accountability to public funuing have leu the fielu to be awaie of pluialistic
inteipietations about the past anu foiceu aichaeologists to iecognize the histoiical
contingency of theii own piofession (Tiiggei 1989; Skeates 2uuu; Neiiiman 2uu4). The
stuuy of 'alteinatives' has most thoioughly uevelopeu iegaiuing inuigenous values anu
notions of the sacieu (uolustein anu Kintigh 199u; Bownei 1997; Wallis 2uuS).
Bowevei, many aichaeologists feel that othei alteinative aichaeologiessuch as
nationalistic manipulations of histoiy, imagineu ieconstiuctions, oi pseuuoscienceaie
also ielevant to mainstieam aichaeology. Accoiuing to these aiguments, alteinative
claims challenge the authoiity anu the veiy funuamentals of leaineu aichaeological
ieseaich. The stuuy of alteinative claims helps us to unueistanu anu justify ieasonable
aichaeological inteipietations, anu to sepaiate them fiom iiiational speculations
ianging fiom the misguiueu to the intentionally malicious (Schaula-Ball 2uu4; Fagan
2uu6a; Renfiew 2uu6). Fuitheimoie, it is becoming moie appaient that alteinative
claims aie not as one-siueu, simplistic anu uismissible as many piofessionals aie pione
to think. Complex alteinative claims contest the authoiity of piofessional aichaeology,
anu they highlight unueilying questions about the natuie of authoiity in scientific
uisciplinesauuiessing the way peifoimance anu socio-politics can uiiectly iaise oi
lowei the status anu authoiity of inteipietations about the past.
This thesis uses the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius to illustiate issues of authoiity
that emeige fiom this ueveloping piofessional uebate. Nost aichaeologists have
uismisseu oi simply acknowleugeu the Bosnian Pyiamiu case as cut-anu-uiy
pseuuoaichaeology. It seems to fit secuiely within any uiagnosis of fabiicateu science,

6u
Sections of this text have come fiom my NPhil (Piuitt 2uu7) ieseaich. Some text iemains
intact fiom my oiiginal woik, but it has been substantially euiteu, upuateu anu integiateu into
this uoctoial thesis.

177
leaving no question as to how mainstieam aichaeological piofessionals shoulu uefine
anu categoiize it (Fagan 2uu6). But a closei look shows that this type of case stuuy is
much laigei anu moie complicateu than simple labels like 'ieal' oi 'pseuuo' can
chaiacteiize. The Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject anu many of its inuiviuual team membeis
have helu a gieat ueal of authoiity with the Bosnian public, while also gaineiing suppoit
fiom a numbei of accieuiteu piofessionals anu institutions. Bowevei, fiom the
beginning, it has also helu no valiu authoiity with most piofessional ('mainstieam')
aichaeologists.
The site is not a hoax, oi a foigeiy, oi entiiely 'unscientific'. The Founuation has
engageu in many genuine anu authoiitative scientific methous; it has pieviously
employeu accieuiteu piofessionals (along with many moie unaccieuiteu amateuis) anu
has founu a numbei of objects that can be aiguably calleu 'aichaeological' (along with
many moie 'non-aichaeological' finus). The site holus a kinu of executive anu epistemic
authoiity, yet not creJibility. What uoes this mean. What aie the implications of such a
complex, messy site in ielation to the piofessional uiscipline, anu to the scientific
authoiity of aichaeological inquiiy. An essential powei behinu this pioject lies in the
way it seives uiffeient symbolic, socio-political anu economic puiposes on local anu
woiluwiue scales, anu how it is intimately attacheu to, anu woiking within, laigei
conuitions of politics anu peifoimance. In essence, this case uiaws its authoiity fiom
much laigei issues than just aichaeology. Its 'authoiitative knowleuge' is cieateu anu
sustaineu thiough contextual social aienas.

V>A>F !6.790/4D4-9 #8.7/4.:+ $D72106/35670809:
The teim 'alteinative aichaeology' iefeis to a wiue anu amoiphous iange of
claims about the past. Inuigenous spiiitual anu iebuiial issues, malicious manipulation
of histoiy foi piopaganua puiposes, pseuuoaichaeological claims about
supeicivilizations, anu even some piofessionally inteipieteu aichaeological
ieconstiuctions can all be incluueu unuei a blanket categoiy of 'alteinative'. The
Bosnian Pyiamiu case stuuy can be geneially categoiiseu as pseuuoaichaeology.
Nainstieam aichaeologists fiequently uefine the teim 'pseuuoaichaeology' by
explaining what it is not: mainstieam aichaeology, hoax oi myth. Nainstieam
'aichaeology' is uefineu as the uiscipline that focuses on the scientific "iecoveiy, analysis,
anu inteipietation of the physical iemains of past human activity" (Fagan 2uu6: 24).
Pseuuoaichaeology, unlike aichaeology, uoes not mastei a logical chain of thinking oi
analysis; it is "not a set of seiious aichaeological piinciples.uesigneu to gain the

178
confiuence anu suppoit of piofessional aichaeologists. The aim is to piopose a set of
alteinative piinciples anu allegeu iecoius of sites that will attiact anu holu the inteiest
anu belief of the geneial public anu the populai meuia" (Flemming 2uu6: 68). The
Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject fits this uefinition of pseuuoaichaeology. It is not a hoax like
the Caiuiff uiant oi the Piltuown Nan, which weie tiicks uesigneu to fool acauemic anu
non-acauemic auuiences alike. Noi is it a myth baseu on ignoiance of uata, like the so-
calleu myth of the Nounubuilueis (Feuei 2uu2). Semii 0smanagic's pioject, again,
"invokes the auia of scholaiship without being scholaily in fact anu bluis the uistinction
between ieal scholaiship anu 'alteinative' output" (}oiuan 2uu1: 288-289), a classic case
of pseuuoaichaeology.
Following the notion that theie is a 'classic' type of pseuuoaichaeology,
acauemics such as Fagan (2uu6), Flemming (2uu6), anu Lefkowitz (2uu6) have
uevelopeu something akin to iubiics that map out qualities of pseuuoaichaeology. Fagan
(2uu6: Su-42), foi example, "uiagnoses" pseuuoaichaeology as maintaining the
following chaiacteiistics:
1. Boggeu auheience to outuateu theoietical mouels
2. Bispaiaging acauemia
S. Appeal to acauemic authoiity
4. Buge claims
S. Selective anuoi uistoiteu piesentation
6. The "kitchen-sink" moue of aigument |multi-uisciplinaiyj
7. vague uefinitions
8. Supeificilaity, sloppiness, anu giossness of compaiison
9. 0bsession with esoteiica
1u. A faiiago of failings |logical fallaciesj
11. Expectation of a iewaiu at quest's enu

The Bosnian Pyiamiu site exactly matches such foimal uefinitions. Naik Rose, with the
AIA, iefeiieu to this case: "this kinu of tale is a staple of the pseuuoaichaeology oi
fantastic aichaeology genie" (Rose 2uu6b).
Bowevei, simply uefining oi categoiising this type of site as 'pseuuoaichaeology'
uoes not satisfactoiily chaiacteiize the complexity anu bieauth of the situation.
Although attention has been tuineu towaius the issue, which is a step in the iight
uiiection, cases of pseuuoaichaeology aie ultimately social piocesses within laigei
socio-histoiical contexts, anu they neeu to be iecognizeu as such. Wiktoi Stoczkowski,
fiom The cole ues Bautes tuues en Sciences Sociales in Paiis, wiites that:

179
What is at stake is iathei oui capacity to giasp the cultuial uimension of
pseuuoscience. In fact, once we have shown that it is infeiioi to acauemic science
(which is a tiuism foi most of the scientists anu theii public), we still have uone
nothing to unueistanu pseuuoscience as a social phenomenon. (2uu7: 472-47S)

This aigumentthat complex contexts anu conuitions allow foi alteinative aichaeology
to become piefeiieu accounts of histoiyis key to unueistanuing how authoiity plays
out in the uevelopment, uefining anu categoiising of what is oi is not appiopiiate in any
scientific uiscipline. It also qualifies what makes iueas authoiitative oi maiketable, anu
offeis insight to how the play of socio-politics in any given case of aichaeology can walk
a fine line between something that gives meaning to the stuuy of the past, anu
something that oveiwhelms anu unethically takes contiol of histoiy.

V>F Q0340g$084.43D 6-1 .57 '737N.40- 0< #/356708094368
#2.50/4.:

V>F>= ,-./01234-9 Q0340g$084.43D 6-1 .57 !6D7 0< .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41D
This section examines the way socio-politics can uiiectly affect the piouuction
anu ieception of aichaeological messages. In the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius, 'facts'
have been constiucteu foi peisonal anu political gain. This section aigues that scientific
authoiity may be positively oi negatively ieceiveu in a situation entiiely goveineu by
politics, without iegaiu to ontological valiuation. This section fiist gives the stiuctuial
anu executive context of the pyiamiu pioject, anu it explains the impoitant iole of the
meuia in piopagating anu authoiising the accounts of the past piouuceu by the pyiamiu
pioject team. It then iuentifies the ueeply iooteu socio-political piocesses involveu in
the case anu exposes the ways in which vaiious people anu gioups invest meaning in an
account of ancient pyiamius in Bosnia. Aftei explaining the context of places anu
mateiialities, anu ethnic claims anu uivisions, this chaptei aigues that foui types of
politics cieate meaning aiounu the site: national iuentity, ethnic claims, politics of
money anu politics of acauemics. This chaptei aigues that socio-politics affect how
ieceptive an auuience may be to an account of the past, anu that in many cases, issues of
valiuation, fiuelity anu ontological significance mattei fai less than inuiviuual oi
collective social values in the way a public initially ieceives oi piomotes aichaeological
authoiity.


180
V>F>A %57 $0@7/ 0< $084.43DM $8637D 6-1 ;6.7/4684.47D
Lauiajane Smith wiites: "Beiitage is about a sense of ploce. Not simply in
constiucting a sense of abstiact iuentity, but also helping us position ouiselves as a
nation, community oi inuiviuual anu oui 'place' in oui cultuial social anu physical
woilu" (2uu6: 7S). Bistoiically, Bosnian cultuie has inteitwineu mateiiality anu place
with ethnic anu ieligious iuentity: "the physical anu social lanuscape of a iegion is moie
than a palimpsest of long-teim settlement featuies; it is an impiint of community action,
stiuctuie anu powei on places" (Chapman 1994: 12u). Places in Bosnia aie moie
complex than just backuiops anu settings. They aie intimate featuies of social life,
powei anu politics. Aichaeology anu heiitage play a key iole in this embeuueu cultuial-
spatial lanuscape, wheie iuentity "is foigeu thiough association with the monuments
anu aitifacts of past ancestois, foi theie was often stiong iesiuential anu manufactuiing
continuity in towns anu villages fiom late meuieval to mouein times" (Chapman 1994:
12u). All Bosnian towns have a long histoiy closely associateu with theii ethnic-ieligious
populations. visoko, foi example, is consiueieu a piimaiily Nuslim Bosniak town anu
has a long histoiy of Islamic influences since the meuieval invasion of the Tuiks
(Nalcolm 2uu2). (Clancy 2uu4; Kampschioi 2uu6)
Especially in post-wai Bosnia-Beizegovina,
61
nothing goes without an iuentity of
place anu ethnicity. Layton anu Thomas iemaik that many people fiom the foimei
Yugoslavia "hau always thought of themselves as Yugoslavs iathei than Seibs oi
Cioatians. As Yugoslavian unity bioke uown, howevei, so many founu it incieasingly
expeuient.to secuie a national iuentity" (Layton anu Thomas 2uu1: 1S). Touay, the
main ethnic gioups within Bosnia aie tiying to cling to both a sense of national iuentity
anu a sepaiate ethnic one, which segments the countiy into uiffeient ieligious-ethnic
mateiial cultuies. Eveiy thing, peison, anu place is tensely uiviueu: Bosniak, Cioat, Seib.
Eveiy inuiviuual, town sectoi, maiket, oi heiitage site has its iespective ieligion:

61
Bosnia-Herzegovina has often been called the microcosm of the Balkans (Malcolm 2002: 1). The
current country is divided and identified by ethnic and religious groups of people who associate
themselves with different nationalities, notably: Bosniak Muslims, Croatian Catholics, and Serbian
Orthodox Christians. The same mixed ethnic racial groups, which inhabited Bosnia-Herzegovina more
or less peaceably for hundreds of years, developed into national identifications with the countries of
Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries under Austro-Hungarian rule.
These groups were momentarily unified after World War I under the single Balkan state of Yugoslavia.
Serbia, however, held ambitions for Yugoslavian dominance when the state began to collapse
in 1989. The resulting Yugoslav civil war in Bosnia (1992-1995), was a violent, international mess.
The Serbian army besieged the capital of Sarajevo, killing many civilians. Bosnian Serbs, Croats, and
Bosniaks were divided, and the country became a three-way ethnic battlefield between Bosnia, Serbia
and Croatia. Although atrocities were committed on all sides, Bosniak Muslims were the most targeted
and victimized ethnic group. The country experienced the largest genocide in Europe since the
Holocaust; it is estimated that 150,000 people died, mostly Muslims, and half the population was left
homeless or fled the country (Clancy 2004: 47; Kampschror 2006: 24).

181
Nuslim, Catholic, 0ithouox. The Nostai Biiuge is consiueieu Bosniak Nuslim, foi
example, the olu Bas Caisija maiket of Saiajevo is Nuslim, anu the pilgiimage site anu
city of Neujugoije is Cioat Catholic. Beiitage sites such as these anu hunuieus of otheis
weie uelibeiately shelleu by combating ethnic aimies uuiing the iecent wai. Nost weie
taigeteu foi theii mateiial cultuie associations with an opposing ethnic iuentity
(Chapman 1994: 122; Baiakat, Wilson et al. 2uu1: 171). Iueologically, "the uelibeiate
uestiuction of mosques, chuiches, museums, civil iecoius, monuments anu aitefacts in
the Balkans suppiesses the eviuence of a cultuially uiveise anu hybiiu past, in favoui of
a mythical 'goluen age' of ethnic unifoimity" (Layton anu Thomas 2uu1: 12). Each ethnic
gioup has a histoiy of tiying to claim that vision of a 'goluen age' as theii own. It is
within this climate of mateiial iuentity, of post-wai ethnic "toleiant hostility"
(Zhelyazkova 2uu4: 17), that 0smanagic's goluen pyiamiu hills have inevitably become
ueeply entiencheu in the politics aiounu them.

V>F>F !0-D./23.4-9 #2.50/4.: .5/0295 *6.40-684DH 6-1 ,17-.4.:
Fiom the eaily stages of its uevelopment, the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has been
attacheu to national iuentity politics. Semii 0smanagic has maue a biave attempt to
constiuct anu claim the site "foi eveiyone," of all Bosnian ethnicities, as a site of
monumental impoitance because it tianscenus ethnic quibbling anufoi oncecan
iepiesent Bosnia as a national whole. 0smanagic insists that his site is a mattei of
national piiue, "something that can unite people insteau of uiviuing them" (quoteu in
Foei 2uu7). 0smanagic maintains that, "Bosnia anu the Auiiatic pool is the seconu oluest
oasis of life in Euiope, with 27.uuu yeais on uninteiiupteu piesence of intelligent man"
|sicj (BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). Be continues that, "Bosnia is a souice of civilization of
Euiope anu that is a ieason enough that Bosnians shoulu be piouu of theii heiitage"
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). These bolu statements suggest that not only is Bosnia the
oiigin of all the countiy's ethnic gioups, but it also is an oiigin of Euiope as a whole.
Pyiamiu-unifying nationalism is even visually iuentifieu: the Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun
Founuation logo is a yellow pyiamiu icon attacheu to an inveiteu top blue tiiangle anu
stais of the Bosnian national flag. |Figuie 17j Such visual piopaganua makes the
pyiamiu liteially port of the national flag, stiongly stating that the pyiamius anu Bosnian
nationalism aie one anu the same. Thus, the visual message is that to believe in
pyiamius is to believe in Bosnia, anu to not believe in pyiamius is to be a tiaitoi to unity
anu nationalism.

182
This is uoubtlessly why some Bosnian piofessionals who oppose the pioject
have been calleu national "tiaitois" in the countiy. Foieign acauemics have been
"tieateu to abuse anu iiuicule" anu tolu that they shoulu stay out of business they uo not
unueistanu (Baiuing 2uu7: 4S). Nembeis of the public have iecogniseu that, "|ajny
ciiticism ovei such pseuuoscientific appioach in Bosnia-Beizegovina is stampeu as an
unpatiiotic act while ciitics aie stigmatizeu as tiaitois in public, since the pyiamiu
pioject has since its beginning been iuentifieu with a 'national inteiest'" (Stultitia 2uu7).
Pioject opponents aie often explicitly iuentifieu anu conuemneu. In one lettei, foi
example, 0smanagic accuses specific piofessionals of tiying to uiviue the countiy
politically:
The gioup of anti-pyiamiu opposeis like Blagoje uoveuaiica, Zilka Kujunuzic,
Svetozai Puuaiic, Niiko Babic, uaviilo uiahovac, Ivan anu Bubiavko Lovienovic,
aie woiking haiu to uebunk the pyiamiu ieseaich pioject, spieauing voices that
the pioject is suppoiteu only by 'Bosniak ambiences'. They aie tiying to uestioy
the pioject by tiansfoiming it in a sau stoiy in thiee pieces about the Bosnian
national anu ieligious ieality. Those peisons intentionally ignoie the fact that
the Founuation always unueilineu that this pioject has nothing to uo with single
nations, ieligious beliefs, but that it belongs to an ancient past about which all
shoulu be piouu off. Thus, becoming an integiative factoi that shoulu unite, not
uiviue. |sicj (0smanagic 2uu6)

Some acauemics have iesponueu to such piopaganua with angei, contempt anu
pleauing. Bosnia's foiemost piehistoiic aichaeologist, Zilka Kujunuzic-vejzagic, ieceiveu
thieatening letteis foi speaking out against the pioject (Foei 2uu7). Neveitheless, many
acauemics both in Bosnia anu abioau launcheu seveial unsuccessful campaigns to tiy to
stop the piogiam, senuing out petitions (Aichaeology.oig 2uu6; NoPyiamiu 2uu6), anu
even appeaiing opposite 0smanagic on television piogiams.

O492/7 =_+ )<<43468 8090 0< %57 I0D-46- $:/6H41 0< .57 Q2- O02-16.40- \87<.]> %57 8090
4-30/N0/6.7D 6- 4-P7/.71 I0D-46- <869> !0HN6/7 @4.5 I0D-46- -6.40-68 <869 \/495.]>

0smanagic also enuoises a political unity campaign thiough national Feueiation
politicians anu paities. Although some of his netwoiking is unuoubteuly foi financial
gain (see Section S.S.4), 0smanagic also seems to be genuinely piomoting a sense of
(Image courtesy of Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of
the Sun Foundation)
(This is a freely distributed image)

183
national piiue thiough political suppoit. In an online inteiview, 0smanagic says, "We all
agiee. Well you see, it is possible! Bosnian pyiamius have uniteu all levels of
goveinment showing political matuiity staiting with visoko municipality"
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). Bigh-level political suppoit is abunuant; impoitant
politicians like the foimei Piesiuent Chaiiman Sulejman Tihic have appioveu the
pioject. The Piesiuent Chaiiman publicly announceu to Nontenegio that they anu "all
othei iegional piesiuents as well as the meuia |shouluj come anu see the pyiamiu
iemains" (BINA 2uu6). Anu when 0smanagic's pioject faceu an unceitain futuie when
its peimits weie pulleu in }une 2uu7, the Feueiation's Piime Ninistei Neuzau Biankovic
steppeu in, iestoieu the peimits, anu voiceu suppoit foi 0smanagic. Biankovic fiimly
stateu, "The goveinment will not act negatively towaiu this pioject" (Woouaiu 2uu7a).
Speaking to iepoiteis, he askeu, "Why shoulu we uisown something that the entiie
woilu is inteiesteu in." (Woouaiu 2uu7a). Suppoiteis seem absoibeu with the piospect
of achieving inteinational iecognitionoi at least appeaiing to have itanu much of
the authoiity behinu the pioject comes fiom the piestige of simply being high-piofile in
the meuia.
Biuce Tiiggei wiites of nationalistic aichaeology: "The piimaiy function.is to
bolstei the piiue anu moiale of nations oi ethnic gioups. It is piobably stiongest
amongst peoples who feel politically thieateneu, insecuie oi uepiiveu of theii collective
iights by moie poweiful nations" (Tiiggei 1984: S6u). This uesciiption ceitainly applies
to Bosnia, which expeiienceu a gieat ueal of suffeiing in the iecent wai, leaving its
citizens in a state of "toleiant hostility" (Zhelyazkova 2uu4: 17). In this context, the
pyiamiu naiiative pioviues a positive symbol of nationalism, anu it is haiuly suipiising
that so many membeis of the public anu national politicians have suppoiteu the pioject.
Tangible, visible symbols, like the Founuation logo, as well as the monumental anu
stiiking pyiamiual hills in the lanuscape, aie mateiial ieminueis of 'gieat things' that
coulu have happeneu in the past anu might happen again the futuie. I woulu aigue that
much political suppoit foi the pioject has emeigeu because people have been giasping
foi moie tangible, iooteu symbols of theii newfounu nationalism. The mateiial natuie of
the pyiamiu 'aichaeology' means that a iebuiluing nation has something stuiuy anu
iuentifiable to ieach out foi; the nonhuman anu mateiial aspects of this case aie as
impoitant as the socio-politics that aie contextualising them. I woulu aigue that the
inheient mateiiality of the piojectwhich has been cieateu thiough physical
inteiactions with the lanuscape, anu uelibeiate manipulation of iconogiaphy anu
logosis cential to its authoiity in political aienas.


184
V>F>U #2.50/4.: .5/0295 .57 $084.43D 0< ;0-7:
Politics of money aie also intimately attacheu to the success anu authoiity of the
pioject. In uepiesseu post-wai Bosnia-Beizegovina, money is a sensitive issue. The
countiy is still iebuiluing anu stabilising, stiuggling against high levels of
unemployment anu a lagging economy "uue to the fact that theie aie no stiong
institutions oi political stability" (Zhelyazkova 2uu4: 14). Regaiuing the Bosnian
Pyiamiu pioject, theie aie two siues to this coin: the fiist is the aigument that,
iegaiuless of its pseuuoaichaeological natuie, the pioject has alieauy uemonstiateu ieal
economic benefits to the iegion. Seconuly, theie is the aigument that the money spent
on the pioject woulu be bettei spent on post-wai iestoiation effoits, oi at least on 'ieal'
piofessional aichaeology. Nuch of the site's high-piofile status anu piesence has
emeigeu fiom this financial uebate.
Those who have aigueu that the pyiamius will biing social benefits have alieauy
seen iesults. The pioject has pumpeu money into visoko anu the bioauei countiy
thiough touiism, anu it offeis hope of moie to come. By 2uu7, visoko hau alieauy
changeu uiamatically fiom its uilapiuateu post-wai state. Befoie the pyiamius, the town
ieceiveu aiounu 1u,uuu visitois a yeai. In 2uu7, it iepoiteu having that many visitois in
a single uay. The pioject attiacteu 2Su,uuu touiists to the town in 2uu6, biinging in a
floou of new money anu an economic boost (Nonaim 2uu7). visoko iesiuents initially
welcomeu this change as something of a miiacle. When inteivieweu by a foieign
iepoitei, Esief Fatic, the ownei of a souvenii shop in visoko, emphatically insisteu,
"something will be founu unuei the hill" anu thought that "any kinu of uiscoveiy means
a lot aftei so many yeais of nothing.people will come heie anu spenu money anu that
woulu mean oui youth has something to uo" (Zimonjic 2uu6).
Nost of the town's population still enjoys an influx of people. In 2uu6, the main
hotel in visoko changeu its title fiom "Botel Bollywoou" to "Notel Piiamiua Sunca",
which tianslates to 'Pyiamiu of the Sun Notel' (Bosnian-pyiamiu.net 2uu6). Ciaft stoies
sell tee shiits anu pyiamiu souveniis, anu cafs seive coffee with pyiamiu-stampeu
sugai packets anu pyiamiu-shapeu pizza (Economist.com 2uu6). 0ne chilu I
inteivieweu, a ten-yeai-olu local boy, now makes moie money than his paients by
waiting alongsiue the ioau anu offeiing touis to visitois. Local volunteeis, like this boy,
also employ much of theii fiee time by excavating with 'Ni. Semii' anu the othei
volunteeis (local inteiview, peisonal communication 2uu7). Anothei local iesiuent I
inteivieweu pockets a goou bit of money by selling homemaue pyiamiu ciafts fiom his
house gaiage (local inteiview, peisonal communication 2uu7). In his spaie time, he
takes visitois to a new iestauiant that was built just to accommouate touiists, which

185
auveitises by way of a pyiamiu maue of biicks uecoiating the lawn |Figuie 18j. The
iesiuent insisteu to me that these changes weie just the beginning of the town's
uevelopment: in summei, when visitoi numbeis aie highest, the town ioaus cannot
hanule the tiaffic, so, he saiu, the city has plans to wiuen the ioaus anu pave the uiit
ones the leau up the hill |Figuie 19j (inteiview with local iesiuent, peisonal
communication 2uu7). Pyiamiu hype also extenus outsiue of visoko. Touiist Agencies in
Saiajevo anu neighbouiing aieaseven as fai as Cioatiahave staiteu auveitising
oiganizeu pyiamiu touis (Naestial 2uu7; Negia 2uu7). Biochuies line the touiist
infoimation uesks in the capital city of Saiajevo. Noie than one piofessional
aichaeologist, knowing nothing about the site befoiehanu, has been luieu to visoko to
go see the aichaeology listeu in the biochuies. In these touiist biochuies, the site is
often listeu as a highly iespecteu, authoiiseu anu genuine aichaeological pioject
(inteiview with Ezia Zubiow, peisonal communication 2u1u). The authoiity of the
pioject is latent in the stieamlineu anu piofessional logos on the biochuies, anu in the
authoiitative uisplays of the magazines set out on touiism counteis.

O492/7 =e+ *7@ K2D4-7DD7DM 84J7 .57 0-7 6K0P7M @7/7 K248. 4- c4D0J0 .0 6330HH016.7 .57
4-<82L 0< .02/4D.D> %54D /7D.62/6-. D4.D -76/ .57 7-./6-37 .0 0-7 0< .57 N:/6H41 .2--78DM
02.D417 .57 H64- 34.: D./77.D> %57 K2D4-7DD 61P7/.4D7D @4.5 6 86/97 K/43J N:/6H41 0- 4.D
</0-. 86@-> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.


186
Fiom the beginning, 0smanagic anu the pyiamiu Founuation have hau theii eye
on touiism. In 2uu6, 0smanagic announceu plans of "ieseaich activity" that woulu be
"opening moie aieas of the Pyiamiu to touiists". Be claimeu that his "main ieseaich
focus fiom 2uu8 onwaius will be the piovision of moie touiist facilities"
(Piiamiuascunca.ba 2uu6), insisting that visoko woulu eventually have ovei a million
touiists a yeai. volunteeis anu local iesiuents have seen pyiamius as a way into the
futuie: "The pyiamius will help us speeu the uevelopment of the economy, anu when we
have uone that the E0 will accept us" (quoteu in Economist.com 2uu6). The iuea that a
gianu aichaeological site coulu boost political authoiity of a small countiy anu launch it
onto the woilu stage alongsiue biggei poweis like the Euiopean 0nion is tantalising.
These outsizeu hopes also explain why political paities inteiesteu in the site foi its
economic potential have engageu in "outiight political postuiing" (Foei 2uu7). Baiis
Silajuzic, a Bosniak membei of the iotating piesiuency, publicly stateu, "these
enthusiasts aie getting people exciteu anu inteiesteu in something positive anu aie
helping the economy of a pooi pait of the countiy" (Woouaiu 2uu7b). Nany of these
inteiesteu politicians have useu the site as a campaign stiategy, patting 0smanagic on
the back anu smiling at the cameia. |Figuie 2uj

O492/7 =X+ %02/4DH 4D -7@ .0 c4D0J0> ;6J7D54<. D02P7-4/ D50NDM 84J7 .57 .54D 96/697g
.2/-71gK2D4-7DDM 6/7 -0@ 30HH0-> a0368 /7D417-.DM 84J7 .57 K0: 4- .57 <0/79/02-1M 36-
H6J7 H0-7: 94P4-9 .02/D .0 P4D4.0/D> $8G7m7P436 "488 \$:/6H41 0< .57 ;00-] 36- K7 D77- 4-
.57 14D.6-37M K754-1 .57 96/697 D50N> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.


187

O492/7 AW+ Q7H4/ )DH6-694l N0D7D <0/ .57 36H7/6 @4.5 ,P436 Q6/43 \87<.]M Q6/6G7P0ED
;4-4D.7/ 0< !28.2/7 4- AWW^> # 86/97 -2HK7/ 0< P082-.77/D 36- K7 D77- 7L36P6.4-9 4- .57
K63J9/02-1> E3+0) 5#,*$)6' #7 X#"1 R#"+11#1>
"$$4>??@@@.N#"1&#"+11#1.#*0?F)@Y-2)6?&#61-+.4=7

These campaign stiategies usually opeiate as exteinal factois, pumping up the
authoiity of the site beyonu 0smanagic's contiol. 0ne notable Saiajevo iauio
piesentation in 2uu6 exemplifies how stunneu 0smanagic was to heai how he was useu
in a campaign:
#*!")'+ Bave you thought about.. that the whole iuea of pyiamius in visoko
coulu be useu foi pieelection puiposes.
)Q;#*#`,n+ |.j Ny wish is, in fact, that this pioject has suppoit of all political
establishments, because I think that is in the inteiest of this countiy .
anu it will not inteifeie with political.. uhm.. elections |.j
#*!")'+ But what if political elections inteifeie with the Founuation.
)Q;#*#`,n+ Bow.
#*!")'+ By Sulejman Tihic coming to kiss you |.j uo you think that this kiss
will not be woith, I uon't know, a thousanu votes in visoko tomoiiow.
Because you'ie not populai only in visoko, but in that iegion, have you
thought about that.
)Q;#*#`,n+ No. |sicj (Rauio-2u2 2uu6)

The cieation anu piomotion of the site has gone beyonu just the contiol of Semii
0smanagic. Nany politicians seem to iealize that 0smanagic's excavation is
pseuuoaichaeology, yet they have continueu to piomote the pioject because of its
economic potential. 0n whethei oi not the pioject shoulu be shut uown, Piesiuent Baiis
Silajuzic saiu, "Let them uig anu we'll see what they finu. Besiues, it's goou foi business"
(Baiuing 2uu7). A spokesman foi the foieign Feueiation iepiesentative in chaige of

188
Bosnian Affaiis, Chiistian Schwaiz-Schilling, suppoiteu the pioject, calling it "the
woilu's fiist victimless pyiamiu scheme" (quoteu in Foei 2uu7).
But those who oppose the pioject see plenty of victims. Nany people, especially
foieign acauemics, have saiu that the social anu economic gains aie piobably only shoit-
teim anu that the money spent on the pioject woulu be bettei put to use in post-wai
ieconstiuction effoits. Ahmeu Khattab, Egypt's ambassauoi to Bosnia-Beizegovina, says
the pyiamius "shoulu not be a top piioiity. This uigging will iequiie millions anu
millions, anu meanwhile aitifacts aie being uamageu in the museums foi lack of heat.
Bosnia is a pooi countiy, anu theie have to be uiffeient piioiities" (quoteu in Woouaiu
2uu7b). The pioject's actual figuies aie uaunting. In 2uu6 alone, the Bosnian Pyiamiu of
the Sun Founuation iaiseu about Suu,uuu, not counting in-kinu uonations such as
estate cais anu fiee loans of bulluozeis anu tianspoitation. 0smanagic peisonally
contiibuteu about 1uu,uuu (Foei 2uu7; Woouaiu 2uu7b; Baiuing 2uu7; Founuation
inteiviews, peisonal communication 2uu7). These figuies aie staggeiing in post-wai
Bosnia, which is still litteieu with uamageu cultuial piopeity that suffeis foi lack of
ieconstiuction funus, such as the uamageu National Nuseum anu the National Libiaiy,
which still sits as a buint-out shell in uowntown Saiajevo (Chapman 1994; Baiakat,
Wilson et al. 2uu1). Aichaeologists such as Anthony Baiuing of the 0niveisity of Exetei
have expiesseu uistaste at the amount of money going into the Bosnian Pyiamius
pioject: "it auus insult to injuiy when iich outsiueis can come in anu spenu laige sums
puisuing theii absuiu theoiies.insteau of uevoting theii cash to the pieseivation of the
enuangeieu genuine sites anu monuments in which Bosnia-Beizegovina abounus"
(2uu6).
The politics of money auu a ciucial uimension to the pioject. 0nce again, it is the
tonqible anu moteriol iesults of the pioject that mattei as much oi moie than the
abstiact conceptualisation of the aichaeology as 'fact' veisus 'fantasy'. The value,
acceptance anu authoiity of this case iests funuamentally on its physical piesence,
which can be pointeu to by politicians anu the public alike as something that mateiially
benefits people anu places.

V>F>V %57 $084.43D 0< &LN7/.D 6-1 &LN7/.4D7
S.S.S.1 Tbe Autbority of CreJentioleJ Fxperts: Tbe Fqyptions
Along with his own amateui aichaeology woik, 0smanagic has also engageu the
authoiity of 'authoiiseu' oi cieuentialeu scientists anu institutions to back his pioject.

189
Notably, he has enlisteu a numbei of "scientific expeits" to suppoit his woik
(Piiamiuasunca.ba 2uu7). Although he initially engageu in "a naughty habit |ofj
announcing pioject suppoit fiom foieign aichaeological authoiities who eithei weien't
suppoitive oi weien't authoiities" (Foei 2uu7), 0smanagic uiu latei employ a numbei of
piofessionals on his team who uo holu some level of cieuentialeu authoiity within the
mainstieam uiscipline.
The most notable acauemic suppoiteis have been a gioup of Egyptian geology
expeits who came to visoko with a passionate uesiie to help suppoit Bosnia aftei the
wai. Among these aie Bi. Aly Abu Alla Baiakat, a geologist fiom the Egyptian Nineial
Resouices Authoiity, anu Bi. Nohammeu Ibiahim Aly, who has iepoiteuly taught
Egyptology anu othei subjects at the 0niveisity of Caiio. The lattei is iepoiteu to have
visiteu visoica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Sun) anu saiu the site was "extiaoiuinaiy, uefinitely
not maue by natuie" (Piiamiuasunca.ba 2uu7). Peihaps the most publiciseu Egyptian
suppoitei is Bi. Nebil Swelim, an Egyptologist fiom Caiio, who claims thiee uoctoial
uegiees (Swelim 2u1ua), anu whom I uiscuss in moie uetail below. The fact that these
scholais aie fiom Egypt anu have only tenuous knowleuge of Bosnian aichaeology has
not seemeu to faze suppoiteis. Foi many in the geneial public, the iuea of 'pyiamius' is
so inteitwineu with the iuentity of ancient Egypt that many have seemeu to have taken
the authoiity of these Egyptian geologists anu Egyptologists at face value.
62

Bi. Nebil Swelim's paiticipation with the Founuation is a paiticulaily inteiesting
saga of authoiity anu expeitise. In the public eye, Bi. Swelim has been piomoteu by the
Founuation as one of the most piestigiousanu peihaps one of the only 'aichaeological'
as opposeu to 'geological' oi 'inuepenuently ieseaiching'acauemic suppoiteis of the
pyiamiu pioject. Bis name anu authoiity has been exploiteu by 0smanagic anu the
Founuation in stiategic ways, such as naming Swelim the (ceiemonial) Piesiuent of the
Founuation anu Piesiuent of the ICBP Confeience. By naming a 'tiiple uoctoiate expeit'
the ceiemonial heau of a contioveisial oiganisation, 0smanagic shifts the buiuen of

62
This connection of the Bosnian pyramids to the Egyptian pyramids has also resulted in a great
many Bosnian Pyramid publications with a heavy hyperdiffusionist slant. Osmanagi! claims to have
visited pyramids around the world, implying that this makes him ready to identify and study
archaeology in Bosnia if it appears in pyramidal form. In general, significant controversy about the
appropriateness of pyramid qualifications has followed Osmanagi!, as well as many of the Egyptian
team members. In an interview [see Appendix G], former Foundation team member Andrew Lawler
said that, Apart from Aly Barakat, [the Egyptians] role was little more than that of tourists. I know
that somefelt they were being used as promotional tools (Foundation member, personal email
communication 2010). In the same interview, the former team member said that Dr. Nebil Swelim,
unlike some of his colleagues, relished being in the limelight. This suggests that Swelim had personal
and political motivations to support the project, since Swelims supportive reports in favour of the
Bosnian pyramid site were written after spending under 2 hours on Visocica.


190
authoiity anu expeitise to Swelim, who can be piomoteu as a moie establisheu anu
senioi foieign expeit. Foi the public, when a multi-cieuentialeu expeit with connections
to 'othei pyiamius' is auveitiseu as a pioject leauei, the pyiamiu naiiative appeais to be
backeu by moie substantial institutions than just one celebiity in an Inuiana }ones hat.
This stiategy is what Biuno Latoui calls 'biinging in allies anu suppoit foi the
aigument', a classic "aigument fiom authoiity.it cieates a majoiity to impiess the
uissentei even though the uissentei 'might be iight'" (Latoui 1987: S1).
Swelim has consistently uefenueu his inteiest in the pioject as his way of
offeiing suppoit to post-wai Bosnian people, anu he has thiown his full suppoit into
0smanagic's veision of quasi-aichaeological science. Swelim's suppoit has suipiiseu
some of his peisonal fiienus. In an inteiview at Cambiiuge, Bi. Seif El Rashiui, the
cooiuinatoi of the Buiham Woilu Beiitage Site, calleu his fiienu Swelim a "seiious, no-
nonsense kinu of man" with sinceie acauemic inteiest in aichaeology (peisonal
communication, 2uu9). This account of Swelim's peisonality contiasts with those of
Semii 0smanagic anu othei coie membeis of the Founuation, who have employeu a
consiueiable uegiee of whimsy in theii appioach to the past, with theii constant
iefeiences to conspiiacy theoiies, alien encounteis, new age wisuom anu paianoimal
activity. Since Swelim has nevei excavateu at the Bosnian Pyiamiu site, anu has only
publisheu lengthy 'iepoits' about what he aigues is the 'natuie' of a pyiamiu (which
boils uown to the piactically simple anu unoiiginal aigument that pyiamius aie aitificial
stiuctuies with laige bases anu pointy tops), his suppoit of the Bosnian pioject might be
seen as politically motivateu (Swelim 2uu7; Swelim 2u11).
While scholais like Swelim seem to have goou intentions, they have given no ieal
eviuentiaiy justification foi theii suppoit. In iesponse to a numbei of aiticles anu emails
publisheu by opponents who ciiticise his iole in the pioject (Iina 2uu8b), Swelim
publisheu a vaiiety of iepoits about visoica's 'pyiamiu' status:
These aiguments leu to S conclusions: 1. The pyiamiu hill visoica is a new
intiouuction to the local scenaiios of pyiamiu science. 2. visoica is justifieu foi
a pyiamiu nomination. S. The main subjects to unueistanu the pyiamiu hill
visoica aie geological. 4. Peihaps oui piesent wealth, technology anu iecouises
aie not capable. |S.j The tiue measuie of a pyiamiu expeit is his output on
pyiamiu science. (Swelim 2u1ub; Swelim 2u11)

Swelim's insistence on the existence of something calleu 'pyiamiu science' is telling in
anu of itself. By extiacting a 'pyiamiu' oi any aichaeological object oi stiuctuie out of its
cultuial context, you make it viitually meaninglesspyiamius in ancient Egypt weie
constiucteu foi a multituue of cultuial ieasons. Those ieasons woulu have nothing to uo
with pyiamiual stiuctuies built in the Bosnian past, supposing such pyiamius existeu in

191
the fiist place. Swelim is attempting to cultuially compaie ancient Egypt of 26uu BCE to
an allegeu cultuie in Bosnia at S4,uuu BP (see iauiocaibon uating, Section S.S.2). This
compaiison acioss thousanus of yeais anu miles is meaningless without some
justificationanu none is given.
In his most iecent iepoit, Swelim concluues by commenting on what makes the
authoiity of a scientific 'expeit':
Some scholais gain a ieputation of being "pyiamiu expeits" by occupying a post
oi an auministiative oi a teaching position foi some time. 0theis uevelop a
chaiisma anu become stais on Tv uocumentaiies; unfoitunately some of what
they claim is ieceiveu without any veiification oi checking. The tiue measuie of
a pyiamiu expeit is his output on pyiamiu science. (Swelim 2u1ub)

Such a statement is somewhat at ouus with the cuiient situation in Bosnia. Nost of
0smanagic's expeits seem to lenu authoiity to the site by simply occupying a title oi
position, oi thiough cieuentials claimeu by having 'lookeu at pyiamius foi some time'. In
public aienas, 0smanagic himself has become seen as an 'expeit authoiity' thiough his
meuia peisonality, chaiisma anu celebiity status fiom Tv uocumentaiies. 0smanagic,
Swelim anu the othei membeis of the team have not been able to publish in peei-
ievieweu jouinals, wheie theii woik woulu be 'veiifieu' anu 'checkeu' befoie public
ielease. The impoitant point is that, to the public, these 'official iepoits' anu 'stiong
statements of authoiity' that aie publisheu online by Swelim anu 0smanagic lenu
authoiity to the pioject, not only because Swelim takes such a simple, haiu-line anu
confiuent appioach to what he believes is 'iight' oi 'wiong', but also because of the
language useu: they talk of iepoits, publishing, pyiamiu science, output anu cieuentials.
To many membeis of the public, these aiguments sounu much likes ones that aie faii
anu justifiable. Inueeu, they sounu just like the aiguments voiceu by the piofessional
aichaeologists who oppose the pioject (Saiajevo inteiviews, peisonal communication
2uu8).
I obseiveu fuithei contioveisy aiounu the Egyptian authoiity in the pioject
uuiing my attenuance at the 1
st
Scientific Inteinational Confeience of the Bosnian
Pyiamius (ICBP) in August 2uu8 (moie uiscussion on this confeience in Section S.S.S,
below). A laige gioup of Egyptian piofessois anu stuuents fiom the Libiaiy of
Alexanuiia anu the 0niveisity of Caiio weie inviteu to paiticipate at this 'scientific
confeience'. Both siuesmembeis of the Bosnian Pyiamiu Founuation anu membeis
fiom the Egyptian attenueesquietly ciiticizeu what happeneu at the confeience. 0ne
Egyptian hyuiogeology expeit I inteivieweu saiu that in his opinion the whole
lanuscapes of visoko anu Zenica (wheie the stone balls weie founu) weie natuially
foimeu mountains anu stone, maue by glacial, hyuiogeological piocesses. This geologist

192
implieu that he was attenuing the ICBP confeience to socially suppoit post-wai Bosnia,
as well as to enjoy a fiee tiip to a "beautiful countiy" (paiticipant inteiview, peisonal
communication 2uu8). Buiing the confeience, anothei Egyptian geological expeit, Bi.
Nohameu Ibiahim El Anbaawy, vieweu the excavations on the fiist uay, then uisagieeu
shaiply with 0smanagic's pyiamiu hypothesis. Foi the iest of the confeience, he spent
consiueiable time tiying to teach basic geological piinciples to the confeience attenuees
anu the pyiamiu team, aiguing that hyuiogeology coulu explain all of the foimations
that the pyiamiu pioject hau excavateu anu uncoveieu. The Founuation membeis weie
unhappy with his ciiticism, anu moie than one Founuation membei at the confeience
expiesseu theii fiustiation with his opinions. At one point, when Bi. El Anbawwy tiieu
to point out natuial geological stiatigiaphy to a gioup of pyiamiu suppoiteis, tensions
mounteu to iaiseu voices anu yelling |Figuie 21j. 0n the othei siue of the uiviue, some
membeis of the pyiamiu team also (quietly) expiesseu fiustiation anu uissatisfaction
with the Egyptians, complaining that 0smanagic hau paiu foi the Egyptians' tiip to the
confeience anu many of them weie moie inteiesteu in shopping than in valiuating
pyiamiu aichaeology.

O492/7 A=+ B/> &8 #-K6@@: 873.2/4-9 .0 H7HK7/D 0< .57 O02-16.40- 6-1 .57 ,!I$
30-<7/7-37 N6/.434N6-.DM 6/924-9 <0/ 6 -6.2/68 6-1 9708094368 0/494- 0< .57 D2NN0D71
N:/6H41D> \"7 4D .57 H6- .57 9/7: D54/.+ 0- .57 87<. N50.09/6N5M 57 4D D.6-14-9 6-1
97D.2/4-9 0- .57 /495. D417 0< .57 3/0@1o 0- .57 /495. N50.09/6N5M 57 4D D76.71 @4.5 6
-0.7N61 6-1 ./:4-9 .0 94P7 6 970809: 873.2/7 .0 6 3/0@1 0< N:/6H41 D2NN0/.7/D> !"#$#6 &'
()*+ !*,-$$>

Such inteiaction is cleaily fiaught with politics, anu this ciitical anu messy
inteiaction between the Founuation anu theii own 'suppoiteis' has not been publisheu
foi public sciutiny in any meaningful way. Buiing the confeience, the uissenting
geologist Bi. El Anbawwy was on the final panel foi uiafting public confeience
conclusions, anu Bi. Swelimwho voiceu utmost suppoit, but was also of the opinion
that the hills aie, at least at base, natuial foimationsboth insisteu the qeoloqicol

193
significance of the hills neeueu to be incluueu in the confeience conclusions (much to
the chagiin of 0smanagic anu othei alteinative theoiists on the panel). The compiomise
by the Founuation was the inclusion of the phiase 'qeo-aichaeological' in the final piess
ieleases, which I woulu aigue (aftei obseiving the whole of the ICBP inteiactions) was
piimaiily the iesult of the week-long contestation by Bi. El Anbawwy. The final
publications anu piess confeiences of the ICBP confeience simply incluueu the line that
the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject was "impoitant geo-aichaeological anu epigiaphical
ieseaich that iequiies fuithei multiuisciplinaiy scientific ieseaich" |sicj (ICBP 2uu8)
meaning the site was uebateu as being qeo-aichaeological, anu some paiticipants of the
confeience thought the 'pyiamiu' conclusion was fai fiom cleai-cut. To the public
howevei, this stiong statement 'blackboxes' all contestation, belying any empiiical
uebate anu piojecting a iobust anu authoiitative tone.
I woulu aigue that contestation anu exchange at the ICBP confeience
iepiesenteu some genuine acauemic engagement, at least on the pait of Bi. El
Anbawwy, who successfully ciitically engageu the pyiamiu suppoiteis anu shifteu some
of the confeience conclusions to incluue the teims like 'geological'. But all 'backstage'
contestation was ultimately 'blackboxeu' in the final piess ieleases maue foi the public
|Figuie 22j. Insteau of iefeiencing any contestation oi genuine nuance in the empiiical
iecoiu, the public ielease lent the appeaiance of valiuation by a long list of 'acauemic
heavyweights' with PhBs. The conclusions weie piofessionally euiteu, weie bioaucast
on Tv anu weie shiny-looking, a peifoimance which lent authoiity to the much simplei
account of "pyiamius in Bosnia".

S.S.S.2 Tbe Autbority of CreJentioleJ Fxperts: Teom Hembers
In auuition to outsiue expeits like Swelim, a hanuful of Founuation team
membeis have hau acauemic uegiees behinu theii names. Two accieuiteu
aichaeologists weie biiefly employeu to excavate foi 0smanagic's team, although both
have now quit the pioject. 0ne was an aichaeologist nameu Rafaella Cattaneo, who only
biiefly joineu the pioject. Latei, an aichaeologist nameu Anuiew Lawlei, who giauuateu
with a BA in aichaeology fiom the 0niveisity of Cambiiuge in 2uu6, spent significantly
moie time at the site. Aftei woiking with aichaeological fielu units in the 0K, Lawlei,
who hau a geneial uesiie to woik in

194

O492/7 AA+ !0-382D40-D </0H .57 ,!I$ !0-<7/7-37M @5435 dK863J K0Ld 68H0D. 688 0< .57
17K6.7 6-1 30-.7D.6.40- .56. 0332//71 12/4-9 .57 30-<7/7-37 N/037714-9D. P#152,6-#16
#12-1) +$> "$$4>??-5&4.&+?BCCT?-1=)H.4"4?F)@6?Z+$)6$?P/FPZJIE/FIM/YM([\MYE]I(M
EF(\]FL(E/FLZIMIPE\F(EYEPMP/FY\]\FP\MLR/J(M([\MR/IFELFM!^]LGE_I."$32

195
Bosnia, joineu 0smanagic's team. Buiing his time with the pioject, Lawlei kept a low
piofile anu uiu not openly uiscuss his negative opinion about the 'non-aichaeological'
natuie of the site (Lawlei, peisonal communication 2uu9). Noting the pioject's lack of
oiganisation, iecoiuing anu tiaineu aichaeological methouology, Lawlei instituteu a
fielu guiue manual, an aitefact oiganisation system, a stiatigiaphic iecoiuing system,
context sheets anu othei stanuaiu aichaeological methous. Bis piimaiy woik aiea was
on Pljeevica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Noon) site. In an inteiview I hau with Lawlei aftei he
left the pioject, he explaineu:
"Neaily eveiything was fantasy uuiing my time theie. 0nly the buint stones
fiom the Noon pyiamiu weie ieal anu oluei than the wai. At KTK tunnel, an
abunuance of 19
th
anu 2u
th
centuiy stuff was coming out, but most of
uisappeaieu, anu I guess since I left the iest has been uisposeu of. When I
ieoiganiseu the aitifact stoie, about 1u of what was in theie was ieal. The iest
was fossils oi 'pietty stones'. Theie was some Neolithic anu meuieval potteiy, a
flintlock, an iion knife (piesumably meuieval) some animals anu glass, anu 1u-
2u animal bones, along with some bone fiagments." (Lawlei, peisonal email
communication 2uu9) |See Appenuix F anu u foi inteiview tiansciiptsj

Lawlei also took iauiocaibon samples anu sent them off to vaiious iauiocaibon labs,
like 0xfoiu anu Kiel, at the iequest of Semii 0smanagic. While Lawlei uiu institute moie
piofessional stanuaius at the Noon Pyiamiu site, he was not in chaige of any othei
excavation location, such as visoica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Sun), uoinjia viatnica (the
'iock quaiiy' site), Zaviuovici (stone balls neai Zenica) oi any of the tunnel sites. These
sites, he says, weie simply uug with backhoes anu shovels by volunteeis in the local
community on theii own time. While Lawlei uiu iecoiu uata in methouologically
appiopiiate ways, none of his inteipietations of the uata evei became pait of the official
iecoiu on the site. 0smanagic was in chaige of publishing iepoits anu books on the
pioject, piouucing almost all of the pioject's 'final piouuct' accounts of the past. When
Lawlei piesenteu his iepoit on the iauiocaibon samples fiom the tunnels at the ICBP
confeience, he (anu his unmouifieu iepoit) suggesteu that theie weie
natuialgeological causes foi the oiganic uebiis that hau been uateu. Some of the
paiagiaphs on the natuial oiigin foi the iauiocaibon mateiial weie latei euiteu by
0smanagic befoie he put the iepoit on his website, in oiuei to piomote the supposeu
aitificialhuman oiigin foi the oiganic mateiial (Iina 2uu8c; Iina 2uu8a; Lawlei 2uu8).
Lawlei quit the oiganisation soon aftei he piesenteu this mateiial to the ICBP
confeience (Lawlei, peisonal communication 2uu8; 2u1u).
In teims of leaueiship anu accieuitation, Semii 0smanagic has (only iecently)
achieveu iecogniseu uegiees anu accieuitation foi himself, in the fielu of aichaeology.
When 0smanagic began the pioject in 2uuS, he only helu a Nasteis uegiee in economics,

196
anu his cieuentials solely iesteu on expeiience tiavelling the woilu anu looking at
pyiamius fiom uiffeient cultuies, along with his authoiing of books like Tbe WorlJ of tbe
Hoyo which aigueu foi extiateiiestiial oiigins of the Naya cultuie (0smanagic 2uuSb;
0smanagic 2uuSc). This changeu in 2u1u, when 0smanagic obtaineu a PhB uegiee fiom
the 0niveisity of Saiajevo, in the Faculty of Political Science unuei the supeivision of
Piof. Biuajet Repovac, Bistoiy of the Civilizations (0smanagic 2uu9). 0smanagic's
uoctoial thesis on the ancient Naya incluueu a numbei of contioveisial claims, such as
the aigument that they weie iesponsible foi the cieation of auvanceu science, which
was justifieu with uubious aitefacts like ciystal skulls
6S
(Sax, Walsh et al. 2uu8;
0smanagic 2uu9). In his uisseitation abstiact, 0smanagic immouestly iefeiences his
own uoctoial woik:
Theie is no scientific pieceuence that coulu seive as an example of this
pioneeiing ieseaich anu analyses.Asseitions that the Zapotecs (oi 0lmecs,
uepenuing on the authoi) weie the ciaule of all othei cultuies (incluuing the
Naya, Toltecs anu Nistecas) aie no longei valiu. The aichaeological eviuence
shows that the Naya aie the oluest civilization in this iegion. (0smanagic 2uu9)

The fact that Semii 0smanagic now has full uoctoial accieuitation fiom the 0niveisity of
Saiajevo, a wiuely iespecteu univeisity in Bosnia-Beizegovina, is meaningful. At the
beginning of the pioject, when 0smanagic helu only unielateu uegiees, piofessional
aichaeologists useu his backgiounu to tiy to unueimine his authoiity. Bosnian
aichaeologist Envei Imamovic, a foimei uiiectoi of the National Nuseum in Saiajevo,
was quoteu as saying, "This is the equivalent of letting me, an aichaeologist, peifoim
suigeiy in hospitals" (Rose 2uu6b), implying that 0smanagic uiu not have the
appiopiiate expeitise, tiaining oi uegiees to excavate. Bowevei, with official
accieuitation, the weight of authoiity shifts in 0smanagic's favoui, at least in
appeaiance. Regaiuless of whethei 0smanagic's PhB may be attiibutable to his high-
piofile celebiity status in the countiy, oi whethei he eaineu his uegiee by ciafting a
genuinely stiong thesis foi his contioveisial claims, the fact iemains that his use of
expeitise anu accieuitation is cential to Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject's continueu status anu
high uegiee of authoiity in the countiy.
I talk in uetail of the iole of expeits anu expeitise in the pioject because of the
vital impact that theii piesence has hau on the authoiity of the pioject as a whole.
Accieuitation anu institutionalityat least the uiscouise aiounu it anu the appeaiances
of ithave been some of the main ways the pioject has bolsteieu its own authoiity anu

6S
Ciystal skull aitefacts, like the Nitchell-Beuges Ciystal Skull which 0smanagic has pievious
associations with, aie asseiteu to be 'fakes' by acauemic scholais, who aigue that they aie
mouein cieations (Sax, Walsh et al. 2uu8).

197
clout. By attaching itself to scientific institutions anu methouology, anu by piomoting
connections to appaient cieuentials anu peei ieview, they aie engaging in a classic
"aigument fiom authoiity" stiategy. Thisit shoulu be stiesseu againis meant to
cieate the appeaiance of "a majoiity to impiess the uissentei even though the uissentei
'might be iight'" (Latoui 1987: S1), anu in the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius, the stiategy
woiks well to constiuct the appiopiiate peifoimance of scientific suppoit.

V>F>^ !0-.7D.6.40- 6-1 #3617H43 #2.50/4.:
Inteinational piofessional aichaeology has iesponueu to the pioject in waves.
Following the meuia's initial poitiayal of 0smanagic as a seiious amateui aichaeologist,
piofessional aichaeologists expiesseu inteiest. Bi. Biuce Bitchnei at Tufts 0niveisity
initially stateu, "Ny impiession is that they may be monumental elite tombs fiom the
pie-Roman peiiou" (Bloggei.ba 2uu7). Zahi Bawass, foimei Beau of Egypt's Supieme
Council of Antiquities in uiza, initially saiu, "It is quite possible theie aie pyiamius in
Bosnia" (Bloggei.ba 2uu7). The Aichaeological Institute of Ameiica (AIA) even hosteu a
bluib about the Bosnian Pyiamiu excavation on its fieluwoik oppoitunities website,
auveitising 0smanagic's iequest foi fielu volunteeis (Rose 2uu6b).
But as 0smanagic's unsubstantiateu claims anu 'fiinge' backgiounu became fully
appaient, this congenial ieaction soon tuineu to cynicism anu scoffing. The AIA
fieluwoik auveit was quickly withuiawn. Aichaeologist Anthony Baiuing, who was then
the heau of the Euiopean Association of Aichaeologists, was one of the fiist objectois to
iesponu: "In most countiies of Euiope those with wacky theoiies about 'hiuuen
mysteiies' on piesumeu aichaeological sites aie fiee to piopounu them but not to
unueitake excavation.it auus insult to injuiy" (Baiuing 2uu6). Zahi Bawass ietiacteu
his pievious speculations anu issueu a public lettei stating that, "Ni. 0smanagic's
theoiies aie puiely hallucinations on his pait, with no scientific backing" (Bawass
2uu6). This cynicism soon tuineu to panic when it became appaient that the pyiamiu
fienzy was not subsiuing, that it was actually giowing. Najoi publications like
Arcboeoloqy Hoqozine (Kampschioi 2uu6; Rose 2uu6a; Rose 2uu6b), Science Hoqozine
(Bohannon 2uu6a; Bohannon 2uu6b), Britisb Arcboeoloqy (Baiuing 2uu7), Biscover
Hoqozine (Bohannon 2uu8) anu Smitbsonion Hoqozine (Woouaiu 2uu9) publisheu
sombie, waining aiticles. Touay, most piofessional aichaeologists iecognize the site as
pseuuoaichaeology. Richaiu Cailton, aichaeologist at the 0niveisity of Newcastle,
uespaiis: "Suppoit of this iaft of nonsense has only incieaseu. I have no iuea what to uo
othei than to continue to piesent ieasonably aigueu opposition" (Bohannon 2uu6b).

198
Buiing this initial ieaction, one gioup of acauemics entieateu politicians to foice
0smanagic to stop excavations on visoica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Sun), citing the
impoitance of the meuieval foit that sat on the summit, anu giving eviuence that
0smanagic hau alieauy uestioyeu some genuine meuieval anu Neolithic sites in the
suiiounuing aiea (Aichaeology.oig 2uu6). In 2uu7, the Bosnian goveinment iestiicteu
0smanagic fiom excavating anywheie neai the top of visoica Bill neai the meuieval
foit. Neanwhile, piofessional aichaeologists fiom the National Nuseum in Saiajevo
weie gianteu peimits to excavate the meuieval foit themselves, staiting in 2uu8.
Bowevei, attempts to iestiict 0smanagic fiom excavating at the base of visoica Bill
(Pyiamiu of the Sun) oi the neaiby Pljeevica Bill (Pyiamiu of the Noon) ultimately
faileu. This has iesulteu in one piofessional team excavating on the top of one hill, anu
one amateui pyiamiu team excavating at the bottom of the same hillneithei team
communicating, haiuly acknowleuging one anothei. 0smanagic's pioject is still by fai
moie populai, moie suppoiteu, anu holus moie authoiity than the piofessional pioject
in the eyes of the geneial public, uespite the fact that the meuieval foit playeu a ciitical
iole in Bosnian national histoiy, as once the seat of the Bosnian inuepenuent meuieval
kinguom (Nalcolm 2uu2).
It is constiuctive to contiast this post-wai state of affaiis in Bosnia with a neaily-
iuentical pie-wai case of pseuuoaichaeology, which staiteu like the pyiamiu pioject but
hau a uiffeient outcome. In the 198us, a Nexican hotel ownei nameu Salinas Piice
announceu that he hau founu eviuence that Bomeiic Tioy was locateu in the Bosnian
town of uabela, in the Neietva Rivei valley (Stultitia 2uu7). At that time, Bosnian
aichaeologists exeiciseu theii authoiity to stop the pseuuoaichaeological uig, making
suie that Piice coulu not get excavation peimits (Kampschioi 2uu6: 26). The state of
affaiis is consiueiably uiffeient now in post-wai Bosnia, wheie any peison can take
action on his pseuuoaichaeological claims uue to political instability. Envei Imamovic,
an aichaeologist at Saiajevo 0niveisity anu foimei uiiectoi of the National Nuseum of
Saiajevo, thinks "oui system is to blame, oui institutions, which aie not uoing anything"
(Baiiis 2uu6). Biuce Bitchnei, piofessoi at Tufts, thinks that "the scam is maue possible
by the lack of effective cential authoiity" anu that 0smanagic has "exploiteu that
weakness" (Kampschioi 2uu6: 27).


199
V>F>_ Q0340g$084.43D 6D ,-.79/68 .0 Q347-.4<43 #2.50/4.:
I woulu aigue that 0smanagic has inueeu exploiteu the weakness of an unstable
countiy, by gatheiing momentum thiough political suppoit, anu by using his own
netwoiks anu connections in goveinment (foi example, his fathei was once the
Secietaiy foi Inuustiy, Eneigy anu Tiaue in the foimei Republic of Bosnia). But it is also
equally tiue that 0smanagic anu his pyiamiu pioject has also been exploiteu by that
veiy same system. Inteinational piofessional acauemics have iesponueu to the pioject
as if it was a top-uown piogiam uiiecteu by a maveiick, whose claims to authoiity can
be snuffeu out by appiopiiate iational anu empiiical aiguments. In ieality, the pioject's
authoiity is much moie complex. The success of the pioject has iesulteu fiom mateiial
uesiies anu mateiial iesults, some of which have been uiiven by 0smanagic himself, but
many otheis which have been actively peifoimeu into existence thiough the
paiticipation of an auuience eagei foi a mateiial symbol of economic success anu
nationalism. They aie tianslating the pioject into something that goes beyonu
aichaeologya tangible symbol of nationalism anu money.
This pioject is an economic anu social asset to uiffeient gioups in Bosnia, anu
the pioject is ueeply ingiaineu in national anu ethnic Bosnian histoiy. Eiic Bobsbawm
wiites:
'Inventeu tiauitions' have significant social anu political functions, anu woulu
neithei come into existence noi establish themselves if they coulu not acquiie
them.the most successful examples of manipulation aie those which exploit
piactices which cleaily meet a feltnot necessaiily a cleaily unueistoouneeu
among paiticulai bouies of people. (198Sa: Su7)

Such a neeJ foi pyiamius cleaily exhibits itself at visoko: the pyiamiu site satisfies
specific socio-political neeus. It offeis a woilu-class monument that outstanus eveiy
othei majoi national monument in the woilu, iight theie in "little Bosnia." It offeis
politicians a uiveision fiom unstable goveinment pioblems anu offeis a campaign
stiategy. It gives a wai-stiuck town a thiiving economic boost. In shoit, it fulfils seiious
social neeus. Foi many membeis of the public anu politicians, the question isn't whethei
oi not the pyiamius aie ieal, but iathei if people will come to see it, spenu money in the
touiist shops, anu use it as a cultuial anu economic aitefact. Foi otheis the site's veiy
existence questions funuamental iueas about goveinment, contiol anu acauemic
authoiity.
Aichaeologists who have been uespeiately tiying to 'knock sense' into people
about the tiue natuie of the site have seemeu to be unminuful of these issues. Telling a
suppoitei that theii pyiamius uon't exist is futile when people aie proyinq foi the site to

200
be founu: visoko local Rasim Kilalic, who tuineu his weekenu home into a caf, saiu
"Please uou, let them finu a pyiamiu," |whilej iushing to seive ciowueu tables" (quoteu
in Sito-Sucic 2uu6). Kilalic anu those like him aie not conceineu with aiguments about
what 'is' oi 'is not' authentic aichaeology. When people feel it necessaiy to piay foi
pyiamius, when they have a stake in making suie the notion of pyiamius suivives, then
theie aie laigei consiueiations in play than uneiiing fiuelity to ontological tiuth. Such
active, paiticipatoiy inventing is exemplifieu in one quote by a local visoko iesiuent: "If
they uon't finu the pyiamiu, we'ie going to make it uuiing the night. But we'ie not even
thinking about that. Theie ore pyiamius anu theie will be pyiamius" (quoteu in Foei
2uu7). This is exactly what the paiticipating public, meuia anu 0smanagic aie uoing:
constructinq pyiamius thiough theii paiticipation. 0smanagic is only able to invent his
heiitage anu sustain his authoiity thiough the continueu paiticipation fiom a
suppoitive auuience that allows his iueas to gain momentum anu secuiity. The site anu
membeis of the Founuationpaiticulaily 0smanagichave been ciafting a complex
peifoimance of executive anu epistemic authoiity thiough the use of institutions anu
expeitise.

V>U $7/<0/H4-9 Q347-37+ `64-4-9 #2.50/4.: %5/0295
#NN/0N/46.7 $7/<0/H6-37

V>U>= ;6J4-9 '7684.47D+ #2.50/4.: !/76.71 4- .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41 $/0G73.
}ohn Law wiites that, "The piactices of science make ielations, but as they make
ielations tbey olso moke reolities" (Law 2uu4: 29). Beie, Law is iefeiiing to the fact that
facts aie cieateu thiough the piactice of science, anu that facts aie by uefinition:
"Something that has ieally occuiieu oi is actually the case.a paiticulai tiuth known by
actual obseivation oi authentic testimony, as opposeu to what is meiely infeiieu, oi to a
conjectuie oi fiction" (0EB 1989). The key concept heie is that of outbenticity in
obseivation anu testimony, a ieliance of iepiesentation on ontological tiuth, which
iaises questions about the natuie of epistemic authoiity. In a uiscipline like aichaeology,
what makes an account of the past authentic oi faithful to what actually happeneu in the
past. Bow uo you begin to classify expeiiences, obseivation anu testimony into
categoiies of the 'actual' anu 'authentic'. Bow uoes this play into the scientific methous
of 'fact-finuing', excavation anu the publication of aichaeological knowleuge.

201
In aichaeology, facts aie cieateu thiough the inteiactive piocess of excavating,
post-excavation iecoiuing, publishing anu uisplay. Actois cieate categoiies in the
piocess of 'uoing aichaeology', but the piocess itself can also cieate actois anu
categoiies. This is the 'factual constiuction of social agents' wheieby, foi example, an
untiaineu stuuent who goes on fieluwoik becomes on orcboeoloqist thiough the act of
excavating (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6). A stuuent gains status as an aichaeologist
thiough his appiopiiate behavioui anu peifoimance, anu he accumulates authoiity by
peifoiming appiopiiate actions in the categoiy of 'aichaeology'. In such cases, the
peifoimative aspect of what it means 'to uo' science anu 'to bebecome' a scientistat
least in teims of the authoiity of appeaiing socan be almost as impoitant as the
valiuation of uata. Facts aie constiucteu equally thiough the performonce of authentic
obseivation anu testimony, as they aie in the politics of categoiy-making anu meaning
making. This section offeis a uiscussion on the peifoimative aspects of authoiity in the
piouuction of knowleuge, highlighting how the peifoimance of scientific piactices can
constiuct poweiful new iealities.

V>U>A #3.2684.47D 6-1 c4/.2684.47D
In stuuying how nonexistent mateiial can become an extant 'ieality' foi so many
people in Bosnia, it is useful to exploie what might be theoietically fiameu 'actualities'
anu 'viitualities'. In "Theoiizing Beiitage" (199S), Baibaia Kiischenblatt-uimblett
ietells a stoiy of a tiavel wiitei who visiteu the histoiic site of Cluny chuich in Fiance:
Last yeai 7uu,uuu touiists came to see Cluny anu the chuich that isn't theie. A
museum ueuicateu to the chuich stanus a few feet away fiom the excavation.
Insiue, I look at an animateu, thiee-uimensional computei ie-cieation.Back
outsiue, I staie at the voiu. The computei mouel is still so fiesh in my minu that
an image of the enoimous euifice seems to appeai befoie me. I'm not alone in
this optical illusion: eveiyone else leaving the museum seems to uo the same
uouble take outsiue. It's as if we'ie having a mass hallucination of a builuing that
no longei exists. (quoteu in Kiischenblatt-uimblett 199S: 1S)

Kiischenblatt-uimblett offeis this example as "viitualities in the absence of actualities. It
piouuces hallucinatoiy effects. 0n the basis of excavation anu histoiical ieconstiuction
anu in collaboiation with visitois, the museum openly imagines the site into beingin
the veiy spot wheie it shoulu be still stanuing but is no moie" (199S: S77). The museum
has a meuiating effect which (ie)invents a viitual site, wheie "we tiavel to actual
uestinations to expeiience viitual places" (199S: S77).
The Cluny chuich anu the Bosnian Pyiamius shaie a common featuie: the
'inventing of a site thiough the bluiiing of what Kiischenblatt-uimblett teims

202
"actualities" anu "viitualities" (199S: S7S). In the pyiamiu case, meuia communication
(using language, images, anu a combination of peifoimance anu paiticipation) acts as a
meuium in which Semii 0smanagic anu otheis collectively cieate the pyiamius. The
notion that the 'viitual' is opposeu to the 'actual,' anu the iuea that the two can become
bluiieu oi that the foimei can ieplace the lattei, is not new in liteiatuie. Eiic Bobsbawn,
foi example, aigues that theie is an unueilying anu genuine custom in which tiauitions
come to be inventeu anu then exist (198Sa: 2). Scottish kilts, foi instance, weie laigely
aitificial tiauitions that latei meigeu with anu 'became' Scottish custom (Tievoi-Ropei
198S), anu many nationalistic tiauitions, such as national holiuays anu festivals, weie
mass-inventeu in state-leu geneiations in Euiope between 187u-1914 (Bobsbawm
198Sb). These inventeu tiauitions weie in a sense 'viitualities' that became 'actualities'
in pie-existing custom.
}ean Bauuiillaiu goes fuithei with this notion of the 'viitual' as opposeu to the
'actual' in his philosophical woik Simulotions (1988). Bauuiillaiu specifically uiscusses
'simulacium', a Latin woiu that essentially means "to put on an appeaiance of".
Accoiuing to tiauitional philosopheis like Plato anu Nietzsche, a simulacium is an
unsatisfactoiy iepiouuction of something existing in ieality, something like a Roman
copy of an oiiginal uieek statue (Nietzsche 199u; Plato 2uu4). Bowevei, Bauuiillaiu
uepaits fiom Plato anu Nietzsche, aiguing that a simulacium is not a copy of the ieal,
but iathei something viitual that becomes tiuth oi ieplaces tiuth in its own iight,
something that is 'hypeiieal' (Bauuiillaiu 1988). The 'hypeiieal' chaiacteiizes the
inability to uistinguish between the 'actual' anu the 'viitual'. Foi example, if meuia
iauically shapes anu filteis an event anu a viewei's ieality becomes enmesheu in both
facts anu inventeualteieu infoimation, then his ieality is 'hypeiieal'.
This uiscouise of 'simulacium', anu the 'actual' anu the 'viitual', is a useful lens
to view the way pyiamius aie being constiucteu at visoko. Kiischenblatt-uimblett's
Cluny chuich "hallucinations" anu Semii 0smanagic's pyiamius can be seen as cases of
'simulacium', wheie 'viitual' imaginings aie cieateu thiough a meuiating factoi (the
museum is meuiating ieality in Cluny, anu vaiious meuia souices meuiate ieality in
Bosnia). In both cases, vieweis expeiience the 'hypeiieal', wheie imagineu
unueistanuings of histoiy meige with an 'actual' site in ieality. The Bosnian pyiamius uo
not exist as Semii 0smanagic anu his followeis say they uo. The hills aie simple
geological foimations, anu no mattei how haiu 0smanagic may seaich, he will not
piouuce ieal eviuence of a supeicivilisation. 0ne can uistinguish the 'actual' fiom the
'viitual' at visoko, just like visitois to the Lascaux Caves in Fiance "coulu easily be maue
to unueistanu how they, let alone an ait histoiian, can tell the uiffeience between the

203
ieal anu a fake" (Butlei 2uu2: 114). 0smanagic, howevei, uoes claim that pyiamius exist
at visoko, he peifoims science as if he is in the act of uncoveiing them, anu he has moie
oi less uevout followeis who suppoit his pioject, acknowleuge his epistemic authoiity
anu claim to see what he sees.
This situation, I aigue, is occuiiing because 0smanagic is successfully cieating a
simulacium of the site anu peifoiming a hypeiieal histoiy, piimaiily by using
authoiitative mass meuia outlets as the meuium to uisseminate his iueas |Figuie 2Sj.
0smanagic is piesenting a 'viitual' (iiiational anu inventeu) image of ancient pyiamius
thiough vaiious communication netwoiks, in the same way that the museum at Cluny
pioviues a 'viitual' (iationally aigueu foi) image of the inexistent Cluny chuich. The
majoi uistinction is not in how these two images aie piesenteu, peifoimeu oi in the
ostensible authoiitative suppoit behinu theii claims. Rathei, the uistinction iests on the
fact that the chuich at Cluny actually existeu in the past anu theie is ontological
eviuence behinu this ieality, anu the Bosnian Pyiamius uiu not exist in any ontological
sense outsiue of a hypeiieality baseu on smoke anu miiiois. This piocess of
peifoimative inventing, the impoitance of hypeiieality as a means to authoiity, anu the
questions that these concepts iaise aie expanueu upon fuithei in the next section.

204

O492/7 AF+ %57 $:/6H41 $/0G73. 4D 6 N7/<0/H6-37M 6-1 Q7H4/ )DH6-694l 4D 4- .57 DN0.8495.>
!"#$#6 &' ()*+ !*,-$$.


205
V>U>F ;7.501 .0 .57 ;61-7DD+ ,-P7-.4-9 #2.50/4.: .5/0295 $7/<0/H6-37
6-1 ;7146

In 2uu6, the television station ABC Bouston 1S bioaucast a special stoiy about
0smanagic anu his pyiamius.
64
This stoiy exemplifies how 0smanagic's peifoimance
anu his use of communication netwoiks constiuct anu authoiise the iuea of ancient
pyiamius by cieating the iuea, oi the simulacium, of pyiamius:
[lmoqe: loqo bronJ of o pyromiJ witb tbe worJs: "Eoustons lnJiono }ones"]
B&Q? #*!")': Tiavel to Bosnia to follow this mouein uay Inuiana }ones anu
his seaich foi Bosnia's gieat valley of pyiamius.
[Iootoqe of Semir 0smonoqic wolkinq ot tbe PyromiJ of tbe Sun, weorinq o kboki
sbirt onJ trousers onJ on lnJiono-}ones style bot]
)Q;#*#`,n: You aie enjoying the most beautiful place on the planet.
#*!")': You uon't know Semii 0smanagic, but to the people of Bosnia, he is a
national heio. [Cut to o scene witb scbool cbilJren cloppinq for bim].
Congiatulateu, applauueu, anu loveu wheievei he goes. [Cut to scene of
more cbilJren presentinq 0smonoqic o pyromiJ-sbopeJ coke]. This is a
lanu which has been toin by wai anu civil conflict, but iesuiiecteu in a
way by one man |.j Inueeu, his stoiy, if tiue, coulu change the histoiy of
the woilu.
)Q;#*#`,n: [wolkinq ot tbe PyromiJ of tbe Sun; wbere tbe site oppeors to be
excovoteJ professionolly] We aie going back thousanus of yeais fiom the
ancient times anu the Roman anu the uieek.
#*!")': As a histoiy buff, a soit of living Inuiana }ones, he tiavels the woilu,
exploiing mysteiies |.j
)Q;#*#`,n: All you neeu to uo is uisiegaiu the tiees, the gieeneiy, the soil, anu
you will see the object, cleaily in youi minu. |.j
#*!")': Semii useu satellite, theimal, anu topogiaphy analysis on tens of
thousanus of hills in his seaich foi pyiamius |.j If a peison coulu look
back anu just visualize this place as you see it, eight thousanu, ten
thousanu yeais ago, they woulu see a massive stone city.
)Q;#*#`,n: What they woulu see woulu be the most magnificent city evei
built on the face of the planet. (ABC 2uu6)
The tiansciipt above viviuly illustiates how 0smanagic anu his suppoitive meuia have
peifoimeu a 'viitual' pyiamiu site onto the lanuscape in visoko: the stoiy invites the
viewei to "uisiegaiu" the site as it stanus touay, consiuei the woik 0smanagic has uone,
anu "visualize" a "magnificent city". This evocation of simulaciaimages not only of that
city, but of the genuine scientifically accieuiteu aichaeological pioject that founu the
cityoccuis in a numbei of ways, elaboiateu fuithei in the sections below. The fiist is

64
I finu this example of the ABC 1S bioaucast paiticulaily appiopiiate, since Semii 0smanagic
has often playeu this same meuia clip uuiing many of his own public piesentations (notably, his
piesentation at the Bosnian Embassy in Lonuon in 2uu7, anu at the ICBP Confeience in 2uu8).
The fact that the Bosnian Pyiamius have maue it onto the well-known Ameiican netwoik ABC
has often been leveiageu foi authoiity anu legitimation.

206
0smanagic's self-iepiesentation: language anu images piovoking associations with pop-
cultuial icons. The seconu is 0smanagic's uelibeiate naiiative establishment of a villain
(mainstieam aichaeologists anu political opponents) that helps to ioot the pyiamiu
stoiy as a cause 'foi goou'. The thiiu is thiough the Founuation's penchant foi logos anu
bianuing, iooteu in mouein 'pop cultuie' anu steieotypes, anu which actively establish
the pioject. The last is the peifoimance of 'uoing science' anu the cieation of an
appeaiance of methouology thiough the appiopiiation of scientific manneis,
outsouicing of genuine scientific iesults, anu the mimicking of scientific uocuments anu
utilising the ihythm of scientific language.

S.4.S.1 Self-Representotion: lcons onJ Personolities
In his woik, 0smanagic iefeiences seveial specific icons of self-iepiesentation
that lenu authoiity to his own image as an expeit on the past (c.f. Boltoif anu Biew
2uu7). Fiist anu foiemost, 0smanagic iepiesents himself as an auventuiei. 0smanagic
builus on a pievalent aichaeological icon fiom meuia anu liteiatuie: the khaki-weaiing
auventuiei, who knows that "anyone is capable of uiscoveiy anu the non-piofessional
may paiticipate in the gianu auventuie" (Aschei 196u: 4u2). 0smanagic fully enuoises
this image, always weaiing iuggeu khaki anu iaiely appeaiing in public without his
wiue-biimmeu Inuiana }ones-style feuoia. |Figuie 24j 0smanagic uesciibes his woik
with aujectives like 'uangeious', 'biave', 'exotic', anu 'mysteiious'. Bis tone is uiamatic,
alluuing to 'seciets', 'mysteiies' oi 'tieasuies' of the past. The ABC Bouston tiansciipt
above, foi example, claims that he is a "living Inuiana }ones, he tiavels the woilu,
exploiing mysteiies" (ABC 2uu6).
0smanagic has offset this auventuious image with two peihaps contiauictoiy
self-iepiesentations: the haiuwoiking acauemic anu the cool socialite. Be asseits that
his time is ueuicateu "to the intensive ieseaich of ceitain enigmas of the past" involving
cultuies such as the Naya, Assay, anu pie-Illyiic cultuies in Bosnia
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). Be claims he has "ieau 4u-Su books a yeai"
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). 0n many occasions he has emphasizeu that the
Founuation has ueuicateu ovei "Suu,uuu man houis" to the puisuit of eviuence, many of
which aie piesumably his own (0smanagic, peisonal email communication 2uu8).
Somewhat paiauoxically, 0smanagic has also been initiateu into the aitsy, 'just plain
cool' siue of populai cultuie. Bis excavations have been launcheu with conceits of
populai iock gioups anu pyiamiu-themeu ait installations. Be has even appeaieu in a
music viueo (Baiiis 2uu6; Beuic 2uu7). In inteiviews, membeis of the public who have

207
watcheu 0smanagic on Tv have tolu me that they see him as a "famous" peison anu a
"celebiity" who has chaiismatic authoiity because he is so piesent in populai cultuie
(Saiajevo iesiuents, peisonal communication 2u1u).
0smanagic also iepiesents himself as a heio-ciusauei on a quest foi tiuth,
attempting to save a wai-toin lanu. The ABC show above, foi example, explicitly calls
him a "national heio" who will "iesuiiect" a wai-toin countiy (ABC 2uu6). The humble
public seivant image is not fai behinu. In one inteiview, 0smanagic iecognizes that he is
in the spotlight of his pioject, but says "affiimation of the pioject on the woilu wiue
scene anu of couise the contact with the meuia, aie all a pait of this piocess. Bowevei I
will slowly move away fiom the centei of the attention as moie people get involveu in
vaiious activities" (BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). 0smanagic's image as the mouest
public seivant anu ueuicateu maityi coexist in statements like: "I was awaie the in this
initial peiiou theie woulu be ciitics who will publicly oi piivately, speak out, insult anu
challenge this vision. That is why I uiu not want to put anyone else foiwaiu, but insteau I
answeieu to all piovocations with the cultuie of uialogue anu scientific aiguments"
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6).
With these vaiious anu often conflicting peisonalities, it is peihaps suipiising
that 0smanagic has achieveu such a successful authoiitative meuia image. But he has,
foi two ieasons: fiist, these images aie steieotypes, seemingly uiawn fiom a collective
unueistanuing of what is to be an aichaeologist (fiom pop-cultuial icons like Inuiana
}ones, to acauemic notions of public seivituue anu intensive ieseaich) (Boltoif anu
Biew 2uu7). The seconu ieason is that he establishes one solitaiy opposite foice: the
villain. 0smanagic cieates a soliu base foi his own authoiity by juxtaposing his vaiious
self-images against one antagonist.

S.4.S.2 Norrotion of villoin
uaiiet Fagan wiites of pseuuoaichaeology, "Theie is anothei poweiful
stoiytelling featuie in this genie, one usually lacking in goou aichaeological television: a
villain. Foi many pseuuoaichaeology shows, the villain is aichaeology itself" (Fagan
2uuS). vilification "is a kinu of symbol-making that gioups engage in unuei ceitain
conuitions in oiuei to.builu consensus anu moiale foi ceitain kinus of social actions"
(Klapp 19S9: 71). 0smanagic has successfully establisheu mainstieam aichaeologists as
the piimaiy villain to his cause. It is thiough this move of opposition that he has been
able to maintain his own naiiative.

208
Like a classic heio, 0smanagic has consistently kept up a peifoimance of 'goou
guy' veisus 'bau guy' with the acauemic establishment, saying that "eveiy new iuea has
opponents in the beginning. The biggei the iuea, moie aggiessive the opponents |sicj.
But, it uoes not influence my goals anu ueteimination foi an inch" (0smanagic 2uu7c).
0smanagic has useu the instability of the post-wai acauemic establishment to his
auvantage, saying that aichaeologists aie incompetent anu lax in theii woik
(BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6). 0smanagic has also accuseu Bosnian aichaeologists of
"longtime caielessness" |sicj anu cites foieign scholais as "clueless about the ieal
situation anu state of Bosnian Cultuial Beiitage" (BosnianPyiamius.oig 2uu6).
0smanagic has iepiesenteu mainstieam acauemics as insulting, feaiful gioups
who conspiie to attack his highei tiuth. 0n one website, 0smanagic has uiiectly
politiciseu anu polaiiseu his acauemic opponents: "convinceu about theii conseivative
views, |theyj piomptly attackeu the hypothesis anu tiieu to uebunk it's authoi. Some of
them, showeu a typical bosnian |sicj piopensity, by launching labels anu insults fiom
behinu the scenes" (0smanagic 2uu6). Be has also useu foiceful language to uepict
mainstieam scientists as afiaiu, jealous anu small-minueu: "Aie they afiaiu about the
mateiial eviuence that will make collapse theii woilu views." |sicj (0smanagic 2uu6);
"The tiaues like geology anu aichaeology will be the last to accept |the pyiamiusj,
because it's a ievolution" (quoteu in Foei 2uu7). Like eveiy goou ciusauei anu public
seivant, 0smanagic iefeis to his opponents in a tone of 'humble citizen' veisus the
'coiiupt establishment,' conjuiing a ciusauei image of fighting foi tiuth against all ouus.
A piime example of such behavioui is a lettei that 0smanagic auuiesses to
"Piofessois, Nuseum Councilois |sicj, Nembei of Feueial Committees anu }ouinalists"
(0smanagic 2uu6). The lettei explicitly entieats acauemics to help a cause that will
impiove the countiy, a cause that intenus to give sublime hope anu goouness to the
woilu anu will stanu (anu has alieauy stoou) the 'tests of time'. Bowevei, the lettei
seems to imply that the antagonistic aichaeologists aie enuangeiing a 'goou' cause that
iepiesents an 'unueiuog' countiy, tiying to uisunite ethnic gioups anu take siues, anu
fighting economic giowth anu uevelopment in the countiy:
The pyiamius will suivive all of us. In 0ne Bunuieu Yeais, nobouy will
iemembei oui names. But, those collassal |sicj stone stiuctuies, locateu in the
small, but piouu countiy calleu Bosnia, will iauiate a positive eneigy out into the
woilu. Please, let me invite you once again to unite the mouest Bosnian
potentials.In five yeais, one million of touiists |sicj will visit the Bosnian valley
of Pyiamius. 0ui wish is that Bosnia anu Beizegowina |sicj becomes a lively
place wheie exploieis, stuuents, piofessois, volunteeis of lighteneu faces
exchange theii inteinational scientific knowleuge. Touiism will uevelop the
maiket, the economy will iaise anu infiastiuctuies will be built. (0smanagic
2uu6)

209

While uiafteu as an open lettei to opposing aichaeologists, this uocument actually
appeais on a fanatically suppoitive public website that mainly uiaws auvocates who aie
looking foi confiimation of the pyiamius (Bosnian-pyiamiu.net 2uu6, poll uata). The
lettei, theiefoie, is not ieally uiiecteu at the inuicateu piofessionals, but iathei towaiu a
suppoitive geneial auuience. The actual intenueu ieaction, it can be assumeu, is not to
conveit the putative auuiessees. Rathei, 0smanagic seeks to make his geneial public
auuience see the gieat benefit of the pioject anu to collectively ially against the
uispassionate anu antagonistic acauemics. As piopaganua, it uoes a gieat ueal to ieuuce
the authoiity of mainstieam scientists while simultaneously elevating 0smanagic's own
authoiity.

S.4.S.S Browinq on lnstitutions, loqos onJ BronJinq
0smanagic cieates the image of a villainous establishment of scientists, with
piofessional aichaeology being a small-minueu enteipiise. Bowevei, he simultaneously
uses the authoiity of logos anu bianuing, uiawing on scientific institutions when it suits
his own means to an authoiitative image. Be uoes this in seveial ways, fiom the
piomotion of cultuial assumptions about foieign acauemia, to the use of bianu names
anu signage. Be uses meuia, which by natuie, "|enablej maiketeis to pioject bianus into
national consciousness" (Nuniz anu 0'uuinn 2uu1: 41S). Foi example, 0smanagic nevei
fails to mention that he has been living anu woiking in Bouston, Texas. Accoiuing to
some Bosnians, living anu woiking abioau (especially in places like the 0niteu States oi
the Euiopean 0nion) is consiueieu an attiactive anu authoiitative feat in its own iight
(Saiajevo iesiuent, peisonal communication 2uu7). Along with his Ameiican label,
0smanagic builus his self-image on pievalent pop-cultuial icons. Bis "soit of mouein-
uay Inuiana }ones" image is his own peisonal logo (ABC 2uu6). Beaulines bianu him as
"Bosnia's Inuiana }ones," "Bouston's Inuiana }ones," oi "Inuiana }ones of the Balkans"
(ABC 2uu6; Bawton 2uu6). This self-bianuing pioviues enough uiama anu assumption
to give 0smanagic a look of amateui authoiity, anu he is an easily iecognisable celebiity
icon in meuia contexts. |Figuie 24j


210

O492/7 AU+ O0/ :76/DM Q7H4/ )DH6-694l /6/78: 6NN76/71 4- N2K843 @4.502. @76/4-9 54D
D49-6.2/7M 430-43 56.>

As well as bianuing himself, 0smanagic also seizes eveiy oppoitunity to
piomote othei people with official political labels oi uegiees behinu theii name. Along
with encouiaging national political sponsoiship anu his own Founuation suppoiteis,
0smanagic couits inteinational piofessois oi stuuents who give his pioject an
appeaiance of authoiitative, scientific piesence (see Section S.S.S on expeits anu
expeitise, above). At the excavation sites, this couitship is full of fiienuliness anu
hospitality. Bowevei, casual visits by cuiious acauemic piofessionals have moie than
once been latei spun as suppoit foi the pioject's authoiity, when in ieality, no such
suppoit existeu. Foi example, in }uly 2u1u, Bi. Ezia Zubiow fiom the 0niveisity of
Buffalo S0NY tiavelleu thiough Saiajevo anu saw authoiitative-looking bluibs about
'aichaeology in visoko' listeu in touiist biochuies. 0nawaie of the site's acauemic
contioveisy anu pioject's lack of peei ieview, Zubiow visiteu visoko. Within a shoit
span of time, he founu himself at the centie of attention, suiiounueu anu couiteu by
0smanagic, cameias anu othei team membeis. When a viueo cameia appeaieu at lunch,
he jovially maue comments about how aichaeological sites shoulu go on "unfetteieu" by
politics. Be left visoko without having seen much of the site, anu with the impiession
that visoko was full of hospitable local people. Latei, he was suipiiseu to ieau news
heaulines that boluly stateu: "0.S. Piofessoi uives Thumbs 0p To Bosnian Pyiamiu Finu"
(0smanagic 2u1u). Zubiow felt that his visit was giossly misinteipieteu anu
manipulateu to ieau as 'expeit consensus' anu 'pioof' of pyiamius (Zubiow, peisonal
communication 2u1u).
In anothei instance, Bi. Robeit Schoch, a contioveisial acauemic in his own iight
fiom the 0niveisity of Boston, tiavelleu with Bi. Colette Bowell to the Bosnian Pyiamiu
site to see what the fuss was about. They weie both couiteu anu then manipulateu foi
(Image courtesy of OKOsokolovo:
http://www.okosokolovo.com/galerija.php?
akcija=slika&id=535&top=da)

(Image courtesy of BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4912040.stm)


211
piess inteiest by Semii 0smanagic anu membeis of the Founuation. Bowell naiiates the
event:
Television, news papeis anu websites.announceu oui aiiival in Bosnia as the
"Ameiican Supeistais," who woulu cieuit the claims of Semii's pyiamius anu
Bosnia woulu ieceive its gloiy. It was a teiiible position foi us to be placeu in.
Semii woulu make a point of intiouucing us to investois anu politicians anu have
us all stanu aiounu posing togethei foi oui pictuies. (Bowell 2uu7)

Anothei example of the Pyiamiu Pioject's fonuness foi authoiitative labels has
manifesteu uuiing Semii 0smanagic's public piesentations. Foi example, at the Bosnian
Embassy in Lonuon in 2uu7, 0smanagic openeu his lectuie by saying that his
"excavation team incluues an 0xfoiu univeisity aichaeologist" (Bohannon 2uu6b;
0smanagic 2uu7a). 0smanagic showeu a biief viueo clip of a young man at the Pyiamiu
of the Noon stating that he felt "convinceu that theie's ceitainly some kinu of laige-scale
man-maue stiuctuie" (Bosnianpyiamiu.com 2uu6). Petei Nitchell, an 0xfoiu
aichaeologist, tolu Science Nagazine that the boy in the viueo was only an
unueigiauuate stuuent anu "uoes not have any expeitise anu in no way iepiesents the
univeisity" (Bohannon 2uu6b). Neveitheless, months aftei the event, 0smanagic
continueu to piomote this '0xfoiu aichaeologist' viueo on his website, unuoubteuly
because of the weight the '0xfoiu' name caiiies.
The Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has also uiawn heavily on the names of policy
institutions to gain anu sustain the pioject's authoiity. Along with the links maue to the
0niveisity of 0xfoiu, the pioject has also maue moie substantial links to the Libiaiy of
Alexanuiia in Egypt, the Russian Acauemy of Natuial Sciences anunotably0NESC0
anu the Woilu Beiitage List. In an aiticle heaulineu "Alexanuiian Aichaeologists
Impiesseu By The Scientific Appioach 0f The Bosnian Pyiamius Reseaich", the
Founuation uesciibes how the piesiuent of the 0niveisity of Alexanuiia "expiesseu his
willingness to closely coopeiate with the Founuation in the futuie" anu how "|ajftei the
successful piesentation, 0smanagic as offeieu a membeiship to this piestigious
institution which he accepteu with much pleasuie" (The Aichaeological Paik: Bosnian
Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation 2uu9). Both accounts aie tiue: the Egyptian gioup uiu
inuuct 0smanagic as a membei. The gioup membeis such as Bi. Nebil Swelim anu Piof.
Nonna Baggag, who suppoit the pioject foi ueeply peisonal Islamic anu socio-political
ieasons.
0smanagic has similaily been inuucteu in the Russian Acauemy of Natuial
Sciences. This oiganisation is not the same as the famous Russian Acauemy of Sciences
(which is limiteu in numbei to Suu full membeis, incluuing multiple Nobel Lauieates); it
is entiiely inuepenuent. 0smanagic gaineu his inuuction thiough Bi. 0leg B.

212
Khavioshkin, a geophysicist fiom the Schmiut Institute in Noscow anu membei of the
Russian Acauemy of Natuial Sciences. Khavioshkin also spoke at the ICBP confeience.
Bis high-piofile name anu scientific-appeaiing piesentations quickly leu him to be veiy
much ielieu anu uiawn upon uuiing the ICBP confeience. As a membei of auuience, I
watcheu Bi. Khavioshkin piesent on the "Seismic-Physical Stiuctuial Nouel 0f
Pyiamius", which incluueu opaque PoweiPoint sliues full of seemingly meaningless
foimulas anu uiagiams |Figuie 2Sj (Khavioshkin anu Tsyplakov 2uu8). Bi. Khavioshkin
piesenteu geophysical iesults fiom tests he hau taken at the Bosnian Pyiamius site;
howevei, he useu his confeience piesentation time to uiift off topic anu bolstei his
claims that life on Eaith is extiateiiestiial in oiigin (ICBP confeience 2uu8). Bi.
Khavioshkin's actual 'scientific contiibution' to the pyiamiu pioject boiueieu on the
nonsensical; howevei, his name, uegiees anu institutional backgiounu lent the
appeaiance of a suppoitive "scientific heavyweight" (Coppens 2uu8b). 0smanagic has
uiawn authoiity foi himself anu his pioject fiom such expeits who suppoit him
politically anu socially, who have been able to inuuct him into establishments with
names like the "Russian Acauemy of Natuial Science" anu the "Libiaiy of Alexanuiia",
which sounu weighty anu foieign.
Semii 0smanagic anu the Founuation have also uiawn on the bianu anu the
authoiity of the 0niteu Nations anu 0NESC0, simply thiough a uiscussion anu
piomotion of the 0NESC0 Woilu Beiitage List as an eventual aim of theii pyiamiu
touiism plan. Fiom the pioject's inception, they have explicitly aimeu to "install a plaque
ueclaiing the site a 0NESC0 Woilu Beiitage Site" (Piiamiuascunca.ba 2uu6; Wikipeuia
2u1u). In 2uu6, membeis of the piofessional community wiote a petition to 0NESC0,
signeu by a laige numbei of acauemics with uoctoiates anu positions at authoiitative
establishments. The petition aigueu that 0smanagic's pioject shoulu be halteu anu not
seiiously consiueieu by 0NESC0 (Aichaeology.oig 2uu6). In iesponse, 0NESC0 officials
ieleaseu an official statement saying that they uiu not intenu to senu a mission to visoko
(Woouaiu 2uu7b). Political suppoiteis in Bosnia weie unmoveu, anu the pioject
continueu to enuoise its 0NESC0 Woilu Beiitage List hopes to the public as theii vision
of a way to get 'little Bosnia' on the map. In }une of 2u1u, the Bosnian Pyiamiu
Founuation ieleaseu an aiticle heaulining: "Bosnian Pyiamius in 0niteu Nations". This
aiticle states that the 0niteu Nations helu the Ninth Peimanent Foium on Inuigenous
Issues on 16 }une 2u1u in New Yoik, anu that uuiing this session, one membei of a non-
goveinmental oiganisation (calleu the Ecospiiituality Founuation fiom Italy) uigeu foi a
numbei of Euiopean sites to be piotecteu by the 0N. The Bosnian pyiamius was
incluueu in theii list of sites (Piiamiuasunca.ba 2u1u). This veiy weak connection

213
between the 0N anu the Bosnian Pyiamius is appaient. Bowevei, the heauline's
unabasheu connection of the pyiamiu pioject to the 0niteu Nations is enough to lenu
weight anu status to the Bosnian Pyiamius, thiough the simple anu sustaineu mention of
an institution as poweiful as the 0N.
Finally, theie is authoiity stemming fiom mouein concepts of using logos anu
establishing bianu iuentity. At the most obvious level, 0smanagic's penchant foi logos
anu bianu names appeais in the way he has tiauemaikeu the Founuation: a shiny,
official-looking logo that uiiectly iefeiences the powei of goveinment |Figuie 17j. In
2uu6, he successfully tiauemaikeu the inuiviuual names of the pyiamius anu 'The
Aichaeological Paik: Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation' (Schoch 2uu7). In visoko,
official goveinment signs point towaiu the pyiamius, anu an aiiay of foimal
piofessionally manufactuieu Founuation signage maik the site |Figuie 26j. This
obsession with logos anu bianuing cieates the feeling of establishment anu authoiity, a
point that also emeiges in the way 0smanagic tiies to iepiesent the site as 'scientific'.
This point is expanueu in the next section.

O492/7 AV+ # D6HN87 D8417 </0H .57 $0@7/$04-. 873.2/7 0< B/> )879 I> ?56P/0D5J4-M .4.871
CQ74DH43g$5:D4368 Q./23.2/68 ;0178 0< $:/6H41DE \?56P/0D5J4- 6-1 %D:N86J0P AWWe]>


214

O492/7 A^+ &L6HN87 0< .57 62.50/4.6.4P7M N/0<7DD40-68g800J4-9 D49-697 .56. H6/JD .57
I0D-46- $:/6H41 7L36P6.40- D4.7D> %57 /71 D49-D @4.5 .57 0<<43468 O02-16.40- 8090 94P7
.02/4D.D 4-.7/N/7.4P7 4-<0/H6.40-> %54D N50.0 68D0 D50@D 6 N/0<7DD40-68 O02-16.40- N0D.7/
61P7/.4D7H7-. \56-94-9 K780@ .57 /71 D49-] @5435 61P7/.4D7D .57 2N30H4-9 =
D.

,-.7/-6.40-68 !0-<7/7-37 0< .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41D \,!I$]> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

S.4.S.4 Scientific Representotion
In his self-iepiesentation, 0smanagic has moveu seamlessly fiom peifoiming as
a 'mouest people's auventuiei who uespises elite acauemics', to the completely
contiauictoiy peifoimance of 'visionaiy amateui scientist who leaus a team of elite
expeits anu caiiies out intensive scientific analyses'. Bistoiically, 0smanagic has
caiefully manipulateu images anu language so that his methous appeai scientific, while
actually having no basis in ieal eviuence oi accepteu methouology.
0smanagic has always aigueu that he has conuucteu seiious acauemic woik
ueuicateu "to the intensive ieseaich of ceitain enigmas of the past" involving cultuies
such as the Naya, the Assay, anu the pie-Illyiic cultuies in Bosnia (Bosnian Pyiamius.oig
2uu6). Be continues to stiess that his ieseaich in visoko is a contiolleu anu extensive
scientific expeiiment. In 2uu7, he ieleaseu a uocument calleu Scientific FviJence obout
tbe Fxistence of Bosnion PyromiJs |see Appenuix Bj, which states:
Biscoveiy of Bosnian Pyiamius was not simply an au-hoc affaii, but iequiieu
combination |sicj of classic geo-aichaeological methous with mouein
geophysical anu iemote sensing technologies.


215
The Aichaeological Paik Founuation believes that only a multi-uisciplinaiy
appioach, with seiious scientific aigumentation on inteinationally iecognizeu
level |sicj will yielu a successful iealization of the Bosnian Pyiamius pioject.

The team, theiefoie, incluues not only aichaeologists, but also geologists
(mineialologistspetiologists, hyuiologists anu seuimentologists), geophysicists,
paleontologists, speleologists, anthiopologists, mining engineeis as well as
anthiopologists. Each one of these expeits biings a new element of pioblem
unueistanuing anu integiate theii qualifications anu expeitise into the pioject
with a gieat enthusiasm anu collegiality. (0smanagic 2uu7b: 1) |See Appenuix
Bj

Such language intentionally connects his pioject to mainstieam scientific woik anu
methouologies. Consiuei the language useu in this example aiticle in the 2uu4
atalhoyk Aichive Repoit:
|The piojectj aims to unueistanu this sequence at a lanuscape scale thiough
multi-uisciplinaiy ieseaich that incluues fieluwalking, suiface collection, suivey,
excavation, aichaeobotany, aichaeozoology, ceiamic analysis, geomoiphology,
miciomoiphology anu soil science. (Nills 2uu4)

Bespite the similaiities in language, consiueiable uiffeiences exist between the
piofessional woik uone by aichaeologists like Steven Nills at atalhoyk anu the claims
maue by 0smanagic in his scientific iepoit.
While 0smanagic's language intentionally connects his pioject to mainstieam
scientific woik anu methouologies, none of his statements (incluuing his long list of
team expeits) aie evei uocumenteu oi suppoiteu with any ieal eviuence. Bis scientific
iepoits usually have shoit paiagiaph entiies with intiicate titles such as "Appaient
theimal ineitia measuiements" oi "ueouetic topogiaphic contoui analyses". Bis uata,
howevei, usually boil uown to nothing but simple statements that "geospatial
anomalies" exist (0smanagic 2uu7b: 2) oi only ieveal vague geneializations, such as
"the siues of visoicaBosnian Pyiamiu of Sun aie exactly aligneu with the caiuinal siues
of the woilu (noith-south, east-west), which is one of the chaiacteiistics often noteu
with the existing pyiamius" (2uu7b: S). These 'uata' entiies each have coiiesponuing
images, which at fiist glance appeai to be technical anu eviuentiaiy; but on closei
inspection, the images anu theii accompanying legenus aie meaningless. |Figuie 27j
These iepoits viviuly show that wbot 0smanagic says is less impoitant than bow
he says things. The iepoits mimic language patteins of piofessional aichaeological
uocuments, uiawing on the establisheu institution of science, cieating a tone of
authoiity. This tone, coupleu with colouiful, technical images give the pioject a feeling of
weight anu woith. The official Founuation website anu logos aie foimatteu to appeai
foimal anu official, yet inviting anu inclusive foi a wiuei public. In this case, 0smanagic
anu his team aie, thiough mimiciy, peifoiming authoiity. The next section in this
Table 4
Table 4

216
chaptei expanus on this point by uiscussing how the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject
uelibeiately connects to science as a mastei uiscouise.

V>V #2.50/4.: </0H Q347-37 6D 6 ;6D.7/ B4D302/D7
V>V>= B/6@4-9 0- Q347-37
Bistoiically, most of the acauemic uebate in this case stuuy has ievolveu aiounu
what mateiial eviuence has (oi has not) been founu by the pyiamiu team, aiguing foi oi
against the valiuity of 0smanagic's gianu inteipietations about the 'gieatest civilisation
in the woilu'. As uiscusseu in the section above, most of 0smanagic's scientific
uocuments engage in mimiciy of scientific methous, with little meaning oi message
behinu theii piesentation. Bowevei, the stoiy is yet moie complicateu, as 0smanagic
anu his team have pioven themselves to be auept at constiucting an 'authoiitative'
piesence, anu have constiucteu accounts of the past that have been ieceiveu as
'authoiitative' by many in the Bosnian public. A main ieason behinu this success anu
authoiity, I woulu aigue, is uiawn fiom theii use of genuine scientific methous, in
activity that I call an "outsouicing of scientific ethics" (see Section S.S.4, below). In some
instances, such as the use of iauiocaibon uata anu testing, the team have accuiately
sampleu anu ieceiveu iesults fiom piestigious labs.
0smanagic's team uses accieuiteu piofessionals to take samples of genuine
oiganic mateiial, senus them off to get testeu by accieuiteu laboiatoiies, anu gets
accieuiteu peisons to piesent accuiate iesults. But they uo this activity baseu on
inaccuiate assumptions about the souice mateiial, anu they uiaw illogical
inteipietations fiom the iesults. By ielying on cieuible scientific souices anu uiscouises,
the team has outsouiceu its own accountability anu authoiity: it has useu a spiinkling of
'scientific' uata baseu in fact, but has ultimately taken this uata out of context to yielu
outlanuish inteipietations. This tianslation cieates a complex web of peifoimance,
authoiity anu accountability. The following section explains this piactice anu
peifoimance in moie uetail, focusing on the iauiocaibon uating uata piesenteu at the 1
st

Inteinational Scientific Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius (ICBP).

217

O492/7 A_+ %54D 4D 6 D6HN87 N697 </0H )DH6-694lED I5-)1$-7-5 \K-=)15) +&#,$ $") \H-6$)15) #7
R#61-+1 !'*+3-=6 /7N0/.> %5/77 6/K4./6/: 6//0@D 6-1 D347-.4<43 G6/90- 0- 6 .0N09/6N543
H6N 6/7 D2NN0D71 .0 /7N/7D7-. C16.6EM K2. @57- 7L6H4-71 380D78:M .57: 6/7 7HN4/43688:
H76-4-987DD \)DH6-6943 AWW_K+ =U]>

218

V>V>A %57 &L6HN87 0< '614036/K0- B6.4-9 0< .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41D
In Novembei 2uu8, the Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation announceu in an
online aiticle that:
The fiist iauio-caibon |sicj analysis of the oiganic mateiial founu above the
megalithic blocks (within the conglomeiate) ievealeu sensational iesults: The
blocks with engiaveu symbols have been coveieu foi moie than Su,uuu yeais!
These analyses coinciue with the ancient paintings in Noithein Spain anu South
Fiance. (Lascaux; S2,uuu yeais). (The Aichaeological Paik: Bosnian Pyiamiu of
the Sun Founuation 2uu8)

Next to the aiticle is a photo of aichaeologist Anuiew Lawlei,
6S
weaiing a haiu hat,
taking samples of oiganic mateiial fiom the wall of one of the tunnels. This 'final
piouuct' iepoit states in no unceitain teims that "engiaveu symbols" in these 'pyiamiu
tunnels' weie uateu to Su,uuu BP.
66
(Smait 2uu9)
The impoitance of the iauiocaibon sample is uue to two majoi events: (1) this
was the fiist oiganic mateiial the pioject hau come acioss that coulu qualify foi
iauiocaibon testing, anu (2) the piece of woou was founu embeuueu in conglomeiates
insiue one of the tunnels, only a few meties fiom a iock the team calleu the "T1
Negalith". Bi. Nuiis 0smanagic (Semii 0smanagic's fathei anu a mining expeit) has
contioveisially claimeu that this 'megalith' is engiaveu with 'pioto-Bosnian sciipt'.
These caivings on the laige iock in the tunnel have a uubious histoiy. Nultiple people
asseit that they saw the iock on eailiei occasions without the 'sciipt' caivings on it
(Bowell 2uu8). This contioveisy sets up a uualistic scenaiio foi the pioject: if the iock
was pieviously obseiveu without sciipts on it, then the iock (anu potentially the
authoiity of theii whole naiiative) is a cleai hoax cieateu by the pioject oi an
enthusiastic suppoitei. But if the sciipts aie genuine, then the pioject coulu tiy to aigue
foi 'ancient' human activity in the tunnels. Bespite the contioveisy, the Founuation
pioceeueu to uo iauiocaibon sampling on the assumption that the sciipts weie ancient.
They aigueu that the oiganic mateiial they founu was encaseu by the conglomeiates
coveiing the 'T1 Negalith'. Theiefoie, if iauiocaibon uateu, this oiganic mateiial in
woulu give an accuiate uate of the 'megalith' sealeu by the conglomeiate, inuicating the
yeais of 'pyiamiu activity' (Iina 2uu8c; Lawlei 2uu8).

6S
Lawlei holus a B.A. in aichaeology fiom the 0niveisity of Cambiiuge. See Section S.S.S.
66
Later, the Foundation even published a guide to understanding radiocarbon dating for the public on
their official website to further the apparent transparency and importance of the radiocarbon dating
process (Smart 2009).

219
Aichaeologist Anuiew Lawlei, while he was still woiking foi the Founuation,
took the fiist samples of oiganic mateiial anu sent it to two iauiocaibon laboiatoiies:
(1) the Reseaich Laboiatoiy foi Aichaeology anu the Bistoiy of Ait at the 0niveisity of
0xfoiu in the 0niteu Kinguom anu (2) Leibniz-Laboiatoiy foi Rauiometiic Bating anu
Stable Isotope Reseaich at Chiistian-Albiechts 0niveisity in Kiel, ueimany. Anothei
sample (S) was taken by the untiaineu Bi. Nuiis 0smanagic (PhB in Nining) anu was
latei sent to the iauiocaibon laboiatoiy at the Silesian 0niveisity of Technology in
uliwice, Polanu. 0xfoiu iefuseu to ietuin a iesult on the sample. In theii iepoit, they
state:
The small giaphite sample was measuieu on oui ANS system, but piouuceu a
veiy low taiget cuiient (4.19mA) anu pooi iepiouucibility. These factois
togethei iesulteu in oui uecision to fail the sample because any iesult woulu, in
oui opinion, be inaccuiate anu potentially misleauing.
0ui conclusion is that the sample ueliveieu to oui lab is not woou, but low
caibon seuiment. As such we uo not think that we can attach any aichaeological
significance to its iauiocaibon content. (Bigham 2uu8)

Bowevei, the two othei laboiatoiies uateu the mateiial anu ietuineu ielatively similai
iesults. Kiel uateu the conventional age to Su,6uu S4u-S1u BP. uliwice uateu the
mateiial to S4,8uu - 1Suu. These iesults weie fiist piesenteu at the '1
st
Inteinational
Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius' (ICBP) in August 2uu8, anu they latei appeaieu in
piess ieleases anu in iepoits on the official Founuation website (Pazuui 2uu8). The
following section iuentifies some of the inteipietive issues involving epistemic anu
executive authoiity that emeige fiom this activity.

V>V>F %57 =
D.
,-.7/-6.40-68 Q347-.4<43 !0-<7/7-37 0< .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41D
These iauiocaibon conclusions foimeu the centiepiece of the 1
st
Inteinational
Scientific Confeience of the Bosnian Pyiamius (ICBP), which was helu foi five uays in
August 2uu8. The confeience itself was an elaboiate piouuction put on the Bosnian
Pyiamiu Founuation. No expense was spaieu in the confeience mateiials, booklets,
nametags anu tianspoitation |Figuie 28j, anu many of the high-piofile paiticipants (PhB
holueis, mainly Egyptian) weie financeu foi the uuiation of the confeience. The fiist two
uays involveu moining-to-evening guiueu touis of the 'pyiamiu complex', incluuing the
hills in visoko, multiple tunnel sites, anu othei aieas of inteiest, incluuing uoinja
viatnica anu Zauviuovici (wheie a supposeu iock quaiiy anu 'mysteiious' stone balls
weie locateu, iespectively). The last thiee uays weie compiiseu of all-uay confeience
piesentations. The confeience piesentations weie helu in the Botel uianu in Saiajevo,

220
anu the acauemic poition of the event was openeu by local political uignitaiies. The
whole event was book-enueu by public piess

O492/7 Ae+ c6/402D N6N7/D 6-1 K00J87.DM 6D @788 6D .57 0<<43468 30-<7/7-37 927D. K6197M
94P7- .0 N6/.434N6-.D 4- .57 ,!I$ 30-<7/7-37M Q6/6G7P0 AWWe> %57 30-<7/7-37 @6D
N/0<7DD40-68g800J4-9 6-1 @788 0/96-4D71> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

confeiences. In appeaiance, the confeience was stieamlineu anu piofessional |Figuie
Suj. Nost of the piesenteis hau auvanceu uegiees behinu theii names, anu the foimat
followeu conventional scientific confeiences aiounu the woilu, such as the Annual
Neeting of the Euiopean Association of Aichaeologists. Befoie the actual event, the
Founuation ieleaseu public confeience leaflets, biochuies, iauio bioaucasts, television
piomotions anu auveitisements as laige as motoiway billboaius, anu they followeu the
confeience with public piess ieleases that piomoteu the 'confeience conclusions' anu
'expeit agieement'. The aim of the confeience, officially piomoteu uuiing anu aftei the
event, was to biing togethei expeits anu eviuence so that uiscussion anu uebate coulu
flouiishanu so that the pioject coulu ostensibly legitimise itself thiough piopaganua.
Bowevei, it also became appaient uuiing the confeience that a piimaiy aim of the event
was to establish an oppeoronce of authoiity, by uiawing on institutions anu systems of
scientific accieuitation to establish a sense of legitimacy.

221
The confeience itself was a checkeiboaiu of science anu pseuuoscience |Figuie
S1j. The majoiity of piesentations by 'accieuiteu' piofessois anu ieseaicheis hau
nothing to uo with the Bosnia Pyiamiu pioject oi aichaeology in Bosnia. Nost of the
Egyptian anu Russian piesenteis, foi example, uiscusseu topics that weie of inteiest to
them anu theii own iegions of woik; foi example, "The Ancient Libiaiy of Alexanuiia:
Pioneeiing the 0niveisal" oi "The Step Pyiamiu at Saqquaia: The Notive anu
Realization". Some of the piesentations that weie listeu in suppoit of the Bosnian
pyiamiu hypothesis actually ueiaileu uuiing the piesentations, like that of Bi. 0leg
Khavioshkin fiom the Schmiut Institute in Noscow, Russia, who uiifteu off-topic fiom
Bosnian Pyiamius to uiscuss extiateiiestiial oiigins of life (see Section S.4.S.S, above,
foi moie uiscussion on Bi. Khavioshkin).
Two Chinese scholais fiom Xi'an
67
both attenueu the confeience anu gave iich
anu exciting piesentations on genuine aichaeological excavations of pyiamiual tomb
complexes in Xi'an China. Neithei scholai spoke English; they wiote theii abstiacts anu
gave theii piesentations entiiely in Chinese. The piesentations weie tianslateu by an
amateui Chinese tianslatoi living in Saiajevo, employeu by the Founuation solely foi the
confeience. Buiing the fiist two uays of confeience touis, it became cleai that both
Chinese scholais weie visibly confuseu by the (lack of) aichaeology they saw at the
'pyiamiu' sites, anu when they tiieu to explain this to 0smanagic anu othei paiticipants
in Chinese (with the tianslatoi tiying to help), it was to no avail. At the vaiious sites,
0smanagic woulu take them by the aim anu show them his site stiatigiaphy,
metaphoiically patting them on the heau, while they stoou togethei shaking theii heaus,
unconvinceu |Figuie 29j. The Chinese tianslatoi, on the othei hanu, was visibly moveu
by what she saw anu heaiu at the confeience; while she hau no tiaining oi expeiience in
aichaeology, she uiu have PhB in an unielateu uiscipline, anu she wiote a veiy stiong
lettei of suppoit foi the pyiamiu pioject which she then piinteu anu hanueu out to all of
the confeience paiticipants. Impoitantly, when the uust hau settleu aftei the confeience,
these two Chinese scholais weie mentioneu as "suppoiteis" in the official post-
confeience piess ieleases, even though I suspect that they hau little iueato use the
iuiomof what they weie getting themselves into.

67
Bi. }iao Nanfeng, Biiectoi of the Aichaeological Institute of Shaanxi Piovince, anu Bi. Cao
Fazhan, leauing aichaeologist in Ban Yangling Nausoleum pioject.

222

O492/7 AX+ Q7H4/ )DH6-694l 6..7HN.4-9 .0 30-P4-37 0-7 0< .57 D37N.4368 !54-7D7 D35086/D
.56. .57D7 K71/03JD 6/7M 4- <63.M dN:/6H41 K803JDd> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

Alongsiue the cieuible piesentations on Egypt anu China, 'alteinative' oi 'fiinge'
papeis weie also given at the confeience. Among these was a piesentation by }ohn
Cowie, an alteinative amateui anu inuepenuent ieseaichei living in the 0niteu Kinguom.
Bis talk, which was a late inclusion in the confeience anu theiefoie uiu not appeai in the
oiiginal piogiam, was baseu off of his self-publisheu book Silbury Bowninq: Tbe Alien
visitor 6ene Tbeory, the thesis of which is:
Ny theoiy is that the iapiu evolution of oui intelligence is uue to the aiiival on
Eaith of a highly intelligent extia-teiiestiial being, oi iace of beings - which I
will call the Alien visitor thioughout this book - that bieu with, oi somehow
planteu its genetic mateiial anu euucateu oui Eomo sopiens ancestois. (Cowie
2uuu: 2)

Anothei fiinge piesentation by the piolific New Age wiitei anu alteinative jouinalist
Philip Coppens seems to have been given moie weight by confeience paiticipants.
Coppens gave a talk calleu "The New Fiie Ceiemony: kingship & ienewal as a template
foi pyiamiu constiuction", which he hau pieviously given at a anothei confeience anu
publisheu online. In it, Coppens aigues that the scientific establishment anu "the olu
status quo" have not iecogniseu the tiue impoitance anu pievalence of pyiamius
thioughout histoiy:
The olu status quo that it weie but the ancient Egyptians anu the Nayans that
built pyiamius has been upset anu ovei the past uecaue, haiuly a month seems

223
to have gone by without a pyiamiu being founu; anu almost each yeai, a gigantic
pyiamiu oi pyiamiu complex is founu somewheie. Touay, it is cleai that massive
pyiamius aie a featuie of many civilisations, while the pyiamius of Italy anu
Bosnia aie not easily associateu with any cultuie that is known to have eithei
built such laige iemains oi built pyiamius. 0vei the past uecaue, the lanuscape
of the pyiamiu uebate has theiefoie iauically changeu anu offeis science a
challenge. Touay, I want to set out the challenge, as well as pioviue some of the
answeis that may be the key ievelation of what the pyiamius tiuly aie. I hope
that it will stimulate uebate anu can become a "founuation stone" of what I have
teimeu "The New Pyiamiu Age". |sicj (Coppens 2uu7)

Bis talk went on to uesciibe how many new pyiamius have been uiscoveieu in iecent
yeais anu how 'the establishment' woulu soon have to agiee with what 'alteinative
amateuis' have known all alongthat pyiamius aie piofounu anu cential maikeis of
human civilisation, anu mysteiiously cultuially inteiconnecteu. While Cowie was taken
to be a somewhat extieme peisonality at the confeience, Coppens gaineieu authoiity
anu iespect fiom othei confeience paiticipants anu became a cential peisonality by the
enu of the week, even appeaiing in the final piess confeience anu auvising on the final
outcomes anu conclusions. Less than a yeai aftei the ICBP confeience, Semii 0smanagic
was inviteu to speak at Philip Coppens's own alteinative 'Bistoiies & Nysteiies
Confeience' in Euinbuigh (Coppens 2uu8a), an event piomoting fiinge aichaeology,
highlighting the aichaeological anu mystical significance of the contioveisial Nitchell-
Beuges Ciystal Skull.
'Alteinative' iueas anu 'establishment' iueas seemeu to meet halfway at the ICBP
confeience. While a numbei of 'alteinative' piesentations uiu appeai at the confeience,
they weie sanuwicheu between othei piesentations that uiu piesent 'scientific' uata: the
Chinese piesentations of mounu excavations in Xi'an, mentioneu above, along with
authoiitative piesentations on Egypt by paiticipants like Bi. Nostafa El Abbaui on the
Libiaiy of Alexanuiia Pioject. Theie was also a thoiough lectuie given by Chiis Noiman,
a Bevelopment Contiol Nanagei of the West Lothian Council in Scotlanu. Noiman's
lectuie, titleu Tourism onJ tbe Culturol Eeritoqe: ToworJs o Sustoinoble Approocb, which
came out of a soliu vein of heiitage management policy in the 0niteu Kinguom. Noiman
auuiesseu how the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject's potential foi touiism coulu be maximiseu
by planning anu uevelopment, anu he outlineu impoitant steps that coulu be taken to
cieate a sustainable touiism inuustiy in the iegion (Noiman 2uu8). Noiman's
piesentation gave sounu suggestions foi impioving touiist infiastiuctuie anu
piomotionall useful suggestions that one might see in any policy consultation foi
heiitage in the 0niteu Kinguom.
Finally, two inuiviuuals piesenteu the genuine iesults fiom the iauiocaibon
testing at the ICBP confeience: Anuiew Lawlei, who was the pioject's Peimanent

224
Aichaeologist at the time anu who, again, helu a B.A. in aichaeology fiom the 0niveisity
of Cambiiuge, anu Bi. Anna Pazuui, a physicist anu the heau of the Bepaitment of
Rauioisotopes at the uliwice Rauiocaibon Laboiatoiy. The uliwice Rauiocaibon
Laboiatoiy in Polanu is uesciibeu online as having "ieceiveu the status of Centie of
Excellence uABAN (uliwice Absolute BAting Nethous Centie)", anu Bi. Pazuui, who is
heau of the iauioisotopes uepaitment, is listeu as having:
|pjublisheu moie than Su papeis in inteinational ievieweu jouinals anu moie
than 1Su of othei papeis anu iepoits, authoi oi co-authoi of seveial chapteis in
monogiaphs, authoi of one monogiaph, co-euitoi of one monogiaph. Euitoi-in-
Chief of 6eocbronometrio: }ouinal on Nethous anu Applications of Absolute
Chionology. (ATIS 2u1u)

At the ICBP confeience, Bi. Pazuui piesenteu the iauiocaibon iesults fiom hei
laboiatoiy, anu Lawlei piesenteu the finuings fiom Kiel (Lawlei 2uu8; Pazuui 2uu8).
Bi. Pazuui's piesentation meiely explaineu what iauiocaibon uating methous weie anu
how they opeiate, anu she ian thiough the pioceuuies that hei laboiatoiy took in oiuei
to ieach the uate of S4,uuuBP (oi 42,uuu BP calibiateu).
Lawlei's piesentation on the iesults fiom Kiel was moie in-uepth. Be aigueu
that the iauiocaibon iesults weie consistent with many uiffeient possible conclusions:
(1) the caibonizeu woou anu seuiments might have been uepositeu in the time of the C-
14 iesults, befoie the tunnels (anuoi caivings) weie maue, anu then the tunnel was
useu anu abanuoneu befoie conglomeiate collapseu onto the T1 Negalith 'caivings'; (2)
the tunnelscave system might have existeu in the pie-human 0ppei Niocene, then was
latei infilleu uuiing the C-14 uates by localizeu floouing fiom iivei oi glacial melt watei,
aftei which the tunnels coulu have been useu by humans but latei abanuoneu; (S) the
woou was embeuueu by humans foi unknown ieasons, possibly as a suppoit oi fixing,
then caivings coulu have been maue on laige stones encounteieu in the seuiments.
Lawlei piesenteu all of these uiffeient potential scenaiios, but implieu that he thought
the oiganic mateiial was natuial in oiigin anu hau little inteipietive value. Semii
0smanagic anu othei confeience oiganizeis uiu not ieceive this 'natuial' inteipietation
wellat one point Bi. Nuiis 0smanagic (Semii 0smanagic's fathei) actually stoou up
anu belittleu Lawlei in fiont of the confeience auuience. Lawlei left his employeu
position with the Founuation soon aftei the confeience, in pait because of iiieconcilable
uiffeiences that hau hit a tipping point at the confeience (Lawlei, peisonal
communication 2uu8). Latei, Lawlei's iepoit appeaieu in mouifieu foim on the official
Bosnian Pyiamiu website, anu the mouifieu uocument stiesseu the human oiigins of the
mateiial anu uownplayeu Lawlei's oiiginal suggestions about the mateiial's natuial
oiigin (Iina 2uu8a; Lawlei 2uu8).

225

O492/7 FW+ ,H697 </0H .57 ,!I$ !0-<7/7-37> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

O492/7 F=+ O02-16.40- P082-.77/ N/0218: D50@4-9 0<< 6 dN:/6H41 6/.7<63.d \@5435 56D K77-
H6/J71 @4.5 6 -2HK7/ <0/ /730/14-9 N2/N0D7D]> ,- /7684.:M .54D 4D -0. 6- 6/.7<63.M 0-8: 6
/03J> !"#$# &' ()*+ !*,-$$.

226

V>V>U B/6@4-9 0- .57 #2.50/4.: 0< '614036/K0- ;7.5010809:
I woulu aigue that uuiing the ICBP confeience, the Bosnian Pyiamiu team uiew
heavily on the iauiocaibon iesults because of the authoiity that tbe metboJ holus in the
fielu of aichaeology anu in the eyes of the populai meuia. Aichaeologists have long
iecogniseu the impoitance of iauiocaibon as a uating methou. It was inventeu in the late
194us by William Libby anu it "ievolutionizeu oui unueistanuing of
piehistoiy.|pioviuingj new, moie ieliable, anu univeisally applicable techniques" foi
iecoiuing chionological sequences anu oiueiing time (Tiiggei 1989: S84). Befoie C-14
uating, aichaeological sequences anu chionologies hau to be cieateu fiom iough
typologies that weie teuiously coiielateu with histoiic iefeiences fiom ancient Egypt oi
othei ancient societies. Rauiocaibon uating ievolutionizeu the fielu by allowing piecise
uates to be pinneu uown on specific stiatigiaphic layeis anu aichaeological objects.
Besmonu Claik obseiveu that without iauiocaibon uating "we woulu still be founueiing
in a sea of impiecisions sometime bieu of inspiieu guesswoik but moie often of
imaginative speculation" (1979: 7). As Claik implies, iauiocaibon uating is seen as veiy
scientific anu iobust methou, in that it obseives the uecay of atoms in the natuial woilu
anu equates this to measuiable time. When ueep histoiy anu time is measuiable by a
scientific methou, this is quite a poweiful uisplay of authoiity anu piomise.
Because of the impoitance of iauiocaibon uating as a technology anu a scientific
methou, the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has uiawn heavily on the methou foi scientific
piesence anu authoiity. The iauiocaibon iesults weie the centiepiece of the ICBP
confeience, anu the iesults have been mentioneu constantly in piess ieleases evei since.
Foi example, one heaulining featuie foi 0smanagic's inuuction in the Libiaiy of
Alexanuiia Society stateu that: "The Egyptian expeits gave a special attention to the new
iauiocaibon iesults of the testeu samples fiom the complex of the unueigiounu tunnels
beneath the pyiamius that point to a much oluei civilization than the Butmii Cultuie".
The aiticle is titleu, "Alexanuiian Aichaeologists Impiesseu By The Scientific Appioach
0f The Bosnian Pyiamius Reseaich" (The Aichaeological Paik: Bosnian Pyiamiu of the
Sun Founuation 2uu9).
As a technology, the populai unueistanuing of what a iauiocaibon uate uoes is
ielatively stiaightfoiwaiu: you measuie the iate of uecay of caibon in an oiganic sample
using the coiiect iauiocaibon uating tools anu technology, anu you ieceive in ietuin a
ieliable histoiical uate foi the mateiial. The actual methouological piocess, howevei,
involves many moie uiveise, complex anu social steps: foi example, theie is complex

227
piepaiation of samples, accuiate sampling by an expeit who has ieceiveu the
appiopiiate sampling tiaining, pie-tieatment anu avoiuing of contamination, testing anu
iesults piocessing (Biiant anu Lawson 2uu8). The ieality is that iauiocaibon uating, like
most methouological technologies, ielies heavily on humans, theii social methous anu
theii ability to inteiact with anu juuge the final uata output. Thus, the inteipietation of
seemingly objective uata is heavily influenceu by the sociol piouuction of knowleuge.
The meaning anu authoiity behinu the iauiocaibon methou might be compaieu
to that of Nagnetic Resonance Imaging (NRI) in the fielu of meuicine. In an aiticle calleu
Appeolinq lmoqes: Hoqnetic Resononce lmoqinq onJ tbe ProJuction of Autboritotive
KnowleJqe (2uuS), Kelly }oyce wiites that "populai accounts 'black-box' ciucial uecision
anu piactices that shape the use anu quality of NRI examinations in meuical piactice"
(2uuS: 4S8). She aigues that "bioauei cultuial views that link mechanically piouuceu
pictuies to the 'ievelation' of the physical woilu anu the piouuction of tiuth, enhances
the status of anatomical images, theieby incieasing theii significance in the constiuction
anu asseition of authoiitative knowleuge in contempoiaiy meuicine anu cultuie" (2uuS:
4S9). }oyce is stiessing that the powei of the NRI as an 'authoiitative' tool is behinu the
populai notion that the NRI piocess ienueis an 'appaient' image oi 'uiiect winuow' into
the bouy, simply 'ievealing tiuth' about the bouily state. The populai iuea is that the
images piouuceu by NRI machines simply 'ieveal' these tiuths about the bouy's
conuition, such as wheie tumouis aie locateu oi what uisease is ailing a peison.
Bowevei, in ieality, when piofessionals use anu cieate NRI images, a gieat ueal
of impiecise social inteipietation anu piactice goes into the constiuction of knowleuge
about the bouy. Boctois use these images cautiously, as meie tools foi inteipieting what
may oi may not be woithy of inteiest oi fuithei examination. }oyce explains that when
uoctois 'ieau' an NRI image, they heavily inteipiet what they see, as some of the fuzzy
lines oi blobs might iepiesent a numbei of uiffeient iealities about the bouy.
Fuitheimoie, even if the image has a cleaily iecognisable image, the uoctoi at hanu is
always socially inteipieting the image anu ienueiing meaning fiom it. The image itself
uoes not 'ieveal' tiuth; iathei, tiuth about the bouy is constiucteu fiom social
inteiactions in a netwoik between the bouy, the machine, the image anu the uoctoi. This
ieality of the technology's inteipietive anu social aspect is 'blackboxeu' in the populai
unueistanuing of NRI images, anuimpoitantlythe authoiity anu status of the NRI as
a scientific methou comes fiom this misconception of the methou as being 'ielevatoiy', a
piocess of piouucing appaient tiuths.
Rauiocaibon uating has a similai pioblem. A populai unueistanuing of
iauiocaibon methous also piesupposes that the technology is 'ielevatoiy'. The iuea is

228
that an aichaeologist simply inputs caibon samples of oiganic mateiial into a machine,
anu then the uata outputs 'tell us' the age of aichaeological mateiial. The authoiity anu
status of iauiocaibon uating comes fiom this notion that the 'scientific iesults' in some
way piesent us with 'tiuths' about the natuial woilu. But in ieality, iauiocaibon uating
piesents iesults in a similai way to NRI testing: iauiocaibon output chaits must be
inteipieteu by a (human) expeit, the sampling piocess must be assesseu foi
contamination, anu the mateiial's oiiginal location anu content must also be socially
inteipieteu. The whole technology is baseu on a social constiuction of authoiitative
knowleuge. The activity of sampling itself, of choosing what to sample, anu of conuucting
oi iefusing to test oiganic mateiial is inheiently social anu inteipietive, a point that
}oyce similaily aigues in hei stuuy of NRI imaging (}oyce 2uuS).
In the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius, the team's uecision to take iauiocaibon
samples emeigeu foi socio-political ieasons, as mentioneu in the pievious section; theie
was a gieat ueal of social piessuie foi the pioject to pioviue a way to 'ieveal tiuth' anu
piouuce 'pioofs' about the 'aichaeological' mateiial unuei contestation. Rauiocaibon
uates pioviueu the means foi that ievelation anu authoiity foi the pioject's account of
the past. Bespite the fact that 0xfoiu iefuseu to paiticipate, the uates that weie ietuineu
fiom Kiel matcheu those that weie ietuineu fiom uliwiceappioximately SS,uuu BP
(uncalibiateu). Tiaineu expeits, like the Cambiiuge-tiaineu aichaeologist Anuiew
Lawlei anu Bi. Anna Pazuui who is the Beau of the Bepaitment of Rauioisotopes at
uliwice, piesenteu the iauiocaibon iesults at the confeience. The ICBP confeience
piesentations by Lawlei anu Pazuui weie stiaightfoiwaiu, scientific anu soliu; they ian
thiough theii methousthe accuiate anu coiiect steps that weie taken to sample anu
test the oiganic mateiial fiom the 'pyiamiu' tunnelas well as the iesults. The iesults in
paiticulai have been piomoteu on the official Bosnian Pyiamiu Founuation website,
most notably the fancy output giaphs anu chaits that show the calibiation uates anu
ianges (ICBP 2uu8; Pazuui 2uu8).
In this instance, the uata coming fiom the Founuation's 'final piouuct' account of
the past was not a meie uiawing upon oi manipulation of institutions to seal the
peifoimance of scientific authoiity. The activity in questioniauiocaibon uating anu
iesults piesenteu by expeits in the fieluwas aiguably 'ieal' science taking place, not
pseuuoscience. Bowevei, the human activity was a taken-foi-gianteu stoiy. The final
inteipietations that appeaieu in public piess ieleases anu othei social meuia heaulineu
that: "the new iauiocaibon iesults of the testeu samples fiom the complex of the
unueigiounu tunnels beneath the pyiamius that point to a much oluei civilization than
the Butmii Cultuie" (The Aichaeological Paik: Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation

229
2uu9). But theie was no goou eviuence that the oiganic mateiial unuei question hau
anything to uo with human activity, anu the sciipt on the 'megalith' was of questionable
piovenance. The iauiocaibon iesults, piopeily inteipieteu, have nothing to say about
these ciucial questions. Alone, they meiely ieveal that a ceitain lump of oiganic mateiial
likely uateu to the ancient past. In ieality, the oiganic matteialthough scientifically
testeu by expeits thiough a ieliable methouwas likely a piece of tiee ioot oi othei
oiganic mattei that hau washeu into a natuial cave system fiom floouing of glacial
melts. But because of the populai unueistanuing of iauiocaibon uating as a ieliable
technology that 'ieveals tiuth' about post people anu not just post orqonic motter, the
stoiy of Palaeolithic pyiamius sounueu plausible to the public. The pioject's use of the
iauiocaibon methou anu theii appiopiiate peifoimance of piesenting the iauiocaibon
iesults was immensely successful at accumulating attention, piestige anu a gieat ueal of
authoiity foi the pioject in the eyes of the geneial public.

V>^ !56N.7/ !0-382D40-+ #2.50/4.: 4- .57 $084.43D 6-1
$7/<0/H4-9 0< $:/6H41D

This case stuuy iaises questions about what makes something oppeor
authoiitative uiffeient fiom something that is authoiitative. Collins anu Evans suggest
that, "The pioblems of legitimacy anu of extension aiise because 'the speeu of politics is
fastei than the speeu of science'" (2uu7: 12S). Ceitainly this case stuuy embouies such a
scenaiio; the site has been lifteu in authoiitative status anu populaiity because of its
politics, anu because of the way scientific methous aie being socially applieu anu
peifoimeu to bolstei pseuuoscientific theoiies. The Bosnian Pyiamiu site's context, anu
its 'authoiity' in ielation to the science it peifoims, is complicateu by the layeiing of
social anu scientific politics at play. The site is uiawing its sense of legitimacy fiom
peifoimance by using select scientific methous anu tiauitions that have been authoiiseu
by the scientific community. In a case like the Bosnian Pyiamius, the lines between
authoiitative categoiies in scienceauthoiitative, authoiiseu, legitimate, anu meiely
appeaiing authoiitativeaie bluiieu anu nuanceu, anu such context in a fielu like
aichaeology iaises laigei questions anu conuitions about what it means to have
authoiity in a scientific uiscipline
This chaptei aigues that the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has accumulateu authoiity
foi two main ieasons. Fiist, the public in this case stuuy aie actively porticipotinq in the

230
invention of the notion of pyiamius. The pyiamiu pioject is ueeply ingiaineu in national
anu ethnic Bosnian histoiy. Biiectoi Semii 0smanagic is able to constiuct his vision of
Bosnian aichaeology, anu continues to holu authoiity, only thiough the continueu
paiticipation by a suppoitive auuience who allows his iueas to gain momentum anu
secuiity. A vaiiety of inteiest gioups attach uiffeient values anu meanings to the
pyiamiu naiiative. To stiess again, Eiic Bobsbawm wiites:
'Inventeu tiauitions' have significant social anu political functions, anu woulu
neithei come into existence noi establish themselves if they coulu not acquiie
them.the most successful examples of manipulation aie those which exploit
piactices which cleaily meet a feltnot necessaiily a cleaily unueistoouneeu
among paiticulai bouies of people. (198Sb: Su7)

Such a neeJ foi pyiamius cleaily exhibits itself at visoko. 0nlike the unsuccessful
pseuuoaichaeology site of uabela, wheie anothei pseuuoaichaeologist claimeu to have
founu Tioy,
68
0smanagic's pyiamiu site satisfies specific socio-political neeus. It offeis a
woilu-class monument that outstanus anu out-sizes eveiy othei majoi national
monument in the woilu, iight theie in 'little Bosnia'. It offeis politicians a uiveision fiom
unstable goveinment pioblems anu offeis a campaign stiategy. It gives a wai-stiuck
town a thiiving economic boost. It fulfils seiious social neeus. 0smanagic piesents a
simulacium anu hypeiieality, a 'viitual' stoiy that oveilays the 'actual' tiuthbut it is
only thiough the full acceptance anu paiticipation in this vision that the site comes to
fiuition. This active, paiticipatoiy inventing is exemplifieu in one quote by a visoko
iesiuent, which beais iepeating: "If they uon't finu the pyiamiu, we'ie going to make it
uuiing the night. But we'ie not even thinking about that. Theie ore pyiamius anu theie
will be pyiamius" (quoteu in Foei 2uu7). This is exactly what the paiticipating public,
meuia, anu 0smanagic aie uoing: they aie constiucting pyiamius thiough theii
paiticipation.
Seconuly, the pioject is constiucting anu maintaining authoiity thiough theii
performonce of authoiity. This aigument has seveial facets. In Section S.4 of this chaptei,
I iefei to the peifoimative piocess by which 0smanagic is inventing a site anu a sense of
authoiity by acting the iole of amateui aichaeologist, cieating the appeaiance of seiious
acauemic pioject. To explain moie ueeplyin the book, Eow to Bo Tbinqs Witb WorJs,
}.L. Austin uistinguishes between 'statements,' which aie utteiances that simply uesciibe
something, anu 'peifoimative language', which aie neithei tiue noi false statements, but
iathei utteiances which peifoim ceitain kinus of action. When you uttei peifoimative
language, anu when the ciicumstances aie appiopiiate, the language uoes not uesciibe

68
See Section S.S.6.

231
something, but iathei Joes something (foi instance, saying "I name this ship the ueen
Flizobetb" in the appiopiiate ciicumstances will peifoim the action as it is saiu) (Austin
1962). Although Austin was ceitainly uiscussing moie naiiow anu specific utteiances,
the geneial iuea can be applieu to the peifoimances occuiiing at visoko. By iepeateuly
saying that theie aie pyiamius, anu by uesciibing an inexistent site as existent in what
appeais to be authoiitative ciicumstances, 0smanagic is creotinq pyiamius. By saying on
ABC television, foi example, that "If a peison coulu look back anu just visualize this place
as you see it, eight thousanu, ten thousanu yeais ago, they woulu see a massive stone
city" (ABC 2uu6), he is utteiing peifoimative language. Be is not uesciibing the faux city,
because it uoes not exist. It is thiough the veibal naiiation of this cityanu thiough the
appiopiiate ciicumstances that give him authoiity (namely authoiitative meuia)that
the city is beinq inventeJ.
Anothei facet in this pioject's peifoimance iests on its ieliance on science as a
mastei uiscouise. The Founuation's peifoimative language anu mimiciy of scientific
uocuments aie, I woulu aigue, quite liteially inventing a heiitage site. This point is
peihaps best uiiven home in iegaius to the physical site excavation. When visitois
appioach the Pyiamiu of the Noon, they finu laige-scale excavations of monumental
steps leauing up the mountain. visitois like }oshua Foei exclaim, "Suuuenly it uawns on
meanu I'm shockeu that it has taken me so long to figuie this outthat 0smanagic is
corvinq pyiamius out of these pyiamiu-shapeu hills" (2uu7, emphasis auueu).
0smanagic has chippeu away at the mountainsiue until it physically iesembles pyiamiu
steps. This behavioui is peifoimative: 0smanagic is playing the pait, constiucting (quite
liteially) the iight image, anu thus inventing heiitage. This last point is paiticulaily
ielevant, because 0smanagic's woik at the site is an enoimously complex opeiation, anu
it ielies on stiuctuies of authoiity that aie embeuueu not only in the uiscipline of
aichaeology, but also in populai conceptions of what it is to uo aichaeological
ieseaichwhich, peihaps unsuipiisingly, affect populai anu piofessional ieceptions of
aichaeological inteipietations. The contestation behinu this case stuuy questions the
unueilying piactices of legitimation that we use in oui own piactices in uisciplinaiy
aichaeology, anu it auuiesses the ethical use anu abuse of authoiity in aichaeological oi
amateui ieseaich.
A final consiueiation in this chaptei conceins the way aichaeological authoiity is
uiiven by public anu acauemic confusion ovei the nonhuman actois, technology anu
methous involveu in the piouuction of knowleuge. The physicality, mateiiality anu
technicality of the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject play ciitical ioles in the cieation anu
sustenance of authoiity. Like in the case of atalhoyk, the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius

232
shows that authoiity is an accumulation oi outcome of many uiffeient tianslations anu
negotiations by many uiffeient actois in a given social netwoik.
Buman motivationspolitical uesiies anu social uesiies, like a wish foi
populaiity oi peisonal attentionuo uiive much of the authoiity in this case. Bowevei, I
woulu aigue that the mateiial anu nonhuman actois aie even moie impoitant in this
scenaiio. 0n the one hanu, it is the physicality anu mateiiality of this case that has hau
such an impact on its successful ieception as an authoiitative site. The ieason the
pyiamiu stoiy is so well-ieceiveu by the public is that it offeis a veiy tangible symbol foi
Bosnian nationalism. This national symbol is ueiiveu not only fiom the monumental
piesence of pyiamius in the lanuscapewhich aie veiy stiiking physical maikeis that
can be uelibeiately pointeu to as something 'theie' anu 'impoitant' looming ovei the
townbut also it is a symbol that can be easily insciibeu. The most obvious example is
the use of the pyiamiual shape in the official Founuation logo, which insciibes this
pyiamiu into the Bosnian National Flag, cieating a mobile, poweiful anu veiy tangible
symbol of nationalism anu piiue. Such an insciiption becomes an agent itself, ieinfoicing
the authoiity of the pioject anu its pyiamius thiough its veiy visible connection to
nationalism anu socio-politics. The pioject has also hau a veiy ieal, mateiial impact on
the lanuscape anu iegion. Nuch of the success of this pioject involves the way vaiious
peoplelocals, politicians, volunteeis, inteiesteu visitoiscan get physically involveu
in the pioject anu see veiy ieal, mateiial economic ietuins. Theie is no confusion ovei
the positive economic impact, oi the mateiial anu psychological gains, that membeis of
the public have felt.
But confusion uoes emeige when the 'science' anu ontological significance of the
pioject is examineu moie closely. Piofessional aichaeologists who have opposeu the
pioject have highlighteu the fact that the Founuation's claims foi scientific accuiacy aie
unsuppoiteu, anu they aie iight. Foi a few membeis of the public that I inteivieweu, the
accuiacy of the pioject was a non-issue: they weie puiely inteiesteu in the economic
anu mateiial benefits the pioject coulu biing. Bowevei, it was fai moie common foi
people to expiess a sense of suppoit foi the pioject because they thought it was a
genuine, scientific aichaeological site. This means Semii 0smanagic has successfully
performeJ the iole of a scientist oi acauemic aichaeologist, engaging in the appiopiiate
manneiisms anu behaviouis, collecting the iight cieuentials anu steieotypical logos anu
bianus of an aichaeologist (like his Inuiana }ones hat), without having the ontological
eviuence to back up his claims. Nany membeis of the public have not been piivy to the
lack of eviuence anu contestation aiounu the site, anu have only seen the faaue of
scientific activity.

233
0smanagic has been mobilising the appiopiiate nonhuman actois anu
methouslike expeits anu iauiocaibon uates anu confeience baugesbut he uenies
them the necessaiy public sciutiny to give them the authoiity of facts. All of the
nonhuman actois in the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius aie mobiliseu, but iemain meie
peifoimances anu methous, nevei evolving the necessaiy stability anu consensus to
tuin into 'facts'. Authoiity in this case manifests in a theatie of 'uoing science', wheie the
nonhuman actois have no agency of theii own, foi they aie employeu to play veiy
specific ioles set up by 0smanagic anu his team. Foi example, objects like iocks (such as
the one helu by the veiy eagei volunteei in Figuie S1) have been mobiliseu by the
pyiamiu team to iepiesent "pyiamiu aitefacts". These objects appeai to appiopiiately
peifoim theii ioles in the pyiamiu stoiy, until they aie examineu fuithei anu the uetails
become contestable. In the act of fuithei sciutiny, the tiue ontological state of being 'just
a iock' becomes cleai, anu the authoiity of the pyiamiu stoiy staits to uniavel. In this
case, when the suiface faaue is sciatcheu anu the physical 'smoke anu miiiois' behinu
the peifoimances aie examineu in moie uetail, then the 'eviuences' anu 'pioofs' of the
pioject fall apait, anu theii actual ioles in suppoit of the naiiative become fai less cleai.
At some point, authoiity fails to accumulate when the ontological anu mateiial eviuence
iuns out anu can no longei be mobilizeu.
Authoiity is veiy stiongly baseu in the appiopiiate peifoimances of ioles anu
categoiies. Socio-politics anu institutions can uiamatically affect the ieception of ceitain
accounts of the past. Bowevei, the ontological woilu plays a veiy significant iole in the
oveiall stabilisation anu maintenance of scientific authoiity anu the piouuction of
authoiitative knowleuge. This case illustiates how active paiticipation by both
knowleuge piouuceis anu knowleuge consumeis is inheient in the constiuction anu
maintenance of authoiity. Nonhuman anu human actois, peifoimances anu
paiticipation, institutions anu inuiviuuals aie always inteilinkeu anu essential to the
iole of sustaineu authoiity in the piouuction of knowleuge. They aie accumulative, anu
each must necessaiily feeu back into each to establish an authoiitative vision of the past.

CBAPTER 6 C0NCL0SI0N

234
!"#$%&' Q,p+
!0-382D40-+ #2.50/4.: 4- .57 $/0123.40- 0<
#/356708094368 ?-0@87197

"Science, if it con Jeliver trutb, connot Jeliver it ot tbe speeJ of politics." (Collins anu Evans 2uu7:
1)

".science rests, in tbe lonq run, on tbe consensus of scientists, not on tbe outbority of ony on
inJiviJuol, no motter bow outstonJinq." (uolustein anu uolustein 1978: 2SS)

^>= ,-./0123.40- 6-1 Q2HH6/:
This thesis began by questioning: what is authoiity in aichaeological piactice.
What contexts anu conuitions lie behinu the cieation anu maintenance of aichaeological
authoiity. This thesis auuiesseu the pioblem that, while the fielu of aichaeology has
seemeu ieauy to engage with issues of authoiity anu powei iights in communities of
piactice, iaiely has the ioot conceptual unueistanuing of what authoiity is, anu how it
manifests in the fiist place, evei been explicitly uiscusseu. Chaptei Two of this thesis
ueconstiucteu the concept of authoiity in ielation to the piouuction of aichaeological
knowleuge. It analyseu the teim 'authoiity' in existing liteiatuie anu obseiveu how
foimal accounts anu iepiesentations of the past iely on the unueilying notion of
authoiity: peisonal anu institutional, epistemic anu executive. Chaptei Thiee outlineu
the methouology useu to examine two case stuuies, which illustiate the uevelopment
anu mobilisation of authoiity in actual aichaeological piactice. Chaptei Foui intiouuceu
anu analyseu the case stuuy of atalhoyk; it uemonstiateu how authoiity is embeuueu,
useu, netwoikeu anu tianslateustiuctuially, conceptually anu spatiallyin the
piouuction of aichaeological accounts of the past. Chaptei Five useu the case stuuy of
the Bosnian Pyiamius to illustiate how authoiity can be uiawn fiom socio-politics anu
science as a mastei uiscouise, anu it aigueu that peifoimance anu paiticipation aie
integial to the way aichaeological 'final piouuct' inteipietations aie successfully
ieceiveu by the geneial public.
The following sections of this conclusion chaptei examine the main aiguments
that can be uiawn fiom this stuuy. The fiist section offeis a consiueieu summaiy of the
two majoi case stuuies, auuiessing the similaiities anu uiffeiences between them anu

235
theii significance. The seconu section of this chaptei ievisits the aigument that
authoiity begins in uiviuing piactices, in the activity of uefining bounuaiies anu
categoiies, in setting up a sense of alteiity. The next section aigues foi the impoitance of
iecognizing authoiity as a cumulative piocess. The active piocesses of tianslation anu
stabilisation, as well as the impoitant iole of nonhuman actois in the piouuction of
knowleuge, aie ciitical in the cieation anu maintenance of authoiity in the uiscipline of
aichaeology. The following section uefines the impoitance of epistemic uepenuence, the
concept that all knowleuge is built upon inuiiect eviuentiaiy suppoit, in the tiust in
expeits anu the notion of expeitise. These aspects of knowleuge piouuction sit
alongsiue, anu aie uiiectly impacteu by, ontological eviuence in the cieation anu
piouuction of authoiity. This chaptei concluues by asking how we might ueal with
authoiity in the fielu of aichaeology, suggesting futuie ieseaich in this aiea.

^>A !0HN6/4D0- 6-1 Q49-4<436-37 0< .57 !6D7 Q.2147D

^>A>= ,-./0123.40-+ Q2HH6/4D4-9 !6D7 Q.2147D
This thesis has been intentionally stiuctuieu aiounu two case stuuies,
atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius, analyseu in Chapteis Foui anu Five. As explaineu
in Section S.S.S, these case stuuies weie chosen to be compatible, so that when biought
togethei in a uiscussion, iemaiks about theii opeiation woulu pioviue meaningful
conclusions in an analysis of 'authoiity'. These case stuuies weie not examineu simply to
compaie anu contiast two uiffeient case stuuies, as atalhoyk anu the Bosnian
Pyiamius aie not uiiectly compaiable anu equal sites. Rathei, these case stuuies weie
explicitly chosen as compatible examples that illustrote soliu examples of how authoiity
manifests anu opeiates in the piouuction of aichaeological accounts of the past. These
case stuuies uemonstiate key points of this thesis: that authoiity is an accumulative,
mateiial anu social phenomenon (see Section 6.S, below). The following sections biiefly
uiscuss the iesults fiom the two case stuuies of this uisseitation, in oiuei to integiate
the uemonstiable qualities of these stuuies into the final aiguments on authoiity that
make up the iest of this concluuing chaptei.


236
^>A>A B4<<7/4-9 '7D76/35 '7D28.D 6-1 .57 Q2337DD7D 6-1 O6482/7D 0< .57 %@0
!6D7 Q.2147D bD71 4- %54D %57D4D

As explaineu in Section S.1.2 anu S.S.1 of this uisseitation, I chose to stuuy one
case of piofessional aichaeology (atalhoyk) anu one case of alteinative aichaeology
(Bosnian Pyiamius), since both piojects piouuce theii own 'authoiitative' accounts of
the past thiough theii piactices, publications anu public piesentations. At the enu of this
stuuy, I finu that my iesults have yielueu uiffeient outcomes, with uiffeient successes
anu failuies.
The uiffeiences in ieseaich outcomes aie uue to the vaiiable amount of time I
spent conuucting fieluwoik at each of my case stuuies, as well as the natuie of the
stuuies themselves. With the Bosnian Pyiamius, I hau a veiy long anu familiai
ielationship with the pioject's uevelopment. I followeu its piogiess fiom the eailiest
news coveiage in 2uuS. In 2uu6, I began stuuying the Bosnian Pyiamius in uepth foi my
2uu7 Nastei's uisseitation on the socio-politics of the pioject (Piuitt 2uu7). Foi my
uoctoial woik, I continueu to ieseaich the site thiough 2uu9, taking multiple shoit
fieluwoik tiips to Bosnia ovei five yeais (inteivals fiom 2uu6-2u11), with an extenueu
stay in the countiy thiough the summei of 2uu8. Because of my familiaiity with the
pioject's histoiy anu the socio-politics that sustain it, I believe I have hau much gieatei
success in using the Bosnian Pyiamius as a case stuuy in this thesis. Biawing fiom my
case stuuy in Bosnia, this thesis pioviues a compiehensive look at how authoiity can be
uiawn fiom socio-politics anu science as a mastei uiscouise, compiehensively aiguing
that peifoimance anu paiticipation aie integial to the way aichaeological 'final piouuct'
inteipietations aie successfully ieceiveu by the geneial public (see Chaptei S).
I spent a much shoitei uuiation of time conuucting fieluwoik at atalhoyk: just
five weeks in 2uu9, late into the pioject's histoiy anu uevelopment. Because of this, I
think that alongsiue my successes, I have also hau some notewoithy failuies in using
this case stuuy in this thesis. In Section S.S.2.2, I explain how I chose to conuuct
fieluwoik foi five weeks at atalhoyk in the summei in 2uu9. Since I felt I was
extenuing ethnogiaphic ieseaich at an alieauy much-stuuieu aichaeological site, I
uelibeiately uesigneu my fieluwoik to miiioi pievious atalhoyk ethnogiaphies of
similaily shoit lengthsnotably those of Bamilton in the 1996 season, Rountiee in the
2uuS season, anu Eiuui in the 2uu6 season (Bamilton 2uuu; Rountiee 2uu7; Eiuui
2uu8). Because I ievieweu so much liteiatuie about the pioject in auvance, my initial
aim foi on-site fieluwoik was just to gain familiaiity with the site stiuctuie anu to have
the oppoitunity to talk with the aichaeological team anu membeis of the visiting public.
But I uiscoveieu that pioject stiuctuie anu methous on site weie fai moie complex anu

237
inteiesting than I hau initially assumeu (anu hau ieau about), anu my uisseitation in
tuin focuseu moie on my own fieluwoik than oiiginally planneu. As uiscusseu in moie
uepth in Section 4.S.2, the final outcome of this appioach has leu to some failuies as well
as successes. Foi example, I finu that some of my iesults may have simply contiibuteu
anothei ethnogiaphy to an alieauy almost-toppling 'pile', anu some of my iesults may
have been compiomiseu by an oveily waiy anu 'too stuuieu' pioject team (see Section
4.S.2 foi a uetaileu uiscussion on these failuies anu limitations). Bespite the insights I
gaineu about authoiity in uisciplinaiy piactice, my limiteu time at the site has leu to a
less compiehensive stuuy on authoiity at the atalhoyk site itself than envisageu. The
atalhoyk pioject is multi-layeieu, chaotic anu complex, anu any compiehensive stuuy
of authoiity anu the piouuction of knowleuge at this pioject must iely on an extensive
familiaiity with the site, which I was unable to obtain in the limiteu time anu space I hau
available foi uoctoial woik (see Section 4.S.2).
This thesis has, howevei, successfully employeu both the atalhoyk anu
Bosnian Pyiamius case stuuies to illustiate the oiiginal aigument that authoiity in the
piouuction of knowleuge is a messy, monqleJ onJ moteriol affaii. Bespite the veiy
uiffeient backgiounus of these case stuuies, both uemonstiate how authoiity in the
uiscipline iests on the stabilizing of mateiial peifoimances anu on the complex mateiial
inteiactions of things anu people. The following sections, starting in 6.2.3 and continuing
through the rest of this chapter, discuss the overall conclusions that these two studies offer on
the significance of material evidence in producing authority in archaeology.

^>A>F !6D7 Q.2147D !0HN6/4D0- 6-1 Q49-4<436-37+ !0-./4K2.40- .0
b-17/D.6-14-9 #2.50/4.: 6-1 .57 ,HN0/.6-37 0< ;6.7/468 &P417-37 4-
#/356708094368 $/63.437

The atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius case stuuies sit on opposite siues of
the 'uemaication line', anu theii complementaiy use in this thesis has maximiseu
uemonstiative value of the aigument that authoiity is an accumulative, peifoimative
anu contextual social piocess. As explaineu in Section S.S.1, the 'uemaication line' in
philosophy of science stuuies iefeis to the acauemic attempt to uemaicate authoiiseu oi
'ieal' science fiom non-scientific oi pseuuoscientific enteipiises (Cuiu anu Covei 1998:
2). atalhoyk is a piofessionally oiganiseu anu empiiically thoiough aichaeological
pioject, anu it has pioviueu a sounu case foi how authoiity can opeiate within
stanuaiuiseu, piofessional bounuaiies. Chaptei Foui of this thesis taigeteu the physical,
spatial, tempoial anu social aspects of the atalhoyk pioject, outlining the way human

238
anu nonhuman actois within the pioject piouuce knowleuge at the atalhoyk mounus
anu uig house. Chaptei Five of this thesis examineu the Bosnian Pyiamius pioject,
highlighting the way the authoiity of this pseuuoaichaeological pioject iests on social
peifoimance anu paiticipation. Bespite the veiy uiffeient appioaches anu the veiy
uiffeient ontological value of these sites, both piojects 'have authoiity' in ceitain
contextual aienas. Fuitheimoie, both of these piojects anu the contiibuting
aichaeologists involveu in the piouuction of knowleuge aiguably lose oi unueimine
some of theii own authoiity because of continueu misuse of ontological eviuence, anu
because of confusion ovei the nonhuman actois that aie necessaiy foi the continueu
stabilisation anu accumulation of authoiity (see Section 6.S.2 below, foi uetaileu
uiscussion on this point).
As explaineu in Chaptei Foui, the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject's executive anu
epistemic authoiity is appaient in how it has been given full peimissions anu political
suppoit by the national goveinment, has been tieateu as authentic anu authoiitative by
many meuia outlets, has the suppoit of many people with authoiitative cieuentials anu
institutions behinu theii names, anu has been uiiecteu by a man who a majoiity of the
Bosnian public consiueis to be an authoiity about the past uue to his cieuentials anu
peifoimance as an aichaeologist. Biiectoi Semii 0smanagic has been tieateu as an
expeit authoiity on aichaeology in Bosnia by the meuia anu public, as well as by
piofessional institutions like the 0niveisity of Saiajevo anu the Libiaiy of Alexanuia.
Similaily, as explaineu in Chaptei Five, atalhoyk is also an authoiitative site,
suppoiteu by the national goveinment as well as by numeious political anu social
institutions, anu it is acknowleugeu by the entiie piofessional aichaeological
community. Fuitheimoie, a majoiity of meuia, the piofession anu the public also tieat
uiiectoi Ian Bouuei as an authoiity about the past because of his stiong empiiical
piogiam anu novel iueas implementeu at atalhoyk. This thesis, using two sites on
oppose siues of the uemaication line, which aie both cieating 'authoiitative' accounts of
the past, has examineu the funuamental tensions behinu what makes someone an
authoiiseu authoiity anu what makes an account of the past authoiitative.
Sometimes a pictuie can be woith a thousanu woius, so I iefei to the images in
Figuie S2, which iepiesent some the similaiities anu uiffeiences between these two
stuuies. Both of these sites aie laige eaith-moving opeiations, anu both have a uiveise
team, with cieuentials fiom ieputable institutions, who claim passion foi finuing a kinu
of 'tiuth' about the piehistoiic past. Both piojects have figuieheaus who exuue a
knowleugeable piesence, who staunchly aigue foi 'coiiect appioaches' anu the
empiiical oi scientific valiuity of theii claims, anu who stiongly aigue foi the voices of

239

O492/7 FA+ $50.09/6N5D 0< .@0 C62.50/4D71E 6/356708094368 C62.50/4.47DEq.57 .0N N50.0 4D
0< Q7H4/ )DH6-694l 873.2/4-9 .0 6 N2K843 3/0@1 4- </0-. 0< .57 N2K843 6-1 H7146o .57
K0..0H 4D ,6- "0117/ 873.2/4-9 .0 H7HK7/D 0< .57 N2K843 0- .02/> !"#$#6 &' ()*+ !*,-$$>

240
subaltein gioups to be heaiu. Both piojects aie highly valueu by the meuia anu by the
many people whose lives aie uiiectly toucheu anu impioveu uponsocially,
economically, nationally, piofessionallyby the existence of the sites in the fiist place,
anu by the aichaeological inteipietations which uevelop fiom the teams' activity. In
both piojects (peihaps most cleaily seen in these images), the oiientation of humans in
ielation to the mateiial anu physical space is heavily contiolleu at the aichaeological
sites by the aichaeologists in theii iespective teams. This physical contiol uiiectly
enables anu limits the powei hieiaichies anu the authoiity of inuiviuuals who inteiact
with aichaeological mateiial, anu this uiiectly impacts the authoiity of claims about the
past. At both of these sites, inuiviuual anu institutional authoiity is entiiely uepenuent
upon the physical anu mateiial woilu, as well as the human anu nonhuman actois who
enable anu constiain the inteipietive value of accounts, uiiectly iesisting anu
accommouating authoiity. This uiscussion is expanueu upon in Section 6.S, below.
It is impoitant to ievisit ciitical points auuiesseu in pievious chapteis of this
uisseitation. Najoi uiffeiences exist in the way these two case stuuies opeiate: in how
they tieat the nonhuman actois involveu in theii aichaeologies, in the way theii
empiiical authoiity opeiates, anu in the sustainability of theii authoiity. As aigueu in
Chaptei Five, Semii 0smanagic's site in Bosnia ielies upon what I call 'smoke anu
miiiois' peifoimance anu paiticipation. Theie is no tiue ontological eviuence of
piehistoiic pyiamius in visoko; theie is no mateiial eviuence of an ancient Bosnian
supeicivilisation. The site has gaineu its authoiity piimaiily thiough the performonce
anu outsouicing of science by the key playeis involveu, such as 0smanagic himself anu
many of his team. Fuitheimoie, I aigue the site is ciitically suppoiteu by the public anu
many cieuentialeu 'expeits' because they actively want to porticipote in the constiuction
of meaning, value anu national symbolism in a post-wai countiy. While the economic
anu social benefit of the pyiamius pioject is veiy much ieal, the authoiity that lies
behinu this claim of pyiamiusanu behinu the people who insist upon itis ultimately
unsustainable. As aigueu in the conclusion of Chaptei Five, people like Semii 0smanagic
aie foicing the nonhuman actois in this site to play veiy specific ioles in a theatie of
'uoing science'. 0bjects like iocks aie being inappiopiiately mobiliseu to iepiesent
'pyiamiu aitefacts'. When these objects aie no longei mobiliseu by paiticipatoiy actois,
when they lose their significance in a narrative of post-war Bosnian social
reconstruction, then they will lose all authority. Authority is a cumulative process, and
in the case of the Bosnian Pyramids, that accumulation will run out of steam at a
certain point of time. This site demonstrates how authority is strongly based in the
appropriate performances of pre-authorized roles, categories and institutions (like

241
science or radiocarbon dating); performance within established socio-politics and
institutions can dramatically affect the reception of ceitain accounts of the past.
0ltimately, howevei, the ontological woilu intiuues upon, stabilizes, maintains oi
uisiupts scientific authoiity in the piouuction of authoiitative knowleuge. It is in this
iespect that the authoiity of the Bosnian Pyiamius case stuuy fails ovei time.
Chaptei Foui uemonstiateu exactly bow this piocess of stabilization woiks in
uetail, by ueconstiucting the way authoiity opeiates in human anu nonhuman
inteiactions at the site of atalhoyk. As the conclusion of that chaptei aigueu, authoiity
is an outcome of complex social anu physical factois. Nonhuman actois, as well as
piocesses like insciiption anu tianslation, play ciitical ioles in cieating anu maintaining
authoiity in the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge. This case stuuy uemonstiateu
how physical anu tempoial factoissuch as the layout anu teiiitoiiality of uig house
space, along with peisonal familiaiity with iepetitive aichaeological mateiial ovei long
peiious of timecan leau to peisonal anu institutional authoiity. This chaptei
uemonstiateu how the most influential actois in knowleuge piouuction aie nonhuman
actois, along with the methous anu piogiams of insciiption anu tianslation that cieate
both stabilities anu authoiities. 0nlike in Bosnia, the team at atalhoyk have been
actively establishing stability anu familiaiity with mateiial at the site, accumulating a
gieat ueal of empiiical authoiity baseu on continueu agieement about the mateiial
eviuence, stabilising a sense of ontological ieality. Bowevei, like in Bosnia, the pioject
has not fully auuiesseu the way authoiity is octuolly opeiating, anu how it is ultimately
ieliant upon its nonhuman actois anu the piocesses of insciiption anu tianslation.
Biiectoi Ian Bouuei has aiguably begun to unueimine his pioject's own authoiity by
continually insisting that instability is key to the constiuction of moie valiu iealities oi
accounts of the past. In ieality, this authoiity is foimeu fiom continueu familiaiity oi
stability with iepetitive mateiial cultuie, anu the consensus foimeu fiom peei ieview
anu fiom multiple voices leauing to stabilization.
The impoitant similaiities of these case stuuies iest in the way both piojects
seem to misunueistanu the active iole that nonhuman actois, as well as piocesses like
insciiption anu tianslation, play in the constiuction anu maintenance of authoiity. The
impoitant uiffeiences in these case stuuies iest in the ultimate uiiection of the two
piojects, in the exact way this misunueistanuing affects theii authoiity. In Bosnia, the
entiie pioject's piemise anu futuie is at stake, as the lack of ontological ieality to back
its claims will make the pioject's public suppoit collapse, oi peihaps ieuuce its authoiity
to meiely a fiinge following. In atalhoyk, the pioject's iole as a cutting-euge
aichaeological pioject oi an influential mouel of aichaeological methou is at stake, as

242
any new instability that is aitificially foiceu upon this empiiically baseu stuuy of the
past will simply stabilise once again in the futuie, as vaiious team membeis uevelop
gieatei familiaiity with iecognisable anu iepetitive aichaeological mateiial. The
following section of this chaptei offeis the concluuing aiguments of this thesis iegaiuing
the significance of the finuings fiom these two case stuuies anu the iole of authoiity in
the piouuction of knowleuge in aichaeology.

^>F B730-D./23.4-9 #2.50/4.: 4- .57 $/0123.40- 0<
#/356708094368 ?-0@87197

^>F>= #2.50/4.: 4- B4P414-9 $/63.437DM !6.790/47D 6-1 #8.7/4.:
A majoi way authoiity opeiates in the piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge is
in the soliuification, uefinition anu categoiization of what it is to be 'appiopiiately
aichaeological'. In any uiscipline, a gieat ueal of powei anu authoiity is vesteu in both
the state of being classifieu anu in who has the powei to name oi choose categoiies.
'Biviuing piactices' (c.f. Foucault 196S; Rabinow 1984: 8-11) aie both physical anu
intellectual anu have an essential poweiknowleuge ielationship. The act of classifying
people anu things cieates ielationships of asymmetiic powei, thiough piactices of
inclusionexclusion. To iepeat fiom Bowkei anu Stai: "to classify is human.a
classification is a spatial, tempoial, oi spatio-tempoial segmentation of the woilu"
(1999: 1-11). As humans, we classify the woilu, often tacitly, by soiting activities anu
mateiials into categoiies. By uoing so, we cieate social anu moial oiuei out of the woilu
we expeiience, anu we constiuct self-iuentities that exist against categoiies of what we
see as 'othei'. In an acauemic uiscipline, the veiy natuie of classifying objects anu acts
cieates gieatei anu lessei authoiity by those who aie uiviuing anu being uiviueu. This
thesis examineu two specific case stuuies that illustiate how uiviuing piactices in the
uiscipline of aichaeology can constiuct categoiies thiough a sense of valiuity anu
alteiitygioupings we uistinguish as 'us' veisus 'them', 'aichaeological' veisus 'not
aichaeological', 'authoiiseu' veisus 'unauthoiiseu'. Biviuing piactices impact oui
methou anu inteipietation in aichaeology, anu impact oui unueistanuing of authoiity.
The photos in Figuie S2, above, iepiesent some of the issues in categoiisation
anu alteiity. These photos fiom both the atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius pioject
show how aichaeological (anu pseuuoaichaeological) spaces can be physically uiviueu

243
by place, people, actois anu mateiials, all of which tacitly opeiate within a social
hieiaichy of access anu authoiity. In both photos, the leauing iepiesentative
authoiitiesSemii 0smanagic in Bosnia anu Ian Bouuei in atalhoykstanu in a
position of intimate access to iemains fiom the past.
69
Both men holu PhBs anu othei
cieuentials fiom iecogniseu univeisities. Both holu iequisite goveinment peimits to
access aichaeology. Both voice theii uesiie to engage in a uialogue of tianspaiency anu
sciutiny. Both have the highest level of executive authoiity anu access in theii iespective
aichaeological sites anu piojects. In both photos, membeis of the public stanu on
platfoims above on giounu level, looking on while they aie lectuieu to by the authoiities
below them; they aie shown what is woith seeing anu what infoimation is valuable
enough to be inteipieteu anu naiiateu. In both pictuies, the inteipietations anu
accounts of the past being naiiateu by the authoiities aie also being meuiateu in a way
that fuithei elevates theii accounts anu accountabilityin the case of Bosnia, television
ciews captuie anu ielay the inteipietations by Semii 0smanagic, anu in the case of
atalhoyk, public uisplay signage lines the site anu supplements Ian Bouuei's
piesentation with infoimation that has been chosen iepiesent the most stable anu
authoiiseu infoimation about the Neolithic past. These two photogiaphs illustiate how
the uivisions we cieate in physical anu intellectual space piomote a sense of authoiity
thiough alteiity. Biviuing piactices aie one of the most funuamental ways that
aichaeology opeiates as a social science. 0ui science anu oui methous aie what set us
apait fiom 'the otheis'; oui uivisions of space anu place set oui teams apait fiom the
geneial public; the natuie of uivision cieates social asymmetiies, elevating some to
positions of authoiity, anu otheis to subaltein ioles.
As auuiesseu in Chaptei Foui, uuiing my fieluwoik at the site of atalhoyk in
2uu9, a gieat ueal of site activity anu inteipietation emeigeu thiough such social
categoiies: spatial, tempoial, inteipietive anu insciiptive. Laboiatoiy spaces in the uig
house, foi example, weie aiiangeu accoiuing to aitefact types, inuicative of the way the
piofession has uevelopeu aiounu specialties that focus on mateiials such as obsiuian oi
faunal iemains. This aiiangement of 'pou-like' laboiatoiy cultuies veiy physically
affecteu the uivision of mateiial iemains in the uig house. It also socially impacteu
gioupings of people anu piactices, which uiiectly affecteu inteipietation anu the
piouuction of knowleuge, baseu on the way such gioupings physically enableu oi
constiaineu how inuiviuuals coulu builu theii own social anu epistemic authoiity.
Buiing my visit in 2uu9, people anu spaces at atalhoyk weie aiiangeu anu contiolleu

69
0i in the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius, piesumeu iemains fiom the past.

244
accoiuing to executive hieiaichy in the site social stiuctuie. Foi example, ceitain iooms
weie tacitly iestiicteu to only ceitain specialties oi inuiviuuals, unless peimissions weie
obtaineu by the appiopiiate authoiities oi iepiesentatives, anu the whole uig house was
tacitly contiolleu by the naiiowing oi consent of access. Noie spaces weie accessible to
those who helu moie executive access, uue to theii stiong social anu tempoial ties to the
site.
0n a uisciplinaiypublic level, scholais like Reba N. Soffei have aigueu that, "in
the long iun, the success of a uiscipline is not ueteimineu by its poweis of piotection oi
pationage", but iathei "successful piofessions have maintaineu a monopoly ovei a
special bouy of knowleuge anu skills.of a ieal benefit to the public" (1982: 8u1). When
ceitain inuiviuuals own oi possess the physical aienas of knowleuge piouuction, like
aichaeological sites, they owe a gieat ueal of iesponsibility to the othei stakeholueis
who may wish to have access. At atalhoyk, Bouuei anu his team have tiieu to
accommouate multiple stakeholueis anu voices by allowing them gieatei access to moie
piivate aieas of the uig house anu less accessible mateiials. Bowevei, alteiity anu
authoiity aie still staunchly (anu in some ways, necessaiily) maintaineu at atalhoyk.
While Bouuei has pieviously aigueu that "Suboiuinate gioups who want to be involveu
in aichaeological inteipietation neeu to be pioviueu with the means anu mechanisms
foi inteiacting with the aichaeological past in uiffeient ways" (Bouuei 1992: 186), the
veiy sentence stiuctuie of this comment allows that Bouuei anu his team aie in the
authoiitative position of proviJinq suboiuinate gioups with 'means anu mechanisms',
while suboiuinate gioups aie at the ieceiving anu uisauvantageu enu of this piocess,
uealing with whatevei means oi mechanisms they aie alloweu oi allotteu. While the
team's intent to empowei membeis of suboiuinate gioups in this case is highly
motivateu with a ieal uesiie to allow gieatei accessibility anu fieeuom to aichaeology,
anu while I uo think suboiuinate gioups have been empoweieu in many ways thiough
theii collaboiation with the site, it must still be iecogniseu that this empoweiment is
always contiolleu by those who aie highei in the social hieiaichy of aichaeology. Any
subaltein empoweiment has been necessaiily poitioneu out with the aim anu
unueistanuing that, by giving away site access anu authoiity to suboiuinate gioups, it
shoulu nevei unueimine any benefit to aichaeologists themselves. This uefence of
ensuiing the bounuaiies fiom what is 'authoiiseu' fiom what is 'othei' (the public,
uouuess Community, local communities, etc.) is highly motivateu by the status of
aichaeology as a uiscipline, wheie aichaeologists aie factually constiucteu thiough theii
appiopiiate piactice anu familiaiity of behaviouis within that uiscipline, anu they neeu

245
to secuie theii own positions in an intellectual anu piofessional aiena by uefenuing
theii own sense of self, piactice anu caieeis.
It shoulu also be iecogniseu that piofessional authoiity of access anu
teiiitoiiality is aiguably not always a bau thing, as a case like the amateui Bosnian
Pyiamiu pioject may illuminate. Nany piofessional aichaeologists have ciiticiseu this
pioject foi its pseuuoaichaeology. It has uamageu genuine aichaeological iemains anu
thieateneu histoiical accounts of the Bosnian past. Neveitheless, this case ciitically
shows that theie is funuamental powei to be hau in the contiol of physical access anu
epistemological space. The amateui Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject has cieateu anu
maintaineu authoiity thiough its contiol ovei the physical lanuscape, anu its ability to
successfully uefine, label anu altei physical anu intellectual space. It has acquiieu the
iequisite peimits fiom a suppoitive goveinment, uevelopeu status anu attention
thiough its influence on populai meuia, anu manipulateu the lanuscape to appeai
aichaeological. Bowevei, unlike the case of atalhoyk, the Bosnian pioject's contiol
ovei physical space involves only a caieful performonce of scientific authoiity, heavily
contiolling only an image of an authoiitative account of the past. Its claims have little
ontological significance. In a case like atalhoyk, Bouuei anu his team contiol anu
uefenu theii epistemological space thiough the tianslation of eviuentiaiy suppoit that
they accumulate fiom the ontological woilu. This highlights an impoitant uistinction in
the constiuction of authoiity in aichaeology: nonhuman actois actively enable,
constiain anu limit how authoiity can be sustaineu ovei time. This point is expanueu in
the following section.

^>F>A #2.50/4.: 4- %/6-D86.40-M Q.6K484D6.40- 6-1 .57 #97-3: 0< *0-52H6-
#3.0/D
0ne of the most impoitant aiguments that has emeigeu fiom this ieseaich is
that, in science, authoiity is inheiently iooteu in the act of constiucting things
iecognizeu as 'facts'. In the piouuction of knowleuge, the constiuction of facts is veiy
uiffeient fiom the meie piouuction of accounts oi naiiatives. The case stuuies of
atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius ciitically auuiess this point, foi in both cases, the
authoiity of ceitain inuiviuuals anu theii theoietical piogiams aie unueimineu by
confusions anu misiepiesentations of the ioles of nonhuman actois. This thesis aigues
that the active iole of the nonhuman piocesses anu objects involveu in the piouuction of
knowleuge aie ciitically impoitant to the authoiity of facts anu 'final piouuct' accounts
of the past.

246
Chaptei Foui of this thesis useu the case stuuy of atalhoyk to uemonstiate the
impoitance of tianslation anu insciiption in the piouuction of knowleuge. The chaptei
useu
Latoui's 'tianslation mouel' (Latoui 1986: 266-269; also see Section 2.2.4 in this
uisseitation) to show how executive anu epistemic authoiity accumulates thiough the
tianslations, negotiations anu inteiactions of many uiffeient actois in a given netwoik.
Chaptei Five useu the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius to illustiate that, while human
socio-political uesiies aie main contiibuting factois to the executive authoiity anu
populaiity of an aichaeological pioject, the authoiity of a 'final piouuct' aichaeological
account funuamentally iests on the mateiial anu ontological significance of its eviuence.
In piojects claiming scientific ioots, the authoiity anu agency of the ontological woilu
will eventually win out ovei the peifoimances anu politics that might lenu immeuiate
authoiity to the site. Pievious liteiaiy uiscussions about authoiity in aichaeological
piactice have focuseu on the piesence anu impact of human actoisa gieat ueal of
uebate has suiiounueu issues of genuei, site contiol, the powei anu voice local publics,
as well as inuiviuual iights ovei inteipietation. Bowevei, this thesis aigues that
authoiity is a complex piocess that accumulates fiom the inteiactions of botb human
anu nonhuman actois. It shoulu be iecogniseu that the ontological woilu has as much
impact, anu places as much constiaint upon, authoiitative inteipietation as the humans
that inteiact with it.
At atalhoyk, Ian Bouuei has long iecogniseu the impoitance of authoiity in
the aichaeological piocess, but he has mis-conceptualiseu aichaeology as a piactice
wheie the piimaiy actois aie human. Bouuei has vigoiously piomoteu the nonhuman
actois at his site thiough a veiy stiong piogiam of empiiical piactice, with at-hanu
specialists in the fielu anu unpieceuenteu attention to scientific uetail. Bowevei, he has
paiauoxically piomoteu a theoiy of piactice wheie inteipietation anu fact-constiuction
aie a human-centiic affaii. Be continues to piomote the iuea that instability in human
piesence at an aichaeological site will biing bettei inteipietation to the aichaeological
accounts of the past piouuceu theie. The iuea is that humans will bettei think thiough
the mateiial they hanule if they aie foiceu to continually contest theii ielationship with
it. Bowevei, as I aigue in Chaptei Foui, this continuous instability neglects the essential
authoiity of the ontological woilu by uenying the agency anu constiaints that nonhuman
actois place upon human inteipietations. The stability that Ian Bouuei tiies to iesist is,
in fact, piecisely wheie his empiiical authoiity is iooteu: in the familiaiity, iepetition
anu stability of eviuence. Physical space, lanuscapes, mateiial objects, aitefacts anu
tools, methous anu piactices aie all iooteu in physicality anu mateiiality. They go

247
beyonu playing the iole of being meie uata oi objects. They piactically enable, constiain,
iesist anu accommouate the way we engage with the woilu, anu they limit oui
inteipietive authoiity. They impact the way we can say with gieatei oi lessei ceitainty
what is a 'fact' veisus what is a meie account oi naiiative. The ieason an aichaeologist
can 'become an aichaeologist' anu gain authoiity in that iole is thiough the peifoimance
of the appiopiiate behaviouis of an aichaeologistwhich aie iooteu in physical
piactices that piomote familiaiity with iepetitive anu accumulative ontological
eviuence. Anu the ieason authoiity accumulates thiough expeitise (gaining gieatei
familiaiity with a site oi specific type of aichaeological mateiial categoiy), is that theie
is a piocess of active stabilisation as mateiial becomes moie iecognisable anu iepetitive.
It is easy to contiast atalhoyk with the Bosnian Pyiamius pioject, wheie
confusion also aiises ovei the iole of nonhuman actois anu methous. In Bosnia the
pioject is only peifoiming authoiity by uiawing on the institution of science as a mastei
uiscouise. The nonhuman actois upon which that peifoimance iestsobjects like iocks
that they claim aie aitefacts, anu methous like iauiocaibon uating that aie
misinteipieteulack the public sciutiny of 'facts'. The Bosnian Pyiamius team
mobilises objects anu methous to play ioles in a theatiical stoiy foi the public; these
things aie simply a way foi the team to piove that they aie 'uoing science'. The lack of
ontological significance in theii mateiialwhich bieaks uown unuei fuithei sciutiny
anu lacks the iequisite familiaiity, iepetition anu stability of inquiiyis the ieason why
the authoiity of the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject is intellectually unsustainable. Both
atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject ultimately uemonstiate that authoiity is an
outcome of complex social anu physical factois, that nonhuman actois anu piocesses
play a ciitical iole in stabilizing anu establishing that authoiity, anu that this sense of
stability is cential to the maintenance of authoiity ovei time.

^>F>F #2.50/4.: 4- &N4D.7H43 B7N7-17-37
6.S.S.1 Befininq Fpistemic BepenJence
0ne of the majoi questions that emeiges fiom this ieseaich ielates to the
concept of epistemic uepenuence: how uoes one become 'an authoiity' oi an expeit in
aichaeological piactice. Why uo we tiust some accounts ovei otheis. Why uo we come
to uepenu on oi tiust ceitain epistemic authoiities, lenuing them executive authoiity
ovei physical anu intellectual space. Funuamental unueilying issues about authoiity in

248
aichaeological piactice centie upon the iueas of tiust, ceitainty, expeitise anu epistemic
uepenuence.
'Epistemic uepenuence' is the iuea that knowleugepaiticulaily scientific
knowleugeuepenus on inuiiect eviuentiaiy suppoit foi that knowleuge. In many
cases, people believe something to be tiue but uo not possess eviuence foi that belief;
insteau, they tiust anu iely upon the intellectual authoiity of expeits who asseit that
they have the necessaiy eviuence foi that belief (Baiuwig 198S). As philosophei }ohn
Baiuwig notes, the amount of knowleuge in the woilu is essentially infinite, anu each
inuiviuual is finite. Nost scientific knowleuge is built upon the woik of multiple people,
expeiiments anu aiguments. In most cases, an inuiviuual ieseaichei oi membei of the
public may not have the time, iesouices oi sometimes even the capability to ieplicate oi
test the pievious iesults fiom which hei own scientific knowleuge ielies upon.
Philosophei Nichel Blais explains fuithei that "|wje must tiust the eviuential iepoits of
otheis, simply because physically we cannot stait fiom sciatch. Whatevei woith science
may have, it iequiies this tiust; foi it is by anu laige a cumulative enteipiise anu no one
inuiviuual can shouluei the eviuential loau" (Blais 1987: S69). 0ui ieliance on epistemic
uepenuence is a ciitical pait of oui eveiyuay piactical lives, anu infoims the way we
think anu appioach anything fiom uiiving a cai oi following a map, to ueveloping new
theoiies in scientific ieseaich. In the piactice of aichaeology, epistemic uepenuence
impacts how aichaeologists builu upon theii scientific methous anu theoiies, anu it
impacts the way the public ieceives aichaeological accounts of the past that aie
constiucteu by otheis.
Conceptually, authoiity in scientific (anu aichaeological) piactice heavily
uepenus on epistemic uepenuence, cieating two issues of note. Fiist, epistemic
uepenuence iesults in chains oi ianks of authoiity anu status, which can be followeu
back anu linkeu to any given knowleuge pioposition. Seconuly, as this thesis has
uemonstiateu using the case stuuies of atalhoyk anu the Bosnian Pyiamius, the actual
piactice of epistemic uepenuence is a messy affaii wheie social cues opeiate alongsiue
tacit anu tangible iealities. This "mangle of piactice" (Pickeiing 199S) uiiectly affects
epistemic uepenuence anu thus, the acceptance anu authoiity of any given knowleuge
pioposition. To elaboiate on the fiist point, knowleuge geneially ielies on the abstiact
leap between what we 'know' fiom fiist-hanu eviuence expeiienceu with oui own
senses, anu what we 'know' fiom seconu-hanu accounts tolu to us by otheis who claim
to have fiist-hanu eviuentiaiy suppoit. This cieates a unique context of epistemic
authoiity, anu in many cases, of executive authoiity as well: on the one hanu, fiist-hanu
anu witnesseu eviuence foi a given knowleuge pioposition is funuamentally moie

249
valuable anu useful than seconu-hanu, ieceiveu eviuence. Theiefoie, peisons who
witness fiist-hanu eviuence foi ceitain knowleuge piopositions usually have highei
status anu authoiity than otheis who must iely on seconu-hanu eviuence to builu upon
oi contest that knowleuge.
Foi example, a uoctoi who peisonally conuucts a stuuy on the affects of smoking
on the human bouy, who peisonally tests anu obseives eviuence that smoking causes
cancei, geneially has moie authoiity anu status on the subject than a seconu uoctoi who
uses this eviuence to tell a patient about the cancei iisks in smoking.
7u
Fuitheimoie, if
this patient then auvises hei fiienu about the new knowleuge about smoking that she
has leaineu fiom hei uoctoi, she too is uiawing on epistemic uepenuence. This
exemplifies how epistemic uepenuence can iesult in chains oi ianks of authoiity anu
status, which can be followeu back anu linkeu to any given knowleuge pioposition. If
one weie to 'iank' the authoiity of epistemic uepenuence in this scenaiio, the human
anu nonhuman agents involveu woulu iesult in a complex matiix of what is consiueieu
to be expeit anu lay expeitise, highei oi lowei epistemic authoiity.
'Expeitise', as iegaius epistemic uepenuence, is a uialectic of tiust anu uefeience
between two oi moie paities. The fiist uoctoi in the example above aiguably has the
gieatest epistemic authoiity uue to his exposuie to fiist-hanu eviuence. In othei woius,
he can be uefineu as an 'expeit' because of the valuable knowleuge he has accumulateu,
anu in the way he tianslates that knowleuge as authoiitative to otheis. The seconu
uoctoi opeiates the complex iole of being both a lay peison as well as an expeit,
iegaiuing this specific knowleuge pioposition about smoking anu cancei. Be is not the
most authoiitative expeit because he himself has not witnesseu the eviuentiaiy link
between smoking anu cancei fiist-hanu. Bowevei, he is a seconuaiy expeit, in that he
piesumably has iequiieu the appiopiiate tiaining anu expeitise that allows him to
iecognise anu ciitically uiscein what makes foi a soliu meuical expeiiment. This
unueistanuing of epistemic uepenuence involving the seconu uoctoi cieates a complex
ielationship between the knowleuge pioposition anu the iuea of what constitutes
expeitise anu 'knowing' something, an inheiently complicateu anu messy ieality. Finally,
the thiiu peisonthe patientin this scenaiio begins as a lay peison. Aftei ieceiving
the knowleuge pioposition about smoking fiom the seconu uoctoi, the patient tiusts the
uoctoi's expeitise because of the context in which it was given to hei anu, theiefoie, she

7u
The ieal stuuy is in: Boll, R. c. anu A. Biaufoiu Bill (19Su). "Smoking anu Caicinoma of the
Lung." Biitish Neuical }ouinal A: 7S9-748. I use this example because this quantitative
epiuemiological ieseaich, along with othei ielateu stuuies, foicefully anu notoiiously establisheu
the epistemic authoiity of both the scientific stuuy itself anu the ieseaich finuing that 'smoking
causes cancei'.

250
tiusts the uoctoi's epistemic authoiity on this mattei. Beie, context is a ciucial key to the
authoiity of the knowleuge pioposition, the ease of its ieception, anu to the acceptance
of epistemic uepenuence anu expeit authoiity. This will be uiscusseu fuithei below.
This mattei of context biings us back to the seconu issue of epistemic
uepenuence anu epistemic authoiity: in actual piactice, epistemic uepenuence is a
messy ieality that opeiates thiough tacit anu tangible social cues, which uiiectly affect
the acceptance anu authoiity of any given knowleuge pioposition. Foi any given
knowleuge pioposition, we tiust anu accept the testimony of expeits baseu on theii
peifoimance anu acceptance of social cues, which we uiaw fiom a host of social
institutionsestablishments, iules, moies, stanuaius, accieuitationsanu then we
immeuiately assess the viability of a knowleuge pioposition fiom those cues.
Cieuentials, institutions, qualifications, authoiitative logos anu bianuings, speech acts
anu so foith impact how we negotiate anu juuge testimony fiom expeits. Theiefoie, the
way knowleuge is presenteJ anu performeJ is impoitant to how epistemic uepenuence
anu scientific authoiity aie establisheu.
To iefei back to the example of the uoctois anu the pioposeu link between
smoking anu cancei, the patient in this scenaiio tiusts the seconu uoctoi's auvice not
only because he is a uoctoi, but because he is an 'authoiiseu' authoiity. The patient
iegaius the seconu uoctoi as an expeit because she piesumes the uoctoi has the
ielevant tiaining to iecognise valiu seconuaiy eviuence. This piesumption might be
uiawn fiom the way he is behaving oi peifoiming as a uoctoi (weaiing the appiopiiate
white lab jacket, sitting in a chaii opposite to the patient anu not on the patent table,
weaiing a stethoscope, iefeiencing the appiopiiate meuical jouinals, etc.), anu fiom the
way he is inhabiting the physical space of a uoctoi, like woiking in an appiopiiate office
with an appiopiiate staff. It also might come fiom institutional cieuentials that
'authoiise' him to behave like a uoctoi (foi example, the patient might see an
appiopiiate meuical uegiee fiom an institution, which piesumably ueteimineu whethei
he is competent in meuical affaiis, anu which is physically hanging on his office wall oi is
listeu alongsiue his name in a book). Fuitheimoie, the uoctoi must also have
authoiisation by the state, with license to piactice in his physical space; if he is
piacticing meuicine without the state's peimission, he will eventually be foicibly
stoppeu.
Significantly, the patient is also constantly testing the uoctoi's competence, anu
hence his authoiity, by juuging the ontological woiluin othei woius, she juuges the
success oi failuie of the uoctoi's auvice anu uiagnoses. If the uoctoi gives a wiong
uiagnosisfoi example, if he wiongly ueclaies hei cough to be uue to an alleigic

251
ieaction anu not to hei smokingthen the patient may uoubt his authoiity anu
expeitise if she sees no benefit fiom his tieatment. 0n the othei hanu, the patient is also
constantly testing the uoctoi's competence on things that might be puiely baseu on
social contextunielateu to the ontological woilu at all. If, in the scenaiio above, the
patient thought that she heiself possesseu eviuence that contiauicteu the uoctoi's
asseition that smoking causes cancei (peisonal knowleuge of a long-liveu anu cancei-
fiee uncle who smokeu his entiie life, foi instance), then she may uisiegaiu the uoctoi's
expeitise oi authoiity on this mattei, uespite its ontological significance. To fuithei
complicate things, the patient may tiust oi accept hei uoctoi's auvice baseu on a long
peisonal histoiy oi ielationship with him as a family uoctoi oi a family fiienu
something which may oi may not ielate to his meuical expeitise, cieuentials, noi the
ontological woilu at all, but iathei a social justification of loyalty oi a peisonal sense of
tiust. Relateu to this, the patient may base hei juugement of the uoctoi's asseitions
puiely on his social ieputation as a ieliable, famous, knowleugeable oi authoiitative
meuical piactitionei. Again, epistemic uepenuence anu a peison's acceptance of a given
knowleuge pioposition may have no immeuiate association oi ielation to the
eviuentiaiy suppoit at all; though, I shoulu stiess, theie is always ontological
significance behinu knowleuge claims. In actual piactice, epistemic uepenuence is a
messy anu heimeneutic affaii, entiiely uepenuent on an ongoing negotiation between a
complex netwoik that incluues: inuiviuuals, mateiials anu eviuence; the institutions that
authoiise them; the piactices anu peifoimances of accountability anu expeitise; anu the
ontological woilu.

6.S.S.2 Fpistemic BepenJence in Arcboeoloqicol Consumption, voliJotion onJ
IiJelity

In aichaeology, epistemic uepenuence is uoubly impoitant, because a uefining
chaiacteiistic of aichaeological knowleuge is the awaieness that any tiue anu exact
valiuation of aichaeological uata is iaielyif eveipossible (c.f. Reau 1989). When we
stuuy the past, we may ueuuce anu constiuct a 'haiu' unueistanuing of mateiial
piopeities of ceitain things. Foi example, we can answei some of the 'how' oi 'what'
questions about the past (i.e., Bow was a pot fiieu. What tempeiatuie was iequiieu to
set the wet clay. Bow uiu a skeleton appeai in a pit unueineath a house founuation.).
But we can only inuuctively ieach answeis to 'why' questions to cieate 'soft' holistic
naiiatives about what happeneu in the past (i.e., Why was a woman buiieu with a
plastei skull unuei a house founuation. Who maue that pot.). This conunuium of having

252
only paitial eviuence anu paitial unueistanuings is at ouus with the fact that oui
ultimate 'piouucts' in aichaeology aie holistic anu stable accounts of the past.
Thus, the uiscipline of aichaeology as a knowleuge-piouucing cultuie iests on a
system of epistemic uepenuence that heavily ielies on inuiviuuals anu institutions acting
as intellectual authoiities, whose iole is to suggest which specific aitefacts, sites anu
final inteipietations have 'fiuelity' to the past. The teim 'fiuelity' comes fiom the Latin
woilu fiJelitos, meaning 'faithfulness', anu it iefeiences how accuiate a copy oi
simulation is to an oiiginal (0EB 1989). This notion of loyalty oi fiuelity to histoiical
accuiacy is the ultimate aim of a ieconstiucteu naiiative of the past, anu it is what an
authoiitative account aims to piove. Theie aie thiee impoitant points on this subject to
consiuei fuithei.
Fiist, authoiitative accounts in 'final piouuct' foimsuch as textual accounts in
iepoits, meuia stoiies, museum uisplays anu histoiic ieconstiuctionsaie usually the
fiist point of contact foi most people outsiue of the coie scientific community with
access to the oiiginal mateiial. This point of contact with aichaeology ielies heavily on
the consumption anu context of authoiity. Like the example of the uoctoi anu the patient
in the pievious section, the fiist point of contact with 'final piouucts' usually ielies on
the authoiity of peifoimance anu the acceptance of that peifoimance foi meaningful
contextual ieasons. A patient who walks into a uoctoi's office initially negotiates the
authoiity of hei uoctoi by his appiopiiate appeaiance anu peifoimance of a uoctoi;
then she negotiates anu accepts his piomotion anu iecoiu of cieuentials; anu only latei
uoes she negotiate anu juuge a kinu of ontological valiuation of hei expeiience with his
auvice. Similaily in aichaeology, most membeis of the public anu the bioauei scientific
community, outsiue of the 'coie' team membeis who aie able to access mateiial, iely
heavily on the authoiity anu epistemic uepenuence of aichaeological peifoimances. In
piepaiing theii uisplays, texts anu othei 'final piouuct' accounts of the past,
aichaeologists opeiate with a tacit unueistanuing about the best way to piesent theii
iueas coheiently anu authoiitatively. They stabilise anu soliuify all of theii messy social
inteiactions that leu to theii conclusions, anu then 'black box' theii output in soliu, cleai
anu simple accounts meant foi public consumption. They follow institutionaliseu
foimats foi theii taiget auuiencewhethei foi text meant foi scholaily jouinal aiticles,
oi cieative images foi public museum uisplayswhich use the appiopiiate context,
language anu piesentation that will maximise the appeaiance of theii authoiity anu
auveitise theii fiuelity to the past. In this piouuction of 'piouucts' meant foi
'consumption', aichaeology itself becomes "a mixtuie of humans anu non-humans, texts,
anu financial piouucts that have been put togethei in a piecisely co-oiuinateu sequence"

253
(Callon 1991: 1S9). In aichaeology, the aim is to cieate a valuable, consumable piouuct,
to sell to the public anu sell to ouiselves. As the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius illustiates,
foi many membeis of the public, this piouuct can be seen as valuable simply if it
positively contiibutes to the socio-political climate anu economy, anu this is opposeu to
how many membeis of the scientific community may see a piouuct's value, wheie an
account must also contiibute a 'faithful' iecoiu foi oui ontological unueistanuing of the
past.
As Baiiy Collins anu Robeit Evans wiite, "As with language, so with the
expeitises analogous to languagecoming to 'know what you aie talking about' implies
successful embeuuing within the social gioup that embouies the expeitise" (Collins anu
Evans 2uu7: 7). As this thesis has aigueu, 'successful embeuuing'epistemic anu
executive authoiity of any given aichaeological pioject, peison oi accountis an
accumulateu effect. Authoiity fiom 'final piouuct' insciiptions is uiawn fiom the
manipulation of asymmetiic powei ielations (politics) anu fiom appiopiiate
peifoimances which legitimize anu authoiize social aienas of piactice. In acauemic
aienas like aichaeology, authoiity can be stiategically constiucteu by using science as a
mastei uiscouise. As the case of the Bosnian Pyiamius illustiates, by uiawing on
institutions anu iecogniseu categoiies of piactice in aichaeology, one can constiuct a
means to aichaeological authoiity. Semii 0smanagic's pyiamiu pioject is paiticulaily
successful because of what I call the 'outsouicing' of ethics anu authoiity. Foi example,
0smanagic's Founuation has employeu accieuiteu scientists to use ieal scientific
methous on genuine ancient mateiial to come up with genuine piehistoiic uates foi
mateiial in his site, like the iauiocaibon uating the team peifoimeu on oiganic mateiial
yieluing a ieliable uate of -SS,uuu BP. Bowevei, the 'final piouuct' inteipietation of
"SS,uuu yeai-olu manmaue pyiamius" is a gioss leap in logic, because the ontological
significance of the uateu oiganic mattei uoes not lenu authoiity to this inteipietation.
A seconu impoitant consiueiation in this thesis, which expanus upon this lattei
point, is that even foi most membeis of the geneial public who iely on context,
ontological valiuation foi epistemic uepenuence is still impoitant anu cential to the iuea
of what 'authoiity' is in the piouuction of knowleuge. Epistemic uepenuence, anu thus
authoiity, in aichaeology is anchoieu to a piouuct's ontological woith. In the case of the
Bosnian Pyiamius, foi example, some membeis of the public (like aspiiing politicians
anu caf owneis in visoko) may suppoit the account of Palaeolithic pyiamius puiely
because of the money the pioject biings to the economy. Bowevei, the vast majoiity of
suppoiteis actually think that the pioject has ontological woith, because they have been
convinceu by clevei meuia manipulation anu peifoimances that 0smanagic's account of

254
pyiamius is uefenueu with eviuentiaiy suppoit. They believe 0smanagic anu his team
aie 'uoing aichaeology', baseu on theii juugement of his peifoimance as an
aichaeologist, anu by the appeaiance of things that the pyiamiu team has uneaitheu
that aie seemingly 'veiifieu' thiough scientific confeiences. If 0smanagic anu his team
uiu not maintain theii public peifoimance thiough one-step-iemoveu meuia, oi if theii
faaue was bioken by closei examination, then the site woulu lose public authoiity anu
statuswhich is what is ultimately happening when piofessional aichaeologists aie
looking at the pioject moie closely anu opposing its claims.
It is unlikely that the Bosnian Pyiamiu pioject's authoiity is sustainable, because
as moie people gain gieatei unueistanuing of the context anu actual eviuence, the
ontological woilu that contiauicts the team's finuings will intiuue upon its peifoimance.
This case stuuy also shows that authoiity anu acts of legitimation aie employeu anu
uistiibuteu thiough the meuium of science, anu they neeu to be actively peifoimeu in
oiuei to acquiie anu maintain status. Executive access also plays a ciitical iole in this
peifoimance. Foi example, with the Bosnian Pyiamius site, inuiviuuals like Semii
0smanagic sit in key positions as 'gatekeepeis' in the 'inteipietive gap' between all of
the scientific outsouiceu piactice anu the final inteipietations; thus they affect anu
contiol the outcome of the accounts anu inteipietations that the team piouuces.
0smanagic holus ultimate contiol ovei the final accounts that aie piesenteu in 'final
piouuct' foim on the pioject's websites, iepoits anu books, anu which intentionally
black-box all of the messy activity that went into theii piouuction. Aichaeological
accounts may be stabiliseu anu authoiiseu thiough scientific piactices, but people gain
authoiity thiough positions as gatekeepeis anu theii executive contiol ovei aspects of
the knowleuge piouuction piocess.
This consiueiation leaus to a thiiu impoitant point in this thesis: that the
piocess of 'gatekeeping' anu access contiol is piesent anu cential to the way authoiity
opeiates in the piofessional uiscipline. As the case of atalhoyk illustiates,
'gatekeepeis' (like Ian Bouuei as site uiiectoi anu like the fielu excavatoi in the case of
the plasteieu skull buiial) can holu influence ovei inteipietation thiough theii executive
contiol ovei key access points in physical anu intellectual space. In the case of
atalhoyk, uespite a uesiie oi intent to allow multivocal inteipietive access to flouiish
in a postpiocessual theoietical piogiam, specific team membeis on site have hau moie
oi less authoiity anu authoiitative piesence baseu on theii peisonality oi 'chaiismatic
authoiity' (c.f. Webei 1978),
71
as well as theii ielative position on a site executive

71
Charisma is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) as: compelling attractiveness or charm
that can inspire devotion in others.

255
hieiaichy. In 2uu9, team membeis with moie executive authoiity on the site weie
alloweu moie physical access to mateiial anu space. Theii authoiity was complicateu by
the fact that theii epistemic anu executive piesence was built fiom yeais of expeiience
with the geogiaphical iegion, uemonstiateu knowleuge of the Neolithic past, as well as
peisonal uuiation anu expeiience with the atalhoyk uig house space itself.
Impoitantly, in oiuei to gain epistemic anu executive authoiity, an inuiviuual hau to
have closei access to anu expeiience with mateiial, which accumulateu as a
iepiesentation of theii familiaiity with the mateiial anu tianslateu into expeitise. A
uialectic of "iesistance anu accommouation" (Pickeiing 199S) ensues in such a case,
wheie facts gain authoiity anu aie socially constiucteu thiough theii ontological
bounuaiies anu theii social tianslation by ceitain people. Equally, ceitain people gain
authoiity anu become "socially constiucteu as factual agents" (van Reybiouck anu
}acobs 2uu6) thiough theii inteiaction with aichaeological mateiial, bounueu by the
mateiial anu physical piopeities of the objects anu space that they inteiact with. As
noteu pieviously, "Excavation seems not so much a piocess of solvoqinq but of
soliJifyinq" (van Reybiouck anu }acobs 2uu6: S4, emphasis in oiiginal). It is thiough the
iepetition, familiaiity anu stabilising of spaces, time anu fluiu piactices that authoiity is
built anu tianslateu by many uiffeient people, anu naiioweu by those who have moie
social powei anu positionality. But it is always constiaineu by the mateiial natuie of its
context anu the ontological woilu.

^>U B7684-9 @4.5 #2.50/4.:+ Q2997D.40-D <0/ O2/.57/
'7D76/35

This thesis has aigueu foi the ciicumstances unuei which we make given
authoiitative inteipietations, explanations oi pieuictions in the piouuction of
aichaeological knowleuge. Bowevei, I concluue by asseiting that this piocess still only
"explains why we make thembut leaves untoucheu the question of oui license foi
making them" (uoouman 198S: 6u-61). A yet unueilying issue on this subject is the
question of what ethically gives 'us' the iight to access mateiial iemains, while 'they'
have no such iight. What gives a piofessional the authoiity oi iight to account foi the
past anu contiol access to aichaeological mateiials. This uiscussion of teiiitoiy iights,


256
owneiship anu multiplicity has been a iefeienceu uebate in postmouein theoiy in
aichaeology ovei the last twenty yeais. Yet one of the most piovocative questions fiom
this uiscussion has yet to be fully answeieu: is it oui piofessional, ethical obligation to
actively encouiage multiple inteipietations fiom within oui own uisciplinaiy
bounuaiies. Aichaeological sites aie space anu teiiitoiyboth physically anu
intellectuallyanu one inuiviuual oi gioup always has moie iight oi contiol ovei
access. When two oi moie things compete foi intellectual oi physical space, theie is
almost always an asymmetiy of powei. Fuithei ieseaich is neeueu to auuiess some of
the ethical conceins that emeige this stuuy on the natuie of authoiity: if aichaeological
inteipietation "begins at the tiowel's euge", then it is impoitant to continually auuiess
who is holuing the tiowel. Bow uoes the physical access of aichaeological iemains
uiiectly impact intellectual access anu the epistemic authoiity of inteipietations. By
unueistanuing the exact natuie of the way we constiuct authoiity, what uoes that
natuie imply about the ethics anu accountability of the uiscipline.
Anothei funuamental line of ieseaich that woulu gieatly benefit fiom fuithei
examination is the exact natuie anu iole of the nonhuman, ontological actois in the
piouuction of aichaeological knowleuge. This thesis has establisheu that they enable
anu constiain oui aichaeological authoiity anu the valiuity of oui inteipietations;
howevei, uue to constiaints of space, it lacks fuithei stuuy that tiaces the exact impact
of specific types of insciiptions oi uiffeient technologies that aie ciitical to scientific
output. A paiticulai type of technology that this ieseaich auuiesses is the science of
iauiocaibon uating, which has hau a veiy poweiful anu impoitant iole in the histoiy anu
uevelopment of knowleuge in the uiscipline. Fuithei exploiation into the authoiity anu
powei of technologies like iauiocaibon uatingas iueas embeuueu in populai cultuie,
as well as ciitical scientific methous in the fieluis waiianteu. Fuithei inteiesting
questions have also emeigeu uuiing this ieseaich iegaiuing the authoiity anu agency of
specific types of aichaeological piouucts anu technologies. Foi example, how uoes
authoiity anu ieception of knowleuge uiffei by the piouuction anu consumption of
uiffeient types of aichaeological iepiesentation: aichaeological images, uiagiams,
physical ieconstiuctions, museum uisplays. Bow might insciiptions like aichaeological
photogiaphs ielate to the concepts of builuing tiust anu expeitise, oi 'active witnessing'
by the public. Bow uo oui insciiption piactices mateiially cieate public anu
piofessional tiust. Although some new ieseaich is beginning to auuiess some of the
implications anu affectations of aichaeological images anu witnessing, fuithei
exploiation is neeueu in ueconstiucting exactly bow these piactices opeiate within
uisciplinaiy piactice (Noshenska 2uu9; Peiiy 2uu9).

257
Finally, a bioauei histoiical examination of the natuie anu iole of authoiity in
aichaeological thioughout the piofessional histoiy of the uiscipline woulu gieatly
benefit the fielu. Bow has authoiity in the uiscipline of aichaeology changeu oi
uevelopeu thiough time. Aichaeology began as an amateui activity befoie it
piofessionaliseu anu became 'scientific', anu in this piocess a gieat ueal of weight has
shifteu to the buiuen of valiuation anu authoiity, anu in the mateiiality of this piocess of
authoiising inteipietations. A uetaileu histoiiogiaphic stuuy which specifically tiaces
the iole of authoiityanu the impact of nonhuman as well as human aspects of this
piocessin uisciplinaiy uevelopment woulu be of ciitical inteiest. By continuing to
uevelop such lines of well-infoimeu anu ethically awaie self-stuuy on authoiity, we can
contiibute to bettei piactices anu a moie humane woilu.

258
#NN7-14L #
Y6.685Z:[J B6.6K6D7 &-./:+ O76.2/7 =V=_ \N86D.7/71 DJ288 K2/468]>
!,&2-52' +K+-2+&2) #1 $") 8+$+2"9':; !*#N)5$ @)&6-$)> "$$4>??@@@.5+$+2"#',;.5#3?

259
#NN7-14L I
Y6.685Z:[J B46/: &-./:+ FWrW_rAWWV>
!,&2-52' +K+-2+&2) #1 $") 8+$+2"9':; !*#N)5$ @)&6-$)> "$$4>??@@@.5+$+2"#',;.5#3?

260
#NN7-14L !

Sample of a Harris Matrix Chart.

261
#NN7-14L B
#/.4387 6-1 30HH7-.D K: ;435678 I68.6/ 6. I5-)15),-D417/>
!,&2-52' +K+-2+&2) #12-1)> "$$4>??1)@6.65-)15)3+0.#*0?65-)15)-16-=)*?BCOC?CD?"#==)*M
52)+16M"#,6)M+$M7+3)=M+$+."$32

262

263

264
#NN7-14L &
&H648 ,-.7/P47@ @4.5 Q7H4/ )DH6-694l
B6.7+ A= ;6/35 AWW_

Q: I know you have worked with archaeologists and other experts in the past. Are
you planning to consult any more this season?

A: OF COURSE. THIS PROJECT IS OPEN FOR EVERYONE. BUT,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK DOES NOT BELONG ONLY TO
ARCHAEOLOGISTS NO MORE. WE'RE GETING INVOLVED A NUMBER OF
GEOLOGISTS, GEOPHYSICISTS, GEODETIC AND MINING EXPERTS,
ASTRONOMERS, PALEONTOLOGISTS, ETC.

Q: Have you found any artifacts or material culture yet? If you find artifacts, what
do you do with them? Theoretically, if you accidentally find artifacts from a non-
pyramid time period (Illyrian, Roman, Medieval, etc.), what is your plan of action?

A: WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY ARTIFACTS THAT BELONGED TO THE
ORIGINAL BUILDERS. ACCORDING TO THE LAW, WE'RE OBLIGATED TO
SEND ALL ARTIFACTS, NO MATTER WHAT PERIOD, TO THE LOCAL
MUSEUM.

Q: The people who built the pyramids must have lived somewhere; where do you
believe archaeologists will find these settlements?

A: AS SOON AS THIS COMING MAY WE'LL BE DOING SOME DIGGING IN
VILLAGE GORNJA VRATNICA 4 KM FROM BOSNIAN PYRAMID OF THE
SUN. WE MIGHT FIND SOME BURIAL SITES OVERTHERE.

Q: How many people are employed by your Bosnian Pyramid Foundation?

A: DURING THE SUMMER WE GO UP TO 85 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. IN
THE WINTER WE HAVE APPROX. 35 EMPLOYEES.

Q: I hear you are currently working on your PhD entitled 'The Maya Civilisation.'
What is your thesis? Does it also research pyramids? What university are you
researching under?

A: THE THESIS HAS BEEN RESEARCHING UNDER UNIVERSITY OF
SARAJEVO AND IT DEALS WITH THE MAYAN CIVILIZATION. I'VE
COMPLETED THE WRITING AFTER VISITED MORE THAN 50 MAYAN
RUINS IN MEXICO, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, BELIZE AND
HONDURAS. AND YES, EVERY MAYAN CITY USED TO HAVE PYRAMIDS.

265

Q: How do you feel the broad professional archaeological community feels about
your project?

A: EVERY NEW IDEA HAS OPONENTS IN THE BEGINNING. THE BIGGER
THE IDEA, MORE AGRESSIVE THE OPONENTS. BUT, IT DOES NOT
INFLUENCE MY GOALS AND DETERMINATION FOR AN INCH.

Q: I understand that you have recently been working on a documentary, which
sounds exciting. What is it about, what TV network is it with, what language will it be
covered in, and how does it tie into your BiH pyramid site?

A: BOSNIAN TV IS DOING A 12-EPISODE DOCUMENTARY CALLED
SEARCH FOR THE LOST CIVILIZATIONS BASED ON MY BOOK
CIVILIZATIONS BEFORE THE OFFICIAL HISTORY BEGAN (PUBLISHED
IN SARAJEVO). WE'VE ALREADY FILMED AT THE FOLLOWING
LOCATIONS: EASTER ISLAND, BOLIVIA, PERU, MEXICO, COSTA RICA,
UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, MALTA, EGYPT... CURRENTLY I'M IN JORDAN. I
GOT LEFT LEBANON, CROATIA, MONTENEGRO AND BOSNIA. WE WANT
TO SHOW THAT BOSNIAN PYRAMIDS, STONE SPHERES AND
MEGALITHIC WALLS IS NOT EXCEPTION BUT VERY COMMON ON FOUR
CONTINENTS.

Q: You have had a lot of media attention (I am originally from Houston and saw a
broadcast there, as well as other broadcasts through the web). Do you generally
contact TV organizations, do they contact you, or is it a mixture of both directions?

A: IN MOST CASES, TV OUTLETS CONTACT US. OF COURSE, INITIALLY,
IT ALL STARTED FROM OUR SIDE.

Q: What type of media do you believe has been most influential in spreading
information about your site? Internet, television, newspapers, etc?

A: TV

266
#NN7-14L O
&H648 ,-.7/P47@ = @4.5 #-1/7@ a6@87/
B6.7+ AU *0P7HK7/ AWWX

Q: Wbot wos your officiol title onJ position witb tbe visoko teom? Wbot wos your job like
on o Joily bosis - o 'Joy in tbe life' excovotinq ot tbe Hoon site?

A: Ny official title was initially 'Aichaeological assistant. Within about 6 weeks of me
aiiiving, the 'Peimanent Aichaeologist' Rafaella Cattaneo (who hau uubious
qualifications, incluuing an appaient PhB fiom Biistol in 'Ninoic'(!) Aichaeology)
iesigneu uue to peiceiveu sexism, anu I was piomoteu to this position. Bowevei, not
wanting to become heavily entangleu in theii pioject, my official title accoiuing to my
contiact was 'Excavation Cooiuinatoi'.

Essentially, my job involveu the oveiseeing of S-6 labouieis at a time, as well as
excavating myself, iecoiuing all tienches, taking samples of any oiganic ueposits, anu
tiaining a photogiaphei how to photogiaph in a mannei that is aichaeologically
acceptable. As time piogiesseu, my main concein shifteu to piotecting pieseiveu
fieluuiainage systems appaient in Sonua (tiench) 28, Sectoi F, uiiu 1, (spieauing in a
Southeasteily uiiection) which weie heavily tiuncateu by quaiiying anu a waitime
tiench, but hau small quantities of buint stone thioughout the fill. This was uncoveieu
in late Septembei 2uu7, as I iecall. The labouieis up on this site coulu unueistanu the
basics of stiatigiaphy, anu excavateustiippeu at 2.Sm inteivals, so the seuiment
piofiles coulu be photogiapheu anu iecoiueu befoie caiiying on. 0thei paits of the
'Noon Pyiamiu' I hau no contiol ovei. 0ne man (Bzeno.- ownei of 'cool shauow')
hackeu away haphazaiuly, but it was his own lanu, so I let him uo as he pleaseu, with the
caveat that if he uug without telling me, I woulun't attempt to iecoiu it. Theie weie also
volunteeis uigging on the slopes in eaily summei 2uu8, but I was not infoimeu of it until
aftei they left.

0n the 'Noon' summit, a typical uay woulu be:
Aiiive 9.1S-1u, uepenuing on weatheiany kit iequiieu.
Coffee until 1u-1u.Su.

0veiview of woik uone aftei I'u last visiteu (I only went up theie 2-S times a week, as I
was tiying to make sense of aitefacts (ieal anu fantasy) founu in 2uu6 excavations on
visocica, to give them aichive numbeis anu as goou an explanation as possible of wheie
they weie founu fiom any uesciiptions with them). }asmin woulu then photogiaph any
piofiles, anu I'u fill in the papeiwoik.

Then, I'u excavate alongsiue the woikeis until lunch (12.Suish). Aftei lunch, we'u stait
back aiounu 1.Su. The geneial iuea was that I'u uig alongsiue them, unless they came
acioss any uaik seuiments (geneially manganese) oi anything unusual, which I'u
iecoiu, photogiaph in situ, anu bag up, assigning a fielu numbei. At about S.Su, I'u
uiscuss with Amiuza (the lanu ownei anu foieman) in oiuei to lay out any new tienches
Semii wanteu in a way so that they woulun't affect his ciops oi the excavation methou
(which was focuseu upon neatness, to impiess visitois), then leave to file any
piofilegiiu sheets filleu in, tuin the fielu numbeis into catalogue numbeis, anu put any
samples taken into stoiage, while }asmin put all photogiaphs on the computei,
sepaiating aichaeological ones fiom touiisticpiomotional ones, so theii file names &

267
locations woulu not be changeu.

Q: l know you storteJ to implement some orcboeoloqicol structure wbile you were tbere,
like inventories onJ recorJinq. Wbot kinJ of recorJinq JiJ tbey Jo on site before onJ ofter
you come?

A: None whatsoevei, fiom what I can tell. I was tolu theie was a 2uu6 iepoit, but nevei
saw it. It was obvious fiom looking at the 2uu6 aiefacts that someone with excavational
expeiience hau woikeu on the uigs, as they hau often put as much uetail as possible onto
sciaps of papei incluueu in the sanuwich bag (these vaiieu fiom notebook pages to
cigaiette caitons). I nevei founu out who this peison was.

Q: Wbot kinJs of ortefocts JiJ you finJ, onJ wbot wos tbe strotiqropby like? ln retrospect,
bow Jo you interpret wbot wos qoinq on orcboeoloqicolly ot tbe site? Wbot perioJs onJ
types of moteriol were you Jiqqinq?

A: In my time theie, the pieseiveu woou in Ravne was founu (latei uestioyeu by Nuiis
0smanagic), as well as seveial caiboniseu samples taken fiom Sonua 28, Sectoi C
(vaiious piofiles). Apait fiom that, nothing pieuating the iecent wai (iation packs,
bullets anu cases,
patches of buining) was founu except the buint stones alieauy mentioneu. Theie was a
lot of mateiial founu in KTK Tunnel, but I iefuseu to woik in theie without fiist seeing a
safety iepoit. 0ne of the woikeis tolu me he'u been instiucteu to thiow away anything
unuei 2uu yeais olu. I manageu to convince him to keep a small sample of mateiial
iecoveieu once a week (in oiuei to pioviue an appioximate stiatigiaphy of the tunnel
infill), but he quit the job about S weeks latei, so all we hau was a piece of metal plate
(which latei got lost) anu an inuustiial ceiamic tile (kinu of like kiln lining, but a finei
matiix). If I weie to hazaiu a guess at the uate of the fielu system uncoveieu in Sonua 28,
Sectoi F, I'u say Iion Age, but that's moie guesswoik than anything else.

|.j

Q: Eow mony employees vs. volunteers were tbere? Were most of tbe
volunteers locol?

A: The numbei of labouiing employees vaiieu hugely. At an estimate, I'u say in }uly
2uu7, theie weie 2S at viatnica, 1S at Ravne, 1u at KTK, 6 on the Noon summit, anothei
1u oi 12 aiounu the iest of the moon, plus Zombi's itineiant team of 4-8. Theie was a
steauy, but low, flow of volunteeis, with I'u say 4-1u at any given point thioughout the
summei. By Nay 2uu8, this hau uioppeu to an unknown amount (less than 1u) at
viatnica, none bai Bzeno(.) on the Noon siue, 4 on the Summit (who quit anu baiieu
Semii fiom going up theie a few uays aftei my iesignation), none at KTK aftei woik
finisheu theie in miu-Sept 2uu7, anu Zombi's team hau joineu up with the iemaining
woikeis in Ravne, to make a total of 9, I think, theie. Buiing summei 2uu8 theie weie a
total of 1S volunteeis woiking at any point (seveial lasting only a few uays). These
weie- a young couple fiom Slovenia, a Bosnian uiaspoia aichaeology stuuent (who left
anu woikeu in Saiajevo museum foi the iemainuei of his stay), a ietiieu Austialian guy
who liveu in the town, a Canauian museum conseivationist, the 2 unknowns woiking on
the Noon slopes, anu 6 stuuents fiom K0 Leuven (pait of the ieason I enueu up heie,
although they came aftei I'u iesigneu, but was still living in visoko). Theie weie no
othei volunteeis in 2uu8, except locals woiking the ouu uay oi 2, but this was
essentially to help out theii fiienus who weie employees.

268

Q: Eow mucb ottention JiJ tbe site receive wben you were tbere? Wbot kinJ of ottention?
Irom tbe public, Bosnion politicions, internotionol politicions, ortists, scbools, ocoJemics?

A: Theie was a lot of attention foi the fiist couple of months- local Tv ciews & national
newspapeis moie than once a week, anu jouinalists aiiiving fiom abioau ioughly once
a week. Nost of the attention was focuseu towaius Semii anu the Egyptians (whilst they
weie theie), anu most of it was off-site. Nabil Swelim anu his entouiage spent unuei S
houis visiting sites altogethei. I met a few politicians on a National scale at the stait,
although latei on, this uwinuleu to essentially local inteiest, anu causeu a minoi
pioblem, as I befiienueu Asmii Bouzic, SBP Nayoial canuiuate, slightly to the vexation
of Nunib Alibegovic, incumbent mayoi, anu pyiamiu suppoitei. This was quite well
known in the town, anu I got the feeling in the iun-up to the 0ctobei 2uu8 elections
(which began while I was still woiking foi the Founuation), that this was fiowneu upon
by Alibegovic.

Q: Wbere Jo you tbink tbe project is now? ls tbere still tbe some kinJ of bype now, os
opposeJ to tbree or four yeors oqo? Wbere Jo you tbink tbe project is beoJeJ?

A: The Founuation have appaiently just announceu a summei camp foi 2u1u. Bowevei,
I know 'opponents' of the pioject aie planning to launch a campaign highlighting the
lack of safety iepoits foi the tunnels, caicinogenic molus anu fungi giowing in them in
abunuance, the fact that nobouy will actually be excavating the 'Sun Pyiamiu', as the
Founuation lack peimits, anu actual volunteei numbeis foi the past few yeais, anu
iaising questions about insuiance foi volunteeis.

Theie is nowheie neai the same hype now as in 2uu6. Even in 2uu7 businesses within
visoko weie ieuiiecting theii focus away fiom 'Pyiamius', anu the only eviuence I saw
in spiing this yeai (2uu9) of the initial 'Pyiamiuomania' was the leftovei tat being solu
in biic-a-biac stoies neai to the maiket. The 'Sicem za Piiamiue' festival in Apiil (the
official opening of 'uigging season') uiu not extenu past S oi 4pm (2uu8's hau gone on
until well aftei 1upm, although hau been pooily attenueu, anu bauly ievieweu) anu hau
no mention of plans foi the coming 2uu9 season, insteau focusing on cultuial events,
such as a fun iun anu iafting gala. In fact, as fai as I know, theie has been no
aichaeologist employeu oi consulteu by the Founuation since my iesignation in August
2uu8.

269
#NN7-14L `
&H648 ,-.7/P47@ A @4.5 #-1/7@ a6@87/
B6.7+ X i28: AW=W

Q: Other than your own work, what kind of professional research has happened at the
pyramid sites while you were there and before you came? Have you heard of anything after
you left?

A: While I was there, there was a conservationist who came for a few days. She was
Canadian, but married to a Bosnian, and came to volunteer for a few days whilst they were
visiting family in Sarajevo. Apart from her, the Russian scientists and the Egyptians were the
only researchers who worked there that I saw. Apparently, a man undertaking core drilling
also came, but I never met him. When I arrived, an archaeologist called Rafaella Cattaneo
was also working there, but her qualifications and experience were dubious, to say the least.

After I left, nothing has been done to my knowledge. According to friends, and what I can
gather from the occasional press release I read, theres been no archaeologist working there
since I left. The person meant to be leading excavations at the moment is a Croatian guy,
who, from what I know, is an art historian whose previous work has been on the history of
woodblock printing.

[]

Q. What has been the role of the Egyptians at the site? Do you know why the Egyptians -
particularly Swelim - are so supportive?

A: Apart from Aly Barakat, their role was little more than that of tourists. I know that some,
particularly Mona (Fouad Ali? Im not sure, but it wasnt Mona Haggag- I met her for the
first time at the conference) was disappointed in this, as they felt they were being used as
promotional tools. Swelim, on the other hand, thrived on this. Hes ex-military, and is used to
entertaining, very comfortable with the media etc. I seriously doubt his credentials as a
serious archaeologist though. Hes never held an academic tenure, and received one of his
PhDs from a Hungarian university very shortly after his retirement from the army. I think its
pretty odd that an Egyptian would choose to study Egyptology in Hungary after a relatively
prominent military career, and wonder whether the award of this may have been politically
motivated, especially considering the report he wrote after spending under 2 hours on
Visocica.

The Egyptian ambassador to Bosnia is heavily involved with the Foundation (as is the
Malaysian embassy), and I assume its his influence that got the Egyptians over.

[]

Q: Do you think the authority of these scientific institutions carry a lot of weight with the
public? Or is the public more disinterested now?

A: I honestly couldnt say. The thing is, since the whole debacle with Oxford (twice- if you
dont know the details on this, Ill be happy to fill you in), they seem to have been a bit more
careful on the use of names of institutions. However, Osmanagic still gets away with claiming
that hes a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences- alongside many Nobel

270
Laureates. In reality, its the Russian Academy of Sciences to which the Nobel winners
belong, and hes a member of something totally unaffiliated, and founded in the 1990s. The
whole does he/doesnt he conundrum with Osmanagics PhD is still unclear, and many people
in Visoko see him as a charlatan.

The fact that the Foundation continuously change their agenda (the conference was supposed
to be biennial, if you remember), and have tried to mess the town around to suit them has lost
them a lot of face with organizations who were previously more than happy to help. For
example, Srcem za Piramide, the official opening celebration, always used to happen in
April, with a rafting exhibition by the local club. This year, they moved it to June, and
advertised that the rafting was going to take place as normal, without asking the club.
However, the river is too low in June to raft safely, so they kind of pissed off the club with
that blunder. Im not sure how it all panned out, as I havent spoken to anyone about it since.

Q: You mentioned the students from KU Leuven came to work at the site while you were
there. How did they hear about the excavation, and why did they choose Visoko to excavate?
Do you know of any other university groups that came to work at the site? What was their
impression of the excavation?

A: I think they heard about the excavation on the news or the internet. They organized it as a
group themselves independently from the university, fully in the knowledge that Leuven
would not give them accreditation for their digging as part of their compulsory undergraduate
work.

No universities have excavated at the site, as none have recognized it as a bona fide dig.
Instead, individual students have gone there out of interest. Any belief or impression that this
gives the Foundations work official recognition from a university or other institution is
wrong. During my tenure, there was an archaeology student from Trieste with family friends
in Visoko, the conservator mentioned above, and a Bosnian-French architecture student, who
used the excavation as his compulsory internship for Lyon (possibly Lille) university.

Q: The actual pyramid hypothesis is a bit fuzzy to me, so I'm hoping you can help clear things
up: According to the Foundation, are the pyramids supposed to be made of artificial blocks
covering a natural hill, or is the entire hill supposed to be man-made from blocks?

A: This changes continuously. The Foundations primary stance is that it is 100% man-made,
unless a supporter of theirs is proposing an alternative explanation at the time, which they
then say is plausible, and use this as a means to justify further research. However, the
chronologies suggested by the foundation contradict each other- they claim the megaliths
were put in place and carved prior to their burial by sediment, which forms the base of the
pyramid. It was then shaped and covered with blocks, and then the tunnels were dug. Its
supposed to be a block-covered man-made hill, in other words. This is what Swelim supports.
Barakat suggests it is a natural hill which is artificially shaped.

Q: Do you know what period the Foundation says the pyramids are supposed to be from -
Illyrian, paleolithic, etc.? How does the radiocarbon dating play into the team's hypothesis?

A: Definitely pre-Illyrian. Some have tried to connect it with the Butmir culture, particularly
the nearby site of Okoliste. The general claim is that they were built before the last ice age.
The older the better.

271
The radiocarbon dating is just one thing that helps. Getting dates of 40k years from 2
laboratories was great for them, as they could present that without showing the caveats
(primarily that the dates are on the edge of the C14 limit). When Oxford refused to give the
date as definitive, they released a statement implying this was some form of conspiracy.

Q: What does the team say about the people/settlements/human activity they think was
happening at the site? Do they care more about the concept of pyramids, or are they
genuinely interested in studying the prehistoric people who supposedly made the pyramids?

A: Its all about pyramids to Osmanagic, and also to many of the tourists that he attracts.
There has been no effort at all to interpret the pyramids in the context of the landscape,
ancient river patterns etc. Its all about patterns and perfect geometry. They have no interest
in more recent cultures (for instance the medieval town, or Neolithic settlement on visocica),
and workers were told to throw away anything under 200 years old that they found.

However, some visitors and independent researchers are very interested in the pyramids as
monuments to lost civilizations, as opposed to being purely pyramids. The Hungarian and
Bulgarian supremacists that come over present it as evidence of both their countries power
and influence in the past, for instance.

Q: What artefacts and structures did you and the team find that you think were genuine, and
which do you think were more fantasy?

A: Nearly everything was fantasy during my time there. Only the burnt stones from the
Moon pyramid were real and older than the war. At KTK tunnel, an abundance of 19th and
20th century stuff was coming out, but most of it disappeared, and I guess since I left the rest
has been disposed of. No work was carried out on Visocica while I was there, and nothing
was found in Ravne or on Vratnice that was real.

When I reorganized the artifact store, about 10% of what was in there was real. The rest was
fossils or pretty stones. There was some Neolithic and medieval pottery, a flintlock, an iron
knife (presumably medieval) some nails and glass, and 10-20 animal bones, as well as some
bone fragments.

Q: Previously you've mentioned carbonised material and the burnt stone you found at the
site. There was also the metal mould and the stone building structure on the moon
pyramid. What period would you guess this material is from? What kind of
settlements/sites/material do you think this came from?

A: The carbonized material was indeterminate. It was sealed in well-stratified natural
deposits at several locations. It was sampled correctly, and photos were taken of it in situ, as
well as measurements. Unfortunately, the Foundation has all the paperwork. As to age and
whether its natural/man made, I cant say.

All the metal moulds I was shown were natural rocks with odd indentations. Admittedly,
one did look feasible as an artifact, but it had been so heavily cleaned, that nothing much
could be said for it, except perhaps by a specialist. That is, of course, provided it is
man-made in the first place.

The stone structure is odd. It has been speculated (http://irna.lautre.net/Real-archaeology-in-
Visoko.html) that its an iron age grave. However, a few things point to this not being the
case. First, the soil underneath the structure is natural, and no body is in there. Second, Ive

272
seen the nails that were found, and theyre incredibly regular, suggesting an industrialized
manufacturing process. Finally, the Foundation found this with incredible ease and accuracy,
suggesting that either some of it was already protruding, or it had been in use in recent
memory. Id say it was the lower few courses of a storage shed of some kind, most likely the
timbered ones that are found in that area, that dated from the 18th century or later.

Q: How does the New Age connection relate to the scientific activity happening at the
site? Are they two separate spheres of people and activity, or are they intertwined?

A: I get the feeling theyre intertwined. Ahmed Bosnic, on-off president of the Foundation
earns his money selling spiritual trinkets, plus books on the paranormal and suchlike. Semir is
heavily involved in New Age stuff in America, and his ghost-writer (Sharon or Karen, I think;
possibly this one: http://www.sharonprince.net/) works with Astraea magazine, who do a lot
of the Foundations promotions and interview protagonists regularly.

The New Agers seem to comprise the bulk of the tourists. They include the Bulgarian and
Hungarian supremacists, who send regular tour parties, and the cult of Damanhur, as well as
more independent New Agers who make their own way to the town, or come with Semir. It
seems as if, as the Foundation has lost many sources of funding, they aim to appease these
people as they are their last viable cash flow. To the media, Semir attempts to distance
himself from these people, but in reality, they are pretty close to him, and some hold him in
pretty high regard, being literally unable to speak in his presence (I saw this with my own
eyes once with a group of Hungarians- the party leader turned bright red and was visibly very,
very nervous when he arrived at the motel unannounced).

New age science is employed a lot- I think Ive told you the whole Harry Oldfield story
before, and the Russians research is definitely undertaken without regard for archaeological
principles, and the science they claim to apply cant be interpreted by anyone except
themselves.

Q: Do you think the project is sustainable - in an intellectual sense, as well as a practical
sense? Do you think the project will be around for years to come? Do you think the project
can continue to adapt their hypotheses and practices to meet public demand/interest? Or do
you think the project is unsustainable in the long run?

A: I have mixed feelings on this- theres the whole 2012 hypothesis to take into account, and
to what extent Semir, funders and tourists actually believe in this.

I dont think the project is financially sustainable- one look at the staff turnover and continual
relocation of administrative and archaeological premises tells you this. The fact they have
limited archaeological equipment shows they do not have a serious approach to excavations,
and promotional literature is always vastly over- or under-ordered, which suggests that people
arent employed for the right reasons.

I think the Foundation is hoping that the recession is the reason for its downturn in financial
income, or possibly hoping that other people will believe this is the reason for it. For this
reason, I can see them holding out by hook or by crook until 2012, then after that, who
knows. They are running out of media which has an interest in the site, and are limited to
recycling old storylines (ie new pyramid possibly found famous person visits scientific
analysis supports hypothesis) which dont have the same impact as the first time they were
used. Anyone who will ever visit the pyramids within Bosnia already has, and therefore the
Foundation need to look abroad to attract more tourists and funding. Unfortunately for them,
theyre old news now.

#NN7-14L "
Q6HN87 N697 </0H .57 I0D-46- $:/6H41ED sQ347-.4<43 &P417-37t I00J87.>

274
I4K8409/6N5:

ABC. (2006). "Bosnian Pyramid! ABC Houston Coverage." YouTube.com, online video.
Retrieved 13 May, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= xzDY0EBvCbU
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Andrews, G. J., J. Barrett, et al. (2000). "Interpretation Not Record: the Practice of
Archaeology." Antiquity 74: 525-530.
APA. (2002). "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." Retrieved 20 June,
2010, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code.pdf
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. The Social Life
of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. A. Appadurai. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press: 3-63.
Archaeology.org. (2006). "Bosnian Pyramids: A pseudoarchaeological myth and a threat to
the existing cultural and historical heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina, letter to
UNESCO by petitioning academics." Archaeology Magazine, online. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/
osmanagic/UNESCO.pdf
Ascher, R. (1960). "Archaeology and the public image." American Antiquity 25: 402-203.
Atalay, S. (2009). Building Sustainable Archaeology at atalhyk: community based
participatory research update from the 2009 field season. atalhyk 2009 Archive
Report: atalhyk Research Project. S. Farid: 168-174.
Atalay, S. (2010). "We dont talk about atalhyk, we live it: sustainable archaeological
practice through community-based participatory research." World Archaeology 42(3):
418-429.
ATIS. (2010). "Silesian University of Technology (SUT)." Absolute Time Scales And Isotope
Studies For Investigating Events In Earth And Human History. Retrieved 20 January,
2011, from http://atis.polsl.pl/partners.php?act=details&shortname=SUT
Austin, J. (1832). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London, Weidenfeld &
Nickolson.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things With Words. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Axinn, W. G. and L. D. Pearce. (2006). Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bahn, P., Ed. (2001). The Penguin Archaeology Guide. London, Penguin.
Baltar, M. (2006). The Goddess and the Bull. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press.
Baltar, M. (2009) "Archaeologists Alarmed by Turkey's Proposed Dig Rules." Science 326,
510-511.

275
Baltar, M. (2010). "Hodder Cleans House at Famed atalhyk Dig." ScienceInsider,
Retrieved 20 July, 2011, from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/
2010/09/hodder-cleans-house-at-famed-ata.html
Barakat, S., C. Wilson, et al. (2001). Challenges and dilemmas facing the reconstruction of
war-damaged cultural heritage: the case study of Po"itelj, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The
Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. R. Layton, P. Stone and J.
Thomas. London, Routledge: 168-189.
Barnes, B. (1986). On authority and its relationship to power. Power, Action and Belief: A
New Sociology of Knowledge? J. Law. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul plc: 180-
195.
Bartu, A. (2000). Where is atalhyk? Multiple Sites in the Construction of an
Archaeological Site. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at
atalhyk. I. Hodder. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Bateman, J. (2006). Pictures, Ideas, and Things: The Production and Currency of
Archaeological Images. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural
Encounters, Material Transformations. M. Edgeworth. Oxford, AltaMira: 68-80.
Baudrillard, J. (1988). Simulacra and Simulations. Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings. M.
Poster. Stanford, Stanford University Press: 166-184.
Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and Interpreters. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Baxandall, M. (1985). Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures.
London, Yale University Press.
BBR. (2007). "Pyramids of Bosnia: News from the Making of the Documentary Film about
the Pyramids of Bosnia " Butterflies & Bunnyrabbits. Retrieved 30 May, 2010, from
http://pyramidsofbosnia.blogspot.com/
Berggren, A. (2009). "Evaluation of a Reflexive Attempt: The Citytunnel Project in
Retrospect." Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24(1): 23-28.
Binford, L. R. (1962). "Archaeology as Anthropology." American Antiquity 28: 217-225.
Binford, L. R. (1965). "Archaeological systematics and ths study of culture process."
American Antiquity 31: 203-210.
Blais, M. J. (1987). "Epistemic Tit for Tat." The Journal of Philosophy 84(7): 363-375.
Blogger.ba. (2007). "March 2006.: Statement of Bruce Hitchner." Bosnian Pyramids: all
about pyramids in Bosnia. Retrieved 30 May, 2007, from
http://allaboutbosnianpyram.blogger.ba/arhiva/?start=20
Blume, S. (1977). Perspectivies in the Sociology of Science. Chichester, Wiley.
Boghossian, P. (2001) "What is Social Construction?" Times Literary Supplement: 6-8.
Bohannon, J. (2006a). Mad About Pyramids. Science Magazine: 1718-1720.
Bohannon, J. (2006b). Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace.
Science Magazine: 1862.

276
Bohannon, J. (2008). "The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Pyramid." Discover
Magazine, online. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http:uiscoveimagazine.com
2uu8nov22-the-man-who-went-up-a-hill-anu-came-uown-a-pyiamiu

Bosnian-pyramid.net. (2006). "The Bosnian Pyramids." Bosnian pyramid!? Retrieved 30
May, 2007, from http://www.bosnian-pyramid.net/Bosnian-Pyramids/
Bosnianpyramid.com. (2006). "Volunteer on site at Visoko, online video. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=
2538179707997656728
BosnianPyramids.org. (2006). "Exclusive Interview with Semir Osmanagic." Retrieved 30
May, 2007, from http://www.bosnianpyramids.org/index.php?id=6&lang=en
Bowker, G. C. and S. L. Star. (1999). Introduction: To Classify is Human. Sorting Things
Out: Classification and Its Consequences. G. C. Bowker and S. L. Star. London, MIT
Press.
Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Philadephia, Open University Press.
Briant, B. and I. Lawson. (2008). "Protocol for AMS radiocarbon dating of plant macrofossil
material." Cambridge Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Group. Retrieved 20 January,
2011, from http://www.qpg.geog.cam.ac.uk/resources/14cprotocol/
Buchanan, A. (2003). Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Butler, C. (2002). Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Caldwell, J. R. (1959). "The New American Archaeology." Science 129: 303-307.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops
and the fishermen of Sain Brieuc Bay. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology
of Knowledge? J. Law. Boston, Routledge: 196-233.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. A Sociology of Monsters?
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. J. Law. London, Routledge: 132-161.
atalhyk Research Project. (2004). "Feature 1517, online database record. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/
FeatureSheet.asp?num=1517
atalhyk Research Project. (2005). "Excavation Diary Entry: 30/07/2005, Simon McCann,"
online database record Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/ diaryrecord.asp?id=688
atalhyk Research Project. (2009). atalhyk 2009 Archive Report. I. Hodder, Stanford
University.
atalhyk Research Project. (2010a). atalhyk 2010 Archive Report. I. Hodder, Stanford
University.
atalhyk Research Project. (2010b). "atalhyk: Excavations of a Neolithic Anatolian
Hyk." Retrieved 22 June, 2010, from http://www.catalhoyuk.com/

277
atalhoyk Reseaich Pioject. (2u1uc). "Remixing atalhoyk." Retiieveu 1u Septembei,
2u1u, fiom http:okapi.uieamhosteis.comiemixingtextenglish.html
Chandler, G. (2002). "atalhyk and the New Archeology." Saudi Aramco World 53(5): 2-
11.
Chapman, J. (1994). "Destruction of a common heritage: the archaeology of war in Croatia,
Bosnia and Hercegovina." Antiquity(68): 120-126.
Christiano, T. (2004) "Authority." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Clancy, T. (2004). Bosnia & Hercegovina: The Bradt Travel Guide. Guilford, The Globe
Pequot Press.
Clark, J. D. (1979). Radiocarbon Dating and African Prehistory. Radiocarbon Dating:
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference, Los Angeles and La Jolla, 1976.
R. Berger and H. E. Suess. Los Angeles, University of California Press: 7-31.
Collier, C. W. (1992). "Intellectual Authority and Institutional Authority." Inquiry 35(2): 145-
181.
Collins, H. and R. Evans. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. London, University of Chicago Press.
Coppens, P. (2007). "The New Pyramid Age." Philip Coppens, online. Retrieved 10
November, 2010, from http://www.philipcoppens.com/dorchester07.html
Coppens, P. (2008a). "Histories & Mysteries Conference in Edinburgh - featuring the
Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull, online press release. Retrieved 20 January, 2010,
from http://www.edinburghguide.com/forums/edinburghartsandentertainment/
exhibitionsandgalleries/2001
Coppens, P. (2008b). "The First International Scientific Conference on the Bosnian
Pyramids." The New Pyramid Age Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from
http://www.philipcoppens.com/nap_icbp.html
Coppens, P. (2009). "The New Pyramid Age: Unearthing Europes Oldest Pyramid
Complex." Philip Coppens, online. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://www.philipcoppens.com/nap_art4.html
Cowie, J. (2000). Silbury Dawning: The Alien Visitor Gene Theory. Edinburgh, The Media
Shack.
Curd, M. and J. A. Cover, Eds. (1998). Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. London,
W. W. Norton & Company.
Dalton, G. W., L. B. Barnes, et al. (1968). The Distribution of Authority in Formal
Organizations. Boston, Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of
Business Administration.
Deckers, K., S. Riehl, et al. (2009). "Vegetation development and human occupation in the
Damascus Region of southwestern Syria from the Late Pleistocene to Holocene."
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18: 329340.
Dedic, M. (2007). MUSTE DEDIC - Bosanska piramida. YouTube.com, online video.
Retrieved 20 May, 2007, fiom http:www.youtube.comwatch.vSTaLL}fvFo

278
Doll, R. C. and A. Bradford Hill. (1950). "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung." British
Medical Journal 2: 739-748.
Doob, L. W. (1983). Personality, Power, and Authority. London, Greenwood Press.
Dowell, C. (2007). "Comments on Mr. Doug Weller's Letter About Semir Osmanagic and the
Phony Pyramids in Bosnia." Retrieved 20 May 2007, from http://robertschoch.net/
Bosnia%20Colette%20Dowell%20Pyramids%20Semir%20Osmanagic%20Comment
s.htm
Dowell, C. (2008). "RAVNE TUNNEL - MODERN HUMAN INTERVENTION: A Paper
on the Controversies Surrounding the Ancient Inscriptions on the T1 and the T2
Megaliths Found in the Ravne Tunnel." Retrieved 10 November 2010, from
http://circulartimes.org/Bosnia%20Pyramid%20Ravne%20Tunnel%20Inscriptions%2
0Nadija%20Nukic%20Colette%20Dowell%20Semir%20Osmanagich.htm.
Downer, A. S. (1997). Archaeologists-Native American Relations. Native Americans and
Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. N. Swidler, K. Dongoske, R.
Anyon and A. Downer. Walnut Creek, Alta Mira.
Dugdale, A. (1999). Materiality; juggling, sameness and difference. Actor Network Theory
and After. J. Law and J. Hassard. Oxford, Blackwell.
Durkheim, E. and M. Mauss. (1963). Primitive Classifications. Chicago, Chicago University
Press.
Durkheim, E. and J. W. Swain. (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. A study
in religious sociology. Translated from the French by J. W. Swain. London, George
Allen & Unwin.
Economist.com. (2006). "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success." The Economist, online.
Retrieved 30 May, 2007, from http://www.economist.com/
world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7281136
Edgeworth, M., Ed. (2006). Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters,
Material Transformations. Oxford, AltaMira Press.
Engelhardt Jr., H. T. and A. L. Caplan, Eds. (1987). Scientific Controversies: Case studies in
the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Erdur, O. (2006). A Day of Work at Everybody-Knows-Land. Ethnographies of
Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. M.
Edgeworth. London, AltaMira Press.
Erdur, O. (2008). Nietzsche and the Neolithic: An Excavation Diary. Graduate School of
Arts and Sciences. New York, Columbia University. PhD.
Fagan, G. (2006). Diagnosing Pseudoarchaeology. Archaeological Fantasies: How
Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. G. Fagan. New
York, Routledge: 23-46.
Fagan, G. G. (2003). "Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Far Out Television." Archaeology
Magazine, online, Retrieved 30 November, 2008, from http://www.archaeology.org/
0305/abstracts/TV.html

279
Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the
Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, AltaMira.
Farid, S. (2000). The Excavation Process at atalhyk. Towards Reflexive Method in
Archaeology: The Example at atalhyk. I. Hodder. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Farid, S. (2009) "Excavations: Introduction to the Excavation Areas 2009." atal News: The
Newsletter of the atalhyk Research Project 16, 7-11.
Farrington, N. (2009). Archaeological Discourse at Megiddo, Gezer and Masada: An
Historiographic Interpretation of Trends. Department of Archaeology. Cambridge,
University of Cambridge. PhD.
Faulkner, N. (2002). "The Sedgeford Project, Norfolk: An Experiment in Popular
Participation and Dialectical Method." Archaeology International 5: 16-20.
Feagans, C. (2007). "Hot Cup of Joe: bosnian pyramid." Hot Cup of Joe, online blog.
Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/
search/label/bosnian%20pyramid
Feder, K. L. (2002). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in
Archaeology. Boston, McGraw-Hill.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London, New Left Books.
Flemming, N. C. (2006). The attraction of non-rational archaeological hypothesis: The
individual and scoiological factors. Archaeological Fantasies: How
Flexner, J. (2009). "Where is Reflexive Map-Making in Archaeological Research? Towards a
Place-Based Approach." Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24(1): 7-22.
Foer, J. (2007). "Love Triangles." Outside Magazine, online. Retrieved 20 January, 2010,
from http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/200705/bosnia-herzegovina-1.html
Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization; a history of insanity in the age of reason. New
York,, Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth,
Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics, with an Afterward by Michel Foucault. H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow.
Brighton, Harvester: 208-226.
Furedi, F. (2004). "Afterword: The Downsizing of Intellectual Authority." Critical Review of
International Social and Political Philosophy 6(4): 172-178.
Garden, M. C. E. (2009). The Heritagescape: Looking at Heritage Sites. Heritage Studies:
Methods and Approaches. M. L. Sorensen and J. Carman. London, Routledge: 270-
291.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Anaysis: Theory and Method. New York,
Routledge.

280
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic.
Gero, J. (1996). Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. Gender
and Archaeology. R. Wright. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gero, J. and D. Root. (1990). Public presentations and private concerns: archaeology in the
pages of National Geographic. The Politics of the Past. P. W. Gathercole and D.
Lowenthal. London, Unwin Hyman: 19-35.
Goldstein, L. and K. Kintigh. (1990). "Ethics and the reburial controversy." American
Antiquity 55: 585-591.
Goldstein, M. and I. Goldstein. (1978). How We Know. New York, Longman.
Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Gordon, C., Ed. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-
1977. Brighton, Harvester Press.
Hamilakis, Y. (1999). "La trahison des archeologues? Archaeological Practice as Intellectual
Activity in Postmodernity." Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(1): 60-79.
Hamilakis, Y. and A. Anagnostopoulos, Eds. (2009a). Archaeological Ethnographies. Public
Archaeology. London, Maney Publishing.
Hamilakis, Y. and A. Anagnostopoulos. (2009b). What is Archaeological Ethnography?
Archaeological Ethnographies. Y. Hamilakis and A. Anagnostopoulos. London,
Maney Publishing.
Hamilton, C. (2000). Faultlines: The Construction of Archaeological Knowledge at
atalhyk. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at
Handler, R. and E. Gable. (1997). The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at
Colonial Williamsburg. London, Duke University Press.
Harding, A. (2006). "Bosnias rich heritage." TimesOnline. Retrieved 30 May, 2010, from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article708921.ece
Harding, A. (2007). "The Great Bosnian Pyramid Scheme." British Archaeology 92: 40-44.
Hardwig, J. (1985). "Epistemic Dependence." The Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335-349.
Harris, L. (2006). "Amateur to dig on site of medieval capital in search of Bosnias own
Valley of the Kings." The Art Newspaper, online. Retrieved 30 May, 2007, from
http://allaboutbosnianpyram.blogger.ba/arhiva/?start=20
Hawass, Z. (2006). "Letter to Mark Rose." Archaeology Magazine, online. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/
osmanagic/zahi_hawass.pdf
Hawton, N. (2006). "Indiana Jones of the Balkans and the mystery of a hidden pyramid."
TimesOnline. Retrieved 30 November, 2009, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
news/world/europe/article705784.ece

281
Hein, H. S. (2000). The Museum in Transition: A Philosophical Perspective. Washington
D.C., Smithsonian Press.
Hess, D. J. (2001). Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies.
Sage Handbook of Ethnography. P. Atkinson, A. Coffee, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and
L. Lofland. Thousand Oaks, Ca., SAGE Publications: 234-245.
Higham, T. (2008). "Letter of Results to Muris Osmanagic." Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator
Unit. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://www.piramidasunca.ba/ba/index.php/
200809051966/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1966&Itemid=126
Hill, S. (1973). "Supervisory Roles and the Man in the Middle: Dock Foremen." The British
Journal of Sociology 24(2): 205-221.
HINA (2006). Bosnia has nine pyramids, Presidency chairman says (translated into English
by Haziabdic, A.). HINA News Agency. Zagreb.
Hobbes, T. (1668). Leviathan. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishers.
Hobsbawm, E. (1983a). Introduction. The Invention of Tradition. E. Hobsbawm and T.
Ranger. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-14.
Hobsbawm, E. (1983b). Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914. The Invention of
Tradition. E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger. Cambridge, Cambridge University press:
263-307.
Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London, Routledge.
Hodder, I. (2000). Developing a Reflexive Method in Archaeology. Towards Reflexive
Method in Arhcaeology: The Example at atalhyk. I. Hodder. Oxford, Oxbow: 3-
18.
Hodder, I. (2001). Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (2003). "Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice." Anthropological
Quarterly 76(1): 55-69.
Hodder, I. (2006). The Leopards Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of atalhyk. London,
Thames & Hudson.
Hodder, I. (2008). Multivocality and Social Archaeology. Evaluating Multiple Narratives:
Beyond Nationalist, Colonialsit, Imperialist Archaeologies. J. Habu, C. Fawcett and
J. M. Matsunaga. London, Springer: 196-200.
Hodder, I. (2009a). 2009 Season Review. atalhyk 2009 Archive Report, Stanford
University.
Hodder, I. (2009b). H.H. Young Lecture: Archaeology and Anthropology: the state of the
relationship. Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth:
Anthropological and archaeological imaginations: past, present and future. D.
Shankland, organiser. University of Bristol, UK.
Hodder, I. (2010a). "Changes to Catal lab heads, electronic mail. Retrieved 2010, 30 August.
Hodder, I., Ed. (2010b). Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: atalhyk as a Case
Study. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

282
Holstein, J. A. and J. F. Gubrium. (1995). The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Holtorf, C. (2002). "Notes of the Life History of a Pot Sherd." Journal of Material Culture
7(49): 49-71.
Holtorf, C. (2005). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas : Archaeology as Popular Culture. Walnut
Creek, Altamira Press.
Holtorf, C. (2006). Studying Archaeological Fieldwork in the Field: Views from Monte
Polizzo. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material
Transformations. M. Edgeworth. Oxford, AltaMira: 81-94.
Holtorf, C. and Q. Drew. (2007). Archaeology is a Brand!: the Meaning of Archaeology in
Contemporary Popular Culture. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Holtrof, C. and H. Karlsson. (2000). Changing Configurations of Archaeological Theory: An
Introduction. Philosophy and Archaeological Practice. Perspectives for the 21st
Century. C. Holtorf and H. Karlsson. Gteborg, Bricoleur Press.
Howard, P., Ed. (2003). Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. London, Continuum.
HRPP. (2010). "Human Subjects Research: Guidance and HRPP Policies." Research
Compliance Office: Human Subjects Research. Retrieved 20 June, 2010, from
http://humansubjects.stanford.edu/hrpp/manual.html
ICBP. (2008). "The First International Scientific Conference: Bosnian Valley of the
Pyramids." Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://icbp.ba/
Iphofen, R. (2009). Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide. New
York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Irna. (2008a). "One more, one less..." Le site dIrna: Enqute sur les pseudo-pyramides de
Bosnie. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://irna.lautre.net/One-more-one-
less.html
Irna. (2008b). "Some thoughts about Dr. Nabil Swelims report." Le site dIrna: Enqute sur
les pseudo-pyramides de Bosnie. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://irna.lautre.net/Some-thoughts-about-Dr-Nabil.html
Irna. (2008c). "Tunnels, fossilized wood and radiocarbon dating." Le site d'Irna: Enqute sur
les pseudo-pyramides de Bosnie. Retrieved 10 November, 2010, from
http://irna.lautre.net/Tunnels-fossilized-wood-and.html
Irna. (2010). "Le site dIrna: Enqute sur les pseudo-pyramides de Bosnie." Le site d'Irna:
Enqute sur les pseudo-pyramides de Bosnie. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html
Jameson, J. H., Ed. (2004). The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public
Interpretation of Archaeology and History. Walnut Creek, AltaMira.
Johnson, M. (1999). Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, A. (2002). Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Jordan, P. (2001). The Atlantis Syndrome. Thrupp, Sutton.

283
Joyce, K. (2005). "Appealing Images: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Production of
Authoritative Knowledge." Social Studies of Science 35(3): 437-462.
Kampschror, B. (2006). "Pyramid Scheme." Archaeology Magazine 59: 22-28.
Karp, I. and S. D. Lavine, Eds. (1991). Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of
Museum Display. Washington, Smithsonian Institution.
Kerber, J. E. (2006). Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the
Northeastern United States. London, University of Nebraska Press.
Ketchum, S. and C. Doherty. (2009). Kopal Clay Objects. atalhyk 2009 Archive Report:
atalhyk Research Project S. Farid.
Khavroshkin, O. B. and V. V. Tsyplakov. (2008). "Seismic-Physical Structural Model Of
Pyramids." SilburyDawning.com. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from
http://www.silburydawning.com/forum/download.php?id=41&sid=4fec09ae3352a32
50e89440c692b33a5
Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1995). "Theorizing Heritage." Ethnomusicology 39: 367-380.
Klapp, O. E. (1959). "Notes toward the study of vilification as a social process." The Pacific
Sociological Review University of California Press 2: 71-76.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. The
Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. A. Appadurai.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 64-91.
Kosmo. (2009). "The Bosnian Discoveries: Great Pyramids or Mountains out of Molehills?"
HubPages. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Bosnian-
Discoveries-Great-Pyramids-or-Mountains-out-of-a-Molehill
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and
Motivational Bases. New York, Plenum Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). "Lay Epistemic Theory in Social-Cognitive Psychology."
Psychological Inquiry 1(3): 181-197.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Kvale, S. and S. Brinkmann. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualititative Research
Interviewing. London, Sage.
Ladenson, R. (1980). "In Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law." Philosophy and Public
Affairs 9.
Lakatos, I. (1998[1973]). Science and Pseudoscience. Philosophy of Science: The Central
Issues. M. Curd and J. A. Cover. London, W. W. Norton & Company: 20-26.
Lampeter Archaeological Workshop. (1997). "Relavatism, objectivity and the politics of the
past." Archaeological Dialogues 4: 164-198.
Landsberger, H. A. (1961). "The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy." Administrative
Science Quarterly 6(3): 229-332.

284
Larsson, . M. (2010). "Mass dismissals at Catal Hyuk. Hodder wants new blood (himself
excluded)." Twitter, status comment. Retrieved 2011, 20 January, from
http://twitter.com/archasa/status/23042403306
Latour, B. (1986). The Powers of Association. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology
of Knowledge? J. Law. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sociological Review
monograph.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through
Society. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988). The Politics of Explanation: an Alternative. Knowledge and Reflexivity:
New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. S. Woolgar. London, Sage: 155-176.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. London,
Harvard Universtiy Press.
Latour, B. (2003). "A prologue in form of a dialog between a Student and his (somewhat)
Socratic Professor." Retrieved 08 March, 2010, from http://www.bruno-
latour.fr/articles/article/090.html
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1986). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Law, J. (1986). Editor's introduction: Power/Knowledge and the dissolution of the sociology
of knowledge. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? J. Law.
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Law, J. (1991). Power, discretion and strategy. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power,
Technology and Domination. J. Law. London, Routledge: 165-191.
Law, J. (1992). "Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogeneity." Centre for Science Studies. Retrieved 23 May, 2010, from
http://www.cop.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc054jl.html
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. Actor Network Theory and
After. J. Law and J. Hassard. Oxford, Blackwell.
Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London, Routledge.
Lawler, A. (2008). "AMS Radiocarbon Dating of a Wood Sample from Tunel Ravne:
Methods, Results and Impliations for Futher Research." Retrieved 10 November,
2010, from irna.lautre.net/IMG/doc/Wood_in_Ravne.doc
Layton, R. and J. Thomas. (2001). Introduction: the destruction and conservation of cultural
property. The Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. R. Layton, P. Stone
and J. Thomas. London, Routledge: 168-189.
Lefkowitz, M. (2006). Archaeology and the politics of origins: The search for pyramids in
Greece. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past
and Misleads the Public. G. Fagan. New York, Routledge: 180-202.

285
Leone, M. P. (1992). "Legitimation and the Classification of Archaeological Sites." American
Antiquity 57(1): 137-145.
Leone, M. P. (2010). Critical Historical Archaeology. Walnut Creek, Ca., Left Coast Press.
Leone, M. P., P. B. Potter, et al. (1987). "Towards a Critical Archaeology." Current
Anthropology 28: 283-302.
Lincoln, B. (1994). Authority: Construction and Corrosion. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Maestral. (2007). "Bosnian valley of pyramids first pyramids in Europe." Maestral Travek
Agency, online travel brouchure, Retrieved 20 April, 2007, from
http://www.maestral.hr/bosnia/ piramide/piramide.asp
Malcolm, N. (2002). Bosnia: A Short History. London, Pan Books.
Marks, J. (2009). Why I Am Not a Scientist. Berkeley, University of Calfornia Press.
Marx, K. (1888). Manifesto of the Communist Party. London, Reeves.
Matthews, W., C. Hastorf, et al. (2000). Ethnoarchaeology: Studies in Local Villages Aimed
at Understanding Aspects of the Neolithic Site. Towards Reflexive Method in
Archaeology: The Example at atalhyk. I. Hodder. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
McGimsey, C. R., III. (1995). Standards, Ethics, and Archaeology: A Brief History. Ethics in
American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s. M. P. Lynott and A. Wylie.
Washington, D.C., Society for American Archaeology: 11-13.
Meltzer, D. J. (1979). "Paradigms and the nature of change in American archaeology."
American Antiquity 44: 644-657.
Merriman, N., Ed. (2004). Public Archaeology. London, Routledge.
Meskell, L. (2005). "Archaeological Ethnography: Conversatons around Kruger National
Park." Archaeologies 1(1): 81-100.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London, Harper &
Row.
Miller, R. W. (1987). Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural
and the Social Sciences. Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Mills, S. (2004). "Auditory Archaeology at atalhyk: Preliminary Research." atalhyk
2004 Archive Report. Retrieved 10 November, 2010, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/index.html
Molyneaux, B. L. (1997). The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in
Archaeology. London, Routledge.

286
Monaim, S. A. (2007). "Pharaohs to help unveil truth of Bosnian Pyramids." The Daily News:
Egypt, online. Retrieved 20 November, 2010, from http://www.dailystaregypt.com/
article.aspx?ArticleID=6243
Mortensen, P. and G. E. Kirsch. (1993). "On Authority in the Study of Writing." College
Composition and Communication 44(4): 556-572.
Moser, S. (1999). The Dilemma of Didatic Displays: Habitat Dioramas, Life-Groups, and
Reconstructions of the Past. Making Early Histories in Museums. N. Merriman. New
York, Leicester University Press: 95-116.
Moser, S. (2010). "The Devil is in the Detail: Museum Displays and the Creation of
Knowledge." Museum Anthropology 33(1): 22-32.
Moser, S., D. Glazier, et al. (2002). "Transforming archaeology through practice: strategies
for collaborative archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir,
Egypt." World Archaeology 34(2): 220-248.
Moshenska, G. (2009). "Beyond the Viewing Platform: Excavations and Audiences."
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24(1): 39-54.
Muniz, A. M. and T. C. OGuinn. (2001). "Brand Community." Journal of Consumer
Research 27: 412-428.
Negra (2007). Negra: Touristicka Agencija, tourist brochure. Sarajevo.
Nietzsche, F. (1969 [1886]). On the Geneology of Morals and Ecce Homo. New York,
Vintage.
Nietzsche, F. (1990). Twilight of the Idols: Or, How to Philosophise with the Hammer.
London, Penguin Books.
Norman, C. (2008). "Tourism and the Cultural Heritage: Towards a Sustainable Approach."
The First International Scientific Conference of the Bosnian Pyramids. Retrieved 20
January, 2011, from http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/dokumenti/
ICBP%20referat%20Chris%20Norman%20verzija%202.pdf
OED. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, Oxford Universtiy Press.
Osmanagic, S. (2005a). "Alternativna Historija." Retrieved 20 November, 2010, from
http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/
Osmanagic, S. (2005b). The World of the Maya. New Jersey Gorgias Press (Euphrates
Imprint).
Osmanagic, S. (2005c). The World of the Maya, online book. Retrieved 20 November,
2010, from http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WMmain.htm
Osmanagic, S. (2006). "The Formula to Understand The Bosnian Pyramids." Bosnian
Pyramid!?. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://www.bosnian-
pyramid.net/Pyramid-news/Bosnian-pyramid-latest-news/-The-Formula-to-
understand-The-Bosnian-Pyramids-%11-by-Semir-Osmanagic/
Osmanagic, S. (2007a). Bosnian Pyramids, unpublished presentation. Bosnian Embassy.
London.

287
Osmanagic, S. (2007b). Bosnian Valley of Pyramids: Scientific Evidence About the Existence
of Bosnian Pyramids, digital document. Visoko, The Archaeological Park Bosnian
Pyramid of the Sun Foundation.
Osmanagic, S. (2007c). Personal email communication. Email: osmanagic@msn.com
Osmanagic, S. (2009). "Doctoral dissertation on the subject: Non-technological Civilization
of MAYAS versus Modern TECHNOLOGICAL CIVILIZATIONS." Retrieved 20
January 2010, from http://www.semirosmanagic.com/en/maya.html
Osmanagic, S. (2010). "U.S. Professor Gives Thumbs Up to Bosnian Pyramid Find." The
New Era Times, online press release. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/dokumenti/BosnianPyramidJuly2010.pdf
Patten, S. C. (1977). "Milgram's Shocking Experiments." Philosophy 52(202): 425-440.
Pazdur, A. (2008). "Results Of Radiocarbon Dating Of The Prehistoric Wooden Fragment
From The Tunnel Ravne, Bosnian Valley Of Pyramids, Visoko, Bosnia And
Herzegovina." The First International Scientific Conference of the Bosnian Pyramids.
Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://icbp.ba/documents/reports/
APazdur_Report_14C.pdf
Perry, S. (2009). "Sights of Invention: Deconstructing Depictions of the Earliest Colonisation
of Australia and Oceania in the Academic Archaeological Literature." Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 24(1): 109-130.
Phillips, S. (1994). New Social Movements and Routes to Representation: Science versus
Politics. Political Influence of Ideas: Policy, Communities and The Social Sciences.
S. Brooks and A.-G. Gagnon. London, Praeger.
Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. London, The
University of Chicago Press.
Pierson, R. (1994). "The Epistemic Authority of Expertise." PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial
Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 398-405.
Pilloud, M. A. (2009). Community Structure at Neolithic Catalhoyuk:Biological Distance
Analysis of Household, Neighborhood, and Settlement. Department of
Anthropology, Ohio State University. PhD.
Piramidascunca.ba. (2006). "5-year Plan of Research on Visokos Visocica." Archaeological
Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation. Retrieved 30 May, 2008, from
http://www.piramidascunca.ba.ajaxfiles/epodmeni/eprogramistrazivanjaeprogram
.htm
Piramidasunca.ba. (2007). " International Validation of The Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids,
online poster." Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://irna.lautre.net/IMG/jpg/
verifikacija_eng_print.jpg
Piramidasunca.ba. (2010). "Bosnian Pyramids in United Nations." Daily News, online.
Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/
Bosnian-Pyramids-in-United-Nations.html
Plato. (2004). "Sophist, tranlsated by B. Jowett." Retrieved 20 November, 2009, from
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71so/

288
Popper, K. (1998[1953]). Science: Conjectures and Refutations. Philosophy of Science: The
Central Issues. M. Curd and J. A. Cover. London, W. W. Norton & Company: 1-10.
Pruitt, T. (2007). Addressing Invented Heritage: The Case of the Bosnian Pyramids.
Department of Archaeology. Cambridge, University of Cambridge. M.Phil.
Rabinow, P., Ed. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York, Panthenon.
Radio-202. (2006). Who Is Who In The 'Bosnian Pyramid' Project: Semir Osmanagic in
radio-interview by Sarajevo-based Radio 202, online iauio tiansciipt. APWR
Cential }une 16, 2uu6. Retieiveu 2u Novembei, 2uu7, fiom http:apwi-
cential.blog.com
Raviv, A., D. Bar-Tal, et al. (2003). "Teachers' epistemic authority: perceptions of students
and teachers." Social Psychology of Education 6: 17-42.
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor's Introduction. Ethnomethodology's Program: Working Out
Durkheim's Aphorism. A. W. Rawls. London, Rowman & Littlefield.
Read, D. W. (1989). "Statistical Methods and Reasoning in Archaeological Research: A
Review of Praxis and Promise." Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 1: 5-78.
Reece, K. (2006). Memoirs of a True Believer. Archaeological Fantasies: How
Reece, K. (2007). "In the Hall of Ma'at." Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://www.hallofmaat.com
Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn. (2000). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London,
Thames & Hudson.
Rose, M. (2006a). "More on Bosnian Pyramids' " Archaeology Magazine, online. Retrieved
20 January, 2010, from http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/
osmanagic/update.html
Rose, M. (2006b). "The Bosnia-Atlantis Connection." Archaeology Magazine, online.
Retrieved 03 August, 2010, from http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/
osmanagic/update.html
Rountree, K. (2007). "Archaeologists and Goddess Feminists at atalhyk." JFSR 23(2): 7-
26.
Sax, M., J. M. Walsh, et al. (2008). "The Origins of Two Purportedly Pre-Columbian
Mexican Crystal Skulls." Journal of Archaeological Science 35(10): 2751-2760.
Saxe, J. G. (1878[1873]). The Blind Men and the Elephant. Poetry of America: Selections
from one hundred American poets from 1776 to 1876. W. J. Linton, George Bell: 77-
78.
Schoch, R. (2007). "Circular Times." Retrieved 20 May, 2007, from
http://www.robertschoch.net
Shane, O. C. I. and M. Kuk. (1998). "The World's First City." Archaeology 51(2): 43-47.

289
Shankland, D. (2000). Villagers and the Distant Past: Three Seasons' Work at Kkky,
atalhyk. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at
Shanks, M. (in press). "Post Processual Archaeology and After, online PDF." Handbook of
Archaeological Methods and Theories. Retrieved 2010, 20 January, from
http://metamedia.stanford.edu/~mshanks/writing/postproc.pdf
Shanks, M. and I. Hodder. (1995). Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies.
Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A.
Alexandriet al.
Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. (1987). Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice.
London, Routledge.
Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. London, University of Chicago Press.
Sito-Sucic, D. (2006). "Controversial dig sparks pyramid mania in Bosnia."
News.Scotsman.com, online. Retrieved 30 May, 2007, from
http://allaboutbosnianpyram.blogger.ba/
Skeates, R. (2000). Debating the Archaeological Heritage. London, Duckworth.
Smart, L. D. (2009). "Understanding Radio Carbon." Daily News, online. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/
UNDERSTANDING-RADIO-CARBON.html
Smiles, S. and S. Moser. (2005). Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Malden,
Blackwell.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. London, Routledge.
Smith, P. J. (2009). A "Splendid Idiosyncrasy": Prehistory at Cambridge 1915-50. Oxford,
British Archaeological Reports.
Smith, R. A. and J. R. Elliott. (2002). "Does Ethnic Concentration Influence Employees'
Access to Authority? An Examination of Contemporary Urban Labor Markets."
Social Forces 81(1): 255-279.
Soffer, R. N. (1982). "Why do Disciplines Fail? The Strange Case of British Sociology." The
English Historical Review 97(385): 767-802.
Sorensen, M. L. and J. Carman, Eds. (2009). Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches.
London, Routledge.
Spitulnik, D. (1993). "Anthropology and Mass Media." Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 22: 213-315.
Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer. (1989). "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary
Objects: Amateaurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,
1907-39." Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387-420.
Stevanovic, M. (2006) "Experimental Building." atalhyk: Excavations of A Neolithic
Anatolian Hyk. Retreived 20 November, 2010, http:www.catalhoyuk.com
newsletteisu6expei99.html
Stoczkowski, W. (2007). "Book Review: Archaeological Fantasies." Antiquity 81: 472-473.

290
Stout, A. (2008). Creating Prehistory: Druids, Ley Hunters and Archaeologists in Pre-war
Britain. Oxford, Blackwell.
Stultitia. (2007). Confronting Bosnian Pseudoarchaeology. Rogueclassicism, online blog.
Retrived 30 November, 2u1u, fiom http:www.atiium-
meuia.comiogueclassicism PostsuuuuS646.html
Swelim, N. (2007). "The Pyramid Hills: Viso"ica And Plje#evica Hra#!e: Observations and
Analyses, online report. Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from
http://icbp.ba/documents/reports/dr%20Swelim%20report%20February%202008.doc
Swelim, N. (2010a). "Professor Nabil Swelim: Egyptologist." Retrieved 20 January, 2010,
from http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/pyramids_of_egypt/nabil_swelim.php
Swelim, N. (2010b). "Viso"ica On The Balance, online report. On Pyramid Science
Retrieved 20 January, 2011, from http://www.nabilswelim.com/
downloads/vic_10.pdf
Swelim, N. (2011). "Nabil Swelim: Clips, Opinions & Memories." Retrieved 20 January,
2011, from http:www.nabilswelim.comclips.asp
ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. London,
SAGE Publications.
The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation. (2008). "CENTRAL
BALKAN: THE SECOND OLDEST CULTURAL OASIS IN EUROPE." Official
Website of the The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid o the Sun Foundation:
Daily News. Retrieved 20 November, 2010, from
http:www.piiamiuasunca.baen inuex.phpCENTRAL-BALKAN-TBE-
SEC0NB-0LBEST-C0LT0RAL-0ASIS-IN-E0R0PE.html
The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation. (2009). "Alexandrian
Archaeologists Impressed by the Scientific Approach of the Bosnian Pyramids
Research." The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyiamiu of the Sun Founuation,
official website. Retiieveu 2u Novembei, 2u1u, fiom
http:www.piiamiuasunca.baeninuex.phpALEXANBRIAN-
ARCBAE0L0uISTS-INPRESSEB-BY-TBE-SCIENTIFIC-APPR0ACB-0F-TBE-
B0SNIAN-PYRANIBS-RESEARCB.html
Trevor-Roper, H. (1983). The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Trigger, B. G. (1984). "Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist." Man
19: 355-370.
Trigger, B. G. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Tsekeris, C. (2010). "Reflections on Reflexivity: Sociological Issues and Perspectives."
Contemporary Issues 3(1): 28-37.
Van Reybrouck, D. and D. Jacobs. (2006). The Mutual Constitution of Natural and Social
Identities During Archaeological Fieldwork. Ethnographies of Archaeological
Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. M. Edgeworth. Oxford,
AltaMira Press: 33-44.

291
Walker, D. (forthcoming, 2011). "Collaborative Archaeology." Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 26(2).
Wallis, R. J. (2003). Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and
Contemporary Pagans. London, Routledge.
Watt, E. D. (1982). Authority. Guildford, Biddles Ltd.
Webb, S. (2002). Contested Histories or multiple pasts? The representation of the
archaeological past in the museum. Department of Archaeology. Cambridge,
University of Cambridge. PhD.
Weber, M. (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York, Free Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York,
Bedminster Press.
Whitelam, K. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. London, Routledge.
Wikipedia. (2010). "Bosnian pyramids." Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia. Retrieved 20
January, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids
Wilkie, L. A. and K. M. Bartoy. (2000). "A Critical Archaeology Revisited." Current
Anthropology 41: 747-777.
Woodard, C. (2007a). "Ridiculed Pyramid Project in Bosnia Gains Government Support."
Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i47/47a01101.htm
Woodard, C. (2007b). "The Great Pyramids ofBosnia? ." The Chronicle of Higher
Education, online. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/
v53/i30/30a01201.htm
Woodard, C. (2009). "The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids." Smithsonian Magazine,
online. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-
archaeology/The-Mystery-of-Bosnias-Ancient-Pyramids.html?c=y&page=1
Wylie, A. (1989). Introduction: socio-political context. Critical Traditions in Contemporary
Archaeology. V. Pinsky and A. Wylie. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 93-
95.
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. London,
University of California Press.
Yarrow, T. (2003). "Artefactual Persons: The Relational Capacities of Persons and Things in
the Practice of Excavation." Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(1): 65-73.
Yarrow, T. (2006). Different Ways of Knowing an Archaeological Excavation. Ethnographies
of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. M.
Edgeworth. Oxford, AltaMira Press.
Yarrow, T. (2009). Different Ways of Knowing an Archaeological Excavation. Ethnographies
of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. M.
Edgeworth. Oxford, AltaMira Press.

292
Yates, D. (2010). Nationalistic and Indigenous Archaeology in Bolivia: Personal Identity
and Archaeological Ethics. Department of Archaeology. Cambridge, University of
Cambridge. PhD.
Zhelyazkova, A. (2004). "Bosnia: Tolerant Hostility." Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from
http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/reports/Bosnia_Tolerant_Hostility.pdf
Zimonjic, V. P. (2006). "The Great Pyramid of Visoko." The Independent, online. Retrieved
27 May, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_qn4158/is_20060428/ai_n16223732

T Pruitt Digital Thesis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

T Pruitt Digital Thesis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

"#$%&'($) *+, $%- .

Você também pode gostar