CRITIQUING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIARY

William Anderson and Damjan Krsmanovic

I find Barbara very irritating this morning. Feel she is being rather dominant and imposing her
views and interpretations. (Tilley 1996: Jun 17)
with Chris I sometimes feel over-whelmed. He doesnt seem to leave space for alternative
for other peoples stories. (Bender 1996: Jun 18)

The diary is essentially a first-person narrative that recounts experiences and

encounters. It is also an inherently personal, even private text. Yet diaries are also
written to be read by others: even the most secret and sacred of diaries has the
potential (and is therefore meant) to be shared since it is written in the first place. In
this paper, we explore the tension and ambiguity between the personal diary and
the diary intended for consumption, in relation to archaeological diaries, paying
attention to their content, publication, reception and consequences.
The genesis of this paper lies in our joint reflection on the problems associated with
writing in archaeology, and our own experiences of diary writing. We do not venture
to be unnecessarily critical of the use of diaries in archaeology; indeed, we applaud
the efforts of archaeologists experimenting with forms of archaeological recording,
using diaries, for instance. What we intend to explore, however, is that the diary
format remains problematic owing to its capacity to obscure just as much as clarify
the outcomes of archaeological investigations in which it is employed.
Defining the archaeological diary
The archaeological diary constitutes a text that is simultaneously private and public.
Its subject matter is wide-ranging: encompassing observations, reportage, thoughts,
and feelings. Its tone can veer from private and introspective to political and epic,
and, crucially, its readership may range from one to potentially thousands. What
marks these texts as distinctive, whether they are for personal consumption or mass
publication, their contents quotidian or rhapsodic, is that they are of the moment.
They capture a certain time and place, making them an authentic record of
archaeological practice as it happens, and so appear uniquely credible.
Archaeological information has long been conveyed in the form of diaries and
journals. Personal experience in the form of a narrative was central to antiquarian
writings (Hodder 1989; Morris 1994: 27; Peltz & Myrone 1999: 5-9), and the work of
explorer-archaeologists in the 18th-19th centuries. In the 20th century, the evolution of
corporate knowledge, which became invested in institutions rather than individuals,
encouraged the pursuit of objective or disinterested approaches. This resulted in the
use of language that sought to deny the role of the individual in the production of
knowledge, such as the loss of the first person pronoun I (Hodder 1989; Joyce
2002: 52-5).

29

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

In anthropology, the diary format played a key role in conveying the fieldworkers
methods and intentions, and so greatly impacted on the discipline itself (Sinclair
2000: 477-78). Famously, it was the publication of Bronislaw Malinowskis diaries,
recounting his fieldwork in Kiriwina that revealed how, far from obtaining objective
data, the anthropologists overwhelming preoccupations and state of mind must have
had a considerable effect on what he saw and the sense he made of it (Gosden
1999: 58).
Archaeologists, meanwhile, held a firm belief in the veracity of objective data
obtained through scientific methods, with the emergence of the new or processual
archaeology movement in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the diary form has long
continued to constitute a part of field recording, Greek archaeology over the past
century being one example (Hitchcock 2009, pers. comm.). Yet, such diaries
constitute daily field notes and are not self-consciously employed as reflections on
subjectivity and relativity of knowledge production. The diary is, rather, an additional
means of empirical recording.
In more recent years, the archaeological diary has undergone a revival thanks to the
post-processual emphasis on the subjectivity of archaeological practice stemming
from post-structuralist precepts involving deconstructive reading, disregard for grand
narratives and meta-texts (Olsen 1991) , and the vogue for phenomenological
approaches (Chadwick 2003; Hodder 1999: 121-3; Olsen 2006; Tilley 1994, 2004;
Tilley et al. 2000). Explanations of field methods often include a temporal element
that describes the sequential nature of fieldwork and flags the subjective experience
of fieldworkers. An example of this is the differential role of gender in sensory
experiences of archaeological sites (Hamilton and Whitehouse 2006). The keeping of
field diaries may even be a requirement for students taking archaeology courses (cf.
Hamilakis 2004).
Use of the diary has not been confined to avant-garde, academic archaeology.
Diaries have also been adopted in commercial, public and popular spheres to
present fieldwork in an accessible and unambiguous way. They are also used as a
means of accountability that demonstrates the temporal progress of archaeological
work. In the case of the British television series Time Team, the sequential nature of
excavation is used as a dramatic device: weve got three days to.... As
communications technology develops and becomes more accessible, digital formats
can enhance the immediacy of archaeological recording including for diary-writing
(Hodder 1999: 120-8; 2003b: 61-2).
Critiquing the archaeological diary
It is with the diary as a published format as well as a writing genre that we are
concerned. Though content and tone are integral, the manner in which the writing is
disseminated and received can determine its meaning. Through publication, the
personal can become deeply political: romantic musings can be perceived as, and
hence transformed into, ideological dogma; trivial disagreements and bickering may
be read as reflecting political and class dynamics. The seemingly innocuous journal
can become a document of control, a chronicle that cements the legacy of a
campaign. It therefore projects a variety of signals authenticity, reliability, drama

30

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

that can become confused and compromised through the genres intentionally
subjective tone.
Our critique is not intended as an attack on subjective or post-processual
approaches. We admire the use of fieldwork diaries, and many of the issues that we
raise have been identified and discussed by the diary authors we cite (see below).
We are, however, calling for further reflexivity of reflexivity (Pels 2000: 17-18; cf.
Bourdieu 2003: 282), specifically in terms of how field practice is presented in the
diary format. Thus, we aim to scrutinize the process by which archaeological
knowledge is produced, conveyed and consecrated. Moreover, considering forms of
writing in archaeology encourages critical thinking of the disciplines aims as a
method of documentation versus a creative, imaginative and performative act.
The diary may be seen as an invitation to reflexivity that captures the essence of the
subjects interaction with the archaeological record (Hodder 2003b). Its apparent
spontaneity and subjectivity are responsible for assimilating together different kinds
of discursive field which collide and mix, constituting the world-view of the author. As
a compilation of spatio-temporally specific information, the diary in effect fossilizes as
residue of the context in which it was generated. Thus, it may be seen as an artefact
itself, a relic of archaeological experience strung together by means of language. Its
strength (and, arguably, its weakness) is that it is immutable, and, as with
phenomenological approaches, cannot be engaged with on a critical basis (Fleming
2006). Put another way, its subjectivity poses a challenge to traditional modes of
academic discourse. Who, after all, can question the primacy of the participantobserver?
Therefore, while it may be seen as a relic of archaeological practice in that it is
representative of the particular circumstances in which it was produced, the diary is
at the same time self-consciously agent specific. Its apparent spontaneity can, then,
be used to reify a pre-determined interpretation, vision or hierarchy. This makes the
format peculiarly powerful and problematic. Though self-awareness and self-criticism
are laudable and description of the circumstances in which information is gained is
crucial, ostentatious subjectivity can become as much a posture as positivist
detachment.
Rather than clarifying the relationship between the archaeologist and the material
past, the diary can add further distance between the subject, the reader, and the
presentation of data. Accordingly, the diary has the potential to reify hierarchy and
self-promotion rather than subvert them. Thus, we are interested in seeing how the
archaeological diary, as an informal method of recording, affects the organization of
empirical data, given its capabilities and problematic status.
Case Study: diaries from the atalhyk and Leskernick projects
To illustrate the advantages and problems of using diaries in archaeology, we shall
deal with two sets of diaries from a contemporary and a recent project. The diary
entries come from the 2008 season of the atalhyk project, the long-running and
ongoing excavation of a Neolithic settlement in central Anatolia, directed by Ian
Hodder; and from the 1996 season of the Leskernick project, which investigated Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age remains on Bodmin Moor in Cornwall, southwest Britain,

31

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

under the direction of Barbara Bender, Sue Hamilton and Christopher Tilley. The use
of diaries and other experimental recording methods at these projects has been
discussed in a number of publications (Hodder 1999, 2000, 2003a; Farid 2000; Tilley
et al. 2000; Bender et al. 2007), and diaries from both of these projects are available
online (see bibliography).
The diary is of the moment
The unpolished and unprocessed nature of the diary may be seen as advantageous
in that it captures the moment/s of the archaeologists interaction with the
archaeological record. This is in contrast to post hoc field reports and final
publications, whose composition may be subject to any number of influences (Tilley
1989: 278; Sinclair 2000: 478; Pels 2000: 2). Arguably the diary pre-empts such
corruption through highlighting the formulation of the co-extension between data and
interpretation as it happens, as the following entries from the atalhyk and
Leskernick diaries demonstrate:
We dicided to grid up the area and send it all to flotation, in case we can establish any
meaningful patterns in the deposition of the obsidian. Although my observations thus far
suggest that it will be concentrated in a spread of slightly darker material containing more
charcoal to the southwest of the space. This may end up being recorded as a separate unit,
possibly a discrete dump, but the jury is out on this for now, since I haven't quite decided
whether the floor is really just a compacted make-up dump layer anyway, with an ad-hoc
working surface. (JST 2008: Jul 13)
CG and Gary began trowelling the interior of H23. It is difficult to positively identify a door on
this structure. The triangular 'backstone' appears to be in a niche, given that the wall seems to
be single skinned. With the turf removed and further stones exposed, H23 now looks less
circular. A problem which we will have to monitor just how deturfing and excavation alters
surface impressions. (Hamilton 1996: Jun 8)

In these entries, the decisions, thoughts and predictions made by the excavators are
shown as informed by the process of excavation itself. Based on pre-existing
knowledge and experience, immediate interpretations of artefacts and contexts are
offered. Here, the diary clarifies the process of categorization and interpretation
through the archaeologist revealing his/her interaction with the material evidence.
Thus, field reports can be written that juxtapose objective description with
subjective experience, thereby giving a more transparent view of how conclusions
are reached (Bender et al. 1997).
The diary tells it how it is
It is possible for the archaeological diary to demystify the archaeological process
using frank, conversational language (cf. Olsen 2006: 147). The diary can
demonstrate the arbitrary nature of data categorization, and, in the context of the
atalhyk and Leskernick projects, the difficulties of excavating at a Neolithic site.
In addition, the documentation of difficulties surrounding interpretation and
classification of material further illuminates the co-extension between interpretation
as provided in a publication and activity in the field itself. In this sense, the reader of
the diary is freed to an extent from the the tyranny of the predetermined narrative
(Barker 1999: 25) that a more polished piece of writing would offer. The reader is
instead offered archaeology through a number of hermeneutic pathways (Hodder
2000: 9-10):
32

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

Talking of potential misinterpretation we swung by the 4040 yesterday and im a bit concerned
about whats going on there. For instance Mikes supposed "burnt" building. They dont seem to
have noticed that the walls of the building quite clearly cut the "burnt material" if thats what it
is. And in Dans area all those little flooring events he has us belive is going on, we had similar
deposits in all the buildings we took out which we, I think correctly, identified as one or two
events at most, what is going on? (RR 2008: Jul 16)
We walk back to the southern settlement to what Barbara calls the 'organic cluster' of houses.
Goodness knows why she calls it this. To me it seems the reverse: a rather well-planned and
set out series of houses in two parallel rows. (Tilley 1996: Jun 4)

Having the accounts of several people working on the same project can also
demonstrate multivocality when it comes to examining artefacts, features and
contexts, and the conflicts that may arise from differing interpretations (Hamilakis
1999: 66). It shows the contentious nature of archaeological data and the difficulties
encountered when correlating data and interpretation. Expectations formed before
and in the course of fieldwork can be overturned in a moment by discoveries that are
documented as events:
I was about to bashe out the first mixed make-up/floor layer, (16523), when lo and behold
out popped armfuls of obsidian debitage. (JST 2008: Jul 13)
On Thursday JMR and KJK had taken down with unit 16833 what looked like a massive
homogenous mass of room infill in the corner of walls 2426 and 2408. In the planum I had had
some doubts if there were some mudbricks, especially as BE had seen mortar lines there in
2006. But it looked completely homogenous in the section created by cut of grave 2416, and
was not visible while taking it down at all. After a day of drying, however, the brown loose
room infill became easily discernible from hard brownish-yellow mudbrick. This taught me
another lesson on mudbrick walls and on believing in sections. Sometimes it seems as if the
West Mound is playing tricks on me (ER 2008: Jul 26)

Problems involving categorization of material are further highlighted at atalhyk in

diary entries ruminating over what constitutes an individual on the basis of skeletal
material (HSL 2008: Jul 16), and what constitutes a feature in a particular context
(JJW 2008: Jul 22). Likewise, the Leskernick diaries articulate issues involving the
distinction between natural and anthropogenic features (Tilley et al.: undated; Bender
1996: Jun 14, 19; Tilley 1996: Jun 19), as well as the contentiousness of attributing
symbolic significance to features (Bender 1996: Jun 16; Tilley 1996: Jun 16). The
diary therefore highlights how objectivity is a shifting paradigm built on categorical
consensus which is likely to change in light of ongoing discoveries (cf. Kuhn 1970).
This can be a source of dissonance when different methodologies and expectations
are thrown together in a collaborative environment.
Thus, diaries show the mutable nature of knowledge production and the position that
archaeologists occupy as the producers of that knowledge. Understandings and
presentations are revealed as agent-specific and resulting from an agents grounding
in particular epistemological and disciplinary streams, as well as their social, cultural
and political background:
In France, we have generally first the excavation and after the season we have the post
fouille or post excavation . At this moment, you study the archaeological material. So
when you leave the site after the excavation (and generally you leave after), you never see
this part of the work! You wash material, sometimes you mark the ceramic but no more. (SO
2008: Jun 23)

33

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

The diary as a hermeneutic device

The discussion above also demonstrates that the diary has, arguably, the capacity to
function a hermeneutic device par excellence when situated beside other (more
traditional) methods of archaeological recording. A hermeneutic perspective a
means by which interpretations are verified through juxtaposition of the detail
against the whole and vice versa allows archaeologists to move between data and
interpretation (Hodder & Hutson 2003: 195-98) by evaluating the questions posed
and statements made in relation to the data, that is, the subjective thought produced
through discourse (Ricoeur 1981: 47, 55). Thus, archaeological diaries, in theory,
are capable of being used as devices for appropriation. This means that the diary is
presented as an open device whose content may be subject to indefinite reading and
evaluation (also context dependent), whence arises the actualization of meanings in
the readers mind (Ricoeur 1981: 184-85). Appropriation is in no manner a pretence
towards objectivity, but a way of illustrating the open ended process of interpretation.
The diary is not as spontaneous as it appears
Much of what we have discussed stems from diary accounts that report
circumstances at the trowels edge (Hodder 1999: 92; 2000: 5; 2003b: 58).
However, this idea must be scrutinized more carefully in order to test the sincerity
that diaries seemingly profess. For instance, it is necessary to consider the time
interval between the excavation done in a day and the diary entry following it. The
interval would suffice for a person to change their view about what they were doing
during the day on the basis of circumstances she or he were involved in. By
considering the multitude of activities the person partook in throughout the day
general social interaction, discussion, experiences, emotions the possibility of
interpretations staying fixed is diminished. Accordingly it is difficult to evaluate the
archaeological diary in terms of the immediacy of its content.
The diary purports to bare all but remains self-censored
The apparent benefits of an archaeological diary may all be subverted in practice.
Reflexivity and subjectivity can mask what is an objective truth seemingly
spontaneous notes can, in reality, be premeditated accounts. A diary might provide
transparency but it may alternatively cloud the situation, forming a dividing layer
between the author and the reader. Such separation may be manifested in a diarys
preoccupation with examining personalities, divisions in hierarchy, class and race. At
best, such entries may detract from archaeological information, weakening the datainterpretation co-extension; yet they could also be libelous. These problems are
recognized and stated by Paul Basu in his introductory note to the Leskernick diaries:
It is clear that the diaries are deeply problematic. They are either sanitised and mundane or
else frank and potentially hurtful. I suggest that the diaries are an experiment, and that an
experiment doesnt have to be successful to be useful. (Basu 1998: Mar 18)

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

34

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

arguably diminished when authors have an awareness of their views being

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

Since the diaries of atalhyk were always intended to be published for broader
consumption, this would have consciously and subconsciously shaped the content of
the entries (see KJK 2008: Jul 16). Similarly, the idea of publishing the Leskernick
diaries on the internet was met with some tension on the part of the project directors
(Basu 1998: Jan 12). Indeed, they kept two sets of diaries for the project, one
censored and another uncensored, for the purpose of such an outcome (Basu 1998:
Jan 26).
The diary enforces hierarchy
The Leskernick diaries frequently record interpersonal interaction rather than
archaeological information. From the very first day of the 1996 season, the diary
entries indicate a division within the team that is presented as being based on
interpretive capability imaginative, interpretive, post-processual versus manual,
mechanical, functionalist. This results in a persistent strain between the directors (or
settlement people) and the diggers, generating a top-down interpersonal hierarchy
Bender 1996: Jun 2; Hamilton 1996: Jun 2; Tilley 1996: Jun 2, 20, 21). The head of
the diggers, Mike Seager-Thomas, is isolated as a personality to be consistently
targeted by the diarist directors. He is frequently described as argumentative and
aggressive (Bender 1996: Jun 2; Tilley 1996: Jun 2), and his functionalist views and
antithetical stance amount to an anarchy threatening the project:
Ate pretty late. Almost immediately the crisp man, Mike [S-T], launched into a fairly
aggressive attack on the idea that the backstones were in any way special. Came up with all
sorts of functional explanations - but claimed hed never heard of Functionalism. Rubbished
our attempts to discuss alternative ways of interpreting. Twice - thrice - reiterated that anyway,
it didnt matter, since he wasnt in charge. Long discussion of hierarchies. All rather tense and
unsatisfactory. The other two men (Ash, Chris G.) completely stum. Chris pretty quiet. Sue
trying to hold her corner. Penni and Marilyn attempting occasional intercessions. Felt very riled
that, despite our best attempts, we had imported someone who seemed pretty antagonistic.
(Bender 1996: Jun 2)
He may well ruin the project. (Tilley 1996: Jun 2)

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

35

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

The diary is not as multivocal as it appears

The atalhyk project diaries have been able to avoid discussion of hierarchy to an
extent due to the wider range of the diary entries in terms of content, the number of
people writing, and their availability as opposed to the kind of self-censoring
procedures employed at Leskernick by publishing one set of tailored diaries. Thus,
for one particular day at atalhyk, a number of perspectives exist: ranging from
empirical (CM 2008: Jun 14), reflective about the projects aims and methodologies
(RBW 2008: Jul 16; DEL 2008: Jul 29, Sep 5), to more personal (KJK 2008: Jul 16;
JJW 2008: Jul 16). This may be regarded as achieving a degree of multivocality.
In the Leskernick diaries, the range of multivocality is diminished due to the lack of
published diaries from non-directors (which, according to a post on the Leskernick
web page, is because no other diaries have been submitted). If we think about this in
terms of the effect the archaeological diary has in cementing the legacy of campaign,
the Leskernick diaries arguably preserve the hegemony of the directors while
marginalizing the voices of non-directors.
Reflexivity and subjective practice are stressed as integral to the aims of the
Leskernick project (Tilley 1996: Jun 2, 4, 19). However, in their diaries, the directors
display high-handedness when they express disappointment at the capabilities of the
fieldworkers, and their unwillingness to participate in the experimental nature of the
project.
Came down off the hill fuming and sullen about the poor quality of some of the plans. Upset
that people had not really focused on the quality of the stones, and that some people had not
really taken the task seriously. Actually, thinking about it, thats not true. They had been
serious and committed, but simply not able to sketch accurately enough. (Bender 1996: Jun
15)
I think there will inevitably be a cynical male bonding taking place in the digger's caravan.
They all seem archetypal Institute of Archaeology products: ignorant of theory and philosophy,
unimaginative and conventional. But technically skilled. (Tilley 1996: Jun 2)

Therefore, Tilley is correct in noting the power of the diary as setting a particular
agenda (Tilley 1996: Jun 4), for it generates its own cognitive and moral arena (Pels
2000: 9). Against the backdrop of animosity and division between the Leskernick
team members, the diary becomes a device which the directors use to issue criticism
of those refusing to participate in the experiments of the project. The act of diary
writing is consequently transformed into a method of confessional purification [that]
subtly ensnares and downgrades those who are incapable of opening up and
revealing themselves after the imperative example of the confessor (Pels 2000: 8).
The diary detracts from archaeological information
In the atalhyk diaries, the veering away of attention from the archaeological
process has also been an issue, for the diary often came to be used as a device for
expressing personal frustration (Farid 2000: 25). Such attention given to the personal
has been labelled as narcissism (Moore 1994: 45; Bourdieu 2003: 282), in that the
processes demonstrating the dynamic between the subject and the object/s of
interpretation are disregarded in favour of personal narratives, which steer the diary

36

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

away from its ability to elucidate the archaeological process. Needless to say, in this
essay we seem to be commentating on archaeological projects as if they were soap
operas, acted out by a clique of professional academics!
Though shifting the focus away from the archaeological process is a relatively
obvious sign of the diary detracting from real data, recording and prioritizing of
interpretation is another more subtle means. This is also connected to the issue of
interpretations which are at odds with those of the project directors. In the following
entries, Tilley reflects on his own role in controlling data collection and interpretation
by giving precedence to his voice when recording features:
Should I be writing down what Marylyn says even if I deem it to be inaccurate? (Tilley 1996:
Jun 14)
Matt is extremely upset when I dismiss as uninteresting what he thinks is a very significant
triangular stone. (Tilley 1996: Jun 19)

It emerges that not all interpretations are equal, despite claims of multiple
perspectives that were supposedly a driving force behind keeping diaries in the first
place. Not only are the views of the excavators and students marginalized but the
relationship between the directors themselves regarding interpretation too becomes
strained. Thus, issues of hierarchy are brought to the fore and seen as indivisible
from the processes of the creation of archaeological knowledge.
Conclusions
In discussing the content and format of the archaeological diary, we have raised
some issues regarding the use of diaries in archaeology, and particularly their
circulation in print and on the internet. They are intriguing documents, complex and
difficult to hold to a unified standard, as each contains the perspective of an
individual. It is therefore questionable whether we can even talk of the archaeological
diary.
There are several benefits to writing diaries during archaeological fieldwork: they
encourage reflexive practice; acknowledge the subjectivity of the archaeologist; and
to some extent negate the subjective-objective opposition; they provide raw data
rather than the cooked final report, and therefore are less distorted by hindsight; and
they allow for multiple voices and viewpoints. But these benefits can all be subverted
in practice, and may in fact turn into negatives: reflexivity and transparency may
mask or confuse an objective truth; what appear to be spontaneous notes may in fact
be premeditated accounts, especially when the writing of diaries is a contrived
exercise rather than a personal choice.
Therefore, we do not dismiss the adoption of diaries in archaeology: we regard their
use at Leskernick and atalhyk as having contributed significantly to the dialogue
over reflexivity and subjective practice. We argue, though, that attempts to attain
multivocality and immediacy have sometimes backfired and resulted in quite the
opposite the reinforcement of hierarchies, privileged voices, and pre-determined
narratives.

37

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

Thus, the notion that diaries are authentic, faithful representations of archaeological
practice remains problematic. While they do not solve problems associated with
knowledge production and bridging the data-interpretation divide, their capacity to
describe circumstances impacting on the production of archaeological knowledge
and the legacy of an archaeological campaign gives archaeologists additional tools
with which they are able to evaluate their work and make informed decisions about
the processes of excavation and interpretation.
It is a brave step to publish personal diaries, though can be a calculated one.
Nevertheless, people are fallible and diaries help to reveal mistakes the process of
trial and error through which we reach conclusions and create knowledge. Thus, the
use of diaries not only enlivens archaeological writing, it is an important (though not
unproblematic) step towards eroding the unspoken conventions and meta-narratives
that often pervade writing on field archaeology.
Diary entries
Basu 1998 = Introductory note to the Leskernick
<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leskernick/diaries.html>

diaries,

available

online

at

Bender 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available online
at <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leskernick/diaries.html>
CM 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
DEL 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
ER 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
Hamilton 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available
online at <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leskernick/diaries.html>
HSL 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
JJW 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
JST 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
KJK 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
RBW 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online
at <http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
RR 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>

38

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

SO 2008 = Diary entries from the 2008 season of the atalhyk Project, available online at
<http://www.catalhoyuk.com/database/catal/diarybrowse.asp>
Tilley 1996 = Diary entries from the 1996 season of the Leskernick Project, available online
at <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leskernick/diaries.html>

Bibliography
Barker, E. 1999: Introduction in E. Barker (ed.), Contemporary Cultures of Display. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 23-25.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 1997: Leskernick: stone worlds; alternative narratives;
nested landscapes, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 147-78.
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 2007: Stone Worlds: narrative and reflexivity in
landscape archaeology. Left Coast Press.
Bourdieu, P. 2003: Participant objectivation, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9,
281-94.
Chadwick, A. 2003: Post-processualism, professionalisation, and archaeological
methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice, Archaeological Dialogues 10/1, 97117.
Farid, S. and Team Members 2000: The excavation process at atalhyk, in Hodder (ed.)
2000, 16-36.
Fleming, A. 2006: Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique, Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 16/3, 267-80.
Gosden, C. 1999: Anthropology and Archaeology: a changing relationship. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hamilakis, Y. 1999: La trahison de archologues? Archaeological practice as intellectual
activity in postmodernity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12/1, 60-79.
Hamilakis, Y. 2004: Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy, World Archaeology 36/2,
287-309.
Hamilton, S. and Whitehouse, R. 2006: Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology
for a subjective approach, European Journal of Archaeology 9, 31-71.
Hodder, I. 1989: Writing archaeology: site reports in context, Antiquity 63, 268-74.
Hodder, I. 1999: The Archaeological Process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, I. (ed.) 2000: Towards a Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the example at
atalhyk. Cambridge: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Hodder, I. 2003a: Archaeology Beyond Dialogue. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah
Press.

39

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

Hodder, I. 2003b: Archaeological reflexivity and the local voice, Anthropological Quarterly
76/1, 55-69.
Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003: Reading the Past: current approaches in archaeology
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joyce, R. A. 2002: The Languages of Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kuhn, T. 1970: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Moore, L. E. 1994: The ironies of self-reflection in archaeology in I. M. Mackenzie (ed.),
Archaeological Theory: progress or posture? Aldershot & Brookfield: Avebury, 43-65.
Morris, I. 1994: Archaeologies of Greece in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece. Ancient
histories and modern archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8-47.
Olsen, B. 1991: Roland Barthes: From Sign to Text in C. Tilley (ed.), Reading Material
Culture. Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Post-Structuralism. Oxford: Blackwell, 163-205.
Olsen, B. 2006: Archaeology, hermeneutics of
trivialization, Archaeological Dialogues 13/2, 144-50.

suspicion and phenomenological

Pels, D. 2000: Reflexivity. One step up, Theory, Culture and Society 17/3, 1-25.
Peltz, L. and Myrone, M. 1999: Introduction: mine are the subjects rejected by the historian:
antiquarianism, history and the making of modern culture, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds.),
Producing the Past: aspects of antiquarian culture and practice 1700-1850. Aldershot &
Brookfield: Ashgate, 1-13.
Ricoeur, P. 1981: Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sinclair, A. 2000: This is an article about archaeology as writing, in J. Thomas (ed.),
Interpretive Archaeology: a reader. London & New York: Leicester University Press, 474-88.
Tilley, C. 1989: Excavation as Theatre, Antiquity 63, 275-80.
Tilley, C. 1994: A Phenomenology of Landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford:
Berg
Tilley, C. 2004: The Materiality of Stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford
& New York: Berg.
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., and Bender, B. 2000: Art and the re-presentation of the past, The
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6/1, 35-62.
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., Harrison, S., and Anderson, E. (undated): Nature, culture, clitter:
distinguishing between cultural and geomorphological landscapes: the case of hilltop tors in
southwest
England,
article
available
on
the
Leskernick
website
at
<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leskernick/articles/clitter/clitter.htm>

40

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