ÇATALHÖYÜK 2005 ARCHIVE REPORT

RESEARCH PROJECTS

Abstract

Research undertaken during the 2005 field season extended a pilot study from the previous year to explore how knowledge of conservation is constructed as team members with different disciplinary backgrounds work together to meet project objectives. Ethnographic methods were used to observe conservators and archaeologists during activities in the lab and excavation areas, while they worked together and individually. With the consent of participants, some of these activities were captured on video. The report provides brief examples of themes to be explored further during the next few months of analysis.

Introduction and background

Archaeologists and conservators have been working at the recent excavations of Çatalhöyük since the earliest years of the project (Gallagher 2003, Falck 1999, Hales, Pye and Sully 2004, Matero 1999, Matero 2000, Matero and Silver 1995, Moss 1998, Myers 1999, Severson 1999, Severson 2000, Turton 1998). Over the past few field seasons, teams of conservators have been present throughout the entire excavation, presenting more opportunities for interaction and for the conservators to contribute to the growing body of knowledge about Çatalhöyük. However, the type of knowledge exchanged between the professions concerns more than the material culture of Çatalhöyük. Knowledge exchanged also concerns the material culture, or rules of representation, evocation and practice (Hodder 2003) of the archaeologists and conservators themselves. To extend Galison’s (1996) concept, this knowledge is constructed through the “trading zones” of professional interaction, where disciplinary borders become porous and one type of knowledge impacts the formation of the other. Although porous, these borders are also demarcated through language, action and other means to define what the profession is and what it is not (Gieryn 1983).

Studies of professional practice based on the work of such sociologists such as Bourdieu (1977, 1998), Giddens (1991) and Goffman (1959) have often focused on scientific practice in the laboratory (Knorr-Cetina 1999, Galison 1987, Latour 1987, Lenior 1997, Longino 1990, Pickering 1992, Pinch 1984, Wolgar 1982, Galison 1996, Traweek 1988). Increasingly, scholars have begun to recognize the distinct nature of practice “in the field” (Crang 2003, Delyser and Starrs 2001, Kuklick and Kohler 1996, Marsh 2001). My work at Çatalhöyük follows from the work of these and other scholars, as well as research on discourse-in-practice (Foucault 1988, Drew and Heritage 1992, Gieryn et al. 1985, Gunnarsson 1997, Heritage and Greatbach 1991, Holstein and Gubrium 2000). In some ways, my research also extends the work of  Hamilton (2000), since it relates to the creation of knowledge by archaeologists. However, my research focuses particularly on the borders between disciplines, and the mechanisms for constructing knowledge about conservation through interaction.

Methodology

Research during 2005 continued an earlier pilot study in July 2004 where I spent a brief period of time on site at the very beginning of the field season. During that time I introduced the aims of my research, talked with project members informally and more formally during interviews, and tested other elements of the methodology which  involved video and audio taping. I observed the conservation team as it established its place within the context of the project -- setting up the lab for the season, and beginning to interact with each other as well as other members of the project. Many project members had not yet arrived, including student members of the conservation team who would succeed student members already on site as the field season progressed.

This year I arrived approximately mid-season and continued my study for three weeks until the last day of excavation. Therefore I was able to observe activities of the project while it was in full operation and as it prepared to end. As described in the 2004 report (Zak 2004), I employed ethnographic methods to observe activities that included lifting objects, consolidating objects and wall plasters, touring the site and labs, and discussing project objectives. In addition I was also able to observe activities from the perspective of a participant as I helped to examine layers of plaster for the presence of pigments, prepare objects for transport, document a segment of painted plaster, transfer environmental monitoring data into electronic formats, sample brick and mortar, and prepare an inventory of brick samples for export and analysis.

Although I was interested in viewing as many daily activities as possible, I was particularly interested in observing conservators and archaeologists during discussion and activities they accomplished together, and with the participants’ consent, many of these interactions were captured with a video recorder. Many scholars have described the advantages of this technique (Banks 1995, Collier and Collier 1986, Goodwin 1995, Ratcliff 2005, Shrum et al 2005). For instance, video recordings provide an opportunity to review events repeatedly, capture details more completely, and record the context of the event as well as the activity itself. Project members at Çatalhöyük are video recorded regularly for various purposes (Brill 2000, Stevanovic 2000), and somewhat accustomed to being on camera. Nevertheless the technique can seem intrusive, disruptive and intimidating for participants, at least at the beginning of the process. Therefore some interactions were deliberately not recorded by video, and participants were provided with written assurances about how the video would be used and that it would not be employed in a manner for which they had not given consent.

The intent of this process of observation was not to evaluate or judge the interaction, but to capture implicit mechanisms for co-constructing knowledge about professional practice through the archaeologists’ and conservators’ use of tools, language, and gestures during cooperative activities.

Discussion

This field season presented many opportunities for me to observe archaeological “trading zones.” For instance, on several occasions I observed conservators and archaeologists as they discussed what objects to “lift” (remove from the specific location of discovery), who should perform this process, and what materials would be best to use. I was then able to watch the activity itself during all stages of the process. Of particular interest was observing how archaeologists and conservators operated in tandem to consolidate the object (apply materials to keep it together), identify the object’s characteristics, establish its immediate context within the excavation unit, and determine what the next phase in the life of the object should be (for instance, whether it should be cleaned, sent to storage, or prepared for immediate display). Over the next few months I will continue to analyze field notes, video recordings and interviews to identify what specific knowledge was exchanged during activities such as these, as well as the specific mechanisms for exchanging this knowledge.
      
Another “trading zone” of interest involved requests that the archaeologists made of the conservators. These requests could be explicit (“Can you please help me with this?”) or implicit (items could simply be placed in the lab), and served as an indicator of the archaeologists’ general knowledge about conservation and specific knowledge about the conservators on site. How did the archaeologists come to know when to involve a conservator in a specific activity? How were conservation activities different from archaeological activities on site? How did the conservator construct a response to a request? How did the requests an archaeologist made shape a conservator’s understanding of his or her own profession and place within it? How did a conservator’s response shape the archaeologist’s knowledge of conservation?

These questions hold particular significance for archaeologists and conservators working on large complex sites such as Çatalhöyük where architecture, painted surfaces, and objects are encountered. As in archaeology, conservation incorporates several sub-disciplines, each with a material culture of its own. For instance, conservators may consider themselves trained to work with objects, architecture or paintings, and within these fields, they may consider themselves expert or novice on a particular material. Where are the “trading zones” between these types of knowledge? How does a conservator navigate through these zones to meet all project needs? How does the archaeologist come to understand the complex nature of these specialized trading zones?

Current and Future Work

I will continue to explore these and other questions during the ongoing analysis of field notes, video recordings and interviews from the 2004 and  2005 field seasons. My intent is to provide a summary of my interpretations to participants, and to include their feedback in the study as well. This research represents partial fulfillment of my Ph.D thesis to be submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, University College at the end the 2006 calendar year. I consider this study to be exploratory, with the intention for it to continue over the next few years in various contexts. The underlying aim of this research is to foster a deeper understanding of the way that knowledge about conservation is  shaped by conservators themselves and by others with whom the profession interacts. This understanding will contribute to more effective training, partnerships and collaborations between preservation professionals and all others with a stake in the past, present or future of the cultural heritage.

Acknowledgements

I owe any successes in the research from this season to the generosity of Prof. Ian Hodder, the many project members of Çatalhöyük, past and present, who participated, Liz Pye, Dean Sully and my advisor Clifford Price at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, and to a grant from the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.

References Cited

Banks, Marcus (1995) Visual research methods, Social research update 11.
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU11/SRU11.html

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ball, M.S. and Smith, G.W.H. (1992). Analyzing visual data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brill, D. (2000). Video-recording as part of the critical archaeological process, in I. Hodder (ed), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük, pp. 229-233. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeology and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Collier, J. and  Collier, J. (1986). Visual Anthropology: photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press

Crang, P. (2003).  Introduction: field cultures. Cultural geographies 10:251-252.

DeLyser, D. and Starrs, P.F. (2001). Doing fieldwork. Geographical Reivew. Special issue 91.

Drew, P. and  Heritage, J. (eds) (1992). Talk at Work : Interaction in Institutional Settings. : Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, and J. Preissle (eds), The handbook of qualitative research in education. pp. 201-226. San Diego: Academic Press.
Falck, L. (1999).  Shelter and shoring construction / Korunak ve destek yapymy . Çatalhöyük 1999 Archive Report. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep99/falck99.html
Faucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Galison, P. (1987). How experiments end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galison, P. (1996) The trading zone: coordinating action and belief, in Image and logic: the material culture of modern physics. Chicago: Chicago Press.

Gallager, B. (2003). Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report. Conservation. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep03/ar03_17.html

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford: Stanford Universtiy Press.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review 48:781-795.

Gieryn, T. F., Bevins, G. M and  Zehr, S. C. (1985). Professionalization of American scientists: public science in the creation/evolution trials. American sociological review 50(3):392-409.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social studies of science 25:237-274.

Gunnarsson, B. (1997). On the sociohistorical  construction of scientific discourse. In B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B. Nordberg (eds), The construction of professional discourse. pp. 99-126. London: Longman.

Hales, J, Pye, L and Sully, D. (2004). Support Teams: Conservation. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep04/ar04_31.html

Hamilton, C. (2000).       Faultlines: the construction of archaeological knowledge at Catalhoyuk. In I. Hodder (ed) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Catalhöyük, pp. 119-127. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph No. 28. , Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and social structure, pp. 93-137. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hodder, I. (2003). The interpretation of documents and material culture, In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, pp. 155-175, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J. (2000). The self we live by. Narrative identity in a postmodern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kuklick, H. and  Kohler, R E. (1996). Introduction: Science in the Field. Osiris, 2nd Series 11:1-14.

Latour, B. (1987).  Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lenoir, T. (1997). Instituting science: the cultural production of scientific disciplines. Writing science series. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Value and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (1988). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marsh, B.  (2001).  Kindred scholars: in the field with archaeologists. Geographical Reivew. Special issue 91(1-2):231-238.

Mason, B. and  Dicks, B. (1999). The digital ethnographer. Cybersociology (6) http://www.cybersociology.com
Matero, F. (1999). Site Conservation Report/Alan Konservasyonu Rapor . Çatalhöyük 1999 Archive Report. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep99/matero99.html
Matero, F. (2000). The conservation of an excavated past. In I. Hodder (ed), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, pp. 71-88. Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 2. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Matero, F. and Silver, C. S. (1995). Research undertaken in 1995 for the conservation of mural paintings and architectural sculpture. Çatalhöyük 1995 Archive Report. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep95/matero95.html
Moss, E. (1998). Protection and environmental control of the plastered mudbrick walls at Çatalhöyük. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Myers, C.S. (1999). Wall painting conservation program at Çatalhöyük. Field report and reconnaissance, 1997-1998 .University of Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: Myers Conservation.

Pickering, A. (1992).  Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W.E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science 14:399-441.

Ratcliff, D. 2005. Video and audio media in qualitative research: Vanguard University. http://www.vanguard.edu/faculty/dratcliff/video

Severson, K. (1999). Artifact conservation final report / Buluntu konservasyonu final raporu . Çatalhöyük 1999 Archive Report. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep99/severson99.html

Severson, K. (2000). Conservation / Konservasyon. Çatalhöyük 2000 Archive Report. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep00/severson00.html

Shrum, W., Duque, R. and Brown, T. (2005). Digital video as research practice: methodology for the millennium. Journal of research practice 1(1) http://jrp.icaap.org/content/v1.1/shrum.html

Stevanovic, M.  (2000).  Visualizing and vocalizing the archaeological archival record: narrative vs image. In I. Hodder (ed) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyükpp, pp. 235-238. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeology and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unviersity Press.

Turton, C. (1998). Plan for the stabilization and removal of wall paintings at Çatalhöyük. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Woolgar, S. (1982). Laboratory studies: a comment on the state of the art. Social studies of Science 12:481-498.

Zak, J. (2004) Shared endeavors across disciplinary boundaries: exploring collaboration between archaeologists and conservators. Çatalhöyük 2004 Archive Report: Research Projects. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep04/ar04_41.html