ÇATALHÖYÜK 2004 ARCHIVE REPORT

RESEARCH PROJECTS

Shared Endeavors Across Disciplinary Boundaries: Exploring Collaboration Between Archaeologists and Conservators

Jackie Zak

Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Abstract

This report provides a brief introduction to research undertaken during Çatalhöyük's 2004 field season as part of a study of disciplinary discourse in archaeology and conservation. Çatalhöyük presents an ideal setting for this research, due to the project's emphasis on reflexivity and multivocality, and because of its longstanding tradition of work with conservators. A brief overview of the research methodology is presented, which involves the analysis of written and verbal texts and includes observation of talk in interaction during field excavation. The aim of the research is to provide a better understanding of common ground between the professions and thereby facilitate more effective collaboration. The work may also serve as an aid for conservation and archaeological training and supply groundwork for potential areas of new collaborative research.

Özet

Bu rapor 2004 Çtalhöyük kazı sezonunda arkeoloji ve konservasyon disiplinleri ile ilgili yapılan tartışmaların bir parçası olan araştırma projesinin bir özeti niteliğindedir. Çatalhöyük bu araştırma için, projenin refleksif ve çoksesli arkeolojiye yönelik çalışmaları ve uzun zamandan beri süregelen konservatörlerle çalışma geleneği nedeniyle ideal bir ortam sağlamaktadır. Bu araştırmanın genel metodolojisi; yazılı ve sözlü metinlerin incelenmesi ve kazı esnasındaki konuşmaların gözlemlenmesine yöneliktir.   Bu araştırmanın amacı değişik meslekler arasındaki ortak noktaları anlayabilmek ve dolayısıyla daha etkin bir ortak çalışmaya kapı açmaktır. Bu çalışma ayrıca, konservasyon ve arkeolojik eğitim için bir destek olabilir ve diğer olası ortaklaşa çalışmalar için bir temel sağlayabilir niteliktedir.

Background and Introduction

Archaeologists and conservators have long shared common goals -- both work toward preserving the past and contributing new knowledge of past cultures. Professionals are increasingly being called upon to work together in various circumstances to make decisions, solve problems and train others.

Notwithstanding the expectation that archaeologists and conservators form effective alliances, little is known about the extent to which there is common ground between them. My research at Çatalhöyük and other projects addresses this need through an analysis of written and verbal texts of archaeologists and conservators engaged in joint activities. This work is based on the propositions that:

Many archaeologists and conservators would argue that collaboration has long been commonplace, since fieldwork often involves the participation of various specialists. However, my research views collaboration as much more than the exchange of analytical results. I draw upon the definition given by Gray (1989, xviii), who describes collaboration as "a process in which those parties with a stake in the problem actively seek a mutually determined solution. They join forces, pool information, knock heads, construct alternative solutions, and forge an agreement."

Since the research undertaken at Çatalhöyük explores interaction between members of different academic disciplines, it also draws upon theories of interdisciplinarity. Among these are suggestions that the degree to which concepts are shared or “borrowed” between disciplines indicates the extent to which disciplines are integrated (Paxon 1996). Another premise is that disciplines have “recognizable identities and particular cultural attributes” and “it is through the medium of language that some of the more fundamental distinctions emerge” (Becher 1989, 22).

The connection between language and social or cultural interaction has been addressed in many ways by scholars in sociology, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, rhetoric, pragmatics, computer science and other disciplines. The debate continues on how social knowledge becomes shared and where “meaning” actually resides (Krauss and Fussell in press). Drawing upon this vast legacy of work, my research at Çatalhöyük addresses the following questions:

How is the exchange of social knowledge negotiated between archeologists and conservators as they perform joint tasks?

What implicit professional values can be identified through a study of talk in interaction?

Çatalhöyük is an ideal project for my study due to its emphasis on reflexivity (Hodder 2000). Project members share information in a number of ways -- one on one, through priority tours or team discussions on site, off-site meetings, and through diaries, reports, video taped narratives, lectures, and publications including the web. My project is one of a growing body of work that addresses aspects of archaeological practice at Çatalhöyük (Chadwick 1998, Hamilton 2000, Hodder 1997, Hodder 2000, Lucas 2001, Rountree 2003).

Another reason for incorporating Çatalhöyük into my research is that it is relatively uncommon for a team of conservators to be on site for the duration of an excavation. Conservators have been actively involved at Çatalhöyük since 1995 to preserve architectural features, wall paintings and objects, and to contribute to site management planning including the construction of shelters (Gallagher et al. 2003, Falck 1999, Matero 1999, Matero 2000, Matero and Silver 1995, Moss 1998, Myers 1999, Severson 1999, Severson 2000, Turton 1998). According to Matero (2000, 80), “one of the principal aims of the renewed program is the co-joining of the archaeological agenda with conservation....”  

Methodology

My research applies what has been described by Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) as a sequential mixed methodology, since it uses a phased collection of quantitative data and operations, and qualitative analysis and inference. Each phase uses different methods to “triangulate” data sources in order to verify findings. Although it proceeds sequentially, it is also iterative, since findings from a succeeding phase may cause initial paths of inquiry to be modified. My research is exploratory, and since collaboration on site between archaeologists and conservators is relatively rare, sampling is opportunistic and non-random. The methodology combines ethnographic observation with the analysis of written and verbal texts.

As described by Handwerker (2001, 7), ethnography includes “processes and products of research that document what people know, feel, and do in a way that situates those phenomena at specific times in the history of individual lives...[and focuses on] details impacting the social distribution of cognition, emotion, and behavior.” One way ethnographers interact with the people they wish to understand is as participant-observers. In this role, ethnographers participate in activities (if possible) along with the individuals and groups under study. Activities and events are recorded in field notes, and if appropriate and permission given, with the aid of video and audio equipment.

Although initially viewed as a technique of interest in sociology and anthropology, ethnography has recently gained popularity in studies of the workplace. For example, ethnographic research has been undertaken on the work of air traffic controllers (Bently et al. 1992, Rogers and Ballotter 1997), teams designing computer graphic interfaces (Wasson 2000), organizational behavior (Blithyn, Rouncefield, and Hughes 1997), and on cultural and social cognition embedded in communication (Atkinson and Heritage 1984, Duranti 1997, Gumpertz and Tannen 1979, Goodwin 1979 and 1990, Sacks 1984, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974, and Schegloff 1991).

Recently, ethnographic studies involving archaeology have begun to appear (Edgeworth 1991, Kent 1994), some of which involve work at Çatalhöyük, (Andersson 2003, Bartu 2000, Hamilton 2000, Leibhammer 2000, Shankland 2000, Tringham and Stevanovic 2000). Ethnographic work involving cultural properties has also been incorporated into activities of the U.S. National Park Service (Bean and Vane 1987, Joseph 1997, Leibow 1987), and into studies to assess cultural values in heritage conservation projects (Low 2002).

Text analysis falls within a broader category of approaches to communication studies called content analysis. Although defined in many ways over the past few decades, the method involves “the systematic assignment of communication content to categories according to rules, and the analysis of relationships involving those categories using statistical methods” (Riffe, Lacy, and Fico 1998, 2).  

My research extends the work of Carley (1988, 1992, 1994, 1997a), who applies a type of network textual analysis called map analysis. Briefly stated, Carley's approach analyzes semantic messages by mapping networks of interrelationships between concepts extracted from texts to discover patterns of co-occurrence. These patterns represent models that can be compared over time for specific individuals or compared between individuals. Carley (1997b) has also explored the use of this technique for identifying models representing the combined concepts of individuals working in teams.  

The 2004 field Season

The requirements of the project permit determined the duration of the participant observer phase of my research at Çatalhöyük which lasted from 28 June until 5 July. Although a longer period of time for observation would have been ideal, research has shown that significant ethnographic data can be gathered during short time periods. (Handwerker 2001, Low 2002).

I arrived shortly after the site had been opened for the season, and this presented several advantages. Since the field season was just beginning, participants had more time to spend with me, I could observe orientation tours, and the team was small enough for me to have the opportunity to speak informally to almost everyone. Of course, the short span of my visit meant that I could not observe the full dynamic of the field season or observe a wider variety of interaction. Many of the participants were not yet present, and the pace of the excavation had not yet reached its peak.

Project team members were as generous with their time as possible within a very full day involving excavation, documentation tasks, analysis, tours, and many other activities. Eight team members allowed me to video or audio tape their activities during excavation. These activities included discussing field season objectives, lifting objects, discussing current and past conservation interventions, consolidating wall plasters, priority tours, orientation tours, and planning or mapping features. Some of these activities were more formal than others, presenting an opportunity for me to examine differences in message content according to setting.

I was able to observe work not only in the excavation areas, but in the laboratories, where material was preprocessed, assessed for condition, analysed, documented and stored. Once again team members found time in busy schedules to talk about what they do and why. These interviews were conversational, semi-structured, open-ended, and audio taped with permission. The average conversation lasted approximately 20 minutes, and was undertaken within the context of the participant's work area in an open environment.

Although my period of observation was short, several themes emerged that were recorded in field notes, and will be explored during analysis of video and audio tapes and written texts. Because data collection involving project participants is still ongoing, these themes can not yet be published here.

Current and Future Work

As is the case with archaeological data, the analysis of ethnographic data encompasses a much greater time span than does data collection. Each audio and video tape must be transcribed and then reviewed repeatedly in order to develop content categories and a coding scheme that accurately represents these categories. The coding scheme must then be tested, applied to the texts, re-adjusted and then tested again.

I am currently transcribing and analyzing approximately 12 hours of video tape and another 12 hours of audio tape from Çatalhöyük, and I am developing content categories and codes based on themes identified from all of the projects in my study. Once the coding scheme is stable, it will be applied to verbal and written texts from all projects. When analysis is complete, results will be presented back to participants so they may confirm or refute information about themes identified.

The 2004 field season for my research was short but fruitful. I am looking forward to continued data collection and analysis during next year's field season at Çatalhöyük and many of the other projects as well. Final results of my research should be available by December 2005.

Summary and Conclusion

My research at Çatalhöyük, along with studies of other projects, explores collaboration between two disciplines with similar goals and objectives. It examines what beliefs and values (social knowledge) exist in common. To accomplish this, my research uses combined methodologies from sociology and anthropology that examine spoken and written texts, some of which are created during interaction.

There are several aims to this research. One is to document differences and commonalities between disciplines as an aid to more effective interaction. Another is to provide a solid interdisciplinary foundation for the development of effective training programs through an understanding of different disciplinary “cultures.” This groundwork will help instructors present archaeology to conservation students or conservation to archaeology students in a manner that is relevant to the specific disciplinary perspectives of the professions.

The ultimate objective of the research, however, extends beyond the disciplinary boundaries of archaeology and conservation, since solidly developed collaboration between cultural heritage professionals can only serve to create more effective relationships with other stakeholders as well.