currents. We must operationalise these criticisms in order to achieve a goal of doing and interpreting archaeology, but we must not fall into the trap of seeing that as archaeological theory. Nor must we allow pessimism and reflexive uncertainty to paralyse us into inaction. Archaeology's record in coming to terms with social and political values is impressive and actually drives much of the discipline rather than sapping its will.

Fortunately, Australian archaeology is so exciting and dare I say it, robust, that these concerns about theorising are so much sand under our thongs.

Acknowledgements My apologies for stealing such a well worn, but

appropriate title. The article was written while a Research Fellow at the Australian Institute of Abor- iginal and Toms Strait Islander Studies in Canberra.

References Hull, D. 1988 Science as a Process. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Pardoe, C. 1990 Sharing the past: Aboriginal influence on

archaeological practice, a case study from New South Wales. Aboriginal History 14:208-23.

Pardoe, C. 1992 Arches of Radii, corridors of power: Reflec- tions on current archaeological practice. In B. Attwood and J. Arnold (eds) Power. Knowledge and Aborigines, pp. 1 32-4 1. Bundoora: La Trobe University Press. A spe- cial edition of Journul of Australian Studies.

Putnam, H. 1982 Why reason can't be naturalised. Synthesis 52:3-23.

Zirnrnerman, L. 1992 Indigenous voice and its role in archaeo- logical theory. Paper presented at the research symposium 'Archaeology in the early 1990s' at the University of New England, Armidale.

BEYOND THE LOOKING-GLASS: SOME THOUGHTS ON SOCIOPOLITICS AND REFLEXIVITY IN AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Heather Burke, Christine Lovell- Jones and Claire Smith

A traditional strength of Australian archaeology has been the analysis of sociopolitical issues, espec- ially the relationships between archaeologists and Aboriginal people (e.g. Allen 1983; Beck and McComell 1986; Birkhead et al. 1992; Bowdler 1988; Davidson 1992; Frankel 1980; Golson 1986; Lewis and Rose 1985; McBryde 1986; Mowaljarlai et al. 1988; Mulvaney 1966; Murray 1989; Pardoe 1990; Sullivan 1983) and between archaeologists and the wider community (e.g. Bickford l98 1; Clegg 1980; Gale and Jacobs 1987; Jones 1987; McBryde 1980; Megaw 1980; Mulvaney 1981; Smith et al. 1992). However, the nature of sociopolitical inquiry in Aus- tralian archaeology appears to be changing in response to an increased emphasis on reflexive techniques, including the use of text as data (e.g. Moser 1992a, l992b).

This change and some of the problems associated with it can be perceived in discussion at the 'Archae- ology in the early 1990s' conference held at the University of New England (UNE), Armidale, in August 1992. In organising this conference we sought speakers who could raise forward-looking questions concerning theory, method and teaching in archae-

ology as it enters the 1990s. We invited both estab- lished and establishing scholars in the hope of inte- grating the experience of one with the energy of the other. We also invited indigenous speakers and participants so that conference discussion might be informed by indigenous views. In some ways the UNE conference was atypical of Australian archaeology in general, however this forum raised important issues and we wish to use the conference as a vehicle for exploring these issues within the wider context of the Australian archaeological literature. This paper presents some early thoughts arising fmm an analysis of conference papers and discussions within the wider context of the Australian archaeological literature.

In contrast to reflection, reflexivity is more than just simply thinking deeply about why and how we do archaeology, although we will accept that this is part of it. Reflection is fimdarnentally centred on self. Reflexivity, on the other hand, involves a multiplicity of recursive relationships. Reflexive archaeology generates a web of connections between the researcher and others, each strand of which has the potential to reformulate the researcher's original position. In a reflexive archaeology the result of social interaction

Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology. University of New England. Armidale, NSW 235 1, Australia.

Australian Archaeology, Number 38, 1994

Beyond the h k i n g Glass

may be a negotiated outcome, rather than a pre- determined imposition of one will upon another. This means that the archaeologist may not always achieve the result which he or she initially set out to obtain. Reflexivity naturally elicits a concern with method- ological rigour and it has three primary concerns: 1. It explicitly identifies the manner in which socio-

political biases bear upon archaeological research. 2. It explicitly considers the implications of archae-

ological research to non-specialists interest groups. 3. It is based on the premise that a critical awareness

of present practices will lead to productive fine- ments and/or changes in those practices. A reflexive concem with the explicit identification

of the influences of sociopolitical as well as the methodological biases on archaeological research can be seen to be a direct extension of the emphasis in scientific archaeology on methodological rigour (for example that proposed by Binford 1977). As Krippendorff (l99 1 : l 4 1) argues for the social sciences, we need not discard traditional methods of social inquiry, but should embrace them in a reflexive discourse. Reflexivity, however, is not new. The explicit use of reflexive methods in archaeology and the social sciences may be relatively recent, but reflexivity underlies and imbues the Westcm intellectual tradition. As Leone pointed out in U N ' confemce discussions, reflexivity is fundamental to materialist thought:

self-~flexivity ... come[s] out of ... rnateri- alist theory and ... out of important nine- teenth century appraisals of our society ... [In] the most powerful theory of our own societies that we have, Marxism ... self- flexi ion is a positive and aggressive force about creating knowledge about ourselves.

A central fmus of reflexive archaeology is consid- eration of how the values of individual researchers enter their research, and attempts to clarify the ways in which these values impose upon the data. Reflexive archaeology attempts to answer the qucstions how and why archaeologists do what they do at each stage in their research and to assess the ways in which researchers are themselves part of their data (cf. Stcicr 199 1 :7). The disciplinary self-consciousncss which is integral to reflexive archaeology is highly desirable since the incorporation of constructive inlemal analy- ses into archaeological practice should rcsult in our 'doing' better archaeology.

The link between sociopolitics and rcflcxivity at the UNE conference is consistent with recent trends in the overseas literature. This encompasses a multiplicity of approaches including the analysis of gender (Claassen 1992; Gem and Conkey 199 1; Walde and Willows 1991), the relationships of archaeologists to

indigenous people (Layton 1989; Trigger 1990; Zim- meman 1989), the structuring of archaeological knowledge (Shanks and Tilley 1987; Pinsky and Wylie 1989) and critical theory (Leone et al. 1987; Wylie 1985). The nexus joining these approaches is a reflex- ive assessment of the relationships of archaeological practices and interpretations to contemporary social milieus, especially in terns of power relationships. Fundamental to this is the recognition that archae- ological constructions of the past are not value-free.

The UNE conference showed that there are serious problems associated with the 'reflexive' methods which are being increasingly used to analyse sociopolitical issues in Australian archaeology. The core of this paper examines the sociopolitical thcmes addressed by participants in the UNE conference and the discussion section considers the implications for trends in Aus- tralian archaeology with particular R ference to some of the conceptual problems associated with rcflcxive analyses

The UNE conference Three closely related sociopolitical themes emerged

from the UNE conference. These were: 1. The relationships amongst archaeologists. 2. The relations hips between archaeologists and

indigenou S people. 3. The relationships between archacologists and the

wider community. Murray (1992) distinguishes a fourth field of dis-

course, between the archaeologist and other specialist groups, such as anthropologists. Since this was not a focus of conference debate it is not discussed in this paper. Conference discussions, however, did clearly distinguish between professional archaeolo- gists, indigenous people whose heritage is often the subject of archaeological inquiry, and the wider com- munity, but these categories are not mutually exclu- sive. It would be incorrcct, however, to regard these groupings as more than heuristic interp~tive devices, since each contains a multiplicity of distinct and potentially conflicting interest groups (see McGuire l992:Z 8; Murray 1992: 1). An undifferentiated general public is as much a myth as Indiana Jones. Investigation of these over-riding themes can be pcrccived at two lcvels: the first is how constructions of the past can vary according to the scale at which variability is perceived and thc second is how various power relationships affect both whichever scale is used and which constructions of the past are perceived to be most meaningful.

Relationships amongst archaeologists A major thcme of the UNE confcrence was debate

ovcr processual and post-processual archaeologies.

Australian Archaeology, Number 38,1994

Burke et al.

At the most generalised level, a primary difference between the two is the scale at which data are inter- preted. The interpretation of data is most meaninsful for processualists at a scale which can explain the general characteristics of humanity. Post-processual- ists however, are more concerned with understanding human dynamics at the local or particular scale.

The conference opened with a challenging paper by Martin Wobst in which he concluded that there is no real hope of integrating processual and post-proces- sual archaeologies and that both approaches have equal validity. He pointed out that post-processual archaeologists in Britain and the USA have tended to focus their research on fields in which the individual actor is most likely to be visible: ethno-archaeology, where interrogation of individuals is possible; the historic period, where powefil individuals can be made visible through accessing historic records; archaeological or historical museums, which contain an abundance of written or material records; and the prehistoric period, when there is suspicion or know- ledge of fossilised action in material culture, as in megaliths.

The effect of the difference in the scale of perception favoured by processualism and post- processualism is that specific research areas have become associated primarily with either one or the other strand. Issues associated with the particularistic composition of society (e.g. gender, ideology, ethni- city) are enveloped within the sphere of post-proces- sualists. Issues associated with a general human condition or general laws governing the formation of archaeological sites (e.g. relationships to the envir- onment, taphonomic processes) are pursued by processual archaeologists. A major result of this is that methodologies and terminologies for these differing subject are as are inherently aligned to particular strands. For example, an archaeologist interested in gender will find little direction in the processual literature and an archaeologist interested in ecology wil l find little direction in the post-processual literature. Post-processualists have primary power over the development of gendered stories of the past. Processualists have primary power over ecological stories of the past. Thus the archaeologist's choice of a research topic simultaneously implies a declaration of allegiance to one or the other strand; this will influence both the way in which archaeologists write and the terminology which is used.

In a wider sense this gulf is defined by Lyotard's notion of diferend, as quoted in Readmgs (199 1 :xxx), which is:

A point of difference where the sides speak radically different or heterogeneous langu- ages, where the dispute cannot be phrased in

either language without, by its very phras- ing, pre-judging the issue for that side, being unjust.

This notion of direrend could be perceived in much of the conference debate over processual versus post-processual archaeology and often coalesced around the scale at which variability is perceived and interpreted.

This emphasis on the scale at which variability is interpreted was directly addressed in a discussion between Binford and Leone. Binford argued that the most effective way of countering racism is to explain diversity in terms which emphasise our common humanity. He voiced a fear that a particularist per- spective could be used to justify the exploitation of some groups of people:

If you look at the history of colonialism it was the very partitioning of human kind into worthy-unworthy, different . . . upon which exploitation was built ... That's the basis upon which ethnic conflict is brokered ... If one takes the view that ethnicity is uniquely created, (which is really what capitalists said, some races are stupid uniquely, others aren't, some are progressive, some are this, some are that, some make good servants and some don't) ... these were properties of different kinds of humans that justified their being organised in certain ways. To explain the variability in common terms returns that humanity .. . What I find curious is the criticism which now says we must be ... ethnically variable in order to be politic- ally correct. We must somehow or other not explain but simply appreciate and acknow- ledge the diversity, and this seems to me to be the very basis for exploitation that char- acterised the colonial era.

Leone, however, argued that the universal perspec- tive can alienate groups of people through not =cog- nising differences which they consider to be valuable:

[the] global chart ... is capable of taking all people and ... all parts of all people and ... makes them the same. While attempting to say that they are different ... it makes them the same. It takes a universal perspective and it says ... that we can understand what human beings have in common and that is very valuable ... I maintain that is very valuable ... I suspect that there are a lot of people, who when they are amalgamated with everybody else and find out that their characteristics, their self-defined character- istics, are submerged with a whole lot of other people they don't know anyth-tng about,

Australian Archaeology, Number 38, 1 994

Beyond the Looking Glass

and may not want to know anythmg about, feel themselves somewhat abused.

Australian participation in the on-going processual/ post-processual debate was illuminating. Apart from extended comments from the discussant, And& Rosenfeld, most of the comments on Wobst's paper, which was the first conference paper presented, came from overseas participants, especially Howard Mor- phy, Mark Leone. and Lewis Binford. In accordance with the evolving mood of the conference and a gen- eral loosening up, audience reaction to Binford's paper, which was the final paper presented, included much greater participation from Australians. Though the core of Binford's paper was an ecological exposi- tion on the relationship behveen environment and the size of living structures in small-scale societies, com- ments from both Australian and overseas members of the audience concentrated exclusively on the socio- political aspects of his presentation. We conclude that most Australian participants were initially uncomfort- able discussing theoretical archaeology at the formal level addressed by Wobst, but were willing to tackle these issues in the more informal way presented by Binford

Relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people

Over the last two decades there have been major changes in power relationships between archaeologists and indigenous peoples (Men 1983; Davidson 1992; McBryde 1986; Pardoe 1990; Ucko 1983; Zimmer- man 1989). Indigenous peoples' claims for control over their past are part of a worldwide movement towards the attainment of cultural autonomy (Triggcr 1 989; Ucko 1 989). This general development mani- fested in a second theme of the UNE conference, which was the relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people. This theme was addmsed in a variety of papers presented by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal speakers and was also implicit in many of the other papers, including a thoughtfid geo-archaeological exposition by Dan Witter.

One of the most interesting points to emerge from the UNE symposium was the different degrees of empowerment of indigenous people in Australia and North America and their consequent abilities to impinge upon archaeological practice . Native Ameri- cans do not appear to have the kind or extcnt of power that is held by Australian Aborigines. One reason for this diMerence may be the greater politicisation of Australian Aborigines which has resultcd in their being granted more legislative control over their heritage. As Mark Leone commented:

native ... Australians know what they want, know who they are and have a clear defini-

tion of their relationship as either a people or a class to Australian society.

Certainly, current Aboriginal concerns with the legis- lative processes which affect their cultural material and the high level of indigenous politicisation in Australia could be perceived in many of the papers presented at the conference, but most clearly in those of Klim Gollan, Robyne Bancroft, and in a joint presentation by John Ah Kit and Cyril McCartney.

This issue was addressed most d i ~ c t l y in Gollan's discussion of a physical threat to Aboriginal cultural heritage at Ballina, New South Wales, to which the Aboriginal community responded by seeking resolu- tions of conservation issues at legal, quasi-legal and direct action levels. Conference discussion of these general questions included a comment by Larry Zim- merman that most North American archaeologists 'don't do it [consult with Native Americans].'

Bancroft approached the issue of legislative power from the perspective of an Aboriginal student studying archaeology in Australia, stating that Aboriginal students need to receive more detailed training in heritage legislation. B ancroft's paper was counter- poised to a paper by Cathryn McConaghy which discussed methods for teaching archaeology to Abor- iginal pcople. The juxtaposition of these two papers produced a lively debate on whether the structure of teaching courses in Australian archaeology ought to accommodate Aboriginal perspectives and orienta- tion~. McConaghy, a non-Aboriginal based at Batche- lor College in the Northern Territory, argued for a negotiated curriculum which emphasises activity- based courses aimed at providing programmes which are culturally relevant to Aboriginal people.

Bancroft took the opposite position, stating that many Aboriginal students wish to learn archaeology without special dispensations for their Aborighality :

We're in universities. We're there to do scientific studies or whatever. We're there to specialise ... When we go back to our communities, our community people will say to us 'But can you hold your own with the archaeologists?' We want to be able to say 'Yes. We did the same things that they did.'

Bancroft's comments show a clear and focused concern within some Aboriginal communities that Aboriginal studcnts of archaeology obtain equal knowledge and power to that held by non-Aborigmal archaeologists. As always, Bancroft made the point that shc can not speak for Aboriginal pcople as a whole and it may be that other Aboriginal pcople would Lake a different view on this issue. Certainly, it will be interesting to see if this is a common Abor- iginal view in a decade or so.

An assumption underlying much of the debate m

Australian Archaeology. Number 38,1994

Burke et al.

the professional training of Abor ipa l people is the notion that Aboriginal archaeologists will practice archaeology in comparable ways to non-Aboriginal archaeologists. This assumption was challenged by David Horton who argued that:

Aboriginal archaeology ... may place less emphasis on stone tool technology, it might place less emphasis on the use of pollen and soil analysis for environmental change, and perhaps less emphasis on the study of human remains. On the other hand, it might well put more emphasis on trying to describe so- cial structures, to be intercsted in such things as trading networks, analysing cultural dif- ference between regions, studying the struc- tures across the landscape. It might also be interested in contact, historical archaeology.

The sccond paper by Aboriginal pcople was a joint presentation by Ah Kit and McCartney, in which they discussed a range of problcms which confront traditionally-oriented Aboriginal pcople who wish to maintain control over secret information. Their concerns were directed at archaeologists as well as anthropologists, linguists and other field researchers:

In fact research - 'the diligent and systematic inquiry' of the dictionary definition - runs against the way our society has worked in the past. It is considered rude to pry into other people's secrets, or demand direct answers, or draw your own conclusions des- pite the evidence of what people say to you.

This raises several important questions concerning the sociopolitical nature of the relationships between archaeologists and Aboriginal people, including the issues of control over research mcthods, the dissem- ination of results and whether it is possible for researchers to adopt a neutral position. The discuss- ant for this paper, Graeme Ward, countered concerns voiced by some confercnce participants about levels of indigenous control over archacologcal research to argue that such control can be a positive force:

This has bcen the subject of dscussion in Aboriginal studies for some time. In my observation, and I think it is the currcnt con- sensus, many of the problcms that were evident when rcsearchcrs were conducting research for its - or rather for their - own sake are obviated oncc Aboriginal pcople have control over the conduct - thc com- missioning and oversight - of that research. This has been not just a matter of courtesy (although that is a major part of it), but one of empowerment. The result has often bcen as successful in the view of the researcher,

and often more so, because the Aboriginal involvement has added further - often un- imagined - dimensions.

Wylie (1993) makes a similar point concerning the potential of reflexive interaction between indigenous and non-indigenous people to 'empower the imagina- tion' of the archaeologist.

A direct implication arising from Ah Kit and McCartney's paper is that some aspects of archae- ology may well rem ain irrelev ant to Aboriginal people (especially the traditionally-oriented) who have their own perfectly valid view of how the world is con- structed. And why should Aboriginal people be badgered to accept a 'scientific' interpretation of their own cultural material? As Morphy (in prep5) argues, a multiplicity of indigenous views only presents a problem if it is assumed that there is an ultimate need for a single correct position to emerge. In our view, conscnsus is often nothing more than a contemporary variant of habitual European appropriation.

The appropriation of indigenous pasts by archae- ologists was discussed by Larry Zimmerrnan, who saw this as an ontological problem associated with dif- fering concepts of time:

Indigenous people can not accept archae- ological use of voice as reasonable because it is a matter of cultural survival for them. If the past lives in the present for indigenous people it does not exist as some kind of separate entity. Archaeologists stating that the past is gone are saying to the indigenous pcople themselves that they are extinct. And that is a very powerfkl message to them. If indigenous people accept the past as archaeologists render it, it would destroy the indigenous present.

Zirnmerrnan's observations are not typical of North American archaeology and our analysis of the UNE conference discussions strongly suggests that Aus- tralian archaeology is in the vanguard in terms of its wrllingness to negotiate relationships with indgenous people. As Liz WiUiarns pointed out in her conference paper, this willingness has brought about change in the fundamental structure of Australian archaeological practice - but not the impasse that was feared in thc early 1980s. We suggest that the reflexivity inherent in such practice will itself promote an increased desire actively to reflect upon and engage in the sociopolitical dirncnsions of archaeological practice in the wider community.

Relationships between archaeologists and the wider community

A third focus of the UNE conference was the

Australian Archaeology, Nurnbcr 38, 1993 17

Beyond the b k i n g Glass

relationships between archaeologists and the wider community. A continuum linking archaeological relationships to Aborigines and to the wider commu- nity can be perceived in those papers whose primary focus was the relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people but which also contained direct implications for the general public. An example of this is Paul Tawn's paper on museum practices in Aus- tralia and Canada and indigenous calls for a direct role in the interpretations and management of their cultural heritage. Other papers were directly focused on the relationships of archaeology to the wider community: Hilary du Cros presented an analysis of archaeology in the media and the value of Australian archaeology to Australian contemporary culture; Robert Bednarik discussed ways of more effectively disseminating research information to third world peoples; and Paul Faulstich presented a preliminary discussion of an environmental code of ethics for archaeologists.

This fimdamental issue of whether archaeology has any value to the wider community has long been a subject of debate. Spaulding (1953590) suggested that 'the only purpose of archaeology is to make archaeologists happy'. More recently, Coady (199 1) has pointed to inc~asing public questioning of the relevance of the humanities disciplines over the last thirty yearn. Most disciplines in the humanities have ~sponded to this critique by engaging in continuing academic discussion of the nature of their discipline. It is possible that increasing limitations on available funding for academic disciphes in the social sciences are making these disciplines more vulnerable to public critiques. This could lead to academics actively reaching out to inform the public and obtain public support, a trend which McGuire (1992:258) observes for the United States.

Although Hodder (1992:40) argues that one im- pulse in current archaeological practice derives from a focus in cultural resource management on the relation- ship between archaeology and the wider world, this is difficult to assess in the Australian situation and does not appear to be a clear trend. Hodder suggests that:

as archaeology expands further as a profes- sion in relation to resource management and is supported by larger private, corporate, and public funds, so archaeologists increas- ingly find that they have to explain thcm- selves to a wider audience.

This implies that archaeologists involved in cultural resource management may have a greater incentive than academic archaeologists to in tcrac t with the general public, but we would argue that the situa- tion is more complex than this, relating primarily to individual theoretical perspectives.

However, the potential exists for public critiques of

archaeology to induce both academic and non- acadcmic archaeologists to move beyond internecine rivalry to a justification of archaeological practice to a wider public audience. In some ways the increase in direct indigenous critiques of archaeological practice has opened up the arena to a wider commentary and this, coupled with the problem of limited funding, means that there is little doubt that archaeologists increasingly will have to justify their practices to people beyond their immediate intellectual sphere. Potter (1 992:229) links this need for archaeology to be relevant to the wider community to reflexive practice. He argues that there can be no relevance without reflexion and that reflexivity is the technique for understanding the relationships on which relevance depends. Okely (1 992: 24) contends that:

In its ll lest sense, reflexivity forces us to think through the consequences of our rela- tions with others, whether it be conditions of reciprocity, asymmetry or potential exploi- tation.

Reflexivity challenges many of the assumptions underlying current relationships between archaeolo- gists and the general public, in particular the assump tion that academic archaeologists need not interact with the general public. The emergence of explicit reflexivity in Australian archaeology is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency with which archaeologists engage with the wider com- munity .

Discussion Sociopolitics was addressed at three levels at the

UNE conference: relationships between archaeologists, between archaeologists and indigenous peoples and between archaeologists and the wider community. A comparison at each of these levels of the participation by Australian archaeologists in conference discussions with that of British and North American archaeole gists demonstrates strong differences between archae- ology in each of these regions. These approaches, however, were fundamentally linked at the level of reflexive assessments of the relationships of archaeo logical practices and interpretations to contemporary social milieus, especially in terms of power relation- ships.

At the intra-disciplinary level (i.e. relationships among archaeologists) most Australian archaeologists at the UNE conference appeared to be noticeably less comfortable discussing formal theoretical movements in archaeology than their British or North American counterparts. Laurajane Smith made the point in her conference paper that the processuaV post-processual debate seems to have had little impact on Australian archaeology (see also Huchet 1992: 1 14-5; Murray

Australian Archaeology , Number 38.1 W

Burke et al.

1984). Our analysis of conference discussions and the Australian archaeological literature extends this to suggest that few Australian archaeologists currently wish to contribute formally to this debate (but see Huchet 1990, 1992; Murray 1989, in press; Tangri 1989, 1990). However, this should not be taken to imply that Australian archaeologists have not made substantial contributions to other forms of theory (see, for example, Allen [l9771 on subsistence trading; Murray 119921 on the sociology of know- ledge; Murray and Walker [l9881 and Huchet [l9911 on the use of analogy; Flctcher [l98 1, 19891 on spatial issues and non-verbal communication; White [l 9671 on the early dcvelopmcnt of ethnoarchacology).

In addition, Australian archaeologists seem to be at the forefront in terms of the negotiation of relation- ships between archaeologists and indigenous people. Native Americans do not appear to have comparable power to that held by Australian Aborigines and it is apparent that many North American archaeologists Q not routinely consult with indigenous people. The ground work which establishcd the need to negotiate relationships between archaeologists and Aboriginal people was laid in Australia long ago at both a legis- lative level (e.g. with the passing of the Australian Instirute of Aboriginal Studies Act, in 1964) and at an institutional level ( e .g . with the convening of syrnpo- siums such as 'Who owns the past?' organised by Isabel McBryde for the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1983). In addition, as Meehan and Jones (1988:viii) p i n t out, the integration of archae- ological and anthropological perspectives may be a distinctive hallmark of the emerging Australian archaeological tradition.

In Australia the pressure of Aboriginal pliticisa- tion has resulted in Aborigines being granted greater control over their heritage under the legislation, a movement to which archaeologists have responded (see Lovell-Jones 1991). This pressure has meant that Australian archaeologists are directly engaging with the moral responsibilities as well as the political impli- cations inhercnt in archaeological practices. We would argue that the reflexivity inhercnt in such negotiations, combined with an established awareness within the discipline of the wider community (see Brown 1988; Clegg 1980; Gale and Jacobs 1987; Fletcher 1988; Flood 1983; Frankel 1980; Jones 1987; McCarthy 1974, 1976; Megaw 1980; Moser 1992a, 1992b; Mulvancy 1981; Smith et al. 1992) is likely to lead to greater interaction between archaeologists and the wider community.

One of the most controversial aspects of the UNE conference was the emphasis on sociopolitics as a legitimate object of research per se and the association of sociopolitical analyses with 'reflexive' methods.

The conference exemplifies both a trend towards an increase in disciplinary self-consciousness in Austra- lian archaeology and the problems integral to this process. These problems can be perceived in the varying points upon the continuum from reflection to reflexion at which sociopolitical themes are discussed, which itself leads to fundamental misconceptions about what constitutes reflexivity.

A major problem inherent in contemporary reflex- ive research is that few researchers formally distin- guish in their writings between 'reflection' and 'reflex- ion'. The terms are often used interchangeably, even at a highly informed level, when it is clear that the writers are concerned with reflexivity, rather than reflection (e.g. Potter 1992; Wylie 1989). Steier (19915) defines reflective as 'showing ourselves to ourselves' and rcflexive as 'being conscious of our- selves as we see ourselves'. As we see it, the crucial difference is between simple recitals of individual experiences andfor opinions on the one hand and identifying the personal and sociopolitical as well as the methodological biases of the research on the other. Reflective methods are aimed primarily at strength- ening the position of the researcher. They are largely anecdotal and employ devices such as rhetoric, the primary purpose of which is to bring others to the opinion of the researcher (cf. Potter 1992). Reflective archaeology is basically descriptive rather than inter- pretive. Reflexive archaeology, on the other hand, is fundamentally opposed to this since, as Potter (1992:232) points out, reflexive research empowers others through providing sufficient contextual inform- ation for them to take positions independent to that of the researcher. Thus a reflexive archaeology is, in some senses, an archaeology of vulnerability: reflexive methods will be most easily adopted by researchers who are willing to accept the existence of alternative interpretations of their data. Apart from this, a pos- sible concomitant of increased reflexivity may be a decrease in the surety with which researchers present and defend their interpretations, and it will certainly result in a negotiated rather than a pre-determined outcome.

A difficulty which arises from the confounding of ~flection and reflexion is that of misuse. Some researchers identify a superficial introspection (i.e. reflection) with reflexivity and present simple anec- dotes or position statements as reflexive. This misuse can lead to a negative (rnis)understanding of the general concept so that the potential value of reflex- ivity as a methodological tool is not recognised.

A further problem concerns the standard of reflex- ive research. Like any other form of archaeology, ~flexive archaeology can be done well or it can be done poorly. And because explicit reflexivity is a

Australian Archaeology, Number 38, 1994

Beyond the Looking Glass

relatively new development in the social sciences the^ are currently Ew guidelines to follow h either the Australian or overseas literature (but see Okely and Callaway 1992; Steier 1991; Wylie 1989). Apart from this, because reflexive archaeology is con- sciously self-critical it has a greater inherent potential than other forms of archaeology to be perceived as narcissistic or mere posturing:

Not only must the reader distinguish between reflection and rhetoric the writer must dis- tinguish between self-reflection and self- indulgence (Potter l992:232).

This misconception could be seen in some of the reactions of archaeologists and physical anthropolo- gists at the UNE conference. Some researchers appeared to be uncomfortable with an explicitly reflexive archaeology oriented towards explication of the sociopolitical dimensions of archaeological prac- tice, and voiced a fear (or hope) that it is nothing more than posturing in mirrors. The basis for this miscon- ception may be that they do not distinguish between rcflection and reflexivity. As Okely (1992:2) puts it, 'self adoration is quite different fmn self-awareness and a critical scrutiny of the self.

Other archaeologists at the UNE conference voiced a concern that a xflexive archaeology might produce no archaeology - that it may cause some kind of disciplinary impasse. We disagree with this view. This impasse has not occurred in other social sciences (see Barnes and Duncan 1992; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Okely and Callaway 1992) and it is most unlikely to occur in archaeology in Australia or else- where. Increased reflexivity is, however, likely to extend current developments in archaeological practice as researchers explicitly identify the sociopolitical biases of their research and consider more deeply the implications of the research for the wider community.

There are other, more subtle, causes of possible disquiet. As Wobst (1989: 139) points out, sociopolit- ical approaches to archaeology:

remove the halo from archaeological theory and practice by posing questions about their relationship to contemporary socicty and their implications for society and its various constituents, including the constituency of archaeologists themselves.

Because reflexivity challenges some of thc presup- positions upon which scientific archacolog y is based (for example, an uncritical acceptance of the ideology that scientific methods can be value-free) its explicit use in Australian archaeology is certain to cause some disquiet. To paraphrase Clarke (1 973: 8) commenting on the new archaeology's loss of innoccncc, the price of challenging basic presuppositions will bc an 'uncer- tainty, insecurity and general unrest'.

Analysis of the UNE conference papers and discussions suggests hat the developing nature of sociopolitical inquiry in Australian archaeology will increasingly encompass reflexive techniques. How- ever, the conference also highlighted some of the conceptual problems currently associated with this greater emphasis on explicitly ~flexive methods and these problems will need to be addressed by individual researchers. Done well, a reflexive archaeology consolidates the methodological rigour of scientific archaeology through explicitly identifying both the sociopolitical and methodological biases of the research. The fundamental premise underlying rcflex- ivity is that a self-critical awareness of present practices will lead to refinements and/or changes in those practices which, in turn, will produce a bcttcr archaeology. The increased incorporation of rcflexivc methods into sociopolitical analyses should extcnd and reinforce the traditional strengths of such analyses in Australian archaeology.

Acknowledgement S

The conference from which this paper dcrivcs was organised with substantial support from other students in the Department of Archaeology and Palacoanthrop- ology, University of New England, particularly those in the UNE Archaeological Society. We would espc- cially like to thank Chris Bamdcn, Kristin Ellis, Michelle Seignior, Jacki Lomath-Bird, June Ross, Sue Hudson and Graham Knuckey. It ended up king a much bigger project than we initially cnvisagcd since even the catering was done by students. And the ibod was great.

A number of people gave useful comments on vari- ous drafts of this paper, some of which have been incorporated into this text. We would like to thank Jane Balme, Iain Davidson, Bemard Huchet, Gary Jackson, Steve Lovell-Jones and Graeme Ward. WC especially appreciate the detailed and thoughtful comments provided by Tim Murray. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in the papcr remains, of course, our own. This paper is dcdicatcd to D. Watson.

References Allen, J. 1977 Fishing for wallabies: Trade as a mechanism for

social interaction, integration and elaboration on the cen- tral Papuan coast. In J. Friedman and M.J. Rowland (eds) The Evolution of Social Systems, pp.419-55. London: Duckworth.

Allen, J. 1983 Aborigines and archaeologists in Tasmania. Australian Archaeology 16:7- 10.

Barnes, T. and J. Duncan (eds) 1992 Writing Worlds: Dis- course, Text and Metaphor in the Representdion of land- scape. London: Routledge.

Beck, W. and A. McConnell 1986 The practice of archaeology

20 Australian Archaeology, Nurnbcr 38, 1994

Burke et al.

in Victoria: A proposal for guidelines. The Artefact 11: 3-1 1.

Bickford, A. l98 1 A patina of nostalgia. Australian Archae- ology 13: 1-7.

Binford, L.R. 1977 General Introduction. In L.R. Binford (ed.) For Theory Building in Archaeology. Essays in F a m l Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis and Sys- temic Modelling, pp 1-10. New York: Academic Press.

Birkhead, J., T. DeLacy and L. Smith 1992 Aboriginal In- volvement in P a r h and Protected Areas. Canberra: Abor- iginal Studies Press.

Bowdler, S. 1988 Repainting Australian rock art. Antiquity 62:517-23.

Brown, P. 1988 How the earliest Australians arrived. In F. Doig (ed.) Tracks Through Time, pp.52-7. Sydney: The Australian Museum Trust. Australian Natural IIistory Supplement No. 2.

Clarke, D. 1973 Archaeology: The loss of innocence. Antiquity 47:6-18.

Claassen, C. (ed.) 1992 Exploring Gender 7'hrough Archae- ology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boom Cogereme. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1 1.

Clegg, J. 1980 Teaching and learning archaeological and pre- historic paradigms. Australian Archaeology 1 1 :90-5.

Clifford. J. and G.E. Marcus (eds) 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. California: Univer- sity of California Press.

Coady, T. 1991 The Public Philosopher. Meanjin 50(4): 479-92.

Davidson, I. 1992 Archaeologis~s and Aborigines. The Aus- tralian Journal of A d hropology 2(2):247-58.

Fletcher, R. 1981 People and space: A material behaviour approach. In I. Hodder, G. Issac and N. Hammond (eds) Pa tern of the Past. Studies in Ilonour of David C la rk , pp.157-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher. R. 1988 The evolution of human behaviour. h F. Doig (ed.) Tracks Through Time, pp.46-5 1. Sydney: The Australian Museum Trust. Ausfralian Natural History Supplemen& No. 2.

Fletcher, R. 1989 The messages of material behaviour: A prc- liminary discussion of non-verbal meaning. In I. Hodder (ed.) The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and Sym- bolic Expression, pp.33-30. London: Harper Collins.

Flood, J. l983 Archaeology of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Collins. Frankel, D. 1980 Introduction to 'Education and training

in prchistory and archaeology in Ausualia.' Australian Archaeology 1 1 :69-7 1.

Gale, F. and J. Jacobs 1987 Aboriginal art - Australia's neg- lected inheritance. WorldArchaeology 19:226-35.

Gero, J. and M. Conkey 1991 Engendering Archaeology. London: Basil Blackwell.

Golson, J. 1986 Old guards and new waves: Reflections on antipodcan archacology 1954- 1975. Archueology in Oceania 2 1 (1): 2- 12.

Hodder, I. 1992 Post-processual archacology and the currcnt dcbate. In K.W. Preucel (ed.) Processuul and Post- processual A rchaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, pp.304 1. Carbondale: Centre for Archaeological Investigations, Southcm Illinios University at Carbondale.

Occasional Paper No. 10. Huchct, B. J.M. 1990 Modelling and Australian prehistory.

Unpublished B.A.(Hons) thesis, Department of Archae- ology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale.

Huchet, B.J.M. 1991 The nature of analogies in Australian archaeology. The Artefact 14:s- 12.

Huchet, B. J.M. 1992 Processual archaeology: Some discrep- ancies between norms and performances. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25(2): 1 1 1-19.

Jones, R. 1987 Ice-Age hunters of the Tasmanian wilderness. Australian Geographic 8:26-45.

Krippendorff, K. 199 1 Reconstructing (some) communication research methods. In F. Steier (ed.) Research and Reflex- ivity, pp.115-42. London: Sage Publications.

Layton, R. 1989 Who Needr the Past? Indigenous Values in Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.

Leone, M.. P. Potter and P. Shackel 1987 Toward a critical archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302.

Lewis, D. and D. Rose 1985 Some ethical issues in archae- ology: A methodology of consultation in northern Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1 1 :245-66.

Lovell-Jones. C. 1991 Observer and observed: A predica- ment of Australian archaeology. Unpublished B.A.(Hons.) thesis. Department of Archaeology and Palawanthrop- ology, University of New England, Armidale.

McBryde, I. 1980 Education goals of university schools of prchistory and archaeology: Mechanic trades in the ivory tower? Australian Archaeology 1 1:72-80.

McBryde, I. (ed.) 1986 Who Owns the Past? Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy , F.D. 1974 Australian Aboriginal Culture. Canberra: Australian National Commission for UNESCO by the Aus- tralian Government Publishing Service.

McCarlhy . F.D. 1976 Australian Aboriginal Stone Impkmnts. Sydney: The Australian Museum Trust.

McGuire, R. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Mcgaw, V. 1980 The view from up top: Annotations on a conference theme. Australian Archaeology 1 1 :8 1-9.

Meehan, B. and R. Jones 1988 Preface. In B. Meehan and R. Jones (eds) Archaeology wirh Ethnography: An Australian Perspective, pp.vii-ix. Canberra: Department of Prehis- tory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Occarional Papers in Prehistory, No. 15.

Morphy, H. in prep. Rights in objects, rights in knowledge - dilemmas in the curation of other people's pasts.

Moscr, S. 1992a The visual language of archaeology: A case study of the Neanderthals. Antiquity 66:8314.

Moser, S. 1992b Visions of the Australian Pleistocene: Pre- historic life at Lake Mungo and Kutikina. Australian Archaeology 35:l-10.

Mowaljarlai, D., P. Vinnicombe, G.K. Ward, and C. Chippin- dale. 1988 Repainting of images on rock in Australia and the maintenance of Aboriginal culture. Antiquity 62:690-6.

hlulvaney , D.J. 1966 Fact, fancy and Aboriginal Australian ethnic origins. Mankind, 6(7):299-305.

Mulvaney , D.J. l98 1 What future for our past; Archaeology and society in the eighties. Ausrralian Archaeology 13: 16-27.

Ausrralian Archaeology, Numbcr 38, 1 W4 L 1

Beyond the Looking Glass

Murray, T. 1984 Review of Matthew Spriggs (ed.) Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Australian Archaeology 19: 102-9.

Murray, T. 1989 Sociopolitical values and archaeological research: A rejoinder to Tangri. Australian Archaeology 2953-60.

Murray, T. 1992 Aboriginal @re)history and Australian archaeology: The discourse of Australian prehistoric archaeology. In B. Attwood and J. Arnold (eds) Power, Knowledge and Aborigines, pp1 - 19. Melbourne: La Trobe University Press.

Murray, T. in press Communication and the importance of disciplinary communities. In N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt (eds) Theoretical Archaeology: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, T. and M.J. Walker 1988 Like WHAT? A practical question of analogical inference and archaeological mean- ingfulness. Journul of Anthropological Archaeology 7:248-87.

Okely, J. 1992 Anthropology and autobiography: Participatory experience and embodied knowledge. In J. Okely and H. Callaway ( 4 s ) Anthropology and Autobiography, pp. 1-28. London: Routledge.

Okely, J. and H. Callaway (eds) 1992 Anthropology and Autobiography . London: Rou tledge.

Pardoe, C. 1990 Sharing the past: Aboriginal influence m archaeological practice, a case study from New South Wales. Aboriginal History 14(2):208-23.

Pinsky, V. and A. Wylie (eds) 1989 Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Potter, P. 1992 Self-reflection in archaeology. In R.W. Preucel ( d . ) Processual and Post-processual Archaeologies. Mul- tiple Ways of Knowing the Past, pp.225-34. Carbondale: Centre for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinios University at Carbondale. Occasional Paper No. 10.

Readings, B. 1991 Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics. New York: Routledge.

Shanks, M and C. Tiley 1987 Reconstructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, L., A. Clarke and A. Alcock 1992 Teaching cultural tourism - some comments from the classroom. Aurtralian Archaeology 3443-7.

Spaulding, A. 1953 Review of James A. Ford, Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States. American Anthropologist 55: 590.

Steier, F. 1991 Introduction: Research as self-reflexivity, self- reflexivity as social proccss. In F. Steier (cd.) Research and Reflexivity, pp. l - l 1. London: Sage Publications.

Sullivan, S. 1983 The Interim Aboriginal Sites Committee in New South Wales. Communication between archaeolo- gists and Aborigines. In M. Smith (ed.) Archaeology tat ANZ4AS 1983, pp.322-8. Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Tangri, D. 1989 Early physical anthropology, confirmation, and Aus tralian Aboriginal brains. Australian Archueology 28:26-34.

Tangri, D. 1990 Refutation and prehistoric pictures. Rock Art Research 7(1):71-3.

Trigger, B.G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trigger, B.G. 1990 The 1990s: North American archaeology with a human face? Antiquity 64:778-87.

Ucko, P. J. l983 Australian academic archaeology: Aboriginal transformation of its aims and practices. Australian Archaeology 16: 11 -26.

Ucko, P.J. 1989 Foreword. In H. Cleere (ed.) Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, pp.ix-xiv. London: Unwin Hyman.

Walde, D. and N.D. Willows 1991 The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. The University of Calgary .

White, J.P. 1967 Ethnoarchaeology in New Guinea: Two examples. Mankind 6:4O9- 14.

Wobst, H.M. 1989 Commentary: A sociopolitics of sociopolitics in archaeology. In V. Pmky and A. Wylie (eds) Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, pp.136-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wylie, A. 1985 Putting Shakertown back together: Critical theory in archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 133-47.

Wylie, A. 1989 Introduction: Sociopolitical context. In V. Pinsky and A. Wylie (eds) Critical Traditions in Con- temporary Archaeology, pp.93-4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wylie, A. 1993 Sub-theme: Theoretical implications of ethno- archaeology. Rationale for a sub-theme, World Archae- ological Congress 111, New Delhi 1994.

Zimmerman, L. 1989 Human bones as symbols of power: Aboriginal American belief systems towards bones and 'grave-robbing' archaeologists. In R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, pp.211- 16. bndon: Unwin Hyman. $'G

Australian Archaeology, Number 38,1994