1 Alternative Narratives and the Ethics of Representation

An Introduction

* * *

RUTH M. VAN DYKE AND REINHARD BERNBECK

Traditionally, archaeologists have constructed arguments through expository texts supported with images. However, there is an increasing clamor for and interest in alternative forms of archaeological narratives, involving writing fiction, making films, constructing hypertexts, and creating media that transcend the traditional limitations of expository prose and the linearity of language. Visual art, fiction, creative nonfiction, film, and drama have much to offer archaeological interpretation and analysis, as many critics since the 1990s have made clear (e.g., Joyce 2002; Pluciennik 1999).

Despite the hegemony of third-person expository texts in archaeological scholarship, archaeologists have long experimented with representational forms that transcend these boundaries, producing novels (e.g., Bandelier 1971 [1916]; Carmean 2010; King 1983; Nelson 1999, 2004), vignettes (e.g., Deetz 1977, 1993; Edmonds 1999; Flannery 1976; Mithen 2003; Spector 1991, 1993; Yamin 1998, 2008), plays (e.g., Gibb 1998, 1999; Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1998; Praetzellis, Ziesing, and Praetzellis 1997), performance art (e.g., Cochrane and Russell 2008; Pearson and Shanks 2001; Vilches 2007), paintings (e.g., Jameson 2003), musical compositions (e.g., Bullard and Bryant 1999), films (e.g., Archaeology Channel 2013; Avikunthak 2001), photography (e.g., Shanks 1997; Webmoor 2005), virtual realities (e.g., Archaeology Southwest 2011; Witmore 2005), hypertexts (e.g., Joyce, Guyer, and Joyce 2000; Joyce and Tringham 2007), and websites (e.g., Ashley, Tringham, and Perlingieri 2011; Metamedia 2010; Tringham and Ashley 2012).

The authors in this book seek to move beyond the customary limits of archaeological prose and representation. We explore narrative forms that range from creative nonfiction and drama through hypermedia and visual art. At the same time, however, we recognize that alternative formats pose a host of methodological and ethical challenges. While exploring new and not so new forms, the authors in this volume discuss bounds and delineate the connections between empirical data and archaeological imagination. We must tread carefully as we attempt to imagine — but not speak for — the people who populate our imagined pasts. This volume offers not just an array of ideas on and attempts at creatively employing narrative forms. It also provides reflections on the complexities and the ethical issues involved in constructing these narratives.

A Brief Survey of the Issues

This book is both a critique and an experiment. Authors discuss the goals, advantages, and difficulties of alternative forms of archaeological representation. Chapters in the volume are illustrated and enhanced by such media as paintings, sound files, dialogues, and links to online databases, videos, and PowerPoint presentations. Electronic publishing makes it possible to incorporate a range of media into written texts. This volume as a whole also represents an experimental attempt to engage with issues of representation in a hybrid format. A traditional hard-copy version will contain the text, black-and-white static images, and printed links to online material. The electronic "book" contains the text, images, and multimedia files so the work comes in two different forms. It is fitting to produce a volume on experimental narrative forms in a format that is itself an experimental step beyond the boundaries of traditional publishing.

Most of us agree that there are a plethora of good reasons to engage in alternative modes of archaeological representation. Public outreach is perhaps the most commonly cited reason for archaeologists to construct alternative narratives. Fiction, creative nonfiction, drama, visual arts, and other forms of storytelling can powerfully convey ideas to non-specialists who are interested in archaeology but are put off by the dry and jargon-laden technical writing style we archaeologists frequently employ. There is a shared sense among most of the authors in this volume that it is better for archaeologists to attempt to transcend traditional formal styles than to leave it to journalists and novelists to do (see also Kircher 2012: 87 — 110).

Of course, we as archaeologists spend years honing our skills at technical, expository writing. In the process, mentors and gatekeepers discourage us from practicing the art of constructing metaphors or from developing an aesthetic sense for speech. We are disciplined into an objective, descriptive style to the point of self-censorship at the level of language use. We would need active de-conditioning and retraining in creative nonfiction, fiction, or other forms of literary and artistic expression to improve our capabilities of representation. With this goal in mind, our colleague Brian Fagan (2006) has written a book coaching archaeologists about how to write readably and accessibly for wide audiences. However, Gilead (this volume) is justified in his concern that most archaeologists lack not only the training but possibly also the talent to be good creative nonfiction writers. There are plenty of bad novels written by archaeologists to attest to the difficulties of venturing into an unfamiliar genre. Thomas (this volume) discusses how unexpectedly difficult it is to create imagined narratives; he bemoans that he cannot "be the servant of contemporary literature, the archaeological record, and critical theory all at once." If public outreach is the goal, should we then leave the storytelling to professional storytellers? After all, Bernbeck (2005) analyzed novels by well-known, non-archaeologist authors on the ancient Near East and concluded that some of them are extremely powerful. Thomas, in contrast, is...