Ethics and Archaeology: The Attempt at Eatalhoyuk Author(s): Ian Hodder Source: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 174-181 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210882 Accessed: 08/01/2009 13:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Near Eastern Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org Ethics and Archaeology: The Attemptat (atalhoyuk By Ian Hodder H owshould archaeologists decide _ __ ji __ ,-s . 1' which questionsto ask about 2"Q-. the sites they areexcavating? Normally,we consider questions that arisewithin the academyof scientists. In orderto get researchfunding we ask questionsthat are topicaland that are sanctionedby the scientificcommunity. Or we may respondto the interestsof donorswhile at the sametime tryingto retainacademic integrity and independ- ence.In allthese ways, the agenda-setting * (,,(I ' V,,uk processis top-down;it comes fromthe C..rA ,l ,C)Aerialview of the excavationslt :"' in 7T'~AU(): ~ C,talhoyik in 1997. The mr,p shows archaeologiststhemselves, perhaps e *A 1 X .T ' the site's location in the Kony,l Pi,ir' collaborationwith their funders.1 1~ .~~~~~of An,tolia rmnodernTurkey But in a globalizedworld, is this sufficient?Is it adequate to understandwhat these communitiesare and to understandthe focus on the testing of hypotheses set by the academy-an questions they would most like to have answered,is a specialist academyalways steeped in its own interests and directions?On areaof research.For this reason,there are severalethnographers most if not all archaeologicalsites there are multiplecommunities who work on the Qatalh6oyukproject, and who assist in the with an interestin the site. They are "stakeholders"such as local dialoguewith differentcommunities. This paperis, then, especially inhabitants,tourists, the media,politicians and so on. And there indebtedto AyferBartu, David Shanklandand Nurcan Yalman, maybe differentinterested communities with conflictinginterests. who have workedon the variouscommunities discussed here. In Is it sociallyand ethically responsibleto conduct archaeological more general terms, the ethical need for closer interaction researchwithout taking account of the questions they might be betweenarchaeologists and the communitiesthey serveleads to a interested in asking?The usual responseto such concerns is to demand for closer collaboration between archaeologists and build a museum,or providean exhibit in an informationcenter. ethnographers.While there are many groupswith some form of Localcommunities then have to accept or commenton what has interest in Qatalh6yiik,I intend to concentrate on four broad been done by the archaeologists-theircontribution is minimized. groupings:politicians, local residents,New Age Goddessfollowers A fullerresponse is to engagethe differentstakeholder interests in and artists. the settingof agendasin the firstplace. In discussingthe waythat researchquestions can be set withina This article discusses some of the ways in which the collaborationand negotiationof interests,I do not mean to argue archaeologicalresearch at Qatalhoyuikresponds to and integrates that the archaeologiststhemselves should have no questions of questions set by a variety of communities. In my view, to theirown. Clearlythey have a duty to respondto questionsset by 174 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 65:3 (2002) News and elsewhere. Within Turkeythe site took on a special significanceas the originof Anatoliancivilization. Rather than imposing New researchat the site undermy directionbegan in 1993,after from [archae- decadesof inactivity.But it was clear fromour earliestpress days, questions outside, that the site had not lost its hold on the publicimagination, at least ologists]also have a duty,in my in Turkey.Our sponsorsstarted organizing press days in orderto to in researchthat attractpublicity for their contributions, and frequentlyfifty or more view, engage pressand mediarepresentatives turned up at the site, eagerto get seeks compromiseand bridges the latestnews. Most of these have been nationaland local media, between a variety of different but we alsoget coveragefrom the internationalpress and television. interests. ThePoliticians Forthe firstgroup that has an interestin Qatalhoyuk,this media interest is crucial. The politicians have come to show a special engagementwith the site since, at events, they are able to the academy,and to act in accordwith best disciplinarypractice. press gain wide media coverage. Of course, they each have their But ratherthan imposingquestions from outside, they also have a differentclaims to make,but for all, the pay-offis publicityin the duty,in my view,to engagein researchthat seekscompromise and context of an internationalproject workingat one of the most bridgesbetween a varietyof differentinterests. A post-colonial earlysites in Turkey.I wish to limit this discussionto solution involves dialogue and hybridityrather than imperial important two contrastinggroups of politicians-the localregional politicians impositionof outsideagendas (Bhabha 1994; Appadurai 1996). and the Europeanpoliticians. As we will see, they use the site in Introductionto verydifferent ways. To what extent can the archaeologyengage in gatalhoyuk a dialogue with such political interests?To what extent can it Some of the reasons that (;atalhoyiikis the focus of so much to the the raise? interest fromdiverse communities can be found in its historyof respond questions politicians Qatalhoyik is situated one hour east of Konya, in a region discoveryand research.It was firstexcavated by JamesMellaart in known for its religiousfundamentalist and/or nationalist the 1960s,and he successfullypublicized its enormousimportance politics. In recent years the has been the of the (Mellaart1967). At an earlydate, now knownto be 7400 to 6200 region stronghold nationalistMHP party, and it is also a centerfor Islamiccompanies BCE,its greatsize (13 hectares)is impressive,as arethe sixteenor so and traditionalrural Islamic attitudes towardswomen regarding levels of occupationin a twenty-onemeter high mound.The site social and economicbehavior. When politicianssuch as the local showedthat largeearly sites existedoutside the "FertileCrescent" mayor (from the local town), or governor,give talks in in the Near East. But it was especially the art that caught the Qumra, frontof the pressat the site, they talk aboutthe importanceof the scholarly and public interest. The wall paintings and relief localityand the region.They say that the presenceof were unique, and even today, after the discovery of ;atalhoyuk sculpture demonstratesthe nature of the Of sitesin southeaster Anatoliawith elaborateart, it remains special region. course, they parallel admit that the site is and but the densestconcentration of symbolismso farfound in the eastern pre-Turk pre-Islamic, they nevertheless that it shows the of the land and its Mediterraneanat this time. Internationally,the site becamewidely say importance traditions. also to the internationalcharacter of the known throughMellaart's publications in the IllustratedLondon They point projectand the visitorsit attracts.Again this showsthe importance of the region.Some tryat times to makelinks to the migrationsof the Turksthemselves, but most are content with rathervaguer connectionsbetween past and present. There is undoubtedly a political and local interest in the question "whowere the people that lived at (atalhyiik?" Local peopleask us this questionall the time. "Werethey relatedto us?" To what extent can archaeologistsrespond to this question?One obviouscontemporary method is throughancient DNA analysis (e.g., Jones 2001). The human burials discovered in the excavationsat (atalhoyiik have been the subjectof two ancient DNA projects. The first was undertaken by the Leeuwen laboratoryin Belgium, and the second by Stanford University (Malhiet al. 2003). So farthis workhas only been able to suggest that there may be some ancient DNA present in the human bones. Much moreand veryintensive study will be needed before A view into the interiorof a house at Catalh6yik, showing the unique art for anythingcan be said about the similaritiesbetween the ancient whichthe site is famous. Note the activityon the roof. and moder populationsin centralTurkey. NEAR EASTERNARCHAEOLOGY 65:3 (2002) 175 There clearly is considerable