Bender, Barbara, Sue Hamilton, Christopher Y Tilley, & Ed Anderson 2007 Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Notes: 464 p., [12] p. of col. plates : ill., maps ; 26 cm. ISBN: 9781598742190 Reviewed 12 Feb 2009 by: Anna Boozer <a.l.boozer@reading.ac.uk> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, NYU, New York, USA Medium: Written Literature Subject Landscape archaeology Keywords: England - Cornwall (County) Bronze age - England Cornwall (County) Excavations (Archaeology) England -- Cornwall (County) Leskernick Site (England) Cornwall (England : County) Antiquities ABSTRACT: The authors conducted a large-scale, multidisciplinary research project on Neolithic and Bronze Age landscapes in Southwest England, joining surface observation with small-scale excavation. The research design and execution were experimental, and in the present volume, the authors employ a multivocal, multidisciplinary writing style that includes dialogues, poetry, photo essays, and ethnographic essays alongside contributions from specialists in many fields. Barbara Bender, Sue Hamilton, and Christopher Tilley conducted an archaeological project at Leskernick (Bodmin Moor in Southwest England) that combined extensive surface survey and observation with small-scale excavation. They intended for the research design and observation recordings to be experimental and reflexive. A reflexive approach to fieldwork methodology enables the relationship between preliminary finds analysis and determination of archaeological contexts to be interactive by encouraging more personal communication between excavators and specialists than is usually found in field projects. In other words, reflexive archaeology encourages constant feedback, rather than a simple linear progression from excavation to final synthesis for publication (Lucas 2001:14). The directors of the Leskernick project pursued a more extensive reflexive method by including the site diaries written by excavators in the final publication as well as employing sociologists on the project. The project sociologists, Tony Williams and Mike Wilmore, developed an anthropology of the academic 'artificial community' on the site (Wilmore 2006). They also explored the archaeologists' multifaceted perceptions of the excavation landscape. This ethnographic component is a noteworthy advance. Every excavation has its own unique atmosphere mutually constituted through the excavators and the place, but publications tend to erase such connections. Furthermore, the social dynamics of excavations have rarely been explored. An ethnography of archaeology can play a significant role in teasing out our experiences of landscapes and discerning how these experiences shape our understanding and exploration of archaeological sites. The chapters by Wilmore and Williams, along with a chapter on the excavation exhibition, are among the strongest in the volume with regard to clarity and advancement. These innovations represent important steps towards a more full disclosure of field practice and relationships, but I am not convinced that the structure of the present volume is one that archaeologists should follow. I am particularly concerned that the authors pit 'rational' and 'expert' interpretations against interpretive and democratic interpretations. Much archaeological thought these days perpetuates such conflicts despite Ian Hodder's reminder from more than ten years ago that interpretation lies at the core of archaeological methodologies and expertise (Hodder 1997). Why must we put functional explanations in conflict with interpretive explanations? We use both approaches in excavation so to obfuscate our training in favor of exposing our emotions is counterproductive and equally as erroneous as concealing interpretations. My primary concern with this volume grows out this same issue of perceived conflict. It appears that archaeologists manifest a nascent distaste with professionalism and therefore have begun to fear open displays of their required specialized training. Such distaste distances and confuses the reader and appears disengenuine. Here are three primary examples of how the editors obfuscate their professionalism in an attempt to democratize archaeology. First, the editors do not work through methodologies, terminology, and site data in a systematic manner. Rather than making their archaeology accessible, this process alienates readers who are not already familiar with the data. Much of the terminology remains undefined, while other terms receive proper definitions only in the latter third of the volume. Likewise, most of the chapters nimbly pounce from one topic to the next in order to avoid the determined plodding through archaeological charts and data that typify most field reports. It is worthwhile to query past modes of representation but there is something to be said for a clear format that readers can follow. As it stands, the current volume is often very difficult to read and it leaves one without a clear understanding of the archaeology itself. Second, the editors build a large number of assumptions into the text that they do not anchor to archaeological or ethnographic comparanda. It is important to recognize conjectures and hypotheses as an essential part of archaeological practice but it is equally important to recognize the sources and stages we work through to build and then substantiate these hypotheses. Such stages are absent from the present volume and one wishes that the editors had included more of their thought processes so the reader could have a greater understanding of their theoretical and methodological progressions. Third, the many voices of this project do not feel fully integrated. For example, Peter Herring, a local expert, is often found only in fossilized interjections within the text (p. 186). The paragraphs that follow his interjections pass over them reducing the volume to a collage than a seamless chorus of voices. It is also clear that the opinions of the directors dominate the volume despite their effort to include divergent viewpoints. This practice is to be expected and yet their constant push against top-down hierarchies makes some of its claims ring artificial. As a point of contrast to the present volume, Richard Bradley gives a narrative of his fieldwork at the cemetery of Balnuaran of Clava (Northern Scotland) in an article that is completely non-traditional (Bradley 2003), but stands alone from his more traditional site report that is a separate volume. In this respect, his approach more closely resembles Malinowski's monograph Coral Islands and their Magic, which also relegates his 'Confessions of ignorance and failure' to an appendix (Malinowski 1935). Although it is unsatisfying to relegate such important reflections to an appendix, the narrative flow might work better if one separates out the different categories of data so that readers find it easier to access such disparate modes of information. The present volume is lavishly illustrated with beautiful photographs. This element is significant, given the project's emphasis upon landscape, exhibitions, visual relationships, and so on. There are maps of Leskernick, Bodmin Moor, and Cornwall, although these are not always as clear or frequent as one might wish. Some of this vagueness is also the result of missing textual references or explanations so the reader is left to discover and decipher them on their own. This negligence is notable since it contrasts sharply with the lucid and often eloquent discussions of the photographs. Also included within the illustrations are field drawings, annotated sketches, context record sheets, and other unprocessed field notes. Such detritus of excavations are usually left out of final reports and they prove a helpful key to understanding the methodologies behind the project and, as such, help remedy the rather vague methodological chapter (chapter three) in section one. In conclusion, this volume, although imperfect, represents a significant movement towards a more reflexive methodology in archeology. It is not a broadly accessible volume but it should be of great interest to graduate students and professionals, particularly those with an interest in method and theory. REFERENCES: Bradley, R. 2003 Seeing things: Perception, experience and and constraints of excavation. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(2): 151-168 Hodder, I. 1997 'Always momentary, fluid and flexible:' towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71: 691-700 Lucas, G. 2001 Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge. Malinowski, B. 1935 Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands. New York: American Book Company. Wilmore, M. 2006 Landscapes of disciplinary power: an ethnography of excavation and survey at Leskernick. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters: Material Transformations edited by M. Edgeworth. Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press.