Zeitlyn, D. (2012) - Anthropology in and of The Archives

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn ARI 16 August 2012 19:27
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Anthropology in and of the
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Archives: Possible Futures and
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Contingent Pasts. Archives as
Anthropological Surrogates∗
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Our comprehensive search

Access provided by University of Laval on 03/26/18. For personal use only.
David Zeitlyn
Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, School of Anthropology and Museum
Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, United Kingdom;
email: david.zeitlyn@anthro.ox.ac.uk
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:461–80 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on archival studies, museology, digital archives, research ethics,
July 2, 2012
surrogates
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Derrida and Foucault provide key starting points to understanding
10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145721
archives. They see archives as hegemonic, characterizing ways of
Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews. thought, modes of colonization, and the control of citizens. However,
All rights reserved
they also make clear that archives can be read subversively. With pa-
0084-6570/12/1021-0461$20.00 tience, counter-readings allow the excavation of the voices (sometimes
∗
This article is part of a special theme on names) of subaltern and otherwise suppressed others from the archive.
Materiality. For a list of other articles in this By reading along and across the archival grain, researchers can fol-
theme, see this volume’s Table of Contents.
low the development of ideas and processes across historical periods.
Archives can be seen as orphanages, containing surrogates of perfor-
mances. Archives (paper and digital) also provide access to the results of
anthropological research in ways mandated by ethics codes, but these
are subject to controversy. What sorts of consent and what sorts of
anonymization should be provided? Archives run by the groups tradi-
tionally studied by anthropologists provide models of radical archives
that are very different from those conceived of by traditional archivists.
461
ARCHIVES FOR ARCHIVES AS INSTRUMENTS

ANTHROPOLOGY OF HEGEMONY
Anthropologists, historians, and fellow travel- An important strand of Foucault’s work (1970,
ers undertake much research in archives. These 1977) unpicks the archaeological texture and
are mostly administrative archives, often in- development (genealogy3 ) by which govern-
cluding material concerning former colonial ment becomes a government of thought, and
territories. They are the long-term reposito- the archive, as an expression of governmen-
ries of documents produced by governments tal control of its subjects, assumes a supreme
and other institutions in their day-to-day op- importance as a “structuring structure” (Bour-
erations. However, archives need not be official dieu 1977) or hegemonic instrument of the state
and institutional. Many individuals and families (see Echevarrı́a 1990, especially p. 175).4 This
maintain smaller-scale archives, which provide line of approach was influential in understand-
important evidence for a wide range of topics. ing colonialism in general and colonial archives
Some archives holding the work of early an- in particular (Cohn 1987, Stocking 1991, Pels
thropologists and others, such as missionaries, 1997, Mathur 2000, Dirks 2002, Burton 2003,
have been used by anthropologists and indige- Stoler 2009). As Appadurai (1993) and Asad
nous groups to recover material spanning the (2002) have stressed, the development of quan-
past 150–200 years of more-or-less structured titative approaches was a device to improve gov-
research.1 ernmentality to increase control in the Indian
colonies [Stoler (2009) also discusses the im-
portance of counting in Indonesia (p. 167)]. I
PART ONE: THE NATURE discuss other aspects of subaltern readings of
OF ARCHIVES colonial archives below. However, there is a
notable parallel and irony: Foucault and his fol-
Plurals and Capitals: archive or
lowers [such as Davies (1987) and many other
Archive, Archive or Archives?
historians and anthropologists] have explored
Archives are both the repositories of material how the archive suppresses, suborns, and con-
(buildings, suites of rooms, or a Web address) trols groups such as women, the insane, and re-
and the materials contained therein. Many au- ligious dissidents in Europe, in the home states
thors have exploited the slippage between these of the global colonizers. Is there a significant
two senses, pitting them against each other. difference between the experience of control of
Some usage differences map onto substantive such people and that of colonized groups? Per-
differences between authors. Broadly speaking, haps governments colonize all their subjects,
professional archivists discuss “an archives”: whether in cities or the distant colonies (Fou-
Dictionaries indicate that the word is usu- cault analyzed the development of the modern
ally plural (because even one building contains
many files). By contrast, theorists who use the
idea of records in an extended (metaphorical) 3
Foucault is notoriously unclear about the difference between
sense, following Foucault and Derrida, discuss archeology and genealogy (see Sheringham 2011, discussed
the singular archive, often with a definite article: below).
the archive, and sometimes even the Archive.2 4
For Richards, colonies could not really be governed given
the resources available and the limits of paper-based com-
munication across distance (1993, p. 3). He sees the ad-
ministrators controlling paper instead of people, resting on
1
the illusion of their files, hence his subtitle: Knowledge and
See Savage 2007 and other papers in Sociological Research the Fantasy of Empire. In Seeing Like a State, Scott says,
Online 12(3) in the section, “Reusing Qualitative Data.” “[T]here are virtually no other facts for the state than those
2
See Supplemental Appendix 1 (follow the Supplemen- that are contained in documents” (Scott 1998, p. 82, quoted
Supplemental Material tal Material link from the Annual Reviews home page at in Ketelaar 2001, p. 133). Similarly, Joyce sees archives as a
http://www.annualreviews.org) for relative rates of usage. crucial technology of liberal states (1999).
462 Zeitlyn
state and the oppression of its subjects in gen- representations” through appraisal/selection,
eral). The distinction between colonizers and organization,8 and cataloging.
colonized strangely seems less significant from Following Garfinkel’s (1984 [1967]) eth-
this viewpoint.5 nomethodological analysis of medical records,
Another general reading of archives is found another approach examines the role of power in
in Derrida (1995, but see also 2002). For archives’ composition. Some research archivists
Derrida (1995), like Foucault, there is no es- have examined the creation of records, the
cape from archival hegemony; it is a way of raw material that will (if passing the selection
thinking about memory, of exploring Freud’s threshold) become archived. Garfinkel explores
ideas of the fear of death, and of repression as how doctors create patients’ records that are
a type of archiving, a reversible form of for- sufficient for the patients’ immediate treatment,
getting (p. 43; I discuss archival liminality be- but are inadequate for administrators or epi-
low). He plays with the ambiguity of his title, demiologists. He makes clear the “‘Good’ Or-
Archive Sickness or Fever: One can be simultane- ganizational Reasons for ‘Bad’ Clinic Records”
ously sick of and sick (with desire) for archives. (his title). Later, Yakel studied how radiogra-
Steedman responded to this by considering lit- phy records were created, transmitted around
eral forms of archive fever, such as anthrax from a hospital, then stored (1997, 2001). In an-
parchment and leather bindings, and the anx- other domain, Cicourel (1968), Morash (1984),
iety and joys of archival research (2002, 2007, and Coulthard (2002) examined the creation
2008). and use of legal records. Considering these ap-
Parallels with Foucault arise when consid- proaches, Trace (2002) distinguished the pur-
ering the role of archivists, the gatekeepers se- pose from the use of a record (p. 143). A record
lecting which items are archived and which are may be created for one purpose but used for
condemned to oblivion by being omitted. This other ends: “[R]ecords are more than purely
process is another instrumentality of power. technical facts,” requiring “an understanding
Present choices determine future history, se- of records as social entities, where records are
lecting the materials available to future histori- produced, maintained, and used in socially or-
ans (Derrida 1995, p. 17).6 ganized ways” (2002, p. 152). Her work con-
Archivists have recently discussed the exer- nects explicitly to the social study of science (see
cise of power in archival appraisal, the deter- Shankar 2002, 2004).
mination of what becomes the archival record7 The purpose/use distinction parallels one
[see especially Craig (2002), Schwartz & Cook made by archival historians: Between sources
(2002), Manoff (2004, p. 20), Cook (2007); intended to inform, created with an evidential
Assman (2010) is discussed below]. Yakel purpose, and “the evidence of witnesses in spite
(2007) considers how archivists create “archival of themselves,” sources never intended to be
part of the historical record but which were
nonetheless archived becoming more valuable
for that9 [Olwig (1984) and Bastian (2003, p. 77)
5
This will be read differently in Mumbai, Liverpool, and
Douala: Such different readings challenge the discipline of
anthropology. We need to rethink the conceptual extensions 8
Derrida (1995, p. 10) describes an archive as a prison for
of the archive and colonization [see Povinelli’s (2011, p. 158) documents (under house arrest). This notion evokes Clif-
discussion of postcolonial archives]. ford’s (1985, p. 240) discussions of museums as appropriating
6
Derrida started with the physical basis of the archive as the objects and Foucault’s (1977) work on prisons.
house of the archon (magistrate), the place where (judicial) 9
“Archival records are the by-products of human activity. At
records were kept; so archives connect directly to the power their most transparent they are unselfconscious creations in-
of the state (and Foucault’s work). tended not to interpret or investigate a particular topic but
7
Examples include the destruction/selection of files by ac- to complete a normal and often routine transaction. In mod-
cessioning archivists in Germany (Ernst 1999, p. 18) and the ern archival theory, such records derive reliability and au-
United States (Brown 1998, p. 23). thenticity as evidence; consequently they result from activity
www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 463

credit Bloch (1954, p. 51) with the phrase]. Ass- in ways never intended or envisaged by those
mann (2010, p. 99, citing Burkhardt) similarly creating or maintaining the archives.11
distinguishes messages (consciously aimed at There is “no view from nowhere” (Levy
the future) from traces (present signs without 1998, p. 168): Every ethnography, history, and
future intention, which survive and become his- archive is positioned or biased in one or many
torical remains).10 The idea of accidental wit- ways. This does not make archival (or any
nesses of future, albeit unintentional, signifi- other) research worthless; rather, we must deal
cance leads to the next section. with the positionality or bias of the accounts.
There are two general strategies for doing so.
The Comaroffs “read against the grain” (1991,
ARCHIVES AS INSTRUMENTS pp. 52/53, citing Benjamin 1968, p. 257) using
OF SUBVERSION sources such as newspapers and songs [calling
Foucault and Derrida also develop the idea of them “textual traces” (Comaroff & Comaroff
archives challenging the hegemony just con- 1992, p. 33)] to help interpret records in con-
ventional archives. For them, archives contain
sidered. This relates to Foucault’s “archeology

of knowledge”: Close reading and assiduous arguments and are dialogical: “[A]s anthropolo-
research (“mining the archive”) allow us to “ex- gists, therefore, we must work both in and out-
cavate” hidden or silenced voices, such as that side of the official record” (p. 34). This notion
of the parricide Pierre Rivière (1982, discussed parallels Derrida’s suggestions about the impli-
in Sheringham 2011) allowing “an insurrection cations of excess and contradiction: Archives are
of subjugated knowledges” (Foucault 1980, sometimes “unconscious maps of the mundane”
p. 81). Derrida sees the archive as containing (Comaroff & Comaroff 1992, p. 36; see also
excess, disrupting its own bounds ( J. Bajorek, Savage 2005; Dados 2009; Geiger et al. 2010,
forthcoming manuscript; Ricœur 1988, p. 125). pp. 25, 26; Roque & Wagner 2012, pp. 23–
Both approaches conclude that, pace the sec- 24). We can study this process by consider-
tion above, we are not complete prisoners ing archival ethnographies. “The history that
of the archive, that thought is not (totally) would comprise an ethnography of the archive,
determined, so we can consider other voices. a history of the practice of the archive, would
Therefore, we can excavate and recover subju- neglect neither the user in the past nor the
gated voices from archives of women (Davies user who writes these words, the ostensible
1987, Burton 2003), the insane (Foucault ‘historian’” ( Joyce 1999, p. 37). Indeed, for
1967), and religious dissidents (Ladurie 1978). the Comaroffs (1992), “[A]n ethnography of
Yet Derrida and Foucault’s other arguments this archive begins to disinter the processes by
imply its impossibility [Comaroff & Comaroff which disparate, even divisive, discourses were
(1992, p. 16) cite Ginzberg against the pes- fused into a consistent ideology” (p. 35). In
simistic quietism accompanying acceptance of an important monograph, Stoler (2009) took
such impossibility]. With care and assiduity, it up the challenge with a significant twist. She
is possible to understand people from archives reads Along the Archival Grain (her title) to
identify the biases and preoccupations of the
creators of archived documents. This reading
sees archives as “systems of expectation” (Stoler
itself, and are not conscious or deliberate efforts to influ-
ence thought” ( Jimerson 2003). Sadly, as Jimerson recog-
nizes, this is optimistic as a general statement: It is true of
many records but not for all. Some records are created to 11
East German Stasi agents found it inconceivable until
protect their creators. Others are deleted to the same end. shortly before German reunification that anyone else would
“Archival diplomatics” studies the forensic trails and patterns ever access their archives (Assmann 2010). This strange in-
of creation/deletion and recasting. nocence makes the biases easier to read than in archived doc-
10
For Ricœur (1988), the trace is “the warrant a document uments created with an eye to the future (see Trouillot 1995,
provides for history” (p. 117). Freshwater 2007).
464 Zeitlyn
1992, p. 109).12 Considering material from the renders an image more than a nice photograph.
Caribbean, Trouillot (1995) encourages us to It connects photographs as (social) objects to
think about the power plays affecting silences, the lives of their subjects. For visual theorists,
determining which stories get told and which in Michelet’s spirit, putting names to faces is
leave traces (p. 29). Recognizing this, we can redemptive (whether of the people or the im-
read the silences: Reading archival absences ages). However, Farge (1989) sounds a balanced
against the grain is a way of making silence caution: Historical (or ethnographic) research
speak (see Pels 1997, p. 166). does not revive the dead, but passes them on to
The work of the subaltern studies group future others so that more stories “can be built
(e.g., Guha 1983) in South Asia exemplifies on their enigmatic presences” (p. 145).13
these approaches, using an understanding of Enigmatic or ghostly, more or less substan-
how records were created (reading along the tial, our families dead, alive, and as yet unborn:
grain) to recover history from below (reading These are the people we relate to. Our rela-
across the grain). Working on material from the tions to these people mark and affect humans
now, as they always have. Thinking about
same region in broadly the same tradition are

Bayly (1996), Burton (2003), Cohn (1987), and archives, traces left by people in paper records
his student Dirks (1993). Other examples are in or as archaeological remains, illuminates the
collections on the history of anthropology (e.g., complexity of interrelationships across time
Stocking 1991, Pels & Salemink 1999). and space. Nora (1989, p. 13) sees modern
However, not all can be excavated of what memory as obsessed with archives, another take
lingers along and across the archival grain. Al- on archive fever. Echoing Derrida, Stewart
though I cited above Trouillot’s (1995) use of (1993 [1984]) closes her book about museums
silences in history and making them speak, this and the desire to collect with the thought that
process is not always possible. Ballantyne (2001, names on labels are another attempt to belie
p. 94) cites Spivak against Foucault and the mortality. We must ask if names alone are
project of “recovery.” The answer to Spivak’s enough. Perhaps we should accept that often
question, “[C]an the subaltern speak?” (at least we are only left with enigma.
for women), is often “no.” Discussing images of
slaves, Best (2010) concludes that “the archival
disfiguration of any record of the enslaved may Archives as Liminal Phase (Between
have been so intense [. . .] as to bar any hope of Memory and Forgetting)
recovery and render the enslaved all but irre- Even enigmas can fade with time. Another
trievable” (p. 158). Sometimes the past is truly approach to archives deems them a liminal
lost. But we cannot know a priori what is lost zone, between memory and forgetting. Ass-
without trying. Some extraordinary research mann (2010) provides a clear account. Her
(cited above) has succeeded in writing history starting point is that we must forget in order
(and ethnography) from below. to remember. Ordinary humans are not like
Michelet’s nineteenth-century “resur- “Funes the Memorious” in Borges’s (1964)
rectionist history” (1863) partly anticipated story, remembering everything, forgetting
Foucault. It brings “the dead to life” by restor- nothing. For Borges, “[T]o think is to forget
ing knowledge of their names. This approach a difference, to generalize, to abstract” (p. 71).
has particular resonance for those working So “memory, including cultural memory,
on photographic archives: Knowing a name is always permeated and shot through with
12
This alerts us to collaboration in archive creation: Colo-
13
nized subjects were clerks (and more), writing documents in See Crowley (2007) on the importance of names for Pierre
colonial archives under orders from, and sometimes in dis- Michon; see Zeitlyn (2008, pp. 167–68) for a similar position
cussion with, their colonial masters. on life writing.

forgetting. In order to remember anything and silences they contain (p. 52). This view
one has to forget; but what is forgotten is parallels the role of ethnographic museums as
not necessarily lost forever” (Assmann 2010, “contact zones” (Pratt 1991, Clifford 1997),
pp. 105–6). For Assmann, both memory and especially when indigenous museums (Erikson
archives have active and passive aspects. Of et al. 2002, p. 31) act as mediators between
memory, she says, “The institutions of active indigenous groups and the public, anthropol-
memory preserve the past as present while the ogists, and other researchers. The complexity
institutions of passive memory preserve the of such mediation is brought out in studies
past as past” (2010, p. 98, emphases in original). of museums (and archives) as institutions
However, she further distinguishes among and of the archivists who work in them (see
political archives, tools of power [e.g., the Stasi below). Ricœur (1988) considers another type
archives in East Germany (p. 103)], and histor- of mediation, seeing archival documents as
ical archives, once but no longer of immediate mediating traces connecting past and present
use, preserved inert for future uses/contexts. [p. 123; see Fabian (2008) and Meehan (2009)
If in the truly long term we are all, if not for- on “the archival nexus”]. Similar ideas about
gotten, at best archaeology, then the archive is photographs view them as traces, which the
a liminal state, demonstrating optimism about viewer uses to construct (evoke) a person
the long term, which is even more important (discussed in Zeitlyn 2008).
for being unfounded.14 This viewpoint sees the Meehan (2009) discusses “Yeo’s suggestion
archive as a liminal zone where objects, files, that evidence and memory [. . .] be thought of as
and memories may be lost or retrieved. Taylor ‘affordances’ (or properties or functions) pro-
(2003) calls this the politics of ephemerality, vided by records. An archival concept of evi-
the power to choose to preserve/remember dence as a relation between record and event
(pp. 173–74, 192–93) or to forget. Discussing offers one explanation for how and why records
photographs of the “disappeared” in Argentina, are capable of fulfilling the role of touchstones
she examines archives’ political role and their or providing whatever affordances they are ca-
function as “performance installations” (p. 178). pable of offering” (p. 160). The path actually
Seeing archives as liminal zones in rites taken depends on interactions among readers,
of passage between memory and forgetting documents, and archivists.
fits well with Nora’s suggestion that lieux de Concluding this section, consider archivists
mémoire (“realms of memory”; Kritzman 1996) as mediators, agents in the research process.
replace milieux de mémoire [more general set- Archivists select material for archiving and
tings in which memory is part of everyday ex- mediate in the process of research: helping
perience (Nora 1989, p. 7)]. As the past becomes researchers find documents, suggesting rele-
unimportant in everyday life, we valorize mu- vant new materials, and helping researchers
seums and archives instead (Velody 1998, p. 13; frame “a good question” (Nardi & O’Day 1996,
Hutchens 2007, p. 38). Stoler (2009) suggests Trace 2006). They are generally more knowl-
that “rather than being the tomb of the trace, edgeable than researchers about the quirks of
the archive is more frequently the product of their archives. They understand how the cat-
the anticipation of collective memory” (p. 16). alogs work, the idiosyncrasies that can hide
Trouillot (1995) examined the role of material under terms obscure to outsiders.
archives as mediators, bridging times, places, Marquis (2007) sees archivists as “mediators
and people in Haiti, despite the lacunae between records creators and records repos-
itories, between archives and users, between
conceptions of the past and extant documen-
14
tation” (p. 36). Taking this seriously, we must
The Long Now Foundation (http://www.longnow.org/)
explores the implications of thinking in the seriously long consider archives as complex social organi-
term. zations, studying them anthropologically to
466 Zeitlyn
produce ethnographies of archives, works of of undertaking archival research. Relevant

archiveology. parallels lie in anthropological approaches to
museums (museology) (e.g., Handler & Gable
1997, Macdonald 2002, Fyfe 2006, Gosden &
Archiveology/Museology Larson 2007, Isaac 2007).
Dirks (2002) suggested the need for an “ethnog-
raphy of the archive” in his call “to historicize
the archive” (p. 48). His view responds to Der-
An Embarrassment of Metaphors
rida: “[N]ormally the archive is self-effacing— Perhaps such literature suggests that the archive
we discuss the contents but not the structures concept has been a fashion victim and risks col-
which have resulted in those contents being lapsing under the weight of metaphoric overex-
there and surviving. A sociology (anthropol- tension. If everything is an archive, then what
ogy) of the archive changes the frame” (Dirks do we call the buildings that house the old files? Erratum
2002, p. 58). Studies of record creation, the raw If everything is an archive, then everything we
do and think is conditioned by and part of the
material for archives, were cited above. There

are few ethnographic studies of archives as in- archive, so the word tells us nothing. Perhaps
stitutions (Yakel 1997, Gracy 2001, Shankar too many uses and meanings are being loaded
2002, Trace 2004). They have not used the onto the term, replicating an aspect of what
term archiveology for what they do, although an archive is: a collection of more or less con-
it seems appropriate (see Katz 1991, p. 98). nected, and more or less disordered, disparate
“[O]ne might imagine [. . .] a history of the rele- entities (often but not always documents).
vant agents of the archive. It would be a history One example is Derrida’s use of Freud.
of at least two kinds of people—archivists and Derrida sees repression as a form of archiving:
historians—who tend to inhabit such dry, dark, repression as putting items out of conscious-
forbidding places” (Osborne 1999, p. 52). ness, archiving as putting items out of circu-
Although the importance of Stoler and lation and public awareness (see Assman on
Burton’s work is widely recognized, these forgetting, above). He also invokes Freud’s par-
authors use archival material more often than allel between circumcision creating disjuncta
studying archives themselves. Bastian’s sub- and the archive as being a repository of dismem-
stantial study (2003) focuses on an individual bered parts. Such metaphors may be provoca-
archive qua institution.15 Steedman (2002) tive and intriguing, but they also provoke a dif-
and Farge [1989 reviewed by Carrard (2002)] ferent response, reflecting on the ways in which
describe, in very different styles, the process archiving is not like repression and is nonvio-
of working in archives from the researcher’s lent. Like much “grand theory,” this depends on
viewpoint and provide autoethnographies taste and temperament. What excites one the-
oretician irritates another, and we have yet to
address how these ideas may relate to evidence.
15
Some key collections contain article-length accounts: Consider two instances of overextension:
Hamilton et al. (2002), Burton (2005), and Blouin & Rosen- first, archive as memory, and second, Internet
berg (2007), and in two special issues of The History of the Hu- as archive.
man Sciences, Volumes 11 (in 1998) and 12 (in 1999). Recently,
a largely Canadian collection has appeared: Eastwood &
MacNeil (2010). Papers from a UK seminar series on Archiv- Archive as memory. Assman and others
ing and Reusing Qualitative Data in 2008 and 2009 are online emphasize the role of archives in processes
at http://www.restore.ac.uk/archiving_qualitative_data/
projects/archive_series/papers.shtml. Papers from the of memory and forgetting (see also Foote
“Fieldwork Between Folders” conference ( July 2011) are 1990, Craig 2002). Jimerson (2003) identifies
summarized in Roque & Wagner (2011). Gilliland & McK- four types of memory: personal, collective,
emmish (2004) provide an important survey of the scope of
archival studies, including anthropology. Whatley & Brown historical, and archival, seeing archives as
(2010) summarize the Investigating the Archive project. repositories of memory. An individual has

personal memories (often aided in recent and how it is cataloged. The World Wide Web
years and in some cultural traditions by apparently (misleadingly16 ) admits everything
records, photographs, and prompts from and is automatically indexed, not cataloged. In-
family members). A social group recognizes dexing problems led to the development of the
and discusses collective or social memories Semantic Web with more intelligent links and in-
[see Bloch (1998) on the complex relationship dexes. It has been less successful than the World
between personal autobiographical and social Wide Web. Some people see user-created tag-
knowledge]. According to Jimerson, historical ging as an alternative to the strictly defined
memory is the narrative produced by historians ontologies of the Semantic Web (Shirky 2008).
on the basis of artifacts such as archival records Also, as critics of search engines have pointed
and testimony from individuals. He discusses out, although Google, Bing, etc., index most
“archival memory” but does not explore how it (not all) of the Web, if the reference you seek
relates to “personal memory.” is among five million hits, then it is, practically,
Steedman (2002) is vehement that memory lost and inaccessible. Archivists (or their equiv-
is not like an archive (p. 68). As she points out, alents) still play a vital role in creating and man-
archives have (some) boundaries and are them- aging the metadata on which search engines rely
selves human creations. Archivists reject and when responding to searches. Moreover, much
discard items in ways profoundly different from education is still needed in the logic and im-
how forgetting occurs, and in ways that are ir- plications of searching (Grigg 1991, Gilliland-
remediable (unlike memory, where what is for- Swetland 2000).
gotten can sometimes be recalled) such as files Following these caveats about conceptual
marked in an archival catalog as “destroyed by approaches to archives, I conclude this half
enemy action during the Second World War” by considering two relatively new, underdevel-
(p. 68). oped (hopefully provocative) models.
Rose (2009) provides another demonstra-
tion of the difference. He discusses a study
of students describing the 2001 World Trade Two Models for Archives
Center attack, restating their accounts a year I next consider two different approaches, which
later. He comments that the “huge discrep- may form the basis of alternative ways of think-
ancies between their first and second accounts ing about archives. These are orphanages (or
indicated just how labile memories of quite dra- hospices) and performance records (records of
matic events are. Far from passively recording performances).
the past, we in our memories actively recon-
struct it” (p. 66). So “records are not memories, Orphanages or hospices. Orphan works are
but rather are the triggers or touchstones that prominent in discussions of copyright (Usai
lead to the recollection of past events” (Meehan 1999, Strateg. Content Alliance et al. 2009).
2009, p. 160; see also Best 2010, p. 152). These works have no traceable author or copy-
This active reconstruction affects not only right holder. This lack poses problems for re-
personal and collective memories, but also, searchers and archivists (especially because the
on a slower scale, historical memory: Each fair use quotation rights for film is less well es-
generation constructs new narratives about the tablished than for printed material): Permission
past, often on the basis of the same bodies of is needed to copy material in copyright. Copy-
“evidence.” right extends for up to 70 years beyond the
The Internet as archive. Many authors de-

scribe the Internet as an archive (e.g., Ogle 16
The so-called dark web includes materials not indexed: pro-
2010). There are important limits to this claim. tected by passwords (hence inaccessible to indexing robots)
Archivists shape archives, deciding what goes in and in databases such as archive catalogs.
468 Zeitlyn
death of the creator.17 If the creator is unknown, Performance records. Theater studies sug-
one cannot know whether copyright persists. gest another model: Geiger et al. (2010, pp. 16,
Cohen and Usai report filmmakers using 17) discuss concerns about loss of context (of
“orphan films” to great effect. Recently, some interviews, etc.) limiting possible reuse of qual-
archives such as the British Library sound itative data. Performance studies are exemplary
archive (containing many orphan recordings) because the score, script, even actual recording,
have made many sound recordings available for of a performance differ importantly from the
researchers after agreeing on a series of proto- performance itself (no audience, no possibility
cols with the World Intellectual Property Or- of responding to audience or other performers,
ganization (WIPO).18 etc.). Much is lost, but performance archives
For Cohen (2004), “[T]he term film archive are still valuable. So archival material, par-
is ineffective in understanding the politics of ticularly archives of anthropological research,
the complex lives of films. [Usai (1999)] sug- field notes, and interview recordings, might
gests that thinking of the archive as a ‘film or- be viewed as archives of the performance of
research. Performance studies researchers have
phanage’ evokes the broader reality of a film

and its progeny. A film print reproduces mul- long been thinking about the incompleteness
tiple offspring and potential orphans” (p. 722). and partiality of archival records (see Taylor
Greetham (1999) talks of archives taking “pro- 200320 ; Schechner 1985, Jones et al. 2009).
tective custody” of material (p. i), which is to Taylor views ethnographic fieldwork as per-
use the language of the orphanage. However, formance (2003, pp. 75–78) and uses the idea of
my section heading introduced the term hos- surrogation (pp. 46, 174, citing Roach) to cap-
pice. Archives may be where documents fol- ture the active processes of creation/recreation
low a managed path to oblivion19 or “the dead- and of cultural transmission, viewing cultural
letter office of lived memory” (Hutchens 2007, memory as a process, hence a performance. So
p. 38). Anyone working on archived acid paper archival materials are surrogates of the events
has probably seen a document disintegrate as that created them (and digitized records are
they attempted to read it. Orphanage managers surrogates of physical originals). Phelan (1993)
tend to those in their care, deal with their ad- stresses the impossibility of archiving perfor-
ministration, and hope that a secure and happy mances as performances (their status is different
future can be assured. Hospices seek to ensure when accessed via recordings) and that inter-
that death is well managed for the patients and views (ethnographic or not) are themselves per-
their families. The parallels with the work of formances because they are (more or less struc-
archivists are clear, but risk being exaggerated. tured) human interactions. Geiger et al. (2010)
conclude, [M]any researchers retain qualitative
research material beyond the end of a partic-
ular project suggesting that they can imagine
17
This explanation is highly simplified. Different jurisdic- ‘reusing’ the material themselves. Nevertheless,
tions have different rules, depending on whether the material the ephemeral nature of the interview as a per-
was published. Borgman (2007) and the Strategic Content Al-
liance, Korn, JISC & Collections Trust (2009) indicate more formance presents a challenge both to the re-
authoritative sources on the complexities of copyright law. searcher ‘reusing’ the qualitative data and those
For fair use rights in film see the Center for Social Media conducting qualitative interviews” (p. 18).
(2005).
18
Combining these two ideas produces a
See http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/terms/index.html and
Torsen & Anderson (2010); also see the Mukurtu Traditional model of archives as orphanages for (more or
Knowledge licenses online at http://www.mukurtu.org/ less fragile) surrogates, some of which may not
wiki/Manual:Traditional_Knowledge_Licenses.
19
As some Native American groups desire, see First Archivists
Circle (2007, p. 8). Geary (1994) explores such a “consign-
20
ment to oblivion” in early medieval archivization (pp. 81– Her distinction between archive and repertoire parallels
114). Assmann’s between archive and canon.

survive for long. This notion provides a differ- to implement, and may fail to mask identities
ent viewpoint on the discussion above, espe- from those intent on identifying informants.
cially whether the dead can be given voice, re- One can rarely anonymize office holders or
stored to named agency, subverting the present. those in positions of power and responsibility
How to care for future (possibly subversive) (see Corti et al. 2000, 2005; and especially Rock
traces without knowing which surrogates will 2001). Anonymization removes material from
be significant is part of the fascination (and ten- the purview of the UK Freedom of Information
sion) of running an archive. or Data Protection Acts (and equivalent legisla-
tion in other countries). However, anonymiza-
PART TWO: ARCHIVES tion keys, if retained, are liable to formal re-
OF ANTHROPOLOGY quest under those statutes, thereby breaking
Archiving Anthropologists’ Work anonymity, so archival anonymization must be
all or nothing. Even the researcher must be un-
Anthropology has always been reflexive: Ma- able to undo it.

linowski’s diary is exemplary, as are Haddon’s The UK Data Protection Act (DPA) allows
earlier diaries. Even before Malinowski became personal records to be retained as long as the
so influential, there were moves to archive results are anonymized.22 However, success-
the records of missionaries21 , explorers, and ful anonymization of a body of research ma-
anthropologists. Leaving aside connections terial would prevent future researchers (histo-
between archiving and reflexivity, and the rians such as Steedman and Foucault, following
contentious issue of whether the products of Michelet, or anthropological historians, such as
anthropological research are data, I concentrate Macfarlane or Laslett) from undertaking some
here on other current debates. of their work, and it precludes the descendants
At the risk of obvious anachronism, when of the people no-longer-named from discover-
the oldest archives were created (such as the ing what their ancestors said; therefore, these
Smithsonian Institution’s National Anthropo- records may be less useful to indigenous com-
logical Archives and the UK’s Royal Anthro- munities than to those with names retained.23
pological Institute archives) ethical concerns A default assumption that notes will be
(about content, possible uses, and access) were anonymized conflicts with an individual’s moral
not discussed. Before considering recent ini- right to be recognized as the author of his or
tiatives and problems of digital preservation, her words. There is a significant difference in
I consider anthropologists, their reluctance to the default presumptions in the codes between
archive field notes, and ethics codes. social science (assuming anonymity) and oral
history [assuming that names will be preserved,
Tensions Within Ethics Codes: unless special factors obtain (Ward 1995;
Conflicting Guidelines Caplan 2010, p. 17)]. Indeed, Parry &
Supplemental Material Supplemental Appendix 2 contains extracts Mauthner (2004) suggest oral history as a model
from relevant ethics codes about archiving and of good practice for qualitative sociologists, and
anonymization. I note the following tensions “Hopi anthropologist Hartman Lomawaima
between and among them. suggests that anonymity perpetuates a ‘we-they’
attitude, implying that only anthropologists can
make sense of traditional data” (Fowler 1995,
Anonymization
Anonymization is difficult to achieve (especially
with photographic and video records), costly 22
http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/dpa/policy/use/ pro-
vides a concise summary.
23
Jolly (2008) discusses potential issues arising from return-
21
See http://www.mundus.ac.uk/ for archives of UK-based ing (or enabling access to) the Griault archives to Mali; see
missionary organizations. also Childs et al. (2011).
470 Zeitlyn
p. 67). Finally, the UK DPA does not protect unknown others who might use it in novel ways
the dead, nor give rights to their relatives (an (including fiction writing). Can a researcher
individual cannot make a DPA request, which obtain meaningful prior informed consent if the
a deceased relative could have requested when uses to which the material might be put in the
alive). Simpson (2011) discusses mismatches future cannot be explained (Parry & Mauthner
between ethical review procedures and actual 2004, p. 147)? Some ethicists take this to mean
ethnographic research by stressing differences that anthropological material, like medical
between the ethics of the “human subjects” and samples, should be destroyed to prevent reuse
“social subjects” (p. 380). without new explicit permissions. Paradoxically
Caplan (2010) has already discussed many of most anthropologists want neither to destroy
these issues: their field material nor to archive it. Academic
anthropologists expect to consult their field
[T]his is a way of “giving back” data to the peo- notes throughout their career for various
ple with whom we have worked, and serving as research purposes. Many argue that ethics
their record-keepers.[. . .]Archiving forces us codes, which deem this practice illegitimate,
to put our material in order in a way we might are flawed. Participatory research24 provides
not otherwise have done, so that it becomes at a (partial) solution, which fits much social and
least partially intelligible to others and, [. . .] cultural anthropological research at the price
enables us too to view it from another angle. of discomforting ethics committees. Under
Thirdly, it allows other scholars to make use this model, little is set in advance: neither the
of our data, perhaps somewhat differently than detailed topic of research nor consent to partic-
we might have done ourselves given the fact ipate (and archive). Topic(s), archiving proto-
that they will read it with their own eyes, not cols, and publication authorship are repeatedly
ours. But it also enables us to leave behind for renegotiated during the research process. After
others material we have not published, since fieldwork, it may be impossible to renegotiate in
most social scientists collect far more than they person, but hopefully the process of fieldwork
are ever able to use. Finally, it enables compar- will establish parameters that equip a respon-
ison not only between our own work and that sible anthropologist to decide whether to
of others, but also, [. . .] between our prepub- archive, and if so on what conditions. Hope but
lication data and what we write and publish. hope with guidance is as good as it gets. Signa-
In this respect, it gives glimpses into the con- tures on paper may satisfy bureaucrats (ethical
struction of knowledge. Institutional Review Board committees) and fa-
Yet archiving data also [. . .] moves things cilitate legal cases but provide no guarantee that
out of our control. We sign deposit forms the spirit of the agreement will be honored. An-
which give copyright to the holding institu- derson & Younging (2010) argue for protocols
tion, and which allow the material to be read, (rather than rules or laws) to provide practical
looked at or listened to by many other people, and helpful guidance by recognizing the need
including, potentially, the subjects of the re- for situational, culturally sensitive, flexibility.
search. Who knows what all of these people Campbell’s review (2010) concludes that
will make of it? In that respect, we are indeed the participative frame and collaboration have
hostages to fortune. (p. 17) limits. Particular problems do exist for those
“studying up” (or “studying through”25 ): Not
Consent
24
Ethics codes stipulate that consent for archiving See http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchethics/5-5-
infcons.html for consent and participatory research (in
should be discussed with research participants, Supplemental Appendix 3).
but this is particularly difficult to obtain. Once 25
Campbell (2010, p. 8) credits Shore & Wright (1997) for
material is archived, it may be consulted by this expression.

only may anonymity be unachievable, but the bought.27 This policy directly contradicts some
research subjects can prevent publication if they ethnic groups’ cultural traditions concerning
disagree with conclusions reached. If there is secrecy and controlled access to information
a professional injunction to “speak truth to (Isaac 2011).
power,” then what is ethically appropriate ac- Many anthropologists surveyed by Jackson
tion (Simpson 2011, p. 382)? There are coun- (1990) exemplify the contradictions Derrida
tervailing professional injunctions. For exam- identified surrounding archives. They were
ple, the development professionals who clashed reluctant to cede or to allow access to their field
with Mosse (see Campbell’s discussion) are un- notes, fearing loss of control or that they might
likely to grant access to other anthropologists, “expose themselves and their failings. Yet they
so Mosse’s research closed doors for future re- were reluctant to ensure that this will never
searchers. An archive of the controversy sur- happen by burning or contemplating other
rounding his analysis may prove important for forms of destruction” ( Jackson 1990, p. 10;
future historians of power and development see also Mayer-Schönberger 2009). Povinelli
policy in late-20th-century United Kingdom
(2011) is refreshingly honest about considering

and India. Perhaps such materials should be the destruction of her research archives (p. 169).
archived only under an embargo (creating a Jackson also reports reluctance to consider
“dark archive”; Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon explicitly correlates of mortality28 : not leaving
Proj. Steer. Comm. 2002) so that researchers instructions in wills about research material, or
must wait until, say, 2070 to read the doc- not thinking through the implications of archiv-
uments. Although anthropologists have long ing.29 Pienta et al. (2010) discuss reticence,
studied up (Nader 1969, Forsythe 2001), ethics confidentiality concerns, and the benefits of
codes say little of the special ethical dilemmas sharing in social science. The potential for reuse
posed by research on high-status, power indi- is repeatedly questioned yet also sometimes
viduals.26 Macdonald (2002) is an exception, clearly demonstrated: Cunha (2006) discusses
accepting the impossibility of anonymization creating the Ruth Landes archive. Bond, Lutke-
in her study of the London Science Museum haus, and Plath (each in Sanjek 1990) explore
(p. 13). their involvement with others’ field notes, as
do others (see the 2008 special issue of Ateliers
d’Anthropologie: L’ethnologue aux prises avec les
Doublethink and Reluctance archives, edited by Molinié & Mouton). To an-
Preserving the Anthropological Record (Silverman thropologists who say “their notes are worthless
& Parezo 1995) and Fieldnotes (Sanjek 1990) or undecipherable” ( Jackson 1990, p. 10), apart
discuss researchers’ possessiveness about “their from asking why then the notes are retained at
data” (see also Zeitlyn 2000, Mason 2007). all, the proper rejoinder is that it is not all or
They were written long before social move- nothing [de Pina-Cabral (2011); Mason (2007)
ments such as Open Science and Creative Com- calls for “investigative epistemologies” to break
mons (except within computer software) and such dichotomies]. The writer of the field note
before funders began to mandate the archiving
of data collected with their support (see Molinié
& Mouton 2008, section 4). If public funds pay 27
Harnad’s original argument applied to scientific results
for material (data) to be collected, then tax- published in commercial published journals, which are in-
payers should have access to what their taxes accessible to most of the public. The debate has been gener-
alized to include data on which publications are based.
28
This reflects unwillingness by many to contemplate their
own mortality; many people die without a will.
26 29
See an online tutorial (especially the section on reflex- Depositing papers creates an expensive archiving task. If
ivity): http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchethics/3-7- possible, a donor’s will should provide funds to cover their
reflexethics.html citing the UK ESRC Ethics Framework. accession/indexing.
472 Zeitlyn
is its ideal reader,30 for whom a note might jog questions and often complement archival work
a memory, recovering “headnotes”: field notes by research with living informants. Researchers
“made and kept” in the head (Ottenburg 1990, such as Stoler, Dirks, and Macfarlane strad-
p. 144). However, other readers may still get dle disciplinary boundaries. Space here pro-
something from them. Lutkehaus describes hibits discussion of the archives anthropologists
how her reading of Wedgwood’s field notes use for research except where they are archives
changed after she visited their shared field site. of anthropology, holding material collected by
I benefited from reading Rehfisch’s notes in anthropological researchers. As noted above,
the village where he made them. some important archives were established in
I offer a final thought on reluctance and the nineteenth century. It is unclear whether
openness. To destroy field material is an ex- the existing archives can cope with the mate-
treme assertion of ownership. Despite feelings rial which will require archiving when the post–
of ownership, many professional anthropolo- World War II anthropologists retire and die
gists need a quasi-Marxist reminder that, as em- (see footnote 30 above).

Supplemental Appendix 2 lists key starting Supplemental Material
ployees, legally they do not own the fruits of

their labors (Parry & Mauthner 2004, p. 141). points, including archives with substantial
Destruction is an extraordinary assertion of holdings of early material, those dealing
power (an act of hubris) and prevents colleagues with research after World War II and that
from the communities studied from reconsid- of contemporary anthropologists, and key
ering our work, as the Dogon anthropologist organizations that provide overviews and
Denis Doyon (2008) did with Griault’s papers. guidance, such as the US Council for the
Others modestly say that archiving is only for Preservation of Anthropological Records, the
big names. Leopold (2008) from the US Na- French Corpus: Infrastructure de Recherche,
tional Anthropological Archives responds: and the UK’s Qualidata.31 A special issue
of Forum: Qualitative Social Research surveys
Our decision to collect and preserve ethno-
current European provision (see Corti 2011).
graphic fieldnotes produced by all American
anthropologists reflects our profound belief
that primary ethnographic data is extremely Preservation Problems
valuable, even materials produced by less- for Digital Archives
known academics and those who publish rel-
Notes made on paper, traditional photographic
atively little. In fact, [. . .] these materials may
prints, and negatives on safety film, left under a
have even greater value because the results
bed, will probably be readable 100 years hence.
of their research have never been published.
The opposite is true of digital records. Contin-
They include materials that document regions
ually changing technology for storing and read-
of the world that continue to undergo rapid
ing digital archives necessitates active curation
social and cultural change. As such, their field
to maintain current (let alone future) access.
notes preserve a unique record of social life.
Horror stories are legion about data trapped on
(section 15, emphasis in original)
media that are no longer readable. The UK’s
Digital Curation Centre pioneered efforts to
Archives of Anthropology
Anthropologists and historians research the
31
same archives. Anthropologists ask different Part of the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), this
has a specialist catalog dedicated to qualitative data, includ-
ing a few anthropological archives (∼100 in August 2011),
and Qualidata hosts data from some of them. The number
30
Molinié & Mouton (2008, section 16) point out they are is misleadingly small: The archive also contains many im-
also best placed to collaborate with archivists in the process portant data sets from oral-history researchers, reflecting the
of archival deposit, with future researchers in mind. influence of Paul Thompson, one of its founders.

establish practical solutions to these problems, Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2011) and collectively

providing guidance for individuals and institu- (e.g., The Reciprocal Research Network32 ),
tions (see http://www.dcc.ac.uk/). radical archives pose important questions for
It is costlier (in labor and infrastructure) anthropologists considering archiving research
to maintain digital archives than paper-based material. Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2011)
ones. This fact is unlikely to change in the notes the varying attitudes of different ethnic
foreseeable future. However, digital archives groups: There may not be unanimity within
scale better than paper-based ones (holding size a group, and attitudes may change over time.
could double without increasing costs signif- For example, born-again Christians can be
icantly), and they enable access to people in enthusiastic (literal) iconoclasts. Can archivists
many places in ways impossible for traditional adjudicate between demands from those who
archives. This situation raises complex and repudiate idolatry to destroy pagan symbolism
radical possibilities. and those who respect its powers (holding
that only they can be entrusted with its care)?

Colwell-Chanthaphonh recognizes the dilem-
CONCLUSIONS: TOWARD mas this complexity poses for museum curators

RADICAL ARCHIVES and archivists. Mitigating complexity obliges
Working collaboratively in Australia, Povinelli administrators to engage with groups who
(2011) dreamt of an archive accessible via a historically have not been party to discussions.
smartphone with built-in GPS. The phone This practice will not right the wrongs of
knows the identity and location of the user, and invasion, colonization, or capitalism, but it is
the archive software is set up to display material achievable within the small frame of an archive.
conditioned by those two variables and by the I note one important caution: Much exemplary
user’s interests. Imagine an Australian sacred work is being undertaken in Australia and
site: Sitting in Sydney or New York, a young North America. The cultural norms of these
man without kin ties to the site may see a very groups should not be imposed on groups
different (reduced) set of material than might elsewhere anymore than those groups should
an old woman from Europe near the site, who be forced to follow the norms of Western
herself would see different material from a man Europe (Descola 1998, p. 209). Not all cultural
born nearby. I use the word “dream” to connect traditions stress secrecy (as do Zuni) or respect
to some Australian aborigine cultural traditions, for the dead by suppressing photographs of the
but Povinelli is not being fantastical: The tech- deceased (as occurs in Australian traditions).
nology to build such a system exists and could What does this mean for anthropologists
easily be realized. with material (potentially) to archive? First,
This would be a “Radical Archive” (Geismar they should look to their notes and hard drives
2012). These are archives radically rethought and organize (at least minimally) what they
and managed in ways unlike anything assumed have. Only then can there be meaningful discus-
in previous discussions concerning legal sion of possible routes to archiving. Then they
structures, privacy debates, or the models of can discuss with representatives from the source
openness explicit in Cultural Commons li- communities (if possible, if not already under-
censes [see Brown (1998), especially p. 198, for taken) and with possible repositories what can
discussion of wider conflicts; see Isaac (2011) and should be done. Conversations about pos-
for case studies, including a provocative com- sible archiving should occur beforehand, while
parison of attempts to control distribution and
access to material by representatives of Zuni
Pueblo and the Church of Scientology]. As 32
This project was codeveloped by two Native American
exemplified by some museums working with in- groups and a university museum; see http://www.rrnpilot.
digenous groups individually (e.g., Denver, see org/.
474 Zeitlyn
the material is being collected. That is the thrust through complex negotiations and discussions
of ethics code guidance. However, we must be with various agents. If that practice becomes the
realistic: Doctoral research is usually carried out norm, then progress will have been made.
by young researchers who often talk to age- Anthropologists place themselves betwixt
mates in the field. At that age, humans seem and between, as agents of the art and sci-
myopic about aging and death, so it may be un- ence of ethnographic research. The long-
realistic to expect them to engage in meaningful term consequences include complex and some-
conversations about what will happen after they times fraught relationships with the people
die. researched, with research funders, and with
This is not to excuse doing nothing. When archives. There are no simple answers (nor
doing research, when considering archiving re- should we seek any) to the question of whether
search material, anthropologists are bound by to archive, and if so how. Digital media increase
critical, ethical, and moral constraints as well access, increase the different types of material
as by legal ones. Eschewing legalese, we seek available, and increase the complexity of archive
(a) to do no harm, (b) to do right by those with management as well as the potential for mis-
whom we work, and (c) to help our successors as representation, for creative reanalysis, and for
much as is consonant with those two principles. community involvement. However, the shift to
What this means in practice varies enormously digital does not change profoundly the concep-
according to cultural context [limiting our abil- tual issues for anthropologists about their re-
ity to generalize meaningfully in the form of lationships to archives. As we have seen, these
edicts, guidelines, or protocols. Brown (1998, connect to wider theoretical issues about how
p. 200) calls this ethical realism]. So, as individ- representations are made and of what they con-
uals well placed to understand cultural specifici- sist and cannot be solved by simple reference to
ties, we must determine the responsible posi- ethics codes or committees. Archives are indeed
tion to archiving in each research circumstance, surrogates for anthropology.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have greatly benefited from discussions and correspondence on this topic with Jennifer
Bajorek, Pat Caplan, Louise Corti, Elizabeth Edwards, Haidy Geismar, Michael Sheringham,
and an anonymous reviewer for Annual Reviews. I am extremely grateful to them all for their
comments. Anna Rayne has helped me clarify the issues. Both she and I know how much I owe
her. The remaining faults, of course, are my own.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson J, Younging G. 2010. Discussion Paper on Protocols. Can. Public Art Fund. (CPAF) Prof. Dev. Meet.
Aborig. Arts Sess. Protoc. http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/project_papers/research_
team_publications/aboriginal_arts_protocols_discussionpaper_for_canadian_public_art_funders_
anderson__younging.pdf
Appadurai A. 1993. Number in the colonial imagination. See Breckenridge & van der Veer 1993, pp. 314–39
Asad T. 2002. Ethnographic representations, statistics and modern power. See Axel 2002, pp. 66–91

Assmann A. 2010. Canon and archive. In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Inter-
disciplinary Handbook, ed. A Erll, A Nünning, pp. 97–107. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter
Axel BK, ed. 2002. From the Margins: Historical Anthropology and its Futures. Durham, NC/London: Duke
Univ. Press
Ballantyne T. 2001. Archive, state, discipline: power and knowledge in South Asian historiography. N. Z. J.
Asian Stud. 3:87–105
Bastian JA. 2003. Owning Memory: How a Caribbean Community Lost Its Archives and Found Its History. Westport,
CT: Libr. Unltd.
Bayly CA. 1996. Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Best S. 2010. Neither lost nor found: slavery and the visual archive. Representations 113:150–63
Bloch M. 1998. Autobiographical memory and the historical memory of the more distant past. In How We
Think They Think. Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory, and Literacy, pp. 114–27. Boulder, CO:
Westview
Bloch ML. 1954. The Historian’s Craft. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
Blouin FX Jr, Rosenberg WG, eds. 2007. Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from
the Sawyer Seminar. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Borges JL. 1964. Funes the memorious. In Labyrinths, pp. 65–71. New York: New Dir.
Borgman CL. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Breckenridge CA, van der Veer P, eds. 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South
Asia. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Brown MF. 1998. Can culture be copyrighted? Curr. Anthropol. 39:193–222
Burton A. 2003. Dwelling in the Archive: Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press
Burton AM, ed. 2005. Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
Press
Campbell JR. 2010. The “problem” of ethics in contemporary anthropological research. Anthropol. Matters
12:1–17
Caplan P. 2010. Something for posterity or hostage to fortune? Archiving anthropological field material.
Anthropol. Today 26:13–17
Carrard P. 2002. Une historienne et le «personnel»: Le Goût de l’archive d’Arlette Farge. Soc. Représent.
13:227–45
Cent. Soc. Media. 2005. Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. Washington, DC:
Cent. Soc. Media. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/sites/default/files/fair_use_final.pdf
Childs BG, Van Herk G, Thorburn J. 2011. Safe harbour: ethics and accessibility in sociolinguistic corpus
building. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 7:163–80
Cicourel AV. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: Wiley
Clifford J. 1985. Objects and others—an afterword. In Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material
Culture. History of Anthropology 3, ed. G Stocking, pp. 236–46. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press
Clifford J, ed. 1997. Museums as contact zones. In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century,
pp. 188–219. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Cohen E. 2004. The orphanista manifesto: orphan films and the politics of reproduction. Am. Anthropol.
106:719–31
Cohn BS. 1987. An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2011. Sketching knowledge: quandaries in the mimetic reproduction of Pueblo
ritual. Am. Ethnol. 38:451–67
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume 1: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness
in South Africa. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Oxford: Westview
Cook T. 2007. Remembering the future: appraisal of records and the role of archives in constructing social
memory. See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 169–81
476 Zeitlyn
Corti L. 2011. The European landscape of qualitative social research archives: methodological and practical
issues. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 12, Art. 11. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.
php/fqs/article/view/1746
Corti L, Day A, Backhouse G. 2000. Confidentiality and informed consent: issues for consideration in the
preservation of and provision of access to qualitative data archives. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc.
Res. 1, Art. 7. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs000372
Corti L, Witzel A, Bishop L. 2005. On the potentials and problems of secondary analysis. An introduction to
the FQS special issue on secondary analysis of qualitative data. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 6,
Art. 49
Coulthard M. 2002. Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence
produced by the police. In Language in the Legal Process, ed. J Cotterill, pp. 19–34. London: Palgrave
Macmillan
Craig B. 2002. Selected themes in the literature on memory and their pertinence to archives. Am. Arch.
65:276–89
Crowley P. 2007. Pierre Michon: The Afterlife of Names. Oxford/New York: Peter Lang
Cunha OMG da. 2006. Imperfect tense: an ethnography of the archive. Mana. Vol. 1. Selected ed. http://
socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-93132006000100001&lng=
en&nrm=iso
Dados N. 2009. Anything goes, nothing sticks: radical stillness and archival impulse. M/C J. Vol. 12, No. 1.
http://dev.mediaculture.ci.qut.edu.au/ojs/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/126
Davies NZ. 1987. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. Cambridge,
UK: Polity
de Pina-Cabral J. 2011. The all-or-nothing syndrome and the human condition. In The Challenge of
Epistemology—Anthropological Perspectives, ed. C Toren, J de Pina-Cabral, pp. 163–76. Oxford: Berghahn
Books
Derrida J. 1995. Archive fever. A Freudian impression. Diacritics 25:9–63
Derrida J. 2002. Archive fever in South Africa. See Hamilton et al. 2002, pp. 38–80 (even pages only)
Descola P. 1998. Comment on Michael Brown, Can Culture Be Copyrighted? Current Anthropology 39:208–9
Dirks N. 1993. Colonial histories and native informants: biography of an archive. See Breckenridge & van der
Veer 1993, pp. 279–313
Dirks N. 2002. Annals of the archive: ethnographic notes on the sources of history. See Axel 2002, pp. 47–65
Doyon D. 2008. Le regard d’un ethnologue malien sur les archives du Fonds Marcel-Griaule. Ateliers Anthropol.
32: http://ateliers.revues.org/3062
Eastwood T, MacNeil H, eds. 2010. Currents of Archival Thinking. Santa Barbara, CA: Libr. Unltd.
Echevarrı́a RG. 1990. Myth and Archive: A Theory of Latin American Narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Erikson PP, with Helma Ward and Kirk Wachendorf. 2002. Voices of a Thousand People: The Makah Cultural
and Research Center. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Ernst W. 1999. Archival action: the archive as ROM and its political instrumentalization under National
Socialism. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:13–34
Fabian J. 2008. Ethnography as Commentary: Writing from the Virtual Archive. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Farge A. 1997 [1989]. Le Goût de l’archive. Paris: Ed. Seuil
First Arch. Circ. 2007. Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. Salamanca, NY: First Arch. Circ.
http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html
Foote K. 1990. To remember and forget: archives, memory, and culture. Am. Arch. 53:378–92
Forsythe DE. 2001. Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence (Writing
Science). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Foucault M. 1967. Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock
Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock
Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane
Foucault M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Brighton, UK:
Harvester

Fowler C. 1995. Ethical considerations. See Silverman & Parezo 1995, pp. 63–72
Freshwater H. 2007. The allure of the archive: performance and censorship. Moveable Type Vol. 3 (Archives:
From Memory to Event). http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/graduate/issue/3/pdf/freshwater.pdf
Fyfe G. 2006. Sociology and the social aspects of museums. In A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. S Macdonald,
pp. 33–49. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell
Garfinkel H. 1984 [1967]. “Good” organizational reasons for “bad” clinic records. In Studies in Ethnomethod-
ology, pp. 186–207. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Geary PJ. 1994. Archival memory and the destruction of the past. In Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and
Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, pp. 81–114. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Geiger T, Moore N, Savage M. 2010. The archive in question. Rev. Pap. NCRM/016, ESRC Natl. Cent. Res.
Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/921/1/Moore_review_paper_march_10.pdf
Geismar H. 2012. Museum + digital = ? In Digital Anthropology, ed. HA Horst, D Miller. Oxford: Berg
Gilliland A, McKemmish S. 2004. Building an infrastructure for archival research. Arch. Sci. 4:149–97
Gilliland-Swetland AJ. 2000. Archival research: a “new” issue for graduate education. Am. Arch. 63:258–70
Gosden C, Larson F. 2007. Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum 1884–1945.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Gracy KF. 2001. The Imperative to Preserve: Competing Definitions of Value in the World of Film Preservation. Los
Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Greetham D. 1999. “Who’s in, who’s out”: the cultural poetics of archival exclusion. Stud. Lit. Imagin. (Spec.
Issue: The Poetics of the Archive) xxxii:1–28
Grigg S. 1991. Archival practice and the foundations of historical method. J. Am. Hist. 78:228–39
Guha R. 1983. Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
Hamilton C, Harris V, Pickover M, Reid G, Saleh R, Taylor J, eds. 2002. Refiguring the Archive. Cape Town:
David Philip
Handler R, Gable E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon Proj. Steer. Comm., Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon Proj. Tech. Team. 2002. Report
on the Planning Year Grant for the Design of an E-Journal Archive. Andrew W. Mellon Found. http://old.
diglib.org/preserve/harvardfinal.pdf
Hutchens B. 2007. Techniques of forgetting? Hypo-amnesic history and the an-archive. SubStance 36:37–55
Isaac G. 2007. Mediating Knowledges: Origins of a Zuni Tribal Museum. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Isaac G. 2011. Whose idea was this? Curr. Anthropol. 52:211–33
Jackson JJ. 1990. “I am a fieldnote”: fieldnotes as a symbol of professional identity. See Sanjek 1990, pp. 3–33
Jimerson RC. 2003. Archives and memory. OCLC Syst. Serv. 19:89–95
Jolly É. 2008. Le Fonds Marcel-Griaule: un objet de recherche à partager ou un patrimoine à restituer? Ateliers
Anthropol. 32: http://ateliers.revues.org/2902
Jones S, Abbott D, Ross S. 2009. Redefining the performing arts archive. Arch. Sci. 9:165–71
Joyce P. 1999. The politics of the liberal archive. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:35–49
Katz J. 1991. From archive to archiveology. Cinematograph 4:93–103
Ketelaar E. 2001. Tacit narratives: the meanings of archives. Arch. Sci. 1:131–41
Kritzman LD. 1996. Foreword. In remembrance of things French. In Pierre Nora: Realms of Memory: Rethinking
the French Past, pp. ix–xiv. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Ladurie ELR. 1978. Montaillou. Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 1294–1324. London: Scolar
Leopold R. 2008. The second life of ethnographic fieldnotes. Ateliers Anthropol. 32: http://ateliers.revues.
org/3132
Levy N. 1998. History as struggle: Foucault’s genealogy of genealogy. Hist. Hum. Sci. 11:159–70
Macdonald S. 2002. Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Oxford: Berg
Manoff M. 2004. Theories of the archive from across the disciplines. Portal: Libr. Acad. 4:9–25
Marquis K. 2007. Not dragon at the gate but research partner: the reference archivist as mediator. See Blouin
& Rosenberg 2007, pp. 36–42
Mason J. 2007. “Re-using” qualitative data: on the merits of an investigative epistemology. Sociol. Res. Online
12: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/3.html
478 Zeitlyn
Mathur S. 2000. History and anthropology in South Asia: rethinking the archive. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29:89–
106
Mayer-Schönberger V. 2009. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Meehan J. 2009. The archival nexus: rethinking the interplay of archival ideas about the nature, value, and use
of records. Arch. Sci. 9:157–64
Michelet J. 1863. La sorcière, the witch of the Middle Ages. London: Simpkin, Marshall
Molinié A, Mouton M-D. 2008. L’ethnologue aux prises avec les archives—introduction. Ateliers Anthropol.
32: http://ateliers.revues.org/1093
Morash M. 1984. Establishment of a juvenile police record: the influence of individual and peer group char-
acteristics. Criminology 22:97–111
Nader L. 1969. Up the anthropologist—perspectives gained from studying up. In Reinventing Anthropology,
ed. D Hymes, pp. 285–311. New York: Pantheon
Nardi BA, O’Day V. 1996. Intelligent agents—what we learned at the library. Libri 46:59–88
Nora P. 1989. Between memory and history: les lieux de mémoire. Representations 26:7–24
Ogle M. 2010. Archive Fever: A Love Letter to the Post Real-Time Web (blog). http://mattogle.com/archivefever
Olwig KF. 1984. “Witnesses in spite of themselves”: reconstructing Afro-Caribbean culture in the Danish
West Indian archives. Scand. Econ. Hist. Rev. 32:61–76
Osborne T. 1999. The ordinariness of the archive. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:51–64
Ottenberg S. 1990. Thirty years of fieldnotes: changing relationships to the text. See Sanjek 1990, pp. 139–60
Parry O, Mauthner NS. 2004. Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving
qualitative research data. Sociology 38:139–52
Pels P. 1997. The anthropology of colonialism: culture, history, and the emergence of Western governmen-
tality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:163–83
Pels P, Salemink O, eds. 1999. Colonial Subjects: Essays on the Practical History of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: Univ.
Mich. Press
Phelan P. 1993. The ontology of performance: representation without reproduction. In Unmarked: The Politics
of Performance, pp. 146–66. London: Routledge
Pienta AM, Alter GC, Lyle JA. 2010. The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary
research data. Presented at Organ., Econ. Policy Sci. Res. Workshop, Torino, Italy. http://hdl.handle.
net/2027.42/78307
Povinelli EA. 2011. The woman on the other side of the wall: archiving the otherwise in postcolonial digital
archives. Differ. J. Fem. Cult. Stud. 22:146–71
Pratt ML. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91:33–40
Richards T. 1993. The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire. London: Verso
Ricœur P. 1988. Archives, documents, traces. In Time and Narrative, Volume 3, pp. 116–26. Chicago/London:
Univ. Chicago Press
Rock F. 2001. Policy and practice in the anonymisation of linguistic data. Int. J. Corpus Ling. 6:1–26
Roque R, Wagner KA. 2011. Introduction: Engaging Colonial Knowledge. In Engaging Colonial Knowledge:
Reading European Archives in World History, ed. R Roque, KA Wagner, pp. 1–32. Basingstoke/New York:
Palgrave Macmillan
Rose S. 2009. Memories are made of this. In Memory: An Anthology, ed. AS Byatt, H Harvey Wood, pp. 54–67.
London: Vintage Books
Sanjek R, ed. 1990. Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Savage M. 2005. Revisiting classic qualitative studies. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 6, Art. 31.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/502/1081
Savage M. 2007. Changing social class identities in post-war Britain: perspectives from mass-observation.
Sociol. Res. Online 12: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/6.html
Schechner R. 1985. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Schwartz JM, Cook T. 2002. Archives, records, and power: the making of modern memory. Arch. Sci. 2:1–19
Shankar K. 2002. Scientists, Records, and the Practical Politics of Infrastructure. Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Shankar K. 2004. Recordkeeping in the production of scientific knowledge: an ethnographic study. Arch. Sci.
4:367–82

Sheringham M. 2011. Foucault, Pierre Rivière and the archival imaginary. Comp. Crit. Stud. 8:235–57
Shirky C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody. London: Allen & Unwin
Shore C, Wright S, eds. 1997. Anthropology of Public Policy. Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. London:
Routledge
Silverman S, Parezo NJ, eds. 1995. Preserving the Anthropological Record. New York: Wenner-Gren Found.
Anthropol. Res. 2nd ed.
Simpson B. 2011. Ethical moments: future directions for ethical review and ethnography. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.
17:377–93
Steedman C. 2002. Dust: The Archive and Cultural History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Steedman C. 2007. “Something she called a fever”: Michelet, Derrida, and dust (or, In the archives with
Michelet and Derrida). See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 4–19
Steedman C. 2008. Romance in the archive. Ontol. Arch. Conf., April 25, Univ. Manch. http://www.cresc.ac.
uk/events/archived/archiveseries/documents/Steedman.pdf
Stewart S. 1993 [1984]. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. London:
Duke Univ. Press

Stocking GW Jr, ed. 1991. Colonial Situations. Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. Madison:
Univ. Wis. Press

Stoler AL. 1992. “In cold blood”: hierarchies of credibility and the politics of colonial narratives. Representations
37:151–89
Stoler AL. 2009. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Strateg. Content Alliance, Collect. Trust, Korn N, JISC. 2009. In from the Cold: An Assessment of the Scope of
“Orphan Works” and its Impact on the Delivery of Services to the Public. Cambridge, UK: JISC Collect. Trust
Taylor D. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham,
NC/London: Duke Univ. Press
Torsen M, Anderson J. 2010. Intellectual Property and the Safeguarding of Traditional Cultures—Legal Issues and
Practical Options for Museums, Libraries and Archives. Geneva: World Intellect. Prop. Organ. (WIPO)
Trace CB. 2002. What is recorded is never simply “what happened”: record keeping in modern organizational
culture. Arch. Sci. 2:137–59
Trace CB. 2004. Documenting School Life: Formal and Informal Imprints of a Fifth-Grade Classroom. Los Angeles:
Univ. Calif. Press
Trace CB. 2006. For love of the game: an ethnographic analysis of archival reference work. Arch. Manuscr.
34:124–43
Trouillot M-R. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, MA: Beacon
Usai PC. 1999. What is an orphan film? Definition, rationale, and controversy. Symp. “Orphans of the Storm
I: Saving Orphan Films in the Digital Age,” Sept. 23, Univ. S. C., Columbia. http://www.sc.edu/
filmsymposium/archive/orphans2001/usai.html
Velody I. 1998. The archive and the human sciences: notes towards a theory of the archive. Hist. Hum. Sci.
11:1–16
Ward A. 1995. Copyright Ethics and Oral History. Colchester, UK: Oral Hist. Soc.
Whatley P, Brown C. 2010. Along and against the grain: the philosophy of the archive. Papers from the first
international conference of the Investigating the Archive project. Arch. Sci. 9:127–31
Yakel E. 1997. Recordkeeping in Radiology: The Relationships Between Activities and Records in Radiological Processes.
Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Yakel E. 2001. The social construction of accountability: radiologists and their record-keeping practices. Inf.
Soc. 17:233–45
Yakel E. 2007. Archival representation. See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 151–63
Zeitlyn D. 2000. Archiving anthropology. Forum Qual. Soz. /Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. [Online J.] 1, Art. 17.
http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
Zeitlyn D. 2008. Life history writing and the anthropological silhouette. Soc. Anthropol. 16:154–71
480 Zeitlyn
AN41-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2012 12:10
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents Volume 41, 2012
Prefatory Chapter
Ancient Mesopotamian Urbanism and Blurred Disciplinary Boundaries
Robert McC. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Archaeology
The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect
Sarah Tarlow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Paleolithic Archaeology in China
Ofer Bar-Yosef and Youping Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic
and Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean
Peter van Dommelen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
Archaeometallurgy: The Study of Preindustrial Mining and Metallurgy
David Killick and Thomas Fenn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 559
Rescue Archaeology: A European View
Jean-Paul Demoule p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 611
Biological Anthropology
Energetics, Locomotion, and Female Reproduction:
Implications for Human Evolution
Cara M. Wall-Scheffler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71
vii
Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the

Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Human Evolution and the Chimpanzee Referential Doctrine
Ken Sayers, Mary Ann Raghanti, and C. Owen Lovejoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119
Chimpanzees and the Behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus
Craig B. Stanford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Primate Feeding and Foraging: Integrating Studies
of Behavior and Morphology

W. Scott McGraw and David J. Daegling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,

and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Maternal Prenatal Nutrition and Health in Grandchildren
and Subsequent Generations
E. Susser, J.B. Kirkbride, B.T. Heijmans, J.K. Kresovich, L.H. Lumey,
and A.D. Stein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577
Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Media and Religious Diversity
Patrick Eisenlohr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning
in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation
Penelope Eckert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
The Semiotics of Collective Memories
Brigittine M. French p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism
Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures
and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Music, Language, and Texts: Sound and Semiotic Ethnography
Paja Faudree p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519
viii Contents
International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Contemporary Anthropologies of Indigenous Australia
Tess Lea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
The Politics of Perspectivism
Alcida Rita Ramos p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies
Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 537
Sociocultural Anthropology
Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Enculturating Cells: The Anthropology, Substance, and Science
of Stem Cells
Aditya Bharadwaj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 303
Diabetes and Culture
Steve Ferzacca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 411
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Sport, Modernity, and the Body
Niko Besnier and Susan Brownell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443
Theme I: Materiality
Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Contents ix
Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism

Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent
Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Theme II: Climate Change

Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the
Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and
Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 631
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
x Contents

Zeitlyn, D. (2012) - Anthropology in and of The Archives

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationZeitlyn, D. (2012). Anthropology in and of the Archives

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zeitlyn, D. (2012) - Anthropology in and of The Archives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zeitlyn, D. (2012) - Anthropology in and of The Archives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn ARI 16 August 2012 19:27

• Our comprehensive search

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:461–80 Keywords

ARCHIVES FOR ARCHIVES AS INSTRUMENTS

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 463

sidered. This relates to Foucault’s “archeology

same region in broadly the same tradition are

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 465

produce ethnographies of archives, works of of undertaking archival research. Relevant

material for archives, were cited above. There

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 467

The Internet as archive. Many authors de-

phanage’ evokes the broader reality of a ﬁlm

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 469

Anthropology has always been reﬂexive: Ma- able to undo it.

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 471

(2011) is refreshingly honest about considering

gists need a quasi-Marxist reminder that, as em- (see footnote 30 above).

ployees, legally they do not own the fruits of

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 473

establish practical solutions to these problems, Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2011) and collectively

that only they can be entrusted with its care)?

CONCLUSIONS: TOWARD mas this complexity poses for museum curators

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 475

the Sawyer Seminar. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 477

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology in and of the Archives 479

Duke Univ. Press

Univ. Wis. Press

Contents Volume 41, 2012

Robert McC. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the

of Behavior and Morphology

Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism

Theme II: Climate Change

The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

You might also like