The authority of the archaeologist may still be conceived to lie in their expertise and relationship with the objectivity of the past or of explanation. But awareness of the constructed and located character of knowledges has undermined this source of authority — the subject and object of archaeological knowledge have been brought together in a focus on archaeology as acts of cultural production (appropriating the past and producing knowledges of it). The empirical past is not in-itself enough to justify archaeological knowledge, it has been argued. Other sources of authority for archaeological interpretation may be political, ethical, aesthetic or pragmatic; it depends on local circumstances. It may be argued, for example, that an archaeologist’s authority should be rooted in their skill in interpreting the past. A variety of contexts of archaeological work would, following this line of argument, entail pluralism — different knowledges suited to different local contexts, interests and needs. The issue of authority is one of cultural politics and the relationship between power and the legitimation of knowledges. An associated problem or criticism is that of relativism.