Bridging the Gap: Classification, Theory and Practice in Public Archaeology

Abstract

Models and classifications have been a part of thinking about public archaeology since at least the early 2000s, but how are these ideas translated into practice? By looking into the development of such classifications and models and by examining archaeologists' attitudes to an archaeological education outreach project for schoolchildren in Oslo, Norway, this paper looks at the relationship between classification, theory, and practice in public archaeology.

A four stage approach to community archaeology, illustrated with cases studies from Dorset, England

“…The limited models and methods that focus upon collaborative approaches, uncritical case studies, and the development of the practice of community archaeology have resulted in a gap between the theory and practice of community archaeology in the UK. This has been identified across the broader public archaeology sphere by Oldham (2018). He also calls for an increase in evaluation data to improve practice.…”

“…This recognition of the broad scope of 'community archaeology' is why the guidance itself also has to be broad and general. I have also been told on numerous occasions that there is no need for broad guidance for community archaeology; however, this is directly contradicted by the calls for critical evaluation and ethical practice as discussed above (Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez 2015;Gould 2016;Milek 2018;Brown et al 2018;Oldham 2018).…”

Archaeologies of Climate Change: Perceptions and Prospects

“…Indeed, since the late 1990s, community archaeology has entirely changed the face of archaeology (e.g., Silliman 2008;Watkins 2017;Zimmerman 1996) to the point where conducting a project without involving the local community, especially in the case of descendant communities, is now quite unthinkable. Community-based archaeology is not only vital in reducing the distance between professional and public entities (Grima 2016;Oldham 2017), particularly in Indigenous contexts (Pullar, Knecht, and Haakanson 2013), but can also serve as an instrument connecting people to their present, their traditional heritage, and cultural pride. There is even an argument made for the role of community archaeology in a decolonializing process (e.g., Atalay 2006).…”

Towards the Public: A contribution of Public Archaeology at Serra do Carvalho, Póvoa do Lanhoso (North of Portugal)

“…According to Matsuda (2016), the educational approach focuses on people learning about the past and the importance of protection and conservation, while the public relations approach aims to increase recognition, popularity, and support for archaeology. The pluralist approach looks at the diversity of interactions and how archaeology is a means of making sense of the past, and the critical approach engages with the politics of the past (Oldham, 2018).…”

“…An Initially, it was thought that the participation and engagement between the different actors would provide an organic, nonhierarchical, and synergistic model, with an egalitarian exchange of knowledge, experience and value, and where the spirit of archaeological community would be essentially grafted onto a theoretical framework (Matsuda & Okamura, 2011, Oldham, 2018. However, we quickly realised that our programme and modus operandi would have to adapt to a practical interaction between an educational perspective, public outreach (Rieth, 2007) and cultural heritage management (Birch 2006)-as has occurred in other documented cases (Cole, 2011).…”