But Isn't All Archaeology ‘Public’ Archaeology?

Grima, Reuben

doi:10.1080/14655187.2016.1200350

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is an interesting finding, and resonates with the hubris identified by Grima (2016) and noted previously.…”

Section: Recognizessupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Grima, 2016: 2, see also Green, et al, 2003), with the seven-point typology developed by Bonacchi and Moshenska (2015; see also Moshenska, 2017) providing a particularly thorough overview of the field and acknowledging the degree of overlap between the different categories. However, this general acceptance and agreement regarding the broad range of arenas where archaeology can intersect with the public is not shared when it comes to the details regarding how this interaction should take place.…”

Section: What Is Public Archaeology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Grima (2016) has reformulated Merriman's models into three (see Figure 2) In addition to the multiple perspectives approach, he adapts the deficit model into 'the gateway' and adds an 'ivory tower' perspective. This new subdivision has the advantage of recognizing that not all archaeologists accept or acknowledge the role of the public.…”

Section: Towards a Classification Of Public Archaeologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Oldham

2017

Public Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…This is an interesting finding, and resonates with the hubris identified by Grima (2016) and noted previously.…”

Section: Recognizessupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: What Is Public Archaeology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Towards a Classification Of Public Archaeologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Oldham

2017

Public Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Project directors whose political and community understanding were key to sustaining developments and empowering citizens were brought in to more multi-lateral projects to demonstrate the cultural value of archaeology in their communities. Grima [6] suggests three different ways to think about community archaeology. The ivory tower is the first way to look at it as archaeologists perceive themselves as the insiders and specialists with a privilege of knowledge that has served to widen the division between specialists' knowledge and experience and that of public knowledge.…”

Section: The Rise Of Community Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another way of thinking about the relationship between the archaeologist, archaeological evidence and practice, and the public, is one which gives the archaeologist the role of mediator between the public on the one hand, and the archaeological resource on the other, or what is sometimes referred to as the gateway or the deficit model, as discussed by Merriman [7]. The third way is the 'multiple perspective model ', which recognizes the variety of perspectives, attitudes, and needs of different audiences, which will result in very different forms of engagement with the past [6]. This model also allows for the promotion of inclusive cultural heritage, a new concept for some in archaeological circles.…”

Section: The Rise Of Community Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Change towards Inclusive Societies: The Soft Power of Community Archaeology in Building Cultural Heritage in Mozan, Syria

Moualla

McPherson

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the soft power of community archaeology in transforming isolated and diverse communities into a more inclusive society, by reviewing community archaeology as a concept, and as a process, through the case of inclusive cultural heritage in Mozan, Syria. A theory of change underpinned key interventions in Mozan to track shifts in the social behaviour of locals from cultural isolation towards participation, partnership and inclusion, while investigating the process of establishing understanding, acceptance and mutual trust within communities. The research adopted an ethnographic study and used qualitative research methods. These relied primarily on direct observations and open ended, semi-structured and in-depth interviews with local communities, an archaeological mission and governmental and civic stakeholders involved in the area. The fieldwork research was informed by conducting a review of literature on the impact of culture and heritage in social contexts, social inclusion and cultural diplomacy. The paper demonstrates how the contribution of community archaeology in soft power change has assisted personal and community empowerment through inclusive cultural heritage on an individual level while strengthening social networks to mobilise the impact on the community as a whole. It reveals how such a project enhanced dialogue, increased awareness, and built and contributed to mutual understanding in order to support a shift in the harder area of symbolic community thinking and attitude, against a backdrop of conflict, war and isolation and builds the basis for inclusive cultural heritage tourism.

show abstract