In the 1970s, the archaeologist David Clarke challenged the archaeological community with the provocative statement: 'Archaeology is what archaeologists do' (Clarke 1973, 6). In this way he put a muzzle on colleagues who had a clear definition about what an archaeologist is and what archaeology should be (or rather not be). The growth of disciplinary branches such as industrial, contemporary, popular and public archaeology is also today challenging common knowledge about what archaeology is or ideas on what the discipline should be. The discussion has its roots in the urge to define a common set of challenges and objectives within the discipline. However, with the emergence of a number of academic subcultures, it is obvious that archaeology can be defined in different ways. 'Stone Age archaeologists' and 'public archaeologists' have their own discussion forums and communication channels that mediate various research worlds within archaeology.Another aspect of this is that the practice of doing archaeology is expanding while, on the other hand, archaeologists today are taking part in a variety of different areas in society: in the cultural heritage management sector, in museums, in municipal and sectorial agencies, in consulting firms, in private and public research institutes, tourism companies and so on, where archaeology is subordinated to larger affairs, other knowledge cultures, practices and functions. The labour market for an archaeologist is currently diverse, operating within a versatile field intending to accommodate a lot of public interests. Thus, the current situation reflects the intentions of the Malta Convention, which acknowledged that archaeology appeals to the public and is attractive for many purposes when it is becoming a product and has something to offer present-day societies (Valetta 1992).A third aspect concerning the necessity of defining archaeology is about communication and transdisciplinarity as means for vitalizing academic fields of knowledge. John Carman and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen address the issue in this way:Definitions bring focus and coherence to the field of study, but will also limit and make fixed both what is included for study and what have hitherto been permeable borders towards other academic concerns. We are faced with a conundrum. On the one hand, we appreciate that it is through definitions and agreed terminologies that it becomes possible to have meaningful and constructive conversations and to understand each other. On the other hand, definitions and agreed terminologies censor the field; they, rather than the subject matter, will guide our intellectual engagement and restrict our imagination.Conversations and transdisciplinarity direct attention to how archaeology partakes in wider research areas about the past. Heritage studies, memory studies, museum studies, and public archaeology are as such overlapping fields of research addressing the role of archaeology (among other history disciplines) in society (e.g. Skeates, Carman and McDavid 2012, 1).
Defining publ...