Introduction: interactions of archaeology and the public

Abstract

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...

Det monterløse museum: En etnografisk undersøkelse av et arkeologisk universitetsmuseum som møtested for arkeologiske praksiser og museal gjøren

“…10 Gabriel Moshenska (2017, s.6) har utarbeidet en figur som viser fagfeltet publikumsarkeologi inndelt i syv forskjellige «typer» (1) arkeologer som arbeider med publikum, (2) arkeologi utført av publikum, (3) arkeologi i offentlig sektor (4) arkeologiske utdannelsesinstitusjoner, (5) åpen arkeologi, (6) populaer arkeologi og (7) akademisk publikumsarkeologi. (Guttormsen & Hedeager, 2015). I den forbindelse er det viktig å huske at arkeologene praktiserer innen ulike områder av samfunnet, fra offentlige museumsinstitusjoner og kulturarvsforvaltning, til ulike engasjement i privat regi (Guttormsen & Hedeager, 2015, s. 189).…”

Conservación [Crítica] Social en Arqueología

“…Comprender cómo la sociedad se aproxima al patrimonio debe ser considerado un punto inicial previo a cualquier intervención, ya que sin él sería inviable confeccionar cualquier proyecto de conservación arqueológica, y menos aún aquellos que se identifiquen con un enfoque participativo-social. A la arqueología comunitaria y pública le hace falta un corpus teórico que vaya más allá de la multiplicidad metodológica que reflejan los abundantes estudios de caso que se publican (Gould 2016) y avanzar hacia cómo medir su impacto real en la sociedad, a corto y largo plazo (Guttormsen y Hedeager 2015). Además, en muchas ocasiones el carácter efímero de estos proyectos, supeditados a subvenciones puntuales, lega una obligación por y para la comunidad, que será la encargada de prolongar las acciones tanto divulgativas como de conservación; señalando un carácter usufructuario en contraposición a formativo (Salazar et al 2020).…”

A ‘Reflexive’ Multi-Stage Survey Methodology for Historical Landscape Research in Central India:Field-Walking, Local Knowledge, and Satellite Imagery as Archaeological Site Prospection and Mapping Tools in the Sanchi Survey Project

“…Not only does such an approach allow for a degree of compromise between extensive and systematic methodologies, it also sets the 'village to village' survey apart from the generic 'extensive' survey. The resulting methodology is of relevance therefore to widespread recognition of the importance of the local or 'folk' perspective for 'reflexive' excavation 8,9 and survey methods [57][58][59] , and more general discussions within archaeological ethics and public archaeology of the need for collaboration with local communities 60 . Elsewhere I have argued that the methodological shortcomings of the 1980s Ganga valley surveys are exacerbated further by a general lack of integration between the theories and methods of landscape studies, and a failure to acknowledge the potential strengths of localized research designs that capitalize on local cultural practices 1 .…”