Why Are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow

Abstract

ABSTRACT“Heritage interpretation” is generally conceived as the development and presentation of knowledge about the past for public audiences. Most obviously evidenced in descriptive signs, guides, and related media installed on archaeological and cultural sites, heritage interpretation has more than a half century of theory and applied practice behind it, yet it continues to sit uncomfortably within the typical archaeological workflow. While the concept can be criticized on many fronts, of concern is the lack of recognition that it is of equal relevance to both nonexpert and expert audiences (as opposed to nonexpert audiences alone). Our profession appears to rest on an assumption that archaeologists do their own kind of interpretation—and, separately, nonexperts require a special approach that heritage interpreters must facilitate but that field specialists have no need for—or from which little obvious expert benefit can be derived. For this reason, it is rare to find heritage interpreters embedded in primary fieldwork teams. Here I call for a rethinking of the traditional workflow, with a view to integrating the heritage interpretation tool kit and heritage interpreters themselves into our basic field methodologies. Their direct involvement in disciplinary process from the outset has the potential to transform archaeological interpretation overall.

The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record

“…Below, I present EMOTIVE experiments at Çatalhöyük and York Minster particularly related to agonistic debate (#3 above), as our findings here point to trends which both validate and threaten wider roll-out of the enchantment model. Note that aspects of points 1, 2 and 4 (above) are also explored in recent and forthcoming publications (Perry, 2018;Perry et al, in prep;Roussou et al, 2019). EMOTIVE works within a frame that matches the dominant participatory/public value model which increasingly guides heritage policy in the UK and internationally.…”

“…(2) Through higher-order interpretative practices (developed for both specialist and broader publics) that critically deploy emotive theory and method to generate enchantment in the way that good storytelling is meant to do, and that evaluate effects on audiences (see Perry, 2018). (3) Through constructive, agonistic debate (amongst both specialist and broader publics) on the topics of (1) and (2), following a model of facilitated dialogue that allows for conflict and accepts risk and potential failure.…”

“…Archaeologists, therefore, can consciously and critically bring into play emotive engagements in what I perceive to be four key ways: Through archaeological inscription practices , where enchantment is facilitated via primary data recording, reporting, and archiving systems that are enhanced to share and increase affect (see more in Perry et al, in prep). These practices constitute the objects of the archaeological record which can then enchant their users.Through higher-order interpretative practices (developed for both specialist and broader publics) that critically deploy emotive theory and method to generate enchantment in the way that good storytelling is meant to do, and that evaluate effects on audiences (see Perry, 2018). Through constructive, agonistic debate (amongst both specialist and broader publics) on the topics of (1) and (2), following a model of facilitated dialogue that allows for conflict and accepts risk and potential failure.Through ongoing experimentations with craft skills and creativity , elaborated through ethical user-centred design and development models that enable us to better accomplish (1), (2), and (3), and regularly reassess their impacts.…”

Recording In Situ Human Remains in Three Dimensions

“…Although the model can enable greater reflexivity, there is a risk that applying these methods without supporting detailed planning could lead to "the 'mass-production' of interchangeable, standardized, and fungible outputs over intellectual engagement" (Kansa, 2015;Opitz and Johnson, 2016), with reduced engaged in-field interpretation (cf. Perry, 2015). A similar issue can occur where models are used for public engagement with "little specific and clear direction and participation by the public themselves" (Richardson, 2013;Williams and Atkin, 2015).…”

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

“…Such close engagement with descendent and living communities is essential to decolonizing the knowledge production process. It has led some archaeologists to design projects and innovate field workflows that include a plurality of native experts and heritage interpreters in research, from “the trowel's edge” to the formulation of a narrative about the past (Perry ; Van der Linde et al. ).…”