Key Concepts in Public Archaeology – Introduction Chapter Notes

Working Definitions of Public Archaeology

• Field sits “where archaeology meets the world.”
• Multiple complementary definitions stress interaction, ethics, negotiation, consumption, and improvement of relationships between archaeology and non-specialists:
  • Ascherson (2000) ➜ ethics emerging when archaeology enters “real world of economic conflicts and political struggle.”
  • Schadla-Hall (1999) ➜ any activity with potential public interaction.
  • Merriman (2004) ➜ studies how archaeology becomes public culture; contestation inevitable.
  • Moshenska (2009a) ➜ critiques production/consumption of archaeological commodities.
  • Matsuda & Okamura (2011) ➜ examines and seeks to improve archaeology–public relationship.
• Working chapter definition: “practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world.”

Scope & Aims of the Book/Chapter

• Provide concise snapshots of major ideas & case studies across public archaeology.
• Usable either cover-to-cover (broad competency) or chapter-specific (targeted insight).
• Reader should leave knowing:
  1. What public archaeology is.
  2. Why it matters.
  3. How to act within it.

Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s Vision (1955-56)

• Moral & academic duty to share scientific work “to the fullest possible extent” with general public.
• Obligation to communicate in “common clay” of popular understanding.
• Not first/only advocate but a prominent early exemplar.

Persistent Challenges of Definition

• Discipline spans professional–academic–amateur, local–global, science–humanities divides.
• National traditions (Greece, Argentina, UK, Japan, etc.) generate divergent vocabularies and priorities.
• Author adopts inclusive lens; acknowledges term also used narrowly for outreach alone.

Core Principles Highlighted

• Ethics central: economic, political, identity-based conflicts shape practice.
• Negotiation & conflict over meaning unavoidable.
• Public archaeology critiques its own disciplinary boundaries.
• Requires literacy in economics, law, media, community activism, diplomacy, etc.

Hybridity: Scholarship + Practice

• Analogy to sciences:
  • Science Studies (critical research) vs. Science Communication (practice of sharing).
  • Public archaeology melds both roles simultaneously.
• Draws upon museum studies, communication skills, social theory, economics, tech, etc.
• Makes field “more complicated—and more interesting.”

Origins & the “London School” Model

• Book’s stance shaped by 20+ yrs at UCL Institute of Archaeology.
• Intellectual lineage: Peter Ucko’s radicalism → teaching/writing by Tim Schadla-Hall, Nick Merriman, Neal Ascherson & students.
• Contributions include:
  • Digital media studies.
  • Engagement with cultural economics.
  • Heritage & human-rights perspectives.
• Acknowledges divergent US/UK uses of term (CRM focus vs. broader critical model).

Seven-Part Typology of Public Archaeology

(After Bonacchi & Moshenska 2015 – Figure 1.1)

1. Archaeologists Working with the Public

• Often labelled “community archaeology.”
• Run by museums, commercial units, universities, local gov’t.
• Funders (e.g., Heritage Lottery Fund) vital.
• Increasing shift from digs to archives, collections, crowdsourcing.

2. Archaeology by the Public

• “Amateur” or volunteer societies; precede professionalization.
• Licensing/legal frameworks vary globally.
• Metal-detecting a controversial subset; ethics & data quality uneven.
• Demographics skew: older, white, middle-class (societies); overwhelmingly male (detectorists).

3. Public-Sector (State) Archaeology

• Concept traceable to McGimsey’s 1972 book Public Archaeology.
• Encompasses national/regional heritage agencies (e.g., US National Park Service).
• Now often labelled Cultural/Heritage Resource Management (CRM/HRM).
• Emphasis on power, accountability, stewardship of taxpayer-funded assets.

4. Archaeological Education

• Occurs in museums, heritage sites, field schools, classrooms, online, cruise lectures, etc.
• Mix of formal teaching & craft-based experiential learning.
• Debate between “deficit model” (fill knowledge gap) vs. “multiple perspectives” approach (Merriman 2004).

5. Open Archaeology

• Excavation inherently visible; spectators can witness artefacts emerging.
• Historical tension: Petrie disliked tourists; Wheeler embraced them.
• Modern tools: viewing platforms, webcams, guided tours.
• Openness underpins democratic, participatory image of discipline.

6. Popular / Media / Pop-Culture Archaeology

• Largest economic footprint; includes TV (Time Team), best-selling books, magazines, apps, games.
• Engages “antiquarians” with broad casual interest (Holtorf).
• Shallow yet wide engagement crucial for political & financial support.

7. Academic Public Archaeology

• Critical scholarship analysing archaeology’s economic, legal, social, cultural, ethical contexts.
• Scrutinises heritage cuts, community struggles, conflict archaeology, identity politics, etc.
• Ethics topics: cultural property, descendant rights, sustainability.

Intersections & Fluidity

• Categories overlap: e.g., crowdsourced digitisation (open + popular + academic).
• Career pathways flow among sectors (visitor ➜ volunteer ➜ student ➜ professional/media).
• Typology is descriptive, not prescriptive; illustrates breadth of methods & audiences.

Future Trajectories

1. Interdisciplinarity

• Leverage mature fields of Science Communication & Science Studies for skills (writing, media production, ethnography, epistemology).
• Situate archaeology within broader Public Humanities (public history, classical reception, digital humanities, museum studies).
• Recognise that archaeology is one strand within diverse public engagements with the past.

2. Data Revolution

• Current deficit: limited large-scale, systematic information on public attitudes, non-visitors, cross-national comparisons.
• Strategies:
  • Collaborate with market-research frameworks.
  • Meta-analyse dispersed small studies.
  • Integrate rigorous monitoring & evaluation into every project (often required by funders like HLF).
  • Teach data skills in public-archaeology curricula and CPD.
• Better data fundamental for assessing impact, refining methods, advocating funding.

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Implications

• Central question: Who owns, interprets, and benefits from the past?
• Public archaeology negotiates competing claims (economic, nationalist, descendant, scholarly).
• Balances openness with preservation; participation with professionalism; entertainment with accuracy.
• Ultimately seeks democratised, accountable stewardship of archaeological heritage.