Public Archaeology is a young discipline, we all know that. It’s even younger in Italy, where public archaeology has not even reached ‘adulthood’. Cited for the first time by Armando De Guio in 2000 (De Guio and Bressan 2000), it was only a decade later that Public Archaeology has started to become ‘a thing’, thanks to some pioneering experiences at the University of Florence (Bonacchi 2009; Vannini 2011), and especially after a national conference in 2012 (in Florence: see Zuanni 2013 for a summary). Italian archaeologists’ first reaction was to overlap the new discipline with the experiences already in place, which in Italy were under the category of ‘valorizzazione’ (enhancement). They were not exactly the same: while Public Archaeology is characterised by a reflection on the objectives of the research from the very start, a focus on having a reliable methodology, and a strong element linked to evaluation, ‘enhancement’ experiences – while often valuable and successful – lacked the same structure and reliability. This is probably due to an underestimation of these practices as a scientific topic, thus deserving the same structure required for any other type of research. Often this resulted in a mere description of the activities carried out, with a generic objective like ‘increasing the knowledge of archaeology in the public sphere’ without really evaluating if the activities worked or not. Public Archaeology became a sort of a trendy subject, outdating the term ‘valorizzazione’, at least in most of the university milieu, and creating confusion on the subject and the methodology. This sometimes has led to a sort of ‘hangover’ effect, similar to what happens with summer songs: they sound fun when you first hear them, but after months you just want to move on! Few doctoral theses awarded in Archaeology have been devoted to topics related to Public Archaeology up to the present date and the risk is that after this ‘hangover’ the subject will be penalised in comparison to others.
In this work, we present the genesis, development, and results of a set of inclusive outreach activities developed through a puppet theatre play about the Neolithic. We present our methodology and techniques for outreach activities, showing the advantages of collaborative work and bottom-up approaches. The text also explains how the initiative was born and how the contacts for its realization consolidated. All the activities were carried out with the utmost care for the scientific content since it is essential that the public comes to understand all the archaeological information and differentiates it from the entertaining and dramatic elements.
Recently, Johannes Neurath’s book, titled Subdue the gods, doubt the images (2020) was published, which, among other things, warns that, in the archaeological museums of Mexico, including the National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico City, there has been an “ontological mistreatment” of the sacred images of the pre-Hispanic era through their removal from their original locations and indistinct placement in large and cold rooms packed with monoliths, without any consideration for the fact that some were – and continue to be – images bestowed with power and influence by many communities today.
It must have been around ten years ago, when I was invited to present my -shaky then but promising- progress of PhD thesis at the University of Athens, on social and economic trends in heritage management, discussing island cultural resources and the role of the interested communities. I remember myself at the end of my talk, standing in front of a bewildered and intrigued (in equal doses) audience, only to experience the -somehow- apologetic comment of the organising professor to the audience: “I see that we need to look into these things now, that all became science”. I have talked about this memory elsewhere in detail (Lekakis 2015) mainly to pinpoint that even though 40 years of concrete bibliography have then lapsed -McGimsey, for example, produced his seminal volume in 1972- there was still a lack of information about the concept and practices of public archaeology, at least in the Greek academic context.
A popular proverb states ‘Don't play with your food’. This maxim that not only concerns those of us who have the immense fortune of dedicating our working hours (and more if possible) to the noble discipline of archaeology and historical research. If anything is really clear to us, it is that Heritage (from the perspective of investigation, safeguard and management) is more than the ‘food’ of a couple of professors and four tourist guides, but of many thousands whose income depends on it essentially through tourism. In fact, tourism in Spain in 2019 before the pandemic yielded 154,487 million Euros to the economy, representing 12.4% of its GDP. In fact, dear reader, please reflect on what drives you to go on vacation? And what leads you to choose one tourist destination over another? The response is simple: diversity. It represents a search for something that is unknown where you reside, something unique and unrepeatable that is only found at a particular destination, a unique setting offering an aesthetic or gastronomic experience that otherwise would not be worth the visiting. This book under review delves precisely into the question of this diversity we seek when traveling as it is Heritage (either material or intangible, artistic, monumental, archaeological or natural) that gives an identity to each city, each community. Heritage renders them different from other neighbouring cities. From a material point of view, Heritage is what attracts tourists and, even more, from a sentimental point of view, it is what offers signs of identity to locals. Thus in the end we are not only talking about ‘things to eat’.
The summer school program entitled ‘Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage’ was held from 21 June to 5 July 2020, as part of the Executive Leadership Development in Heritage Management Workshops organized yearly by the Heritage Management Organization. This year in particular, the course was entirely held online due to the ongoing pandemic and the subsequent worldwide responses enforcing preventive measures and social distancing. Amid these challenging circumstances, the 2-week program was successfully conducted, taking advantage of the digital resources to materialize a syllabus designed to combine theoretical and practical perspectives regarding community engagement in heritage projects in Greece. The series of online meetings gathered 13 students from six countries in total (Greece, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Puerto Rico and Serbia) with different backgrounds and career experiences. This diversity enriched the dynamics of the workshop where group discussions and assignments played a substantial role, and fostered a unique and fertile environment of intercultural and multidisciplinary work.
The aim of the article is to reflect the currently existing regulatory environment for damages caused to archaeological sites by illegal human intervention and its implementation by law enforcement sector and the courts in Latvia. The article is mostly focused on legal and socio-economic consequences of endangerment of archaeological sites. It analyses liability aspects, examines case law, determines the existing challenges and proposes basis for improvement in administrative and legal procedures. Methods applied in the research are literature review, legal framework and documentary analysis, statistical and case law analysis. The results of the research could be used inter alia for the purposes of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings, amending legal regulation and damage assessment mechanisms.
The resources medium-sized municipalities allocate in the process of both creating and maintaining instruments for heritage management have increased in the last decades. There are first and foremost legal reasons for this, as European national laws translate societal concerns on the preservation and commodification of the past. Sustainable solutions may be achieved through the understanding of heritage assets, and their use in the support of responsible, data-driven choices. This paper analyses a case of local tangible heritage administration in Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal.
This paper was written in response to a request by the editors of the AP: Online Journal of Public Archaeology, Jaime Almansa Sánchez and Elena Papagiannopoulou, for Claire Smith to write on the future of public archaeology in Australia. In Australia, public archaeology focusses on high profile colonial sites such as The Rocks in Sydney (Karskens 1999) and Port Arthur in Tasmania (Steele et al. 2007; Frew 2012), tourism (e.g. Cole and Wallis 2019) or enhancing school curricula (Nichols et al. 2005; Owens and Steele 2005). However, given her decades-long relationships with Jawoyn and Ngadjuri people (Smith 1999; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2020), Claire Smith decided that a useful way of approaching this topic would be to obtain Indigenous views on the subject. Accordingly, she contacted the Aboriginal co-authors of this article and invited them to co-author the paper. The possibility to write in free form was a boon. The ‘conversation’ format we settled on was designed to facilitate the voices of individuals, to present a range of Indigenous views, to allow people to express their views frankly, and to deal with the constraints of people being located in different parts of Australia as well as occasional lock-downs due to COVID-19. We decided on five topics/questions that would be the basis of the conversation. Each Aboriginal author gave their views either by email or by phone. These views were interwoven into a ‘conversation’. The language has been edited lightly for clarity and to simulate a real-life conversation. The final text was approved by all authors.
We have just celebrated ten years of open access public archaeology, and now we carry on with our venture. Volume 11 brings with it a new layout and format, as well as a new timing for publication. Since our inclusion in Scopus, improving quality goes in hand with the improvement of publication time. This is why, from now on (although this year is still a transitional period), volumes will open in January and close in October, with articles being published when they are ready. We are also starting a new section for shorter articles, aimed at the reporting of projects or ideas with a more formal format than our section Points of You, which will continue to retain its op-ed style. Of course, the philosophy does not change. We want to continue to be an opportunity of wider accessibility for authors and readers, and to continue exploring the physical and thematic frontiers of the discipline.
In October of 2019 began, as a manifestation of growing discontent, in Santiago de Chile a movement of social protests popularly known as “Estallido social”. This movement marched against social inequality and high cost of living, targeting the neoliberal system established during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet as responsible. Although Chile has been a democracy since 1990, inequality and social injustice has perpetuated in democracy. We reflect on the role of the contemporary objects, their contexts and the position of archaeology in revealing current struggle discourse of civil rights, social diversity and social conflicts. Likewise, we analyze the transformation process of cultural heritage meanings through time, observable both in the appropriation of quotidian objects as way as protest as the resignification of the traditional monuments erected in the city.
There are moments in history, perceived both individually and collectively, in which proposing to imagine—even project—becomes an apparently unattainable task. 2020 took us socially unprepared and, although in some places the current situation is deeply serious while others feel more tolerable, we have a total uncertainty about the future. We can consider that the information that allows us to visualize the indicators leading to situations like the current one is available. However, not all of us have the tools to interpret them, and the voices of those who do have them are not echoed strong enough, unlike those who in spaces of power, political or economic with the means and will to bring fear to wide sectors of the population.
Ten years seems little time to assess the future of such a relatively young topic as Public Archaeology (PA) is, in special in Spain and in the academic arena. I divide my answer in two classic parts: present and future. By understanding the present (based on the past) we can try to guess (more or less) the future… Even if we think in the context of a pandemic, predicting the future of anything becomes really uncertain and reckless. If I may write, there is a high level of uncertainty and luck in getting it right.
In 2018, Mexico held its presidential election; its results soon clearly indicated that the left-wing candidate, with a degree in political science and a fierce critic of the ruling political system, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, would become President. Following his triumph, many cultural organizations, unions and employees of the field jubilantly celebrated what they thought would mean a strengthening of cultural policies and a kind of return to the years of President Lázaro Cárdenas del Río who put archeology, indigenism and culture at the heart of his government policies.
Nigeria, with over 200 million people, covers an area of 923,768 km2 and it occupies the eastern section of the West African region (Figure 1). The regions of Nigeria have prehistoric sites spanning from the Early Stone Age through the Middle Stone Age, the Late Stone Age/Neolithic to the Iron Age and the beginning of urbanization. Several historic empires, states and polities developed within the geographical area now occupied by Nigeria and had left archaeological relics.
While thinking about how Public Archaeology would be in ten years from now in Peru, I just realized that it has been almost ten years since we held the first International Symposium of Public Archaeology in 2011 in Lima city. At that time, the concept of Public Archaeology was mostly unknown by local researchers, but there was an increasing interest, especially among young scholars. This interest contrasted with the few spaces to discuss the situation of archaeological remains in the present, their use and their relation to modern population. All these topics were considered outside of the idea of “academic archaeology”, regarding them as just practical issues relate not worthy of deep analysis, and usually related to outreach activities like education or heritage management. Therefore, this Symposium became an important milestone to open a new world of possibilities for the archaeological field in Peru, especially after the creation of the Ministry of Culture in 2010.
In Nepal – and perhaps true in other South Asian countries as well, the term ‘public archaeology’ is not very frequently used among heritage professionals. Though it exists in limited use, largely the heritage practice including archaeology in Nepal is experts or authority driven. Perhaps the primary reason for this is the lack of a critical mass of archaeologists and broader heritage practitioners as well as a general lack of awareness among the public. There are disciplinary crisis situations prevalent across heritage related studies and practice areas in Nepal. However, with the increasing landscape of academic programmes and professional awareness among younger generations, we can be hopeful. Hence, I would expect that we will be able to create sufficient interests among students and younger professionals towards archaeology and heritage.
Do we need a roadmap to the future? Or do we ‘wing it’, making it up as we go along? Big questions, but never more important than now, in this current time of uncertainty.Let’s start small, and refocus the question on our professional and scholarly area of interest and activities. While the future of the world of work certainly looks different – will robots do digging, recording and interpretation work in 2030?- I think that the key to prepare suitable strategies for going forward is to be clear about our purpose(s). For what, and for whom, are we and will we be doing research and knowledge sharing? With whom will we operate and work in our capacity as scholars, practitioners, teachers? Even asking why do archaeology may seem straightforward now, but it isn’t. At least, it shouldn’t be.
In 1973, David Clarke’s seminal article ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ appeared in Antiquity, to herald, epitomise, and articulate a paradigm shift that was reshaping the entire discipline of archaeology as it embraced new tools, methods, and theories. The present short contribution is immeasurably more modest in scope, and only borrows Clarke’s title in homage to his lasting influence. It will argue that the specific domain of action and encounter that we gather under the rubric of Public Archaeology is itself on the cusp of undergoing a ‘loss of innocence’ of a different kind. For the purpose of this conversation, Public Archaeology will be understood in its widest possible sense, to embrace the way people anywhere may relate to the past, and the influence that the past and attitudes to the past may have on the lives of people today. It will consider some of the impacts and consequences of the internet and the World Wide Web, which of course deserve a much more thorough discussion than is possible here, and which should be read as a shorthand for some of the wider sea changes that we are witnessing.
14:36 – I am slightly late, but Tim is still there with his previous meeting, finishing lunch. This table has witnessed hundreds of conversations and is surely a landmark for public archaeology. I am not going to make a biography here, maybe you can learn something about him from the interview. If you follow this journal, and public archaeology, you probably know something about him already.
