Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics

Abstract

Archaeology is a discipline influenced by emerging cultural trends, especially with regard to theoretical approaches to interpretation and practice. Public archaeology is a relatively young approach, still finding its feet, and loose definitions of it have opened the door to multiple perspectives and opportunities. When research agendas include the issue of public engagement, we need to approach our practices critically from the beginning, and consider the consequences of 'doing' public archaeology. Moving beyond an understanding of the theoretical backdrop to our work, we first need to situate our work socially, politically and economically. This article will bring necessary critique to some current trends in public archaeology, proposing that commitment to sustainability, inclusivity and ethics are the basis for a responsible practice. Trends in public archaeologyPublic archaeology can be defined as both a disciplinary practice and a theoretical position, which can be exercised through the democratization of archaeological communication, activity or administration, through communication with the public, involvement of the public or the preservation and administration of archaeological resources for public benefit by voluntary or statutory organizations. Broadly understood as a sub-discipline, public archaeology is as much Lorna-Jane Richardson and Jaime Almansa-Sánchez are current co-chairs of the Working Group in Public Archaeology at the European Association of Archaeology.World Archaeology Vol. 47(2): 194-211 Public Archaeology This article was originally published with errors. This version has been amended.Please see Corrigendum (http://dx.

Understanding ‘the community’ before community archaeology: A case study from Sudan

“…Smith and Waterton 2009, 11-20;Belford 2014;Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez 2015). Here we use the term 'community engagement' to signify both our broad involvement with local communities, and the specific activities we undertake in six locations around Meroe.…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2015: Entanglements, Reflection, Reevaluation, and Archaeology beyond Disciplinary Boundaries

“…For example, we can instantly create replicas of archaeological material on personal 3D printers shortly after items are discovered (Killgrove ; Means ). While most anthropologists use some of these technologies, until recently archaeological publications have given little attention to the way the social web influences our research questions and the fundamental character of archaeological information and its dissemination (Huggett ; Reilly ; Richardson and Almansa‐Sánchez ). Undoubtedly, this will have an impact on the way archaeology is conceived of, conducted, taught, and consumed in the future.…”

“…We live in a time that demands that our cognitive schemes be continually evaluated and revised (Kohn , ). Furthermore, social engagement with real‐world problems, a hallmark of modern anthropology, is alive and well in the practices and discourse of archaeologists through public archaeology endeavors and new approaches to heritage issues (Richardson and Almansa‐Sánchez ). For example, Michael Smith and colleagues have created a substantial body of work on urbanism.…”

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

“…I question, however, how the goals and procedures of big data-which seem to be broadly about expansion-are compatible with the specific character of local, proximate expertise. This possible disjuncture is especially pertinent as archaeologists grapple increasingly with how to engage communities in ethical and effective ways (Atalay 2012;Atalay, Clauss, McGuire, and Welch 2014;Byrne 2012;Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008;Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al 2010;Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015;Pyburn 2011;Silliman 2008;Tully 2007), and as the need to center local knowledge is discussed in social science and policy circles more broadly (Adams, Miller-Korth, and Brown 2004;Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2000;Burawoy 2005;Innes and Booher 2010;Lassiter 2005;Minkler and Wallerstein 2011;Usher 2000).…”