Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Public Archaeology, The Move Towards

Copyright Year 2013
Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media New York
Corresponding Author Family Name Angelo
Particle
Given Name Dante
Suffix
Division/Department Departmento de Antropologa
Organization/University University of Tarapac (UTA)
City Arica
Country Chile
Email dangeloz@uta.cl
Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:41 Page Number: 1

1
P

2 Public Archaeology, The Move Definition and Historical Background 28

3 Towards
The term public archaeology attained recognition 29

4 Dante Angelo in the early 1970s with Charles R. McGimseys 30

5 Departmento de Antropologa, University of publication with this very title (McGimsey 1972). 31

6 Tarapaca (UTA), Arica, Chile Then, it was mainly meant to address the dangers 32

of destruction of archaeological remains, raise 33

broader awareness about this problem, and sup- 34

7 Introduction port legislative efforts aimed at protecting them 35

(Schadla-Hall 1999). The increasing pressures of 36

8 One of the most evident changes brought by the development, observed mainly in the United 37

9 reflexive turn in archaeology is perhaps the move States and European countries, posed 38

10 towards public archaeology. Although in its incep- a challenge to professionals and state institutions 39

11 tion public archaeology was primarily related to as they were increasingly confronted with the 40

12 educational concerns and efforts to attain public destruction and loss of historical and archaeolog- 41

13 outreach (McGimsey 1972; Jameson 1997; Stone ical heritage. The rise of independent archaeolog- 42

14 & Molyneaux 1994), in recent years it has become ical contractors, as well as the participation of 43

15 more complex to define. This slipperiness has to do some universities in the development process, 44

16 with the fact that, as an umbrella term, public provided some means to mitigate such destruc- 45

17 archaeology now encompasses a wide array of tion and gave rise to Cultural Resource Manage- 46

18 concepts and purposes (Schadla-Hall 1999; ment (CRM) or contract archaeology. Known 47

19 Merriman 2004a; Matsuda & Okamura 2011). also as heritage management and archaeological 48

20 This turn towards public archaeology, thus, can resource management, one of the main tenets of 49

21 be better characterized by a gradual and explicit CRM archaeology was the preservation of past 50

22 involvement of archaeology practitioners in remains, conceived as a resource belonging to 51

23 different and intertwined levels of educational, societies (MacManamon & Hatton 2000). The 52

24 political, governmental, and ethical issues. In this past, henceforth, came to be seen as a public 53

25 sense, it relates to and involves concepts such as right pertaining to the interests of the whole soci- 54

26 development, heritage, applied archaeology, and ety (Carman 2002; Merriman 2004b). As 55

27 community archaeology. observed by Smith (2004:6), although the equal 56

accessibility and significance to all comers 57

implied by the term resource was subsequently 58

challenged, the prolific efforts to develop out- 59

reach and educational programs and prevent the 60

C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2,

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:41 Page Number: 2

P 2 Public Archaeology, The Move Towards

61 destruction of archaeological remains also con- contemporary interests became interweaved. 109

62 tributed to make the subject relevant to a broader Thus, steering public archaeology in new direc- 110

63 audience. Additionally, scholars drawing from tions, the reflexive turn established by an overt 111

64 critical theory emphasized that a reflexive stand critique to objectivity, rationalism, and scientific 112

65 oriented to reinforce stakeholder communities archaeology coalesced with the politics of cul- 113

66 civic and proactive engagements with the past tural recognition and provided the basis for 114

67 should be paramount to public archaeology a more inclusive debate, raising issues and cate- 115

68 (Leone et al. 1995; Little & Shackel 2007). gories such as identity, ethnicity, and so forth. 116

69 In any case, the term public archaeology

70 began to take its current shape with the involve-
71 ment of archaeology in public debates, traversing Key Issues/Current Debates 117

72 the borders of traditional academic archaeology,

73 to respond to public interests about the past. The The move towards public archaeology has 118

74 rationalist and political neutrality of scientific brought a new array of themes and topics to the 119

75 discourse, prevalent in the discipline during discussion about archaeological practice and the- 120

76 most of the 1960s and 1970s, was fiercely chal- oretical consideration. Prominent in the current 121

77 lenged in the early half of the 1980s. Theoreti- debate related to this recent turn in the archaeo- 122

78 cally, factions of the post-processual movement logical inquiry are the discussions about transna- 123

79 in archaeology, strongly influenced by feminist tionalism, tourism, sustainable development, 124

80 and Indigenous discourses, challenged the commodification of cultural resources, and 125

81 authority and ethics of representation of the globallocal relationships (Smith 2006). The 126

82 other and echoed the cultural critique about impact that this reflexive trend had on archaeo- 127

83 the hegemony of the Western academy (Wylie logical practice can be scrutinized at least in two 128

84 1982; Hodder 1986; Pels 1999); most of these interrelated aspects: collaboration and heritage. 129

85 critiques called for a more inclusionary archaeo- On the one hand, emanating from various angles, 130

86 logical interpretation, in which Indigenous peo- critiques to academic authority pushed archaeol- 131

87 ples and different local communities and ogists to reconsider their position as the only 132

88 stakeholders could participate (Layton 1989; stewards of the past and prompted them to engage 133

89 Hodder et al. 1995). Following the controversies in collaborative programs with a wide array of 134

90 that arose as a result of the creation of the World Indigenous and local communities (Faulkner 135

91 Archaeology Congress (WAC) in 1986, a much 2000; Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2010; 136

92 more politicized world emerged for archaeology Gnecco & Ayala 2011). Thus, a more nuanced 137

93 (Ucko 1987; Shanks 2004). perspective about public archaeology, although 138

94 Authors such as Michael Shanks and Christo- still involving educational and legislative 139

95 pher Tilley (1992) and Mark Leone and col- aspects, now incorporates ethical concerns and 140

96 leagues (Leone et al. 1987, 1995), for example, acknowledges that the practice of scientific 141

97 emphasized the need for a critical appraisal of the archaeology can no longer be the only authori- 142

98 interrelationship between archaeology and poli- tative voice about the past. Moreover, in investi- 143

99 tics and to understand the power relations gating the past, archaeologists need to be aware 144

100 established discursively through historical and about social, racial, political, and other ten- 145

101 archaeological knowledge (see also McGuire sions emerging from dissonant interpretations of 146

102 2008). Advocating for an inclusion of the differ- the past; the practice of public archaeology, 147

103 ent emerging voices, then, these contributions set therefore, also incorporates components of ethics 148

104 an interpretive movement that came to call into and sociopolitical accountability. 149

105 question the prevalent authority over the past On the other hand, although still concerned 150

106 held by the discipline. With the advent of politics about protecting the past, public archaeology 151

107 of identity and recognition, the past became now actively engages in issues related to the 152

108 a realm of contestation in which a variety of management of sites through a nuanced 153
Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:41 Page Number: 3

Public Archaeology, The Move Towards 3 P

154 understanding of cultural and archaeological her- 2002; Meskell 2005). Consequently, archaeolo- 202

155 itage. Heritage, as a concept, has recently made gists have started to turn their attention to the 203

156 its way to the core of archaeological theory. relationship of the discipline with the heritage 204

157 Closely related to the politics of recognition men- and tourism industries. Related to this current 205

158 tioned above, the concept of heritage has recently trend, tourism and cultural recreation have 206

159 opened a new and vigorous debate, expanding the become central to archaeologists as the public 207

160 considerations of what constitutes the public and, increasingly demands the articulation of new nar- 208

161 therefore, what public archaeology or archaeo- ratives about the past (Holtorf 2005). 209

162 logical practice should entail. The involvement As heritage or cultural tourism consolidates as 210

163 of different communities of stakeholders that one of the most important global industries (Urry 211

164 stepped forward to express interests or concerns 2002), the interest in archaeological heritage has 212

165 about archaeological sites and archaeological dis- gradually increased over the last few decades. 213

166 course constituted a new challenge for the disci- With a burgeoning demand of cultural consump- 214

167 pline (Russell 2006; Smith 2006). Barbara tion fostered by an exponentially increasing flux 215

168 Benders (1998) seminal work about the emblem- of capital and peoples, tourism promoted archae- 216

169 atic archaeological site of Stonehenge provides ological heritage to new dimensions. Addition- 217

170 an exemplary approach to the analysis of the ally, the gradual involvement of different 218

171 historically dynamic contexts that stakeholders stakeholders and local communities in heritage 219

172 (including archaeologists) can become involved issues brought up several concerns regarding 220

173 in. Eluding the essentialist thought that com- property and propriety of heritage. Archaeolo- 221

174 monly portrays Indigenous peoples and descen- gists, in this sense, have been pushed to explore 222

175 dant communities as the only other voices that ever more complex and intertwined relationships 223

176 come forward to question archaeology, Benders involving individuals, communities, states, and 224

177 work also reflects on the formation of new groups global agencies at different scales. Local under- 225

178 of stakeholders and the politics that surround standings of heritage values, however, as demon- 226

179 them. By the same token, critical awareness strated by different scholars, can differ 227

180 about the decisions, interpretation, and manage- significantly from those parameters conceived 228

181 ment of cultural and archaeological heritage as universal. The past, once aptly depicted as 229

182 acquired global connotations through the increas- a foreign country (Lowenthal 2003), became 230

183 ing myriad of stakeholders as well as the arena in which active and sometimes disso- 231

184 a burgeoning tourist industry related to the con- nant social constructions continuously take 232

185 sumption of the past. place through heritage and tourism and, there- 233

186 This global trend of cultural consumption fore, have opened new lines of debate regarding 234

187 closely relates to a process of shrinking of dis- its ownership and stewardship (Smith 2006). 235

188 tances which fueled by a burgeoning and con-

189 stant flux of peoples, goods, information, and
190 capital consolidated globalization as International Perspectives 236

191 a phenomenon with a wide array of economic,

192 cultural, and political implications worldwide. Arguably, then, heritage tourism has become one 237

193 For many, globalization meant the standardiza- of the most profitable industries of recent decades 238

194 tion of culture as well as economics, with the and a global force that increasingly extends its 239

195 consequent establishment of a single dominant branches throughout the world (Hoffman et al. 240

196 and global cultural order; however, contradicting 2002; Higueras 2008). As part of this global trend 241

197 the fears of homogenization predicted as part of in which archaeological heritage is now involved, 242

198 the effects of globalization, the blooming of cul- the heritage industry included in the core of 243

199 tural diversity set under the auspices of multicul- developmental policies of global organizations 244

200 turalism amounted to define tourism as one of the such as the World Bank has been endowed 245

201 key themes in archaeological theory (Merriman a reputation of being a determinant factor for 246
Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:42 Page Number: 4

P 4 Public Archaeology, The Move Towards

247 economic growth, especially for developing In this scenario, as heritage has become the 295

248 countries (Meskell 2005; Lafrenz 2008). axis where these contemporary social under- 296

249 Whereas it is often argued that heritage can play standings and active constructions of the past 297

250 a significant role in overcoming economic adver- come together, public archaeology confronts 298

251 sities, less is said about its detrimental effects on a wide array of challenges in its efforts to engage 299

252 local communities. While some argue for the with different communities and stakeholders. 300

253 necessity of making useable pasts, as something Related to this, by drawing away from conserva- 301

254 that can be assessed to provide economic profit- tive approaches to heritage, public archaeology 302

255 ability, others question the beneficiaries of these has also highlighted the importance of including 303

256 profits (Lafrenz 2009). As the expectations of different criteria and considerations, other than 304

257 tourism and heritage industries have risen, the those defined by the World Heritage Convention 305

258 attempts to attain the inscription of sites in the in the definition of valuable heritage sites (Cleere 306

259 prestigious World Heritage Site list by different 1996; Lafrenz 2008). As a result, heritage orga- 307

260 country parties have also escalated. A large per- nizations and state agencies have been compelled 308

261 centage of recent nominations, related to the to take into consideration a more dynamic and 309

262 aforementioned search for economic growth, diversified understanding in which cultural and 310

263 have to do with the fact that the attempt to gain heritage value could be also related to political 311

264 such a reputable designation will help to promote restitution or economic leverage and well-being. 312

265 heritage sites as marketable tourist sites. Nonetheless, although different countries have 313

266 In this sense, with an exponential number of adopted the globally sponsored efforts towards 314

267 new local sites and museums that now compete to the recognition of their Indigenous peoples, for 315

268 attain some recognition while others focus on many of these populations, to attain such recog- 316

269 maintaining their high profiles and well- nition implies a compliance with guidelines of 317

270 preserved statuses, the values and principles for authenticity in order for them to prove cultural 318

271 such recognitions and other tenets heralded by and genealogical continuity so that they may be 319

272 global organizations are being called into ques- conferred with the rights to cultural ancestry 320

273 tion. Questioning the set of values that have com- (Clifford 1988; Hale 1999). 321

274 monly been used to define cultural and Thus, some of the questions still to be 322

275 archaeological heritage, some archaeologists addressed regarding the intersection of public 323

276 now actively work to emphasize local views and archaeology and tourism are related to the new 324

277 values regarding the past (Faulker 2000). Chal- power relationships and cultural dynamics pro- 325

278 lenging previous top-down perspectives that voked by the commodification of cultural heri- 326

279 were mainly concerned with a rather monumental tage. For instance, the demand for authentic 327

280 and conservationist view of archaeological heri- experiences related to this global trend of cultural 328

281 tage, the intervention of new stakeholders consumption has commonly driven heritage man- 329

282 established the need for archaeologists to under- agers, cultural planners, and tourism-related pol- 330

283 stand the emergence of new relationships icy makers to resort to the use of archaeological 331

284 between local interests and global demands discourse to recast authentic or rather essen- 332

285 (Hodder 2003). Whereas international agencies tialist views of culture (Castaneda 1996; 333

286 and organizations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, Benavides 2004; Hamilakis 2008). This is partic- 334

287 and WHC had advanced important contributions ularly the case for Indigenous peoples and other 335

288 to deal with issues deeply affecting cultural her- historically marginalized communities that, 336

289 itage, such as looting and trafficking of archaeo- related to their cultural and political struggle, 337

290 logical remains, a new approach to heritage also opt or are compelled to resort to heritage and 338

291 emphasizes ethical concerns pertaining to cul- cultural tourism as strategies to boost their econ- 339

292 tural property and human rights (Brodie et al. omies (Meskell 2005; Lafrenz 2008); in this 340

293 2000; Brodie & Walker 2002; Silverman & Fair- sense, Indigenous peoples remain commonly 341

294 child Ruggles 2007). represented as passively reproducing a colonial 342

Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:42 Page Number: 5

Public Archaeology, The Move Towards 5 P

343 imaginary in the realm of heritage. Furthermore, Future Directions 390

344 it has been generally the case that most of the

345 countries whose archaeological heritage is The objectives of public archaeology largely 391

346 administrated by state and centralized agencies remain framed within the original goals, namely, 392

347 not only tend to emphasize its economic impor- committed to reaching broader and more diverse 393

348 tance for local development, as part of their pol- audience whose needs and demands regarding the 394

349 icies, but also and primarily to reify it as the past can be advanced and supported by the work 395

350 legitimate roots of nationhood (Rowan & Baram of archaeologists. As part of this, public archae- 396

351 2004; Hamilakis 2008). Therefore, despite the ology is still concerned with the protection and 397

352 fact that these strategies have prompted preservation of archaeological heritage and seeks 398

353 a successful public recognition of multiple ethnic to provide adequate management plans to 399

354 groups, which is one of the reasons why they respond to tourism global needs, for instance, 400

355 became widely adopted as part of different state while keeping the balance between tourism 401

356 policies, they also exert powerful constrains and expectations and the carrying capacity of archae- 402

357 fixities determined by the very demands posed by ological sites. Nonetheless, public archaeology is 403

358 consumption. also becoming increasingly involved in collabo- 404

359 Different collaborative projects between local rative efforts to yield more inclusive consider- 405

360 communities and archaeologists have, therefore, ations of local perceptions of the past, as part of 406

361 been caught up in a series of paradoxes. On the the categorization of archaeological sites as 407

362 one hand, collaborative projects struggle to pro- global tourist destinations. Practitioners involved 408

363 tect archaeological sites and to confront the in public archaeology are also aware that such 409

364 destructive threats of development and some- categorization cannot be fulfilled by any stan- 410

365 times, ironically, even harmful effects of tourism; dardized set of practices nor unique codes or 411

366 as it was noted, cultural tourism can pose universal paradigms. Arguably, the present 412

367 a significant challenge to the management of times are characterized by highly politicized con- 413

368 heritage sites, as visitors can have positive and texts in which claims to heritage and identity, 414

369 negative impacts, and increased visitation means however controversial, are part of a struggle for 415

370 increased responsibility, especially in terms of power and still rely very heavily on discourses 416

371 on-site safety (Smith & Burke 2007:239). On about the past. Regardless of the aforementioned 417

372 the other hand, public archaeology projects that paradoxes, or perhaps precisely because of them, 418

373 involve working with economically disadvan- public archaeology is gradually moving to 419

374 taged communities often involve efforts relating include developers and tourist operators, as well 420

375 to political empowerment and identity issues as as state agencies, educational partners, and legis- 421

376 well as attempting to orient their efforts to pro- lators as part of the equation (Hoffman et al. 422

377 mote heritage tourism opportunities as part of 2002:31). Therefore, it can be said that what 423

378 these communities social and economic sustain- public archaeology now faces is an urgent need 424

379 ability. In that sense, the move towards public to reconsider previous notions of what has been 425

380 archaeology needs to be understood as an ongo- understood by the public, in order to achieve 426

381 ing process in which the practice of archaeology even wider conceptualizations. 427

382 itself becomes reconfigured. It comes as no sur- In this sense, if one contends that public 428

383 prise that public archaeology, as part of its archaeology is mainly meant to take care of the 429

384 response to these new challenges, has adopted public interest in the past, then it will also be 430

385 and stressed the importance of a rather involved necessary to acknowledge the impossibility of 431

386 take on the politics surrounding the conceptuali- considering a general, single, and homogeneous 432

387 zation of the audiences towards whom our work public (McGuire 2008:867). It follows from 433

388 is directed, which at its turn implies a strong here that archaeologists need to keep considering 434

389 reflexive slant towards ethics. who this public is or rather, who the different 435

audiences we are addressing and responding to 436

Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:42 Page Number: 6

P 6 Public Archaeology, The Move Towards

437 are and the ways in which it/they become References 479

438 constituted, as well as to recognize the effects,

439 influences, and contentions fostered by BENAVIDES, H. 2004. Making Ecuadorian histories: four 480
centuries of defining power. Austin: University of 481
440 a burgeoning process of globalization upon the
Texas Press. 482
441 publics interests in the past. It is crucial, BENDER, B. 1998. Stonehenge. Making space. Oxford, 483
442 therefore, to take into account the power relation- New York: Berg. 484

443 ships displayed between micro and macro levels BRODIE, N., J. DOOLE & P. WATSON. 2000. Stealing 485
History. The Illicit Trade of Cultural Material 486
444 (stakeholder communities, state agencies, and
Cambridge, MacDonald Institute for Archaeological 487
445 global organizations or corporations) and the Research. 488
446 way national or global entities decisions and BRODIE, N. & K. WALKER. (ed.) 2002. Illicit Antiquities. 489

447 actions equally impact archaeological resources The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology 490
London: Routledge. 491
448 and upon the different audiences criteria of value
CARMAN, J. 2002. Archaeology and heritage: an introduc- 492
449 and importance of the past. In order to advance its tion. London: Continuum. 493
450 goals and attain a fully fledged engagement of CASTANEDA, Q. 1996. In the museum of Maya culture. 494

451 archaeology with the different stakeholders and Touring Chichen Itza. Minneapolis: University of 495
Minnesota Press. 496
452 constituencies interested in the past, it will be
CLEERE, H. 1996. The concept of outstanding universal 497
453 necessary to weave all those parameters into value in the World Heritage Convention. Conserva- 498
454 some of the common themes that have, thus far, tion and Management of Archaeological Sites 499

455 characterized public archaeology. Then, any 1:227233. 500

CLIFFORD, J. 1988. The predicament of culture: twentieth- 501
456 education outreach projects oriented to the
century ethnography, literature, and art. Harvard: 502
457 valuing of the past (and its preservation), as Harvard University Press. 503
458 well as any attempt to use archaeology as an COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH, C. & T.J. FERGUSON. (ed.) 2010. 504

459 effective way to overcome economic imbalances Collaboration in archaeological practice. Lanham 505
(MD): Altamira Press. 506
460 or prompt political action by lobbying for
FAULKNER, N. 2000. Archaeology from below. Public 507
461 recognition of previously disenfranchised Archaeology 1(1):2133. 508
462 communities, will need to make sense of the GNECCO, C. & P. AYALA. (ed.) 2011. Archaeology and 509

463 conditions and differences in which these Indigenous peoples in Latin America. Walnut Creek: 510
Left Coast Press. 511
464 activities are going to be carried out as part of
HALE, C. 1999. Travel warning. Elite appropriations of 512
465 this engagement. hibridity, mestizaje, antiracism, equality, and other 513
progressive sounding discourses. The Journal of Amer- 514
ican Folklore 112(445):297315. 515
HAMILAKIS, Y. 2008. The nation and its ruins. Antiquity, 516
466 Cross-References archaeology, and national imagination in Greece. 517
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 518
467 Archaeology Museums and the Public HIGUERAS, A. 2008. Cultural heritage management in Peru. 519

468 Community Archaeology Current and future challenges, in H. Silverman & B. 520
Isbell (ed.) Handbook of South American archaeology: 521
469 Heritage Tourism and the Marketplace
10731088. New York: Springer. 522
470 Heritage Values and Education HODDER, I. 1986. The politics and ideology in the World 523
471 Heritage, Public Perceptions of Archaeological Congress 1986. Archaeological 524

472 Local Communities and Archaeology Review from Cambridge 5:113118. 525
- 2003. Archaeological reflexivity and the local voice. 526
473 Public and Archaeology
Anthropological Quarterly 76(1):5569. 527
474 Public Humanities and Cultural Heritage HODDER, I., M. SHANKS, A. ALEXANDRI, V. BUCHLI, J. 528
475 World Archaeological Congress (WAC) CARMAN, J. LAST & G. LUCAS. (ed.) 1995. Interpreting 529

476 World Archaeological Congress (WAC) and archaeology. Finding meaning in the past. London: 530
Routledge. 531
477 Cultural Heritage Management
HOFFMAN, T., M. KWAS & H. SILVERMAN. 2002. Heritage 532
478 World Heritage and Human Rights tourism and public archaeology. SAA Archaeological 533
Record 2(2):3032,44. 534
HOLTORF, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Walnut 535
Creek (CA): Altamira. 536
Comp. by: KVijayakumar Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1015 Title Name: EGA
Date:11/5/13 Time:07:17:43 Page Number: 7

Public Archaeology, The Move Towards 7 P

537 JAMESON, J. 1997. Presenting archaeology to the public: ROWAN, Y. & U. BARAM. (ed.) 2004. Marketing heritage: 589
538 digging for truths. Walnut Creek (CA): Altamira archaeology and the consumption of the past. Walnut 590
539 Press. Creek (CA): Altamira Press. 591
540 LAFRENZ, K. 2008. Value and significance in archaeology. RUSSELL, I. (ed.) 2006. Images, representations and 592
541 Archaeological Dialogues 15(1):7197. heritage: moving beyond modern approaches to 593
542 - 2009. Trajectories of development. International heritage archaeology. New York: Springer. 594
543 management of archaeology in the Middle East and SCHADLA-HALL, T. 1999. Editorial: public archaeology. 595
544 North Africa. Archaeologies: Journal of the World European Journal of Archaeology 2(2):147158. 596
545 Archaeology Congress 5(1):6891. SHANKS, M. 2004. Archaeology/politics, in J.L. Bintliff 597
546 LAYTON, R. 1989. Conflict in the archaeology of living (ed.) The Blackwell companion to archaeology: 598
547 traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. 490508. Oxford: Blackwell. 599
548 LEONE, M. P., M. CREVELING, L. HURST, B. JACKSON-NASH, SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1992. Re-constructing archaeol- 600
549 H. JONES, H. JOPLING, KAISER, G. LOGAN & M. WARNER. ogy. Theory and practice, 2nd edn. London: 601
550 1995. Can an African-American historical archaeol- Routledge. 602
551 ogy be an alternative voice?, in I. Hodder, M. Shanks, SILVERMAN, H. & D. FAIRCHILD RUGGLES. (ed.) 2007. 603
552 A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last & G. Lucas Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, New York: 604
553 (ed.) Interpreting archaeology. Finding meaning in Springer. 605
554 the past: 110124. London: Routledge. SMITH, C. & H. BURKE. 2007. Digging it up down under. 606
555 LEONE, M., P. POTTER & P. SHACKEL.1987. Toward A practical guide to doing archaeology in Australia. 607
556 a critical archaeology. Current Anthropology New York: Springer. 608
557 28(3):283302. SMITH, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of 609
558 LITTLE, B. & P. SHACKEL. 2007. Archaeology as a tool of Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge. 610
559 civic engagement. Lanham (MD): Altamira Press. SMITH, L. 2006. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge. 611
560 LOWENTHAL, D. 2003[1985]. The past is a foreign country. STONE, P. & B. MOLYNEAUX. (ed.) 1994. The presented 612
561 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. past. Heritage, museums, and education. London: 613
562 MACMANAMON, F. & A. HATTON. (ed.) 2000. Cultural Routledge - English Heritage. 614
563 resource management in contemporary society. UCKO, P.J. 1987. Academic freedom and apartheid: the 615
564 Perspectives on managing and presenting the past. story of the World Archaeological Congress. London: 616
565 London: Routledge. Duckworth. 617
566 MATSUDA, A. & K. OKAMURA. 2011. Introduction: new URRY, J. 2002. The tourist gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage. 618
567 perspectives in global public archaeology, in WYLIE, A. 1982. The interpretive dilemma, in I. Hodder 619
568 K. Okamura & A. Matsuda (ed.) New perspectives (ed.) Symbolic and structural archaeology: 1827. 620
569 in global public archaeology: 118. New York: Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. 621
570 Springer.
571 MCGIMSEY, R.C. III. 1972. Public archaeology. New York
Further Reading 622
572 and London: SPCK Publishing.
BARAM, U. & Y. ROWAN. 2004. Archaeology after nation- 623
573 MCGUIRE, R. 2008. Archaeology as political action.
alism: globalization and the consumption of the past, 624
574 Berkeley: University of California Press.
in Y. Rowan & U. Baram (ed.) Marketing heritage: 625
575 MERRIMAN, N. 2002. Archaeology, heritage and interpre-
archaeology and the consumption of the past: 324. 626
576 tation, in B. Cunliffe, W. Davis & C. Renfrew(ed.)
Walnut Creek (CA): Altamira Press. 627
577 Archaeology. The widening debate: 541566. Oxford:
MACMANAMON, F., A. STOUT & J. BARNES. (ed.) 2008. 628
578 The British Academy.
Managing archaeological resources: global context, 629
579 - 2004a. Introduction. Diversity and dissonance in public
national programs, local actions. Walnut Creek (CA): 630
580 archaeology, in N. Merriman (ed.) Public archaeol-
Left Coast Press. 631
581 ogy: 117. London: Routledge.
OKAMURA, K. & A. MATSUDA. (ed.) 2011. New perspectives 632
582 - (ed.) 2004b. Public archaeology. London: Routledge.
in global public archaeology. New York: Springer. 633
583 MESKELL, L. 2005. Sites of violence: terrorism, tourism,
SCHADLA-HALL, T. 2006. Public archaeology in the twenty- 634
584 and heritage in the archaeological present, in
first century, in R. Layton, S. Shennan & P. Stone (ed.) 635
585 L. Meskell & P. Pels (ed.) Embedding ethics:
A future for archaeology: the past in the present: 636
586 123146. Oxford: Berg.
7582. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited. 637
587 PELS, P. 1999. Professions of duplexity. Current Anthro-
STOTTMAN, M.J. (ed.) 2010. Archaeologists as activists: 638
588 pology 40(2):101136.
can archaeology change the world. Tuscaloosa: 639
The University of Alabama Press. 640