Maroon Archaeology Is Public Archaeology

Researchers of the contemporary past have sought to be instrumental in public dialogue about how artifacts speak to heritage matters relevant to living communities and decision-making polities (Emberling and Hanson, Catastophe!: the looting and destruction of Iraq’s past, 2008; Gibbon, Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, 2005; Mullins, Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology, 2004; Renfrew, Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology, 2000; Skeates, Debating the archaeological heritage, 2000). This approach has made archaeology a public endeavor that serves the needs of inquisitive researchers, as well as those groups of individuals whose lives may be directly affected by the excavation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological remains. This paper will broadly assess how the archaeology of Maroons—tribal communities of runaway slave descendants—has affected the application of scholarly research in the former Dutch territory of Suriname, SA. The shift in relevance is due to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights 2007 judgment that allows Suriname Maroons to assert decision-making authority on matters of land management and development in ancestral and contemporary habitat. Vital to this endeavor is, Maroon involvement in archaeological research and more importantly, an overhaul in Surinamese antiquity laws.     

土司,考古与公众——基于海龙囤的公众考古实践与思考简

人人共享文明成果,是文化遗产保护的最终追求。如何达到这一目的,是公众考古学（publicarchaeology）讨论的范畴。这是国内目前方兴未艾的一个考古学分支,各方都在积极讨论与尝试。2012年度,依托土司城堡海龙囤的发掘,我们开展了一系列公众考古活动,取得了很好的社会效应。本文即以之为例,对公众考古的相关问题进行初步探讨。     

公众考古学初探

随着中国经济的高速发展,经济建设和文化遗产保护之间的矛盾愈显突出,而目前中国公众对考古和文化遗产保护的认知还有待提高,在此背景下,如何建构中国的公众考古学也就成为一个迫切需要研究的课题。西方公众考古学的理论和实践经验可为他山之石,文章追溯了西方公众考古学源起、形成、发展的脉络,简要介绍了其基本的理论、理念和方法,最后,在结合中国国情的基础上,作者提出自己关于建构中国的公众考古学的思考。     

John L. Cotter Award in Historical Archaeology: Alexandra Jones

Historical Archaeology -     

公共考古学的多样性与非调和性

公共考古学英文作,或被译作公众考古学。在英文中,public所指并非汉语中的公众及其群体,而更与国家公共机构密切相关。从这层意思上来说,Public Archaeology译作公共考古学更为贴切。这一概念出现于上个世纪70年代初期的美英等发达国家,最初是与考古学科发展所带来的考古遗存和文化资源管理工作中所出现的紧急情况密切相关的。这种紧急状况表现在两个方面,第一是由学科专业化增强所带来的资料的保护和管理问题,第二是学术界对于大量的具有潜在价值的考古资源面临日益严重的破坏而自身却又缺乏足够的保护能力。就是说,文化遗产的管理和保护是公共考古学关注的焦点,甚至可以说,公共考古学就是文化遗产保护。业内人士对以往那种由专业学者和官员来"替"公众管理文化资源的模式进行反思,首先从理论上厘清了长期以来在文化遗产保护工作中对于公众角色的定位问题。这里的"公众"一词指的是一个多元的、但又不以考古研究为职业的人群。作为国家概念之外的一个具有批评性的实体,他们对文化遗产的参与权与解释权应得到充分尊重;考古学的公共方面多数是与文化、价值甚至经济利益冲突相关的,因此被有的学者称为"不谐调的遗产";考古学归根到底是阐释文化认同及其演变,因此不可避免地与政治脱不开干系。诸如此类,文化遗产管理与保护中所遇到的这类问题,都成了公众考古学研究的对象。经过30多年的发展,公众考古学现已发展成为当今考古学一个非常重要的分支学科。本文作为NickMerriman所主编的《公共考古学》一书的序言,对于公共考古学在西方的产生和发展做了系统论述,有利于我们对国外公共考古学的历史与现状的认识。     

Thinking About a Public and Multidisciplinary Archaeology

Those practicing archaeology in the United States must be adept at designing multidisciplinary projects and be conversant with a complex array of laws, their historical development, and their application. Training in these spheres varies between archaeologists employed in cultural resource management and the public sector, and those in academic settings. King's manuals are useful guides to relevant legislation. Marquardt and Watson's multidisciplinary research program integrated public, government, and academic archaeologies while training generations of students studying the origins of agriculture and sedentism among the Shell Mound Archaic peoples of Kentucky.     

A Consideration of Public Archaeology Theories

It is possible to identify four approaches to public archaeology: educational, public relations, pluralist, and critical. The most significant divide in the discourse of public archaeology over the last few decades has existed between the educational and public relations approaches on one side, and the pluralist and critical approaches on the other. Today, however, the dividing line in these four approaches is gradually shifting, as the pluralist and critical approaches, which have so far tended to be grouped together as a more theoretical and post-processual category, are progressively splitting apart. What is emerging, as a result, is a new divide between the educational, public relations, and pluralist approaches on the one side, and the critical approach on the other. This shift seems to be caused by economic neo-liberalism which demands that archaeology be more viable in economic terms. The more archaeology seeks economic viability, however, the more it alienates itself from critical reflection. The critical approach is, thus, faced with the danger of being regarded as a detriment to the sustainability of archaeology. What seems to be crucially needed today, then, is to reconfigure public archaeology, so that it can cope with the presently dominant economic paradigm, while at the same time continuing to keep critiquing it.     

Bridging the Gap: Classification,Theory and Practice in Public Archaeology

Models and classifications have been a part of thinking about public archaeology since at least the early 2000s, but how are these ideas translated into practice? By looking into the development of such classifications and models and by examining archaeologists’ attitudes to an archaeological education outreach project for schoolchildren in Oslo, Norway, this paper looks at the relationship between classification, theory, and practice in public archaeology.     

Prison Heritage,Public History and Archaeology at Fannie Bay Gaol,Northern Australia

Prisons play an important role in the Australian psyche. As places in which the lawless element of society is incarcerated they possess a resonance that harks back to the stereotyped and mythologised convict foundations of the Australian nation. Many former places of confinement have been transformed into publicly accessible heritage sites and museums, but visitor numbers often do not reflect the widespread public interest in confinement. It is not at all clear how to engage the public with the individual histories of these places. This paper examines this issue by reference to the public display of Fannie Bay Gaol prison museum in Darwin. Changing themes and foci in the display of this site are discussed. The role of the historian and archaeologist is examined in the context of the public presentation of narratives of the Gaol's past.