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。     

让公众参与博物馆考古

1972年,美国考古学家查尔斯.麦克基姆西在《公共考古学》一书中提出了"公共考古学"的术语和理念。西方学界认识到,为了保护人类的文化遗产和考古研究的可持续性,依靠专家的力量已经无法胜任这项工作,必须依赖全社会的介入,包括政府和公众。因此,公共考古学不单是面对公众的普及,还要求政府的职能的全面介入。目前,"公共考古学"的概念是指由政府管理的从公众共同利益出发的考古学,即由一个形形色色而且互有竞争的大众群体以他们自己的方法来阐释过去。在这种新理念的指导下,英国考古博物馆改变功能定位,从考古专家的仆人,转向以公众为中心,以吸引和沟通各社会阶层的大众为己任,并对传统的博物馆展示方式进行改革。本文介绍了英国博物馆在这方面的一系列有益实践与成功经验,包括服务对象的重新定位、传统功能向外延伸,从静态展示向为观众提供动态的展览服务如走进社区的"移动博物馆"和出借文物盒、鼓励受众的参与和互动、网上连接、开放库房和研究部门、为残障儿童开发考古游戏、吸引少数族群参与、举行陶艺与玻璃艺术研讨会和文物欣赏写作班等等。这些举措反映了当代博物馆和考古学思维方式的新趋势,这就是:不是强调公众能为考古学做些什么,而是强调考古学可以为公众做些什么。公共考古学在长期的实践中取得了显著的成效,其结果是在这些国家造就了对考古资源具有较高觉悟、鉴赏力和保护意识很强的公众,大大提升了这些国家保护文化遗产的能力。虽然我国博物馆采取免费措施来吸引观众,但是这似乎还远远不够。如果真的要加强公众的参与和认识的提高,博物馆可能更需要在展示形式、营销策略、服务内容和主动性上进行一系列的改革。     

全球公共考古学的新视角

本文是《全球公共考古学的新视角》文集的一篇导论,对上世纪70年代以来公共考古学在英语国家及全球范围的发展做了综述。该文集的各章由各国考古学家撰写,分别介绍了公共考古学在各自国家的发展和现状。正如本文开宗明义所指出的,考古学与公众的关系从这门学科开始就相当密切,不只因为大部分重要考古发现是老百姓而非考古学家所为,而且几乎所有发掘工作都需要民众的参与。而且盗墓活动也难脱底层民众的干系。公共考古学的概念进入中国之后,一度被等同于大众考古或考古学的普及工作。具有讽刺意味的是。在相当长时间里,我国专家撰写科普读物被看作是不务正业,这类作品不被视为学术成果。这种看法正因公共考古学概念的引入而得到改观,从而使普及工作名正而言顺。因为考古学界认识到,没有高素质的民众,文化遗产的保护就是一句空话。公共考古学的概念最初是由美国考古学家理查德·麦克基姆西1972年出版的Public Archaeology一书所提出,后来迅速传播到世界各国。类似其他非英语国家,public的中译有"公共"和"公众"两种方式。英语的public有"官方"和"民众"的双重含意。这比较接近中文"公共"的意思,因为中文的"公共交通"或"公共设施"一般是指由行政部门主导和资助的大众服务。如果中国的遗产事业要与国际接轨,公共考古学也要摆脱目前局限于考古教育和知识普及的零敲碎打的大众实践,借鉴国际通行做法,由政府出于公众利益对考古学进行管理,鼓励公众积极参加考古活动和遗产保护与管理,并从多声部的公众视角来解释考古成果和布置博物馆陈列。     

我国公共考古现状分析

随着考古学的发展和公众对考古活动的参与意识、权利意识增强,考古学研究的一个新领域——公共考古,在我国蓬勃地发展起来了。通过对我国公共考古研究著作、论文、实践的归纳总结,对其发展现状进行了分析研究,并对学科的发展方向提出了建议。     

笔谈：公共考古/公众考古概念下的考古学教育思辨

考古学和当代社会方方面面的联系越来越多,种种联系组成了公众考古/公众考古学要关注的诸多领域。脱胎于英文“Public Archaeology”的“公共考古”或者“公众考古”概念,在中国的实践和讨论均体现为考古学面向公众的沟通和共享姿态。公共性是公共考古最核心的特征,公共性体现得越充分,越能促进政府、机构、专家和民众之间的共赢;公共考古的教育性体现在能够架起专业考古与普通民众之间沟通的桥梁,让更多的民众理解考古学能为社会的发展提供什么,以便获得更多的支持;公共考古的开放性则要解决“谁的公共考古”这样的问题,通过改变考古学/考古学家与公众之间的单向关系,变考古学家的“他们的公共考古学”为公众的“我们的公共考古学”。今天公众考古已从最初“什么是”和“要不要做”的认识论阶段,发展到如何做好和怎样推进的实践论阶段,因此需要专业化、高质量的专业人才。应该从人才现存问题的导向出发,依托有条件的高校,推动公众考古课程建设并逐步发展到课程体系建设。公众考古需要常态化、体系化、制度化。对“公众”本身也需要研究和分类加以引导。从考古现场到遗址公园和博物馆的展厅,都是考古学家与“考古学利益相关者”“交流”和“...     

“公众考古学”和“公众考古理念”辨析

本文通过分析目前国际、国内关于Public Archaeology的研究现状和不同学术观点,提出Public Archaeology包括“公众考古学”和“公众考古理念”两个层面,并分别总结、归纳出公众考古学的研究内容和公众考古理念的内涵及其意义,提出我国应该重视公众考古学的学术研究,发展“有中国特色的”公众考古学。     

沟通大众与考古学的桥梁——读陈星灿老师之《考古随笔》

<正>在人们的心目中,考古学是十分神秘的,距离我们的生活也非常遥远,可以说是现代文明的"化外之民"。然而自二十世纪70年代逐渐兴起的公共考古学将公众的利益与考古学紧密的联系在了一起,此后,诸多专业的考古学家们尝试着以各种方式普及考古学知识,"向外界揭开其神秘的面纱",与公众一起共同为中国的文化遗产保护事业贡献自己的力量。陈星灿老师的《考古随笔》(二)在这一方面可谓贡献颇多。一、作者其人     

试论在中国建立“公众考古学”的必要性

<正>"公众考古学"一词其实最早并不产生在中国,它兴起于20世纪六七十年代西方英美国家,目前公认的它是从查尔斯·麦克吉米西     

文化自觉视域下的公共考古学

费孝通先生提出的“文化自觉”理念对于解决民族文化在全球一体化与现代化进程中定位与认知的问题大有裨益。随着学科体系的发展,公共考古学承担了考古学、文化遗产领域内文化自觉的责任,是文化自觉在这些领域内有效的实践行为,旨在解决中国文化的社会化与现代化的问题。考古资源作为文化资源的重要组成部分,实现其公共化和社会化,不仅是学科发展的要求,也是文化遗产保护与文化自觉的内在需求。因此,公共考古学不仅要求国家、科研主体、公众等多方的广泛参与,做好文保顶层设计,而且对文化遗产的阐释提出了更高的要求。只有通过多种形式、多种渠道,应用好国内外多种考古文化资源,将不同的文化进行类比,清晰地勾勒出民族文化的特征,才能达到文化自觉,实现文化自信。     

“考古”百议

<正>考古遗存属于不可再生的文化资源,属于人民的公共产品,正在成为公众的认识。因此,中国考古学应当开辟一个新的研究领域,即文化资源管理。基于这一认识,我认为应当把公众考古学纳入到公共管理领域之中,加强这方面理论与实践的探索。——陈雍过去一百年我们经历了一系列考古学认知的变化,过程主义、后过程主义以及结构主义等等。可还是有不少考古学家本能地用线性的发展序列看待人类社会。即使是在当下的讨论中,我们仍能体会到考古学家僵化地思考问题,认为人类社会的     

The Dynamics of Inclusion at the Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology Workshop Public Event

This paper describes, analyzes and critiques a public archaeology event created to demonstrate the methodologies of a dialogic archaeology. Collaboratively produced by the Wenner-Gren-sponsored Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology Workshop and the African Burial Ground National Monument, this event drew a capacity crowd representing diverse communities from the New York City region for a program dedicated to exploring public archaeology as it is, and has been, practiced in New York City. The on the ground actions involved in designing the event are explored here for insight into how communities form in, around, and with archaeology, while participant observation data gathered during the event is used to demonstrate the facilitating role archaeology and archaeologists play when a community uses the past for needs in the present. Feedback from several of the audiences attending the event, including the Workshop participants and other archaeological colleagues who were present, provide reflection on the aims and goals of public archaeology.     

Lessons Learned Along the Way: The Florida Public Archaeology Network after Ten Years

Created by the Florida Legislature in 2004, the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) has grown into a positive force for preservation, public engagement, and community collaboration in archaeology. This article discusses the genesis of FPAN and how the organization has changed in scope, evolved in mission, and addressed challenges, ideally providing ideas and direction for similar programmes in other locations.     

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。     

Making things public: Archaeologies of the Spanish Civil War

Abstract

The archaeology of recent traumatic events, such as genocides, mass political killings and armed conflict, is inevitably controversial. This is also the case for the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), where the incipient archaeology of the confrontation is marked by bitter debates: Should this conflicting past be remembered or forgotten? Which version of the past is going to be remembered? What are the best politics of memory for a healthy democracy? The archaeologies of the war face manifold problems: the lack of interest in academia, which fosters amateurism; the great divide between public and scientific practice; the narrow perspectives of some undertakings; the lack of coordination among practitioners, and the threats to the material remains of the war. An integrated archaeology of the conflict, which helps to make things public, is defended here.     

Why Do People Become Involved With Archaeology? Some Answers from Alabama��s Black Belt Region

This paper considers a question posed by the organizers of the Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology symposium: “Why do people become involved?” Based on my own quest for public involvement with Cahawba, a site in Alabama’s Black Belt region, I contend that people are most likely to become involved when an archaeologist communicates interpretively. Furthermore, certain categories of people are just more likely to become actively engaged with archaeology than others. Who are they? What are their characteristics? Where can they be found? The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment has the answers.     

The Ilisu Dam: WAC protests to the British government

This paper focuses on two trends in the debate over the scope and nature of public archaeology. The first is a growing concern to define and codify its disciplinary boundaries. The second trend, arguably in tension with the first, is the ever-widening exploration of how people engage with their past, and the ramifications for the way archaeology, in its widest sense, is practised. It is argued that an excessive preoccupation with demarcating the disciplinary boundaries of public archaeology may risk obscuring a far more important objective, tied to the second trend referred to above. Debates on the relationship between the public, the past, and archaeological practice have resulted in a sea-change in attitudes to the responsibilities of the archaeologist, in the relationship between scientific knowledge and popular and indigenous knowledge, and in ideas about the relevance and usability of the past. Public archaeology is concerned with all these issues. It is argued that, to fulfil this wider vision, public archaeology cannot afford the strictures of a specialized discipline within archaeology, but must remain a persistent, essential, and foundational ingredient in the competencies and sensibilities of every archaeologist and co-worker in the field.     

Public Archaeology as Renewer of the Historical Museum

Abstract

Working towards greater public interaction in the museum, and with archaeology reflecting on its contemporary context, traditional collection practices will inevitably be challenged. Archaeologies of the contemporary bring new kinds of artefacts to collections and raises ethical and political questions, since it must interact with the world of the living. Public archaeology, on the other hand, strives to involve people in the making of history, with an aim towards more inclusive, and even democratic, pasts and collections. Three recent research projects at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities have dealt with these issues. The case studies future memories, archaeologist for a day and public contract archaeology question artefact categorizations, policies for storage and display, as well as database organization, design, and availability. It clearly turned out that the way museums work with collections structure and limit the ways in which audiences can engage with them. To deal more intensively with the public relations of archaeology, and to get more engaged in the contemporary, has definite consequences for the collections and collection practices of archaeological museums. A public-need focus will inevitably give opportunities for archaeologists and institutions to renew their perspectives and practices.     

The public life of the Swahili stonehouse, 14th–15th centuries AD

Houses are an important subject of archaeological research, normally explored through the households they contain. This has established a deliberately social agenda for the archaeology of houses, yet has had the unintended consequence of creating bounded worlds for study. Although household archaeologies explore the ways that households contributed to broader social and economic realms, it is rare to think through the public role of houses for non-residents and the larger population of the settlement. This paper seeks to explore this more public aspect of houses using the data from archaeology at Songo Mnara, a 14th–15th century Swahili town on the southern Tanzanian coast. This was a time when stone-built domestic architecture was first emerging in this region. The archaeology of the houses provides data for a series of ways that the house was at the heart of the economic and political life of the town, as well as demonstrating a spatial continuity between indoor and outdoor spaces. It is therefore suggested that the domestic and residential functions of the house for a particular household should be balanced with an appreciation of the broader world of the house itself.     

意大利公众参与文化遗产保护的经验与启示

意大利公众参与遗产保护已成为一种民族自觉。意大利公众参与文化遗产保护的经验主要集中在重视吸引公众参与遗产社会教育、加强公众参与遗产保护法律建设、保障公众参与遗产保护渠道等三个方面。意大利的经验启示我们,中国遗产管理也应在这三个方面加强建设。     

Towards an Archaeology of the Welfare State in Britain, 1945–2009

In this paper I develop an argument for the specific contribution which archaeology might make to the study of the ‘classic’ welfare state in Britain (c. 1945–1975) and its aftermath (c. 1976 to present). This period saw massive state investment in infrastructure which transformed both the material and social worlds of its citizens, through new state policies, new networks of political and social control, the centralisation and nationalisation of a range of existing aspects of civilian life and the construction of housing on a monumental scale. While this is a topic which has been studied in detail by historians and sociologists, despite the massive investment in construction and the accompanying effects on the physical landscape of Britain, there has been relatively little work on the ‘material worlds’ of the welfare state. In developing this argument I focus particularly on public housing, an area which has been the subject of some previous archaeological comment and which provides a clear case study in the contribution which such an approach might make. State subsidised housing policy developed as a brave utopian socialist experiment during the interwar period in Britain, reaching its zenith in the mid-1970s, at which time the state supplied almost a third of the nation’s housing. Public housing projects became an area of experimentation in the realisation of modernist ideals of high density private accommodation and in the use of new building technologies and materials. However, following the demise of the classic welfare state, for various reasons high density public housing has come to be viewed as part of a dystopian social cycle, the buildings and associated landscapes themselves becoming a symbol of poverty, substance abuse and violence. From an early history associated with slum clearance and the development of idealised homes for the nation’s poor, many high rise/high density public housing developments from the classic welfare state are now more often viewed themselves as slums, their design and ‘materiality’ perceived as contributing to, or even creating, a series of social problems. I suggest, following earlier work by Miller (Man (New Series) 23(2):353–372, 1988), Buchli (The Archaeology of Socialism, Berg, New York, 1999) and Buchli and Lucas (Archaeologies of the contemporary past. Routledge, London, 2001) that an archaeological approach to the material world of public housing has the potential to reveal not only the ways in which changing state ideologies are expressed through their design, but also the ways in which individuals have (and continue to) engage with their spaces and material culture to manage the conditions of everyday life, and how such places exist within counter-discursive urban and suburban worlds. I also suggest that part of the role of an archaeology of the welfare state is to consider the circumstances under which the welfare state fails through a focus on the archaeology of poverty and homelessness.