Editorial

In this issue we present three compelling papers which share an important focus on archaeology and marginalized constituencies, in both contemporary and historical contexts. Sara Perry’s paper describes early efforts of public engagement at the Institute of Archaeology in London during the 1930s, and in particular highlights the role of several women in these endeavours. The value of the paper is both its fascinating glimpse of how the presentation of archaeological methods was adapted for the new technological medium of television, but moreover the way in which it reinserts the contribution of women into this particular history, one that is often overpowered by the magnetic persona of Sir Mortimer Wheeler. This work falls into a wider contemporary discourse that emphasizes the role of women in the history of archaeology; work that is occurring in academic terms to restate particular legacies (e.g. Carr, 2012; Thornton, 2011) and also in creative forms such as the #RaisingHorizons project by Trowelblazers (2018), which includes a touring exhibition of photographs of fourteen women working in archaeology and associated sciences today, posing as their historical counterparts. In the second paper, Caroline Pudney provides an account of an archaeology outreach project at a Young Offenders Institution inWales. This is the first of two linked articles by the author — the second will be published in the subsequent issue (16.2) — which considers the benefits that encounters with archaeology and heritage can bring to a cohort of young men, both in terms of practical skills gained through working with archaeological material but also the sense of pride that learning about the historic environment can foster. Such experiences, it is hoped, could contribute to a reduction in reoffending rates, and the paper contributes to a broadening of the literature on the social utility of archaeology in general (e.g. Little & Shackel, 2014) and the issue of heritage crime in particular (Grove, 2013). A key element of Pudney’s paper is in emphasizing the importance of the specialist researcher in directing and managing projects, and evaluating their core value. There is an increasing tendency, both in public archaeology and other humanistic disciplines, to attempt to capture the value of projects using hard data and robust statistical evidence; a position that has been strongly advocated for by the editors of this journal. Pudney’s article reminds us that such approaches, particularly for projects in sensitive social environments (including hospitals and prisons) may not always be the most appropriate evaluative method, and that in some circumstances it is important to recognize the expertise of the academic conducting the project in question, and to trust in their ability to be reflexive, adaptive, and to mediate the intrinsic value of particular interventions. public archaeology, Vol. 16 No. 1, February 2017, 1–2