Public Archaeology: Narrowing the Perspective, Enlarging the Ambition

Theoretical considerations of public archaeology adopt almost universally a global perspective. This has been so from the first attempts to provide definitions and associated theory, and remains so today; the recent articles by Reuben Grima (2016) and Akira Matsuda (2016) in this journal are good examples of this. Without in any way wishing to gainsay many of the principal arguments advanced in these theoretical considerations, it needs to be recognized that there is a significant disjuncture between such considerations and most writing about public archaeology that is not explicitly presenting a theoretical review. The latter almost invariably takes the form of siteand area-specific studies. The result is that most books and journals devoted to public archaeology consist of a series of geographically distinct studies gathered from all over the world. I want to suggest that the importance of the public archaeology that is predominantly presented from the perspective of particular, largely geographical, contexts needs to be recognized. Such reflections are at present more likely to be rooted in terms of practice than theory. Yet their significance will be greatly enhanced when they can situate the work they are reporting within a theoretical framework rather than merely as possible examples of good practice. This will require a much richer theoretical framework than is presently offered in the global theoretical discussions. It will need to reflect and integrate harmoniously both global and regional issues. My concern here is not an attempt to fashion the required theoretical structure. Instead, by concentrating on a single geographical area, Britain, I hope to provide an argument for its required existence by demonstrating the variability in matters of concern and alternative opportunities that a geographically restricted perspective highlights. Not everything in public archaeology is of equal concern to all practitioners. For instance, Britain has undoubtedly contributed significantly through its past actions to the legacies of colonialism and the contested issues around indigenous peoples that figure strongly in many considerations of public archaeology. It would, though, be wholly misleading to suppose that either the legacies of colonialism or concerns with indigenous people figure highly in the public archaeology agendas of contemporary British archaeology. Here the overriding question for public archaeology has to be how to establish the importance of that archaeology public archaeology, Vol. 15 Nos. 2–3, May–August 2016, 136–140