Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:59:58.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can you hear me at the back? Archaeology, communication and society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Cornelius Holtorf
Cornelius Holtorf*
Affiliation:
University of Kalmar, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeologists often enjoy the role of giving the people what the people want, at least, so long as that is information about the past. But besides the ambition to enlighten people about the past, there are at least two alternative approaches concerning the way archaeology communicates with its publics in society. One considers archaeology a business and sees people as potential customers who need to be persuaded to buy the products of archaeology. Another approach advocates democratic participation of people in archaeology and wishes to accommodate people's own preferences regarding archaeological studies. The point of this article is not to choose between these different models of communication but to ensure that future debates about the relations between archaeology and society will be informed by a better understanding of some fundamentally different approaches concerning the aims and character of archaeology's communication with various public audiences. Hopefully this discussion will also benefit very specific, future projects in public archaeology and thus ultimately serve both the archaeologists and their publics.

Les archéologues se plaisent souvent dans le rôle de donner aux gens ce qu'ils réclament – du moins s'il s'agit d'informations sur le passé. Mais à côté de l'ambition d'éclairer les gens sur les temps anciens, il existe au moins deux autres approches de la communication des archéologues avec les différents groupes de public dans la société. L'une perçoit l'archéologie comme entreprise et les hommes comme clients potentiels, qui doivent être persuadés d'acheter les produits de l'archéologie. L'autre préconise plutôt une participation démocratique à l'archéologie et voudrait respecter les préférences individuelles des gens quant aux recherches archéologiques. Le but de cet article n'est pas de devoir choisir entre ces trois modèles de communication, mais plutôt de garantir que les futurs débats sur la relation entre archéologie et société seront empreints d'une meilleure entente de ces approches, d'ailleurs fondamentalement différentes par rapport aux buts et au caractère de la communication de l'archéologie avec les différents groupes de public. Espérons que cette discussion profitera aux futurs projets spécifiques dans le cadre de l'archéologie publique et qu'elle sera finalement dans l'intérêt non seulement des archéologues, mais également de leur public.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Archäologen gefallen sich oft in der Rolle, den Menschen das zu geben, was diese verlangen – jedenfalls solange es sich dabei um Information über die Vergangenheit handelt. Aber neben dem Bemühen, Menschen über die Vergangenheit Aufklärung zu geben, gibt es noch mindestens zwei andere Ansätze für die Kommunikation von Archäologen mit Publikumsgruppen in der Gesellschaft. Der eine betrachtet Archäologie als ein Unternehmen und sieht Menschen als potentielle Kunden, die davon überzeugt werden müssen, die Produkte der Archäologie zu kaufen. Der andere Ansatz setzt sich für ein demokratisches Teilnehmen von Menschen an der Archäologie ein und bemüht sich darum, deren eigene Vorlieben bezüglich archäologischer Untersuchungen mit einzubeziehen.

Das Anliegen dieses Artikels ist es nicht, zwischen diesen verschiedenen Modellen von Kommunikation zu wählen, sondern sicherzustellen, dass künftige Debatten über die Relation zwischen Archäologie und Gesellschaft von einem besseren Verständnis dieser fundamental unterschiedlichen Ansätze hinsichtlich der Ziele und des Charakters der Kommunikation der Archäologie mit verschiedenen Teilgruppen der Öffentlichkeit profitieren können. Verf. hofft, dass diese Diskussion auch für spezifische, künftige Projekte im Rahmen, öffentlicher Archäologie' (public archaeology) von Nutzen sein wird und auf diese Weise schlussendlich nicht nur den Archäologen sondern auch ihrem Publikum dient.

Keywords

archaeological communicationarchaeology and educationarchaeology and societypublic archaeologypublic understanding of sciencescience and societyarchéologie et éducationarchéologie et sociétécommunication archéologiquearchéologie publiquecompréhension populaire des sciencessciences et sociétéArchäologische VermittlungArchäologie und Gesellschaftarchäologische KommunikationÖffentlichkeitsarbeitWissenschaft und Gesellschaft
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 10 , Issue 2-3 , 2007 , pp. 149 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addyman, Peter, 1990. Reconstruction as interpretation: The example of the Jorvik Viking Centre, York. In Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds), The Politics of the Past: 257–264. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Agenda Kulturarv, 2004. Människan i centrum. Agenda Kulturarvs programförklaring. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. URL (accessed 23 May 2008: http://ux-ra-kmsap2.raa.se/opencms/export/agendakulturarv//dokument/Arkiv/Programforklaring/Slutver.PF.pdf Google Scholar
Archaeological Institute of America, 2008. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.archaeological.org Google Scholar
Byrne, Denis, 1995. Buddhist stupa and Thai social practice. World Archaeology 27(2):266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceram, C.W., 1980. Gods, Graves and Scholars: the Story of Archaeology (first published in German in 1949). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cheng, Donghong, Michael Claessens, Toss Gasgoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele and Shunke Shi, eds, 2008. Communicating Science in Social Contexts. New Models, New Practices. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chester-Kadwell, Mary, 2004. Metallic taste: Archaeologists and the treasure hunters. In Barrowclough, D. (ed.), Our Precious Past. Sharing Responsibility for our Archaeological Heritage: 49–68. Cambridge: Red Dagger Press.Google Scholar
Cleere, Henry, 1988. Whose archaeology is it anyway? In Bintliff, J. (ed.), Extracting Meaning from the Past: 37–43. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Cole, John, 1980. Cult archaeology and unscientific method and theory. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1–33.Google Scholar
Council for British Archaeology, 2007. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.britarch.ac.uk Google Scholar
Elam, Mark and Margareta, Bertilsson, 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6(2):233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Peter, 2007. Not archaeology and the media. In Clack, T. and Brittain, Clack. (eds), Archaeology and the Media: 89–107. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Scott, 2003. Reel reality: Science consultants in Hollywood. Science as Culture 12(4):27–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowlett, John, 1990. Indiana Jones: Crusading for archaeology? Review of S. Spielberg (dir.), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Antiquity 64(1):157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Anders and Håkan, Karlsson, 2004. Plats på scen. Kring beskrivning och förmedling av Bohusläns fasta fornlämningar genom tiderna. Uddevalla: Bohusläns Museum.Google Scholar
Högberg, Anders, forthcoming. Community archaeology – en samskapandets Arkeologi. In Burström, M. (ed.), Arkeologi i förorten. Huddinge: Södertörns högskola.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 2000. Paul Feyerabend. Towards a democratic relativism in archaeology (with comments by Kathryn Denning and Per Cornell). In Holtorf, C. and Karlsson, H. (eds), Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: 241–59. Göteborg: Bricoleur Press.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 2005. Beyond crusades: How (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies. World Archaeology 37(4):544–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 2007a. Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 2007b. What does not move any hearts – why should it be saved? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany. International Journal of Cultural Property 14(1):33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius and Höberg, Anders, 2005/2006. Talking people. From Community to Popular Archaeologies. Lund Archaeological Review 11/12:79–88.Google Scholar
House of Lords, 2000. Science and Society. Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1999–2000. London: House of Lords. URL (accessed 23 May 2008): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/1d199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm Google Scholar
Jordan, Paul, 1981. Archaeology and Television. In Evans, J., Cunliffe, B. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Antiquity and Man. Essays in Honour of Glyn Daniel: 207–213. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Håkan and Nilsson, Börn, 2000. Arkeologins publika relation. En Kritisk rannsakning. Göteborg: Bricoleur.Google Scholar
Klein, Naomi, 2001. No Logo. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar
León, Bienvenido, 2007. Science on Television. The Nature of Scientific Documentary. Luton: Pantaneto Press.Google Scholar
Lessing, Gotthold E., 1777. Über die Wahrheit. URL (accessed 23 May 2008: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/lessing/essays/collection.xml Google Scholar
Levin, Miriam, 2003. English Heritage: Outreach Strategy. URL (accessed 23 May 2008): http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8490 Google Scholar
McDavid, Carol, 1998. Levi Jordan Plantation. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.webarchaeology.com/ Google Scholar
McDavid, Carol, 2000. Archaeology as cultural critique. Pragmatism and the archaeology of a Southern United States plantation (with a comment by Daniel Mouer). In Holtorf, C. and Karlsson, H. (eds), Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: 221–239. Göteborg: Bricoleur.Google Scholar
McGeough, Kevin, 2006. Heroes, mummies, and treasure: Near Eastern archaeology in the movies. Near Eastern Archaeology 69(3–4):174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriman, Nick, 1991. Beyond the Glass Case. The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, Nick, 2004. Introduction: Diversity and dissonance in public archaeology. In Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology: 1–17. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, Vance, 1960 (1957). The Hidden Persuaders. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rainbird, Paul, 2002. A message for our future? The Rapa Nui (Easter Island) ecodisaster and Pacific island environments. World Archaeology 33(3):436–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieche, Anita, 1996. Archäologie fur jedermann — populärwissenschaftliche Schriften zu Archäologie/Bodendenkmalpflege. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 1:152–159.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. DANIEL, 2004. The global environmental crisis: an archaeological agenda for the 21st century. In Redman, C.L., James, S.R., Fish, P.R. and Rogers, J.D. (eds), The Archaeology of Global Change. The Impact of Humans on Their Environment: 271–277. Washington: Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Sabloff, Jeremy A., 1999. Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: communication and the future of American Archaeology. American Anthropologist 100:869–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabloff, JEREMY A., 2008. Archaeology Matters. Action Archaeology in the Modern World. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Scherzler, Diane, 2007. Sein Publikum ernst nehmen — Der Blick einer Journalistin auf den Umgang mit der breiten Öffentlichkeit. Archäologische Informationen 30(1):111–120.Google Scholar
Schulze, Gerhard, 1993 (1992). Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart (3rd edition). Frankfurt and New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Smardz, Karolyn, 1997. The past through tomorrow: Interpreting Toronto's heritage to a multicultural public. In Jameson, J. (ed.), Presenting Archaeology to the Public. Digging for Truths: 101–113. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Svanberg, Fredrik and Katty, H. WAHLGREN, 2007. Publik Arkeologi. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weingart, Peter, 1998. Science and the media. Research Policy 27:869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar