Material Cultures in Public Engagement: Re-inventing Public Archaeology within Museum collections

Chapter 1

Introduction: Public Archaeology Initiatives within Museum Spaces

Anastasia Christophilopoulou and Lucilla Burn

How do we Define Public Archaeology?

Public engagement with archaeology is often referred to as the practice of involving the public with archaeological, historical and art-historical evidence and associated interpretations. It is also known as the practice of familiarising the public with the methodologies employed by practitioners in the field of archaeology and related disciplines. It seeks to engage the interest of the public, passing on either specialist knowledge in an accessible form, or glimpses of the experience and challenges faced by curators, archaeologists and art historians in their own line of work. Public Archaeology is a complex and challenging field of archaeology. For many researchers, it is a trend within archaeology and not a distinct direction of the overall discipline, with its own theories, practices and quests (Moshenska 2017). Some, though, defend the existence of Public Archaeology as a separate theoretical direction in archaeology, as well as the need to integrate it as an essential part of its teaching in universities.

Public Archaeology, as either a theoretical or practical division of archaeology, was not first developed in the museum sphere, or for the needs of museum audiences; it was not even developed in universities as a theoretical direction. The first concepts of Public Archaeology and their subsequent consolidation into a theoretical branch of archaeology came about through the relationship of the public either with previously excavated archaeological monuments or with places under excavation that attracted the interest of those living near them. Public Archaeology was initially, and still is for many today, identified with the concept of ‘Community Archaeology’. Although today this concept is intertwined with practices adopted in a large number of European, American and, more recently, African countries, it is the contribution of two specific countries that has established its direction in terms of both theory and practice. These countries are the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

In the United States, ‘Archaeology for the Community’ involves three different research and practice strands: (a) Community Archaeology programmes in cooperation with American indigenous communities; (b) collaborative programmes with other local and descendant communities; and (c) extensive public education programmes of cultural and environmental heritage issues. The first of these categories is perhaps the most important, as it was created to bridge a long history of social struggles that arose after numerous excavations of American indigenous sites were conducted without the agreement of the populations descending from them. Similarly, Community Archaeology programmes with other aboriginal descendant communities or communities of the (mainly African) diaspora were created to highlight and, where possible, resolve racial issues and issues of social separation within these communities, for example, stories of slavery and social segregation (Watkins 2006, xi). It is evident that, in the case of American Public Archaeology, both its strategy and practices are fully linked to the anthropological research programmes of the United States, particularly during the decades of 1950–1970. In terms of social impact, the implementation of Public Archaeology programmes has greatly helped these societies to redefine themselves to their cultural heritage, in a spirit of cohabitation rather than violence (Watkins 2003, 134).

The application of Public Archaeology in the United Kingdom has an even longer history. However, only in recent decades have the activities involved been described explicitly as archaeology for the Community or Public Archaeology. The fact that the practice and study of Public Archaeology have now entered British universities as a systematically taught curriculum unit has also facilitated the study of the history and evolution of the discipline, at least in the context of the United Kingdom. For Britain, the roots of Public Archaeology date back to the tradition of British collectors, as well as to the creation of local history and archaeology societies that began to exist as early as the onset of the 20th century (Trigger 2007).

These societies played an important role in encouraging public participation in archaeology. Until 1970, volunteers were able to organise or participate fully in excavations in their area, a possibility which was significantly reduced after that date with the development of professional and commercial archaeology companies, who were no longer permitted, for insurance reasons, to involve the public to participate in the excavation process (Moshenska 2009). After the establishment of systematic legislation on archaeological processes for the United Kingdom (Planning Policy Guidance note 16, PPG16), public participation in excavations has been further restricted (Merriman 2004, 1–17). However, the practice of Community Archaeology is very well established in the United Kingdom as compared to other European countries (Moshenska & Dhanjal 2012). The numerous popular local history and archaeology groups today in the United Kingdom display impressive results that reflect the public’s level of participation, as well as the time and the effort dedicated by volunteers (Faulkner 2000, 21–33).

In the United Kingdom, further permanent posts of ‘community archaeologists’ that ‘guarantee the development and strengthening of public participation at the local level’ (Farley 2003, 14) have been created by the government. A typical case study is Leicestershire, where one of the most successful Public Archaeology projects was established in 1976 and today lists over 400 active members, 20 local archaeology groups and, most importantly, the first Museum curator (Keeper of Archaeology) who also holds the title of Community Archaeologist (Liddle 1985). The establishment of Public Archaeology, both in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, has been a significant development both in the way in which archaeological data may now be accessed by the general public but also for how archaeology now interacts with the general public as social science with the potential to influence daily life, like other social sciences such as sociology, history and psychology/psychoanalysis.

The subsequent gradual introduction of Public Archaeology into the way of thinking and practice of other European museums, for example, those in Germany, Greece and Italy, is an essential factor in the development of their public programmes, as well as in the way in which they now self-identify as museums. Although the theoretical and practical directions of archaeology in these three countries are quite different, their correlation here has to do with the strong presence of the state in the way the discipline of archaeology operates in these countries; the way museums are organised and function; and finally, the influence of legislation regulating public participation in museums and heritage (Matsuda 2004, 66–76). A few case-studies may illustrate this relationship. In Greece, legislation governing archaeological procedures and safeguarding of heritage does not allow private individuals to be involved in its processes, such as archaeological surveys, excavations and archaeological studies, including publications. Consequently, the decades-long established relationship between local community initiatives and archaeology in the United Kingdom – which allows citizens not only to participate in excavations or local museums as volunteers but also to shape the relationship between the discipline of archaeology and the state directives surrounding it – does not prevail in Greece. When public participation in the management of cultural heritage, as well as in the decision-making related to local historical and archaeological monuments is reduced, the likelihood of the public feeling alienated from their cultural heritage and ultimately not wanting to engage in protecting it actively, grows exponentially. The possibility lost here is what Faulkner (2000, 21–22) described in his seminal article ‘Archaeology from below: a socialist perspective’: ‘Allowing public participation in archaeological research is a point of convergence between academic practice and everyday people – a point at which history is accessible directly to the masses’. However, contributions to this volume by museum directors, curators, educators and public engagement specialists representing the National Archaeological Museum of Greece and Athens’ Acropolis Museum, indicate a variety of successful ‘paradigm shifts’, illustrating how museums can innovate in public engagement even before substantial changes are seen in legislation, or the relationship of the State with the discipline of archaeology.

Similar challenges exist in the theory and practice of Public Archaeology in Italy. As in Greece, the term Public Archaeology (Archeologia Pubblica) was not established by Italian researchers before 2000, and when it did emerge, it was through the interaction of Italian researchers with the theoretical advances made in Britain. However, over the last ten years, interest in Italy in Public Archaeology has increased, as confirmed by the participation of Italian archaeologists and museum curators alike in recent Public Archaeology conferences in Italy (Vannini & Nucciotti 2009; Bonacchi 2013; Zuanni 2013, 134–38). These conferences produced some ground-breaking views: Margherita Corrado, for example, showed how the participation of people from socially vulnerable groups in the Crotone region of Southern Italy, where she conducts excavations, can prove beneficial both for the local community and for the practice of archaeology in the region (Bonacchi 2009, 329–50).

The result of these conferences has shaped Public Archaeology in Italy as the ‘Study and strengthening of the role of archaeology, as a historical science, and the interpretation and management of archaeological resources in order to benefit society and its development’ (Bonacchi 2011, 103–4). This definition was subsequently proposed to the Italian Ministry for Culture, as well as the Ministry for Scientific Research and Education. Today, even though the application of Public Archaeology in Italy is not yet widely established, essential steps are being taken with its introduction as a discipline within universities. The application of Public Archaeology can be a way for Italian archaeologists not only to strengthen the protection of monuments and heritage sites they oversee but also to enhance public value and recognition of their profession.

It is clear, therefore, that Public Archaeology was initially developed as part of an attempt to preserve and maintain heritage and archaeological sites. However, a large part of today’s public engagement in archaeology now centres on museums. This relationship is further strengthened by the fact that many large European Art and Antiquities collections have been assembled and are maintained with public funds (in the case of major state museums in Greece, Germany and Italy – also illustrated by case studies in this volume – this relationship is even more apparent) and therefore the responsibility of their curators and museum practitioners to ‘give back’ to the public their collections, via learning resources and public engagement activities, is of prime importance. For many museums, this change of direction, from inward-looking institutions to those that seek a more dialectic and dynamic relationship with their audiences, does not simply derive from their curatorial/learning practitioners being more sensitive to issues of public engagement but is also the result of fundamental changes in the way their public now perceives and experiences the ancient world. In other words, change seems to be happening ‘from below’, just as it was a few decades ago with the dawn of Public Archaeology.

Improved accessibility to material culture from the ancient world, due to technological progress (including, for example, advances in digital archaeology, the rise of the ‘virtual museum’, or tactile 3-D reconstructed collections), as well as the public’s increased ability to travel to the source countries of ancient world collections, have together led to significant changes in the ways we perceive, engage and experience the ancient world. Museum curators, educators, and other museum professionals are suddenly faced with the challenge of how best to exploit these changes and opportunities, to create appropriate activities and programmes that will both reflect their collections and inspire different audiences to visit them. Even more, perhaps, they are concerned about how to ‘translate’ their ancient world narratives (narratives previously often based on academic vocabulary and way of thinking), into narratives and interpretations understood by the wider public and relevant to their everyday experiences. Again, several contributions in this volume (for example case studies from the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge) concern themselves with creating the right balance between analogue and digital resources to support the visitor’s experience. And nearly all contributors to this volume acknowledge the public’s need and right to curate one’s own experience, by being able to access and focus on the information that interests them as individuals. For museum professionals what looks already like a challenging task becomes more complicated when it is unclear whose competence is the greater in facing these challenges.

The points discussed above are necessary to comprehend better how Public Archaeology and its evolution have influenced museum theory and practice. We may now turn to specific European museum case studies from Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom that demonstrate this change, either as a result of early exposure to Public Archaeology and its practice or through the more recent introduction of its theory and practice to museum thinking and programming. The aim is not to produce an exhaustive description of all kinds of museum programmes and actions undertaken within this framework, but rather to shed light on the evolving relationship between Public Archaeology and museums that identify as university museums, national museums, or with links to specific heritage sites.

Past and Present Public Archaeology and Public Engagement Efforts within European Museums

One of the questions this volume seeks to explore is the extent to which public engagement with the ancient world is actively pursued in current European museum practice. Here we may explore this through three distinct categories of museums: university museums; large national museums; and museums linked to emblematic historic and archaeological sites. To the first category belong such British university museums as the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge, and Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum; in the second category are found such large national museums as the Antikensammlung and Neues Museum in Germany, as well as the National Archaeological Museum of Athens; while in the third category of museums connected to significant archaeological sites, we discuss the Acropolis Museum in Athens.

Figure 1.1: The entrance and part of the staircase of the Ashmolean Museum, after its full refurbishment, completed in November 2009. The museum’s new concept ‘connecting worlds, connecting cultures’ allows the visitor to experience collections using crossovers between different chronological and geographical regions (image: The Ashmolean Museum, 2020).

In terms of university museums, our emphasis has been on museums within the United Kingdom. The existence of university museums in Europe is attested as early as the end of the 17th century, a notable example being the establishment of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford in 1683 (MacGregor 2001) (Fig. 1.1). It was followed by the establishment of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, founded in 1816 (Burn 2016, 1–3 & 60–3). Since the founding of the first university museum (Ashmolean) to date, university museums in Britain have achieved over 300 years of collecting, displaying, researching and teaching their collections. The changes that occurred between the 17th and 21st centuries in terms of teaching, scientific advances and understanding of the natural and ancient world within those universities that include museums had a very significant impact on the kind of collections that were created, how these collections were preserved and conserved, as well as how they were displayed. Two illustrations may be offered from the Fitzwilliam Museum: an important part of museum’s Cypriot collection was created as a result of the late 19th-century founding of the Cyprus Exploration Society. This association conducted excavations and promoted the study of Cypriot archaeology with the participation of Cambridge researchers. Around the same time (1884) the Fitzwilliam decided to split the antiquities collections from its plaster casts and create a separate museum, the Museum of Classical Archaeology (also known as the Cast Gallery), not just because of lack of space but because of revised opinions as to what was appropriate for display in the Fitzwilliam (Burn 2016, 104–5). In this volume, contributions illustrate precisely this relationship, that is, how the theoretical approaches and debates that have taken place at major European universities over the last three centuries have directly influenced the development and display strategies of their associated or embedded museums (MacGregor 2001).

Going forward, the identity of a university museum, forged through its relationship with its parent university, has a direct influence on the way it develops its public engagement strategy and programming today (Boylan 1999). If we compare the present-day integration and practice of public participation in university museums we will observe significant differences, many due to the identity of the parent university. The transition from the traditional role of a university museum (maintaining and augmenting collections with a strong research interest, for example, focusing on providing collections-based teaching or supporting relevant university classes) to a programme addressing the needs of the wider public, is challenging and time-consuming. The task becomes even harder if the ambition extends to laying the ground for the active participation of those historically less likely to visit, for example vulnerable social groups and individuals, groups with learning disabilities, or LGBTQ and BAME communities. Often the well-established (if not traditional) identity of the institution can be an inhibiting factor. For example, all eight Cambridge University museums, despite their active efforts to provide a multivocality of public engagement activities, still struggle with the widespread and enduring perception that their collections can only speak to the academic community or specialised researchers.

Specific examples of recent actions and programmes from university museums in this volume demonstrate new initiatives in public engagement as well as the challenges and adversities faced while implementing them by curators, public engagement and learning specialists or other museum professionals. Our own experience in the Fitzwilliam Museum (at least over the past decade) has exposed many of these challenges but has also revealed pathways that can lead to new approaches. Emerging opportunities include the importance of engaging with ancient material culture as a point of contact for the public with the ancient world; the importance of incorporating sensory experiences for young children and adults within the museum environment; as well as challenges such as the realisation that public engagement in museum practice should be regarded as a fundamental professional task rather than an add-on activity, paired with the fact that ‘we are not there yet’ in establishing this practice. Three of the Fitzwilliam’s programmes, implemented between 2010 and 2020, acted