Heritage Matters

Public ParticiPation in arcHaeology

Heritage Matters

iSSn 1756–4832

Series EditorsPeter g. Stone

Peter Davischris Whitehead

Heritage Matters is a series of edited and single-authored volumes which addresses the whole range of issues that confront the cultural heritage sector as we face the global challenges of the twenty-first century. The series follows the ethos of the international centre for cultural and Heritage Studies (iccHS) at newcastle university, where these issues are seen as part of an integrated whole, including both cultural and natural agendas, and thus encompasses challenges faced by all types of museums, art galleries, heritage sites and the organisations and individuals that work with, and are affected by them.

Previously published titles are listed at the back of this book

Public Participation in archaeology

edited by

Suzie thomas and Joanne lea

tHe boyDell PreSS

© contributors 2014

All rights reserved. except as permitted under current legislationno part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,

published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 2014The boydell Press, Woodbridge

iSbn 978–1–84383–897–5

The boydell Press is an imprint of boydell & brewer ltdPo box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk iP12 3DF, uK

and of boydell & brewer inc.668 Mt Hope avenue, rochester, ny 14620–2731, uSa

website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book,

and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

a ciP record for this book is availablefrom the british library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

contents

list of illustrations ix

acknowledgments xiii

list of abbreviations xiv

Preface xvii

introduction 1Joanne Lea and Suzie Thomas

Public Participation in archaeology: international Models

1 From ‘telling’ to ‘consulting’: a Perspective on Museums and Modes of Public 11 engagement

Theano Moussouri

2 Making archaeological Heritage accessible in great britain: enter community 23 archaeology

Suzie Thomas

3 Public and community archaeology – an irish Perspective 35Thomas Kador

4 The Scope and Potential for community archaeology in the netherlands 49Sophie Lampe

5 Public archaeology as a reflexive Practice: an argentine case Study in the 61 Pampean region

Natalia Mazzia, Virginia Salerno and Alejandra Pupio

Public Participation in archaeology through education

6 accessing archaeology in the School System: Powerful Partnerships – a case Study 73 of the challenges and rewards for archaeologists, teachers and Students (canada)

Cathy MacDonald

7 Hook ’em When They’re young: using enquiry-based learning Workshops 81 in archaeology

Jolene Debert

8 archaeology as culturally relevant Science education: The Poplar Forest Slave cabin 89Michael Brody, Jeanne M Moe, Joëlle Clark and Crystal B Alegria

9 Heritage education in Jordanian Schools: For Knowledge or Profit? 105Arwa Badran

Public Participation in archaeology through tourism

10 Politics, archaeology and education: ancient Merv, turkmenistan 119Mike Corbishley and Gaigysyz Jorayev

11 Situating Public archaeology in crooked tree, belize 129Alicia Ebbitt McGill

12 access to archaeological Heritage in Mexico: its impact on Public Participation 139 in archaeology

Lilia L Lizama Aranda and Blanca A Camargo

Public Participation in archaeology through Site Management and conservation

13 ‘They are hiding it … Why do they hide it? From whom, and for whom?’ 149 community Heritage at Work in the Post-colonial context of Jordan

Shatha Abu-Khafajah

14 Site Management in turkey 161Dinç Saraç

15 adopt a Monument: Social Meaning from community archaeology 175†Aino Nissinaho and Tuija-Liisa Soininen

16 Public archaeology in canada 183Joanne Lea

list of contributors 195

index 201

Illustrations

COVER IMAGES(Top) Pupils learning about Greek alphabets at the Northern Theatre in Jerash/Jerash Pilot

Study as part of the second phase of the UNESCO project. © UNESCO/Arwa Badran(Middle) Participants at the historic graveyard-recording workshop at Kilmanman graveyard,

Clonaslee, Co Laois. Courtesy of John Tierney(Bottom) A teacher with pupils at Ancient Merv; a style of education previously unheard of

in Turkmenistan. Ancient Merv Project, UCL/Dominic Powlesland (photographer)

FIGURES2.1. A Community Archaeology Training Placement, participating in survey work with 28

a Scotland’s Rural Past group. Image courtesy of the Council for British Archaeology2.2. A Community Archaeology Training Placement with the University of Salford, 28

helping a volunteer on site. Image courtesy of the Council for British Archaeology3.1. The ‘Digging the Monto’ exhibition, dealing with poverty and working-class life 43

in Dublin’s infamous tenements around 1913. Courtesy of the LAB, Dublin City Council3.2. Participants at the historic graveyard-recording workshop at Kilmanman graveyard, 43

Clonaslee, Co Laois. Courtesy of John Tierney4.1. Dutch museums increasingly integrate films into their displays, allowing people to 50

experience archaeology. © E S Lampe5.1. Location of the Buenos Aires province cities where the Grupo de Arqueología en 62

las Pampas (GAP) works. Natalia Mazzia, Virginia Salerno and Alejandra Pupio8.1. Students use archaeological inquiry skills (observation, inference and classification) 92

to investigate how modern people live in their space. Joëlle Clark8.2. Students use authentic archaeological data to investigate how people lived at a 93

historic slave cabin at Thomas Jefferson’s Plantation, Poplar Forest. Joëlle Clark

x Illustrations

8.3. Observation Examples. 97 Joëlle Clark8.4. Inference Examples. 97 Joëlle Clark8.5. Classification Examples. 97 Joëlle Clark8.6. Context Examples. 98 Joëlle Clark8.7. Pre-test Responses. 98 Joëlle Clark8.8. Control Group Responses. 99 Joëlle Clark8.9. Post-test Responses. 99 Joëlle Clark9.1. Teachers’ expectations of learning outcomes when teaching pupils about the 111

archaeological heritage. Arwa Badran9.2. Pupils learning about Greek alphabets at the Northern Theatre in Jerash/Jerash 113

Pilot Study as part of the second phase of the UNESCO project. © UNESCO/Arwa Badran10.1. A teacher with pupils at Ancient Merv; a style of education previously unheard of 123

in Turkmenistan. Ancient Merv Project, UCL/Dominic Powlesland (photographer)10.2. Open day at Ancient Merv. UCL volunteers lead visits to sites where people are 125

allowed to handle finds. Ancient Merv Project, UCL/Sjoerd van der Linde (photographer)13.1. Al-Nweijeez Roman Mausoleum as it appears from the car park. 155 Shatha Abu-Khafajah13.2. The site of the Suwaifyyeh Mosaic, as it appears from the nearby road. 156 Shatha Abu-Khafajah14.1. The site of Xanthos, featuring the Roman agora and the Lycian pillar tombs, 1998. 169 Dinç Saraç15.1. The old border fence of the town of Tampere is one of the adopted sites. 176 Aino Nissinaho/Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum15.2. Meeting of adopters and museum staff at an adopted burial cairn. 178 Aino Nissinaho/Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum

TABLES1.1. Forms (areas) of public engagement and related communication and learning 14

theories, and research methodology approaches.

Illustrations xi

Theano Moussouri1.2. The five dimensions of public engagement in STEM and associated milestones. 15 Theano Moussouri3.1. Historical and archaeological societies in Ireland. 40 Thomas Kador8.1. Professional Development Workshops. 94 Joëlle Clark8.2. Workshop Usefulness. 94 Joëlle Clark8.3. Response to: ‘Science means questioning, explaining, and testing’. 95 Joëlle Clark8.4. Response to: ‘I like science/I am good at science’. 96 Joëlle Clark8.5. Response to: ‘Do you think science is fun?’ 96 Joëlle Clark9.1. List of primary schools that were included in the sample for teachers’ interviews. 108 Arwa Badran12.1. Visits to archaeological sites in Mexico (managed by INAH). 141 Based on data from DataTur, 201316.1. Characteristics of 53 stakeholders who participated in the study. 185 Joanne Lea16.2. Characteristics of the 117 public archaeology programme participants who 186

completed survey questionnaires as part of the study. Joanne Lea16.3. Areas of convergence among stakeholders, CAA focus group members, teachers, 187

public archaeology programme participants and case study participants. Joanne Lea16.4. Areas of divergence among stakeholders, teachers, public archaeology programme 188

participants and case study participants. Joanne Lea

The editors, contributors and publisher are grateful to all the institutions and persons listed for permission to reproduce the materials in which they hold copyright. Every effort has been made to trace the copyright holders; apologies are offered for any omission, and the publishers will be pleased to add any necessary acknowledgment in subsequent editions.

Abbreviations

ACRSC Archaeology as Culturally Relevant Science Curricula (USA)ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act (USA)AWN Vereniging van Vrijwilligers in de Archeologie (Netherlands)BAS Belize Audubon Society BEC Belize Estate Produce Company CAA Canadian Archaeological AssociationCABP Community Archaeology Bursaries Project (UK)CAISE Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (USA)CATPs Community Archaeology Training Placements (UK)CBA Council for British ArchaeologyCDP Conservation Development Plan (Turkey)CEEBL Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning (UK)CETL Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (UK)CHAP Chau Hiix Archaeological Project (Belize)CLASP Community Landscape and Archaeology Survey Project (UK)CMC Canadian Museum of Civilization CRDI Curriculum Review Development and Implementation (Canada)CTCDR Culture and Tourism Conservation and Development Regions (Turkey)DCDSB Durham Catholic District School Board (Canada)DMAS Defence Military Archaeology Society (UK)DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals (Mexico)EAA European Association of ArchaeologistsEBL enquiry-based learningEdD Doctorate in EducationEH English HeritageFOAH Friends of Archaeology and Heritage Society (Jordan)GAP Grupo de Arqueología en las Pampas (Argentina)GEAR Gloucester Emergency Accommodation ResourceGLO generative learning objectHER Historic Environment Record (UK)HLF Heritage Lottery Fund (UK)ICCHS International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural PropertyICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesIMS Image Management SystemINAH National Institute of Anthropology and History (Mexico)ISFA Instituto Superior de Formación Artística (Argentina)KS Key Stage (UK)MCT Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Turkey)MoE Ministry of Education (Jordan)

MoTA Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (Jordan)NGO Non-governmental organisationNIAF Northern Ireland Archaeological Forum OA Open AccessOASIS Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS (UK)Open DOAR Open Directory of Open Access Repositories (Mexico) OSI Open Society InstitutePE Public EngagementPEA Public Engagement in ArchaeologyPES Public Engagement with SciencePhD Doctor of PhilosophyRCAHMS Royal Commission for the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland RCAHMW Royal Commission for the Ancient and Historic Monuments of WalesROAR Registry of Open Access Repositories (Mexico)RSC Revised Statutes of CanadaSAA Society for American ArchaeologySEPA Special Environment Protection Area (Turkey)STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and MathematicsTRCA Toronto and Region Conservation AuthorityTST 2023 Tourism Strategy of Turkey 2023UCL University College LondonUNAM Universidad Nacional Autonoma de MexicoUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationWAC World Archaeological CongressWHL World Heritage List (UNESCO)WLU Wilfrid Laurier UniversityYAC Young Archaeologists’ Club (UK)

2

Making archaeological Heritage accessible in great britain: enter community archaeology

Suzie thomas

introduction

this chapter provides an overview of the way in which archaeology has been presented, inter-preted and made available to the wider public in great britain – england, Scotland and

Wales – over the past few years.1 The chapter begins by examining briefly the phenomenon of ‘community archaeology’ in great britain; a term which in recent decades has, arguably, become synonymous with public participation in british archaeological heritage. What this means in the british context is explored below. Some examples are given of participation, both community-led and organisation-initiated; recent changes to the landscape of archaeology in great britain are presented, and the challenges as well as opportunities that lie ahead are discussed.

‘community archaeology’: What Does this Mean exactly?

community archaeology seems first to have emerged as a term in the 1970s with the pioneering work of Peter liddle, still actively supporting community archaeology in leicestershire since that time and widely regarded as a key founder of community archaeology as a movement. There are parallels in its evolution to be found with discussions of the related term ‘public archaeology’ initiated in the uSa, also in the 1970s (Mcgimsey 1972); this term is still popular and, as noted elsewhere, is even the namesake for an international journal (Smith and Waterton 2009, 16).

The actual definition of ‘community archaeology’ has been at times problematic to capture. Such definitions as do exist are fairly broad. corbishley (2011, 104) offers that: ‘community archaeology is the term most often used to describe any outreach aspect of an archaeological project but it can mean a number of different types of project and involve a range of “publics”’. Kiddey and Schofield (2011, 5) acknowledged the scope and potential of archaeology for engage-ment in their analysis of their pilot project in bristol with members of the city’s homeless commu-nity: ‘archaeology … provides a range of opportunities for public participation and engagement, not only with the archaeological process but also with intellectual content’. as their innovative project and others (discussed later in this chapter) show, community archaeology is about social, as well as archaeological, outcomes.

even PhD theses on community archaeology have struggled to unpack the definition fully, sometimes focusing on one particular aspect of the term, such as the connotations of ‘commu-

1 Kador covers northern ireland in relationship to the republic of ireland in chapter 3.

24 Public Participation in archaeology

nity’ but not ‘archaeology’ (eg Simpson 2010, 1). in his PhD thesis, isherwood (2009, 235) has also noted that, certainly within the uK and almost as a shorthand reference by many, ‘the community archaeology project is now widely seen to stand for “community archaeology” in general’. The council for british archaeology (cba)’s own research on community archaeology, with which the author was heavily involved, deliberately opted to avoid any rigid definitions or criteria for what ‘community archaeology’ might entail, in order not to exclude any potential examples or case studies from the scope of the research (Thomas 2010, 8).

groups and Societies

one clear point to emerge from the cba’s research was the range of voluntary groups involved in archaeology (for example, ‘traditional’ archaeological and historical societies, through to more recently formed self-identified ‘community archaeology groups’), that could potentially be defined as facets of community archaeology. However, more often than not, such groups exist through a structure employing potential barriers such as paid membership and the implied social capital barriers that may intimidate the ‘uninitiated’ from becoming further involved. This aside, the voluntary sector in archaeology, of which voluntary groups might be viewed as a major component, is considerable in its size. The cba’s community archaeology research revealed that there were upward of 2030 different voluntary groups engaging with archaeology in different ways, representing at least 215,000 individuals (Thomas 2010, 5). This showed an increase from the mid-1980s, when a comparable survey estimated that there were 100,000 indi-viduals getting involved with archaeological activity in this way (british archaeological news 1987, 29). continued monitoring and recording by the author and other cba colleagues of groups ‘discovered’ even since the research was published shows that there are at least 200 more groups than recorded in the report. This is not to suggest that this group or society membership involvement or, perhaps more accurately, interest in archaeology always translates to participation in archaeological activities. For example, respondent groups to the cba’s most recent survey, carried out in 2009, indicated that ‘the most popular activity, which was carried out by 91% or 462 of the groups, was having a talk or lecture. This was followed by trips to sites, museums or similar, taking a table at a history fair or similar, and recording through photography’ (Thomas 2010, 24).

Some voluntary groups even carry out their own ‘community archaeology’ projects, putting on events and activities to engage with non-members. For example, the Thornbury Museum archaeology group in gloucestershire (a voluntary group itself ), as its contribution to the 2012 Festival of archaeology,2 offered opportunities to visit their current project, thereby ‘making the excavations open to the public’ (Festival of archaeology 2012). This is not an unusual activity for a voluntary group; the community landscape and archaeology Survey Project (claSP) in northamptonshire regularly offer open days around their projects (young 2011, pers comm; claSP 2012).

another interesting finding to emerge about the 504 voluntary groups that responded to the questionnaire survey that formed part of the cba’s research was the average age of group

2 For more about the Festival of archaeology, coordinated across the uK annually by the cba, visit: www.archaeologyfestival.org.uk. archaeology Scotland coordinates a comparable event at Scotland-wide level, called Scottish archaeology Month: www.scottisharchaeologymonth.com.

Making archaeological Heritage accessible 25

members, which came out at 55 (Thomas 2010, 23). This was despite a potential skew by the response to the survey of a number of young archaeologists’ club (yac) branches, which enjoy a membership aged between 8 and 16 years. The fact that membership of archaeology-related groups is typically older reflects the time that older people, likely to be in retirement and without young children, have to devote to a pursuit such as archaeology, and echoes the recent research in australia to analyse the drivers of older volunteers in museums, given the significance and prominence of their role (Deery et al 2011).

Models for Participation: Some examples

not all of those with an interest in archaeology will necessarily be members of, or even want to join, a local group or society. national organisations such as the national trust, english Heritage and Historic Scotland enjoy extensive paid memberships, and advantages to the member are free entry to properties in the stewardship of these organisations, as well as subscription to member magazines and newsletters. in addition, membership to archaeological charities such as the cba and archaeology Scotland are open to anyone regardless of their level of engagement in archaeology, and include, in their membership packages, publications and access to special events. However, this means that while some members will also be active in archaeology, either voluntarily or professionally, many more may be content to receive magazines and other forms of dissemination, with limited desire or ability to get involved beyond that. notably too, research into the impact of heritage and archaeology presented on television suggests that heritage repre-sents a ‘significant niche programming strand’, and also that many from less advantaged back-grounds rely primarily on television programmes for information about the past, in apparent contrast to the type of demographic more likely to visit museums and heritage sites (Piccini 2007, 8). even within the memberships of groups and societies, research suggests that ‘hands-on’ activities do not necessarily involve all, or even the majority, of members (especially given the older age of many), as mentioned above (Thomas 2010, 24).

in addition to those who are not physically active in archaeological pursuits for whatever reason (while undoubtedly maintaining an interest in the subject), there are countless more individuals who do actively engage. it is unclear precisely how many volunteers are currently involved in archaeological activities, for example in museums, heritage sites and at archaeological field projects. However, research into volunteering in museums in Scotland alone indicated that there were certainly upward of 2515 volunteers (baird and greenaway 2009, 3) – with the caveat that this was across all museum activities and not those connected to archaeological heritage. Furthermore, some of the larger scale ‘community archaeology’ projects of recent years in great britain and elsewhere have actively encouraged a diverse range of people to participate as volun-teers, whether at a one-off session or as a longer term commitment. Dig greater Manchester for example, a greater Manchester-wide programme of community excavations and other activi-ties initiated in 2012, provides specific days where trenches are open to day visitors to have a go, as well as providing longer term opportunities to enrol as a volunteer (centre for applied archaeology 2012).

initiatives such as Dig greater Manchester, and its precursor Dig Manchester (see digman-chester.co.uk), can be described as ‘top-down’; developed by archaeological professionals and/or decision-makers, although they are intended to encourage community engagement and increase participation. isherwood (2009, 176) notes that Dig Manchester ‘was induced not out

26 Public Participation in archaeology

of community assertiveness but out of professional opportunism’. This is not necessarily a criti-cism and in some cases the initial drive may well need to come from experienced heritage profes-sionals, especially if the intended audience has limited experience of archaeology or is unlikely to develop a project themselves. other projects following this model in recent years include the 2005–2006 community archaeology excavation at Shoreditch in london, which was developed and directed by staff from the Museum of london (Simpson 2010, 43). The 2006–2011 excava-tion of Hungate in york, while essentially a developer-funded project ahead of new construc-tion, had ‘community, public, outreach and education programmes’ built into it from the outset (connelly 2011, 35). it is likely that more archaeological organisations and consultants will look to community archaeology as a means of securing funding (for example through project-related grants such as the Heritage lottery Fund (HlF)), as other sources of income diminish. The risk with such projects is that they are designed and delivered following little or no consultation with the communities for whom they are intended. This can lead to problematic outcomes and even, in extreme circumstances, what effectively forms an abuse of the term ‘community archaeology’ by prioritising needs for the organisation to generate income and hence protect jobs (in itself an understandable motivation), at the expense of effective, sympathetic and unhindered community engagement. The point here is that community archaeology projects carried out as ‘top-down’ ventures must demonstrate due consideration for their intended communities, however these ‘communities’ are defined or identified.

These examples differ from so-called ‘bottom-up’ models, where the initiative, drive and project design is said to have come from the community itself (often an established archaeo-logical society). This does not necessarily preclude professional archaeologists, since specialist guidance may still be sought, and some groups, such as Wilmslow community archaeology in cheshire, may include qualified archaeologists from the local community in its member-ship (Thomas 2010, 8). another seemingly ‘top-down’ initiative across Scotland, called Scot-land’s rural Past, which ran from 2006–2011 (SrP 2012), actively stimulated new groups and societies to form within local communities, in many cases setting their own research agendas and defining their own training needs. in reality the definitions of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ are in many ways artificial, although still commonly used (and hence illustrated here). as belford (2011, 52) has reminded us, community archaeology is influenced by different interest groups (both paid and unpaid), and ultimately sits somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum.

initiatives to Support community archaeology

However community archaeology may operate – whether continuing work led by an established voluntary society, a finite project with a newly formed group, an archaeological organisation’s outreach project, or through other means – there is almost always some level of engagement with the paid archaeological sector, for example for advice or in order to record research outputs. it was in part due to findings by the cba (notably Thomas 2010, 44) regarding training needs within the paid sector itself, and due to lateral thinking from cba staff such as cherida Plumb – at that time Head of Development and responsible for funding applications – that the commu-nity archaeology bursaries Project (cabP) started in 2011 (see http://new.archaeologyuk.org/community-archaeology-bursaries-project). The project’s key aim was to equip individuals within the paid archaeological sector with the skills necessary to facilitate, encourage and support public

Making archaeological Heritage accessible 27

participation. The cabP was developed through funding secured from the HlF,3 probably the most significant funding stream available for community heritage projects in the uK, drawing its financing from national lottery ticket sale revenue. in addition to the recommendations of the cba’s community archaeology report, the HlF had itself identified the potential for emerging skills gaps within heritage more broadly, and in 2009 announced the creation of a new (at that point) one-off funding stream named ‘Skills for the Future’ (HlF 2009). This recognised the need to invest in vocational learning opportunities within the heritage sector. The Skills for the Future grant awarded to the cba to manage the cabP, which also attracted so-called ‘match-funding’ from english Heritage and cadw (for england and Wales respectively) and some addi-tional support indirectly from Historic Scotland, was one of the largest grants to be awarded under the scheme.

From 2011 to 2014, some 51 year-long funded training opportunities will have been provided for individuals wishing to develop a career in community archaeology. in May 2012, it was announced that the cba had been awarded a further 24 traineeships to complement the 27 allocated in the original grant. The additional 24 placements make provision for a particular focus on working with young people, following research by the cba identifying skills gaps within paid archaeology concerning this specific type of engagement (cba 2012). community archaeology training Placements (catPs) granted under this scheme have been awarded to a range of existing archaeological practitioners at risk of leaving the profession, recent entrants into archaeology (for example recent graduates and trainees) and those wishing to enter paid archae-ology following extensive voluntary experience. The catPs are located within organisations across the uK recognised by the cba as excellent learning environments for trainee community archaeologists, exhibiting good practice and proven experience in facilitating and supporting community-based initiatives in archaeology. each catP experience is unique, with hosts ranging from local authorities through to museum services; the royal commission for the ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland and of Wales respectively (rcaHMS and rcaHMW; see Fig 2.1); charitable trusts; and universities such as the university of Salford (Fig 2.2).

The cabP is not necessarily ‘community archaeology’ in the sense of a distinct set of ‘projects’ working with specific communities (although each of the placements engaged/engages with the communities specific to the projects undertaken by their respective host organisations). However, it is important to note the cabP as a uK-wide4 initiative designed to support greater engage-ment between paid archaeologists and those interacting with archaeological heritage on a volun-tary basis.

Many projects inevitably attract a specific participant demographic. This is often due to pre-existing interest (a participant may already be a member of a local group or society, for example), or the person’s background and lifestyle may mean they are able to afford opportunities and have the inclination to take part in an activity such as archaeology. Waterton and Smith (2011, 15), for example, observe in the british context that ‘the sorts of projects that dominate the [heritage] sector best apply to the white middle classes’. However, it is important to note that initiatives and projects that may qualify as community archaeology are also increasingly working with more

3 www.hlf.org.uk/aboutus/Pages/aboutus.aspx [2 July 2012]4 at the time of writing, all catPs have been based in england, Scotland and Wales, although there is scope

for catPs to be hosted by organisations in northern ireland too, should applications to host a catP be received from appropriate candidate host organisations based in northern ireland.

28 Public Participation in archaeology

Fig 2.1. amy gillespie (left), 2011–12 community archaeology training Placement with rcaHMS, participating in survey work with a Scotland’s rural Past group.

Fig 2.2. Kirsty Whittall (left), 2011–12 community archaeology training Placement with the university of Salford, helping a volunteer on site.

Making archaeological Heritage accessible 29

diverse audiences, with findings emerging that such activity brings benefits to more than just the archaeology.

as mentioned earlier in this chapter, Kiddey and Schofield have reported on innovative community archaeology engaging with homeless communities, incidentally complementing Kiddey’s current PhD research into archaeologically mapping and recording homeless heritage (Kiddey and Schofield 2011, 22). This work has nonetheless been groundbreaking in bristol and, more recently, york, where in 2012 an exhibition was curated of fieldwork that had involved both homeless archaeologists and students from the university of york (see http://arcifact.webs.com). archaeology that engages with the often-forgotten and extremely complex homeless ‘community’ has been carried out elsewhere as well, such as in a partnership between gloucester emergency accommodation resource (gear) and gloucester city council’s Heritage Services, which went a long way to dispel myths that homeless people are unlikely to take an interest in physical activi-ties such as excavation (ainsworth 2009, 26). That said, such work is still relatively unusual, but interest in the projects from other heritage professionals and organisations (Kiddey and Schofield 2011, 20) suggests that lessons learnt may yet be rolled out further.

in another very recently developed example, archaeologists have been working with the newly formed Defence Military archaeology Society (DMaS; see www.dmasuk.org), which came together ‘to utilize both the technical and social aspects of field archaeology in the rehabilitation and skill development of soldiers injured in the conflict in afghanistan’ (DMaS n.d.). This group is involved with operation nightingale, an innovative and potentially groundbreaking initia-tive. activities take place across england and Wales, including ‘Project Florence’, a contributive project working with soldiers’ families, led by Wessex archaeology (one of the largest archaeo-logical organisations in the uK) with funding from the HlF (Wessex archaeology 2012). While the project is still in its infancy, early indications are that the benefits to the health, well-being and confidence of participating soldiers are palpable, with the teamwork aspect of archaeological fieldwork proving particularly significant.

in fact, a key finding of much community archaeology (where it has been practised or deliv-ered in a sensitive and appropriate manner) is the significance of well-being benefits gained from participation. These can range from personal enrichment (from learning new skills and new information about a local area) through to increasing social capital (many people join archaeological groups in order to make new friends, as much as anything else), and of course the health benefits of physical activity and mental stimulation. recent research at university college london (ucl) has indicated the potential for heritage engagement in contributing to increased well-being. ‘Heritage in Hospitals: exploring the potential of museum object handling as an enrichment activity for patients’ introduced hospital patients to objects from the ucl Museums and collections and in all cases recorded ‘significant increases in positive emotion, decreases in negative emotion, and enhanced wellness and happiness’ (ucl 2012). again, such research is not in isolation, but is relatively new in the context of heritage (the Wildlife trusts, for example, have responded to similar research about outdoor activity contributing to physical and mental well-being; Wiltshire Wildlife trust 2012).

one of the homeless archaeologists that worked with Kiddey and Schofield in bristol, Punk Paul, noted the significance of their project: ‘Hopefully constructing an insightful view on things and implementing change in society, making order of our modern lives, seeing us as no different from the egyptians or the romans’ (in Kiddey and Schofield 2011, 21). This perhaps draws paral-lels with the remarks of many of the patients involved in the ‘Heritage in Hospitals’ project, who

30 Public Participation in archaeology

reported feeling comfort from contemplating the antiquity of many of the museum objects, and hence some sense of continuity (chatterjee 2011). The positive benefits of engaging in archaeo-logical activities, as with other subjects and activities, deserve further research and measurement and should be drawn to the attention of decision-makers more strongly, especially given the worrying cuts currently facing archaeological services in the uK and elsewhere.

challenges for accessible archaeology in great britain

a number of the chapters in this volume address the implications of the current economic climate in relation to archaeology, with cuts to services and resources for paid archaeological work and research being seen both at local and global levels. The situation in the uK is little different, with significant reductions, in very recent times in particular, to national and local government-funded archaeological services. These cuts impact on the archaeological discipline as a whole but, disappointingly, education, outreach and public engagement elements of archaeological resource provision particularly seem to have suffered.

english Heritage is the non-governmental organisation for england with responsibility for the national Monuments record as well as direct stewardship of over 400 sites open to the public (english Heritage 2012). in 2010, it was announced that as a result of cuts across the whole organisation equating to 32% of the budget, eH’s outreach department would close in its entirety (atkinson 2010). This dramatic loss, brought on by necessary budgetary cuts, has also affected archaeology within local authorities, particularly in england. Faced with no choice but to cut budgets across local government services, archaeology and heritage seem to be among the easier targets for decision-makers looking to make savings. gloucester city council’s Heritage Services, despite notable and innovative community work (see above), was an early victim of local authority closures. in the case of Merseyside in north West england, the entire Merseyside archaeological advisory Service closed on 31 March 2011 (Merseyside Historic environment record 2011), rather scandalously closing with it access to the Merseyside Historic environment record (Her).5

Moving forward, the outlook for public participation in archaeology is not all bad, however. in 2010, HlF announced a £25 million increase in its annual budget until 2018, due to an increase in lottery ticket sales (HlF 2010). This perhaps reflects an increased tendency among the general public to buy lottery tickets in lean financial times, but also represents a positive development for community archaeology, much of which is funded through projects utilising HlF grants. in addition, the current coalition government in the uK has a particular focus on a concept it has called the ‘big Society’, which essentially points to increased community involve-ment in local issues and in voluntary action: ‘The big Society is about helping people to come

5 Hers hold information on archaeological sites, historic buildings and other historic environment features, most commonly at county level. Most Hers are open for users to visit and consult records and maps. Many can be consulted online, while others provide information on request. Hers are continually updated by local authority archaeologists, archaeological contractors and from the results of any other archaeological research, provided that this is passed on to the Her officer or equivalent. Hers are also updated using online dissemination via oaSiS (online accesS to the index of archaeological investigationS). online access to Hers is constantly being improved and at present england’s Hers can be accessed via Heritage gateway (www.heritagegateway.org.uk), while Hers for Wales can be accessed via archwilio (www.archwilio.org.uk) or the Historic Wales Portal (http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/nMW/start.jsp).

Making archaeological Heritage accessible 31

together to improve their own lives. it’s about putting more power in people’s hands – a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities’ (cabinet office 2012).

While there is some, perhaps understandable, scepticism regarding the big Society agenda and its long-term sustainability, as has been shown above community archaeology does have the potential, if carried out sensitively, to make genuine improvements to people’s lives. indications also are that areas of the voluntary sector that engage with archaeology are increasing rather than decreasing, and with many archaeological services eroding due to budget cuts, the role of the volunteer may become even more significant in coming years.

conclusions

The nature of community archaeology in great britain, and indeed elsewhere, is varied. Despite attempts, even here, to unpack the potential definitions, it remains a term that can be applied to a wide range of scenarios. What is clear is that it is unlikely to disappear any time soon and voluntary action in archaeology is now, as it has always been in great britain (Fry 2007, 21), a vital and vast component of the wider archaeological community. a particularly interesting aspect of engagement with archaeology, known to practitioners and participants for a long time but which has recently attracted increased attention from researchers, is the contribution that participation in archaeology can potentially make to well-being.

Many issues still surround community archaeology as it is practised in current times, with justified concern about future support for community groups wishing to engage in archaeology in light of such dramatic cuts to local and national archaeological provision. Some of these problems fall outside the scope of this chapter, which can only provide an overview of british community archaeology within the constraints of an edited volume. issues for further considera-tion include, for example, where groups will access the training and support needed to carry out archaeological investigations that record the maximum of data and avoid unnecessary damage to heritage assets, if there are fewer paid archaeologists available. also, we need to consider what the long-term prognosis might be for the archiving and storage requirements that inevitably emerge from any archaeological interventions. However, on a positive note, growing interest in community archaeology as an aspect of the discipline worthy of academic examination,6 as well as the undeniable scale of voluntary action in heritage generally, suggest that our understanding (and even appreciation of ) community and voluntary endeavours is likely only to increase.

bibliography and references

ainsworth, a, 2009 gloucester’s itinerant diggers [online], Past Horizons 8, 26–7, available from: http://en.calameo.com/read/0000627291767a39589d5 [1 July 2012]atkinson, r, 2010 english Heritage to close outreach department, Museums Journal [online], 16 november, available from: http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17112010-english-heritage-outreach [2 July 2012]

6 in 2010, for example, bishop grosseteste university commenced teaching of the first dedicated Masters degree in the uK focused specifically on community archaeology.

32 Public Participation in Archaeology

Baird, L, and Greenaway, L, 2009 Volunteering in Museums: A research study into volunteering within museums, Full report [online], Museums Galleries Scotland, Edinburgh, available from: http://www.muse-umsgalleriesscotland.org.uk/site/includes/content/downloadfile.php?downloadtype=publication&fname=fbb537a6b3bf3f5573df11bddf3ec713.pdf [7 July 2012]Belford, P, 2011 Archaeology, Community and Identity in an English New Town, The Historic Environment 2 (1), 49–67British Archaeological News, 1987 Archaeological Societies in the UK, British Archaeological News 2 (3), 29–36Cabinet Office, 2012 Big Society [online], available from: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/big-society [9 July 2012]Centre for Applied Archaeology, 2012 Dig Greater Manchester [online], University of Salford, Salford, avail-able from: http://diggreatermanchester.wordpress.com/about/ [25 September 2013]Chatterjee, H, 2011 Heritage in Hospitals, paper presented at the Touch + Wellbeing workshop, Museums, Galleries and wellbeing: An Evaluation and Evidence Workshop, 27 October, NewcastleCLASP, 2012 Whitehall Roman Villa and Landscape Project: Open Days – Photos [online], available from: http://www.whitehallvilla.co.uk/htmlfiles/open_days_index.html [16 June 2012]Connelly, P, 2011 Hungate: Digging in the heart of York, The Archaeologist 80, 34–5Corbishley, M, 2011 Pinning Down the Past: Archaeology, Heritage, and Education Today, The Boydell Press, WoodbridgeCouncil for British Archaeology (CBA), 2012 CBA awarded major new HLF funding for community archae-ology [online], available from: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/120528-hlfnews [30 June 2012]Deery, M, Jago, L, and Mair, J, 2011 Volunteering for Museums: The Variation in Motives across Volunteer Age Groups, Curator 54 (3), 313–25Defence Military Archaeology Society (DMAS), n.d. About Us [online], available from: http://www.dmasuk.org/?page_id=4 [8 July 2012]English Heritage, 2012 About Us [online], available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about [2 July 2012]Festival of Archaeology, 2012 What’s On [online], available from: http://festival.britarch.ac.uk/whatson [16 June 2012]Fry, B, 2007 Reaching Out to the Bureaucracy and Beyond: Archaeology at Louisbourg and Parks Canada, in Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (eds J H Jameson Jr and S Baugher), Springer, New York, 19–33Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), 2009 Skills for the Future Programme open for business [online], 2 December, available from: http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/SkillsfortheFutureprogramme.aspx [16 June 2012]— 2010 News of £25m increase to the Heritage Lottery Fund’s annual budget [online], 29 March, available from: http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/Annualbudget.aspx [9 July 2012]Isherwood, R, 2009 Community Archaeology. A study of the conceptual, political and practical issues surrounding community archaeology in the United Kingdom today, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UKKiddey, R, and Schofield, J, 2011 Embrace the Margins: Adventures in Archaeology and Homelessness, Public Archaeology 10 (1), 4–22McGimsey, C, 1972 Public Archaeology, Seminar Press, New York and LondonMerseyside Historic Environment Record, 2011 Guide to Merseyside Historic Environment Record [online],

Making archaeological Heritage accessible 33

national Museums liverpool, available from: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/collections/historic-environment-record/documents/guide-to-Merseyside-Her.pdf [2 July 2012]Piccini, a, 2007 A Survey of Heritage Television Viewing Figures [online], council for british archae-ology, york, available from: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/sites/www.britarch.ac.uk/files/node-files/research_bulletin_number_1_final.pdf [7 July 2012]Scotland’s rural Past (SrP), 2012 Scotland’s Rural Past [online], royal commission on the ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, available from: http://www.scotlandsruralpast.org.uk [7 July 2012]Simpson, F, 2010 The Values of Community Archaeology: A Comparative Study between the UK and US, archaeopress, oxfordSmith, l, and Waterton, e, 2009 Heritage, Communities and Archaeology, Duckworth, londonThomas, S, 2010 Community Archaeology in the UK: Recent Findings, council for british archaeology, yorkuniversity college london (ucl), 2012 Heritage in Hospitals [online], available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/research/touch/heritage-in-hospitals [1 July 2012]Waterton, e, and Smith, l, 2011 Heritage and community engagement: finding a new agenda, in Heritage and Community Engagement (eds S Watson and e Waterton), routledge, london and new york, 12–23Wessex archaeology, 2012 Operation Nightingale [online], available from: http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/operationnightingale [8 July 2012]Wiltshire Wildlife trust, 2012 The Wellbeing Project [online], available from: http://www.wiltshirewildlife.org/what-we-do/wellbeingproject [1 July 2012]young, S, 2011 Personal communication (conversation with the author), 30 november, northampton

contributors

Shatha Abu-Khafajah is an assistant Professor within the architecture Department of Hash-emite university, Jordan. Having studied architecture, conservation of archaeological Sites and cultural Heritage Management, she is interested in the meaning-making process of cultural heritage. Her research focuses on meanings and uses of cultural heritage, cultural sustainability and the intersection between anthropology, archaeology, architecture and urban landscape in different socio-cultural contexts.

Crystal B Alegria is Programme coordinator for Project archaeology, a national archaeology and heritage education programme based at Montana State university, bozeman. Prior to joining Project archaeology, she worked in exhibition design, collections management and curriculum development for a variety of museums. Since joining Project archaeology, she has worked on archaeological education and outreach, with an emphasis on curriculum development for upper elementary students and professional development for teachers. Ms alegria has a bSc in anthro-pology and an Ma in History from Montana State university.

Arwa Badran is an archaeologist and museum specialist who, since 2001, has worked extensively on assessing and developing the use of heritage resources for teaching children in Jordan about their past. Her PhD, awarded by newcastle university, uK, investigated the Jordanian national curriculum’s use of museums in teaching pupils about archaeology. She is currently residing in the north east of england, working as a researcher and consultant on museum and heritage education.

Michael Brody is a faculty member in the college of education, Health and Human Develop-ment at Montana State university, where he teaches courses in science, education and research at graduate and undergraduate levels. He received his PhD in Science and environmental educa-tion from cornell university, Master of Science in biology from the university of new Hamp-shire and bachelor of Science in biology and Secondary education from boston college. in 2006 he received the north american association of environmental education outstanding contributions to research award and is a research associate at the Museum of the rockies in bozeman, Montana.

Blanca A Camargo is the Director and Professor of the international tourism Programme at the university of Monterrey. She received her PhD in recreation, Park and tourism Sciences from texas a&M university. Her research interests include sustainable tourism, cultural heritage, sustainability education and accessible tourism.

Joëlle Clark is a Professional Development coordinator at the center for Science teaching and learning, northern arizona university. Ms clark is a science educator, applied anthropolo-gist and archaeologist. She is a curriculum and professional development consultant for Project archaeology at Montana State university and for geMS / Seeds of Science at university of cali-

196 contributors

fornia, berkeley. She has been actively involved in archaeology education since 1985, creating, implementing and directing educational programmes and curricula for young people, teachers and the general public. She chaired the Public education committee, Society for american archaeology from 2007–2010.

Mike Corbishley has been teaching Heritage education at the institute of archaeology, univer-sity college london since 2003. Throughout his career he has specialised in introducing archae-ology to teachers. in 1972 he helped found and run the young archaeologists’ club. He has variously worked as a school teacher, an adult education lecturer and an archaeologist. He was appointed the first education officer for the council for british archaeology in 1977. in 1984 he joined english Heritage, later becoming their Head of education. He has written a number of books for children and teachers about archaeology, heritage and the ancient world.

Jolene Debert recently joined Mount royal university in calgary, canada, after six years at the university of Manchester, uK. Having trained as an archaeological scientist specialising in archaeological geology and stone tool analysis, she received her doctorate in 2010 and has run public archaeology workshops and projects since 2000. She has been involved in public teaching and learning initiatives in both canada and the uK. Most of her work involves enquiry-based learning, although aspects of e-learning and object-based learning also feature prominently in her research.

Gaigysyz Jorayev completed his Masters degree in Managing archaeological Sites and his PhD research on the role of heritage in modern central asian countries at university college london. He currently works at the centre for applied archaeology at the institute of archaeology, ucl, and frequently undertakes work on a range of archaeological projects, specialising in the areas of management planning, public engagement and education in developing countries.

Thomas Kador is currently a research Fellow at the Department of archaeology and anthropology, university of bristol. He is also the founder and director of the cultural learning initiative, an independent consultancy that aims to make heritage more acces-sible to a broader audience and to provide new, innovative and engaging ways of studying the past. He is very concerned about how archaeological knowledge is produced, curated and shared and for several years he has been involved in establishing and directing various archaeological public engagement programmes.

Sophie Lampe has a ba in european Prehistory and Science-based archaeology, and an Ma in Heritage Management and Field archaeology, both from the university of leiden. after gradu-ating she worked on the ‘Public relations and Website’ committee of the aWn (Vereniging van Vrijwilligers in de archeologie) national committee, the largest volunteer group in the nether-lands. She published an article about her research, Liever zelf fantaseren over vroeger (‘in brabant’ series, Volume 6) in 2010, the same year she was invited by Suzie Thomas and Phil richardson to present a paper at the european association for archaeologists about her research in community archaeology in the netherlands. also in 2010, she co-edited (with a Deegenhardt) Out in the field: Internships Master Students Archaeological Heritage Management 2009–2010 (‘graduated School of archaeology’ series, Volume 5), a book on the Heritage Management internships of Ma students. Through her work, Sophie attempts to introduce community archaeology to the netherlands.

Contributors 197

Joanne Lea is an Educator with the Trillium Lakelands District School Board in Ontario, Canada. She has also lectured in Anthropology at Nipissing University and, between 2004–2011, served as Chair of the Public Education and Outreach Committee for the Canadian Archaeo-logical Association. She has a BA (Hons) in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University, a BEd from Lakehead University, an MA in Archaeology from the University of Calgary and a PhD from Newcastle University, UK. Dr Lea has worked for many years in archaeology, public archaeology and museum administration in Canada; her publications deal with these aspects of Heritage Management.

Lilia Lizama Aranda has an MA in Anthropological Sciences, specialising in Archaeology, from the University of Yucatan, Mexico. She is General Director of the archaeological consulting company EMCSA, working with the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), as well as with private companies and community groups in the states of Yucatan and Quin-tana Roo, Mexico. She has worked on heritage management and protection initiatives with the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Communities, the Inter-American Development Bank and the community of Puerto Morelos, Mexico. She has undertaken projects in human ecology and historical archaeology in collaboration with the University of California, Riverside, and Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. She currently serves as the Junior Regional Representative for Central America and the Caribbean for the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) and continues to promote the protection of Mexico’s archaeological heritage through her ongoing work in Quintana Roo.

Cathy MacDonald has taught at elementary and secondary schools in Ontario, Canada, for over 30 years. She has been seconded from her role as Curriculum Chair for Canadian and World Studies at Fr Leo J Austin Catholic Secondary School in Whitby, Ontario, and is now Coordinator of the Durham Catholic District School Board Archaeology Programme. She was a founding member of the Society for American Archaeology Public Education Committee, a contributor to The Archaeology Education Handbook and was previously a member of the Public Education and Outreach Committee for the Canadian Archaeological Association. Ms MacDonald received the Presidential Award of Recognition from the Society of American Archaeology, The Premier’s Award for Teaching Excellence 2009, and the Peggi Armstrong Award for Public Archaeology (Ontario Archaeological Society) in 2011. She was also the 2013 recipient of the Governor General’s Award of Excellence for Teaching Canadian History. She continues to act as a presenter at the board and provincial level in professional development.

Natalia Mazzia (CONICET – Área Arqueología y Antropología Mun. de Necochea, Buenos Aires, Argentina) has a degree in Anthropology from the School of Natural Science and Museum, La Plata National University (UNLP), Argentina. She is a Post-doctoral Fellow in Archaeology and Anthropology in the city of Necochea, Buenos Aires province. Her research focuses on places and landscapes of hunter-gatherers who previously inhabited the Pampean region.

Alicia Ebbitt McGill is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History at North Carolina State University, where she contributes to the NCSU Public History graduate programme. She received her BA in Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology from Bryn Mawr College, USA, and her MA and PhD in Anthropology from Indiana University, USA. Her research in Belize focuses on how constructions of heritage are promoted through public venues (eg tourism, education, archaeological practice), and shape the cultural production of young citizens, including how

198 Contributors

messages about the past are interpreted and negotiated by teachers and youths as they navigate contemporary racial and ethnic politics.

Jeanne M Moe, EdD, works for the US Bureau of Land Management and leads the national Project Archaeology programme. She has over 20 years’ experience in the development of archae-ology education materials and their distribution through professional development for educators throughout the United States. She recently researched the efficacy of archaeological inquiry for teaching scientific literacy in upper elementary grades. She has served on the Public Education Committee of the Society for American Archaeology for more than 12 years and currently acts as an adviser to the committee.

Theano Moussouri is a Lecturer in Museum Studies at University College London. Her research focuses on the role of informal learning environments in family life, visitor experience and meaning-making and the impact of museum experiences on different audiences. Another research strand looks at collaborative learning among visitors and exhibition teams using qualita-tive methodologies. Dr Moussouri has a BA in Early Childhood Education from the University of Athens and an MA and PhD in Museum Studies from the University of Leicester.

Aino Nissinaho† was an archaeologist who worked as a Researcher at the Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum in Tampere, Finland. Her duties included consultation on matters of the cultural envi-ronment, civic participatory projects, conservation and the provision of archaeological expert services for the museum’s exhibitions and education services.

Alejandra Pupio (Departamento de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina) has a degree in History with a minor in Prehistory from the National University of the South (UNS), Argentina, where she currently works as a Lecturer and Researcher within the Humanities Department. Previously, she worked in museums of the city of Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires province for 20 years. Her research focuses on the history of the archaeological collections from the museums of the Buenos Aires province and the different mechanisms archaeological knowledge disseminates in formal and non-formal educational contexts.

Virginia Salerno (CONICET – Instituto de Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Univer-sidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina) has a degree in Anthropology with a minor in Archaeology from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina. She is currently a Lecturer at UBA, working within the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. She researches the social representation of archaeology and how its knowledge is used in the present day in the Buenos Aires province.

Dinç Saraç graduated from the Department of Archaeology and Art History at Bilkent Univer-sity in Ankara, Turkey, in 1999; he also has a Masters degree in Heritage Management from the same department. During his years at Bilkent, he worked on excavations on the mound of Hacimusalar (ancient Choma), near Elmali in the central Lycian Plateau. In 2006, he began his PhD at the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle University, and he is currently in the final stages of his research on site management and tourism in Turkey. He recently joined the Research Centre for Anatolian Civilisations (RCAC) at Koc University in Istanbul, to pursue a Post-doctoral Fellowship. His project, co-funded by the J M Kaplan Fund, will involve developing a management plan for the archaeological site of Myra, located in Demre (Antalya).

contributors 199

Tuija-Liisa Soininen is Head of the cultural environment department at the Museum centre Vapriikki, tampere, Finland. a trained archaeologist, she has a deep-rooted interest in commu-nity relations in the field of archaeology.

Suzie Thomas is a lecturer in Museology at the university of Helsinki, Finland. Previously she was the community archaeology Support officer at the council for british archaeology, and then a research associate at the university of glasgow. She has a PhD in Heritage Studies from newcastle university, uK.