Ideologies in Archaeology

4. Archaeology in the Public Interest: Tourist Effects and Other Paradoxes That Come with Heritage Tourism

107 4 Archaeology in the Public Interest Tourist Effects and Other Paradoxes That Come with Heritage Tourism uzi baram Public Archaeology Archaeology is popular, as many have noticed, and as Holtorf (2007) has recently celebrated in Archaeology Is a Brand! Popular interest can be, and has been, yoked to support for archaeological excavations and stewardship of archaeological sites, bringing archaeology to the public . The intersection between professionals and the public is usually labeled public archaeology. There is a tremendous literature, too many conference papers, essays, articles, and books to list here, that explains public archaeology as a good thing for archaeologists to engage in, but paradoxically archaeology can be a frustrating endeavor when the public is engaged. The calls for including local and descendant communities , developing grassroots support for preservation of material remains of the past, and integrating varied stakeholders into the planning , process, and representations of archaeological investigations 108 uzi baram have led archaeologists to write caveats about public archaeologies as well as insist on their ethical necessity and practical benefits. The recent wave of projects with engagements with the public has redefined the archaeological profession and opened up many discussions , critiques, and commentary on public archaeology. Nick Merriman (2004a) explores the concepts of public archaeology with a focus on understandings of the relation between professionals and nonprofessionals . He concludes that the relationship needs more attention. At times, it seems that professionalism and the public are at odds. Yet as archaeological ethics shift toward making the field more accessible and responsive to the public, professionalism requires engagement with the public. The nature of the public for public archaeology is the focus of this chapter, with examples that address the question of whether the public is engaged as participants in preserving and understanding the past or as touristic consumers of the past. The contrast between two small-scale examples from southwestern Florida is meant to illustrate the effect of tourism and heritage marketing on archaeology and to address the significance of differing models of the public in public archaeology. Merriman (2004a), helpfully, lays out two models of public archaeology : the deficit model, where professionals fill in gaps in people’s knowledge of archaeology and the past, and the multiple-perspective model, where the goal of public archaeology is to enrich people’s lives and to stimulate reflection and creativity. The first assumes the public needs to understand the science of archaeology to appreciate the profession ’s work; the latter envisions a wide agenda for archaeology that includes personal enrichment. For Merriman, “the field of public archaeology is significant because it studies the processes and outcomes whereby the discipline of archaeology becomes part of a wider public culture, where contestation and dissonance are inevitable. In being about ethics and identity, therefore, public archaeology is inevitably about negotiation and conflict over meanings” (2004a: 5). That includes negotiation and conflict over the consumption of the past, for which one of the key terrains is heritage tourism, the growing trend of marketing localities for their historic value. The discussions around heritage tourism can illuminate the interests behind different models employed in public archaeology as well as the implications of Archaeology in the Public Interest 109 archaeological actions. This chapter’s two case studies on the representation of the past contrast the public as tourist consumers of the past versus stakeholders in the past. Not all public archaeologies are the same. The Public for Archaeology In these early years of the twenty-first century, calls for public archaeology —asking archaeologists to get into communities, to get into tourism, and to get more engaged with the public by talking in public and by writing clearly—are becoming well-established components of the discipline in the United States. The examples are too numerous to list and they cut across paradigms, regional traditions, and radical and liberal positions in the profession. The current formulations include considering stakeholders; working with local and descendant populations ; making the past accessible to the public that funds archaeological projects; teaching archaeology and local histories to children; and creating partnerships (Derry and Malloy 2003). The genealogy of the concept public archaeology is distinguished, from Charles McGimsey’s Public Archeology (1972) to Barbara Little’s Public Benefits of Archaeology (2002). The term was used in the 1980s to describe public-sector archaeology, archaeological work for Cultural Resource Management, and other work that has a responsibility to the public because it receives public funds...