Archaeology and Society Gillian Wallace

C H A P T E R 2 3 Archaeology and Society Gillian Wallace

Although the official rite of passage for many middle- to upper-class white men of colonizing coun- archaeologists is an advanced university degree, the tries or, in the case of the United States, a country unofficial test is fielding questions or comments re- with colonizing tendencies of Manifest Destiny. The garding dinosaurs. The adventures of Indiana Jones predictable result was an imperialistic interpretation also crop up, and some want to hear about Lara Croft of archaeological data. One exception was John Lloyd the Tomb Raider. These cinema images portray ar- Stephens, who recognized the indigenous achievements chaeology as a romantic quest for goodies. Recording of the Mound Builders in North America and the Maya contexts or analyzing data do not figure into these in Central America (Fagan 1996). Stephens was a U.S. popular portrayals. A study of public perception re- citizen, lawyer, and diplomat (Renfrew and Bahn 1996), garding archaeology in the United States showed that a firm part of the upper middle class. Based scientific 85 percent of the respondents connected archaeology observation, his de facto support of indigenous cultures with, among other things, dinosaurs (Ramos and Du- ran against the ideology surrounding Manifest Destiny. ganne 2000). Both the dinosaur question and adven- This was exceptional; archaeologists during this time turer images are troubling because they reflect a level rarely broke rank with their class of society, which of societal ignorance about archaeology—a deficit meant attributing indigenous achievements to exog- stance (MacDonald 2002). Grahame Clark wrote that enous cultures (Ucko 1990; Fagan 1996; Hall 1995). archaeology “enables us to view history in broader Across the Atlantic, shortly after Stephens’s work, perspective” (1957:264). While today most would English General Augustus Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers made agree that archaeology does a lot of other things in ad- revolutionary inroads into systematic excavation dition to this, even Clark’s definition has not seemed methods. Sir William Flinders Petrie advanced the to stick in the minds of many. Where did the dinosaurs collection and publication of all data from his excava- and other archaeological myths originate? Why have tions in Egypt and Palestine, rather than merely the ar- they not been slain? In the past, societies have formed tifacts valued by his society (Renfrew and Bahn 1996). certain expectations of archaeology, which still linger Pitt-Rivers, like Sir Mortimer Wheeler after him, had today. Museums, local archaeology, and general out- experience in the British army and this, in addition to reach programs demonstrate the degree to which these their class and rank, may have influenced their rather historical expectations have been more recently modi- detached presentation of archaeology, which is still fied. Also, there are some themes within contemporary popular in some museums (see below). archaeology that society does not yet know to expect. While imperialistic interpretations remained, the ro- We can begin by looking at the historical aspect. manticism of the antiquarian era slowly dissipated in the nineteenth century. One notable exception to this trend THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETAL EXPECTATIONS was Heinrich Schliemann’s identification of Troy in the IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY 1870s and 1880s (Renfrew and Bahn 1996). Schliemann Public knowledge and mythical perceptions of archae- was a wealthy banker who financed his own excava- ology originate largely from the way archaeology has tions. His flashy lifestyle, combined with the discovery evolved as a discipline (see Webster, chapter 2) and the of the hitherto mythical Troy, created an alluring vision part of society engaged with the field. Antiquarians, of archaeology and archaeologists. With its many good- most of whom stemmed from the educated middle or ies (seen widely in Sophia Schliemann’s photo wearing upper classes in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early Priam’s Treasure) (Daniel 1981), Troy added significant nineteenth centuries, planted the seeds for archaeology material for public mythmaking about archaeology: to develop (Trigger 1989). As the discipline evolved in archaeologists are wealthy, acquisitive, globe-trotting the nineteenth century, influential archaeologists were people. In this sense, Lara Croft’s video game character

395 is the modern PC (in both the political and technologi- founder of modern archaeology in Iraq (Fagan 1996), cal sense) version of the Schliemann mythos. most of the archaeologists into the twentieth century Schliemann was not the only nineteenth-century credited with work were men. This to a certain extent archaeologist to capture public imagination. Giuseppti continues today within the profession, where women Fiorelli excavated Pompeii in 1860 and progressively are more likely than men to be behind the scenes as favored context over art, emphasizing that all artifacts data crunchers (see Hays-Gilpin, chapter 20). (not just the goodies) were important to understand- Along with gender, social class and ethnicity are ing the city’s past life (Daniel 1981). On the Continent, the other imbalances in archaeology. Garrod, Bell, and readers of German were enthralled by the excavations other women on the early excavations were from the of Iron Age Europe led by Colonel Schwab at La Téne upper or middle classes. The contributions of non- and Georg Ramsauer at Hallstatt. In the Americas, white archaeologists, whose relations with the white John Lloyd Stephens wrote best-sellers about his ex- expedition leaders were often good and whose work plorations of the Mayan sites in 1841 and 1843 (Daniel was a critical part of the practice, has rarely been ac- 1981). Excavating in the Near East, Austen Henry La- knowledged (Fagan 1996), creating mainstream public yard published reports on Nimrud and Nineveh that images of white people making all the discoveries. The were widely read. However, while these sites are still practice continues occasionally today where outside icons of archaeology to the public eye, it is Schliemann researchers rely on local laborers and academics to who remains a household name in conjunction with conduct field projects, yet remain the only ones men- his site (Silverberg 1985). tioned or pictured in the publicity of the site. With Schliemann having enlivened the public’s im- Owing to their traditionally high education level, age of archaeologists, Howard Carter discovered the which was a product of their social class, a misplaced tomb of King Tutankhamun in 1922 and made ar- ideal of objectivity grew among early archaeologists, fu- chaeology even flashier. The artifacts and stories from eled by the politics of the mid-twentieth century. By the this dig still engage international audiences today (e.g., end of World War II, the National Science Foundation the curse of Tutankhamen) (Silverberg 1985). Roving in the United States had laid its roots firmly in the realm museum exhibits convey the excitement of this site of physics, and researchers desirous of funding had to but also reinforce the misconception that the purpose comply with the resulting positivist philosophy, one of archaeology is to find monetarily precious things. of building scientific laws through hypothesis testing That King Tut was a relatively inconsequential ruler in (Kehoe 1998; Trigger 1986). So while New Archaeology Egypt shows that sites which get into the public eye are declared it was part of anthropology (Binford 1962), not always the most important ones to the discipline. and anthropology declared that it discovered universal Most of the myths center around the practice of laws (Kehoe 1998), researchers began communicating field archaeology, even in academia, where the most to the public in the same a positivistic, empirical way. successful, well-known archaeologists are often those As positivism often maintains the status quo (Ke- who have led excavations (Gero 1994; Wright 2003). hoe 1998:135), its empirical research framework and Addressing big questions such as origins (Conkey and language limit the participation of people who do not Spector 1984) earns recognition and funding today, think along the same lines, and is a far cry from the just as it did in archaeological history. current ideals of employing archaeologists of different The achievements of the people behind the scenes, ethnicities, genders, and educational backgrounds . especially the women who accompanied their hus- Both theoretical stances have implications that go be- bands to the field as practitioners in nineteenth- and yond the boundaries of academic discourse and tread early-twentieth-century archaeology, are still unrecog- firmly into the public arena. nized by the public. Matilda Coxe Stevenson was the ethnographer on her husband’s pueblo expeditions WHAT SOCIETY EXPECTS FROM (Reyman 1994). Tessa Wheeler’s work supervising her ARCHAEOLOGY TODAY husband’s excavations at Verulamium and Maiden Castle was so critical that Sir Mortimer did not con- Museums as Reflections of Society tinue to excavate new sites after her death (Hudson The power, prestige, and privilege of the white male ar- 1981). Yet with the notable exceptions of Dorothy chaeologists who dominated the discipline in the past Garrod, discoverer of the Natufian culture (Davies and bore heavily on interpretations, public presentation, Charles 1999), and to a lesser extent Gertrude Bell, a and affirmation of power. V. Gordon Childe (1933)

396 gillian wallace suggested that interpretations may reflect the bias of on the participation of and appeal to diverse sec- the archaeologist, yet only recently there has there tions of society (McManamon and Hatton 2000a; been any sustained discussion over how archaeologi- Merriman 2004; Stone and MacKenzie 1989; Stone cal interpretation, along with the material remains, is and Molyneaux 1994). Technology, where feasible to what the public experiences as archaeology. Nowhere incorporate, is a great asset to widening access. One can this be seen more clearly than in museums (An- notable example of this is at the Matrica Museum in derson 1991; Walsh 1992). Százhalombatta, near Budapest, Hungary. Part of the Museums are one of the primary forms of pre- museum is an open-air archaeological park which senting archaeology to the public. There is a great presents reconstructed Bronze and Iron Age houses challenge to cater to the different publics (McMa- described in German, English, and Hungarian. There namon 1991), whose desire for knowledge is like an are numerous Iron Age tumuli in the park (Poroszlai onion—some only want the outer layers, the visual and Vicze 1998), and one is open to the public. A presentation; others go deeper, into the text; and the raised walkway dissects the tumulus. Visitors walk very keen people chop to the center, interact with the into the center of the tumulus at which point the archaeological presenter, and feed into the system. outside doors close and seal them in as a multimedia While archaeological museums historically presented explanation of the in situ archaeology begins. Outside finds in dusty glass cases, with typologies of flints, the tumulus, the challenge of presenting environ- daggers, and pots neatly laid out, the modern public mental archaeological evidence (Ijzereef 1992) is met expects to be entertained as well as informed. Kristen through reconstructing the landscapes as they would Kristensen summarized this as have appeared in the different time periods. Open-air museums have existed since the nineteenth century, the demand to experience the past has moved away and given that they were first used to highlight aspects from bourgeois show cases with selected objects to re- of landscape (Mels 2002), it is fitting that archaeologi- constructed historical sites in the landscape and actual cal environments are presented in this holistic and in- animated pre-historic environments; from observa- clusive way. Most importantly, it allows for members tion at a safe distance in museums to active participa- of society to experience aspects of prehistory using tion in reconstructed scenes. (Kristiansen 1992:11) other senses and skills besides reading. The historical trend of “bourgeois showcases” reflects A senior archaeologist in charge of a successful the society from which people practicing archaeology public site in North America once advised, “Don’t in the past came when museums were first developed in worry about being right. You can always change your Europe in the nineteenth century (Hudson 1981; Pat- interpretation later. The main thing is to keep the terson 1995; Kristiansen 1981; Reyman 1994). The glass public’s interest.” This point is highly controversial, cases with rows of things and four walls laden with de- and its source remains unnamed upon request. The tailed explanations served an educational purpose. Since issue of authenticity is at the fore of what archae- their audience was highly literate people like themselves, ologists working in the public arena contemplate their museums acquiesced to the lofty, seventeenth-cen- (Jameson 2004; Stone and Planel 1999). Authenticity tury ideal that an enriching experience is enjoyable in of presentation is sometimes deemphasized in order its own right; figuring out the typologies based on the to create displays which appeal to the targeted public esoteric labels was fun. For most people, though, these audience (Jones and Pay 1990). How important is museums were presumably dull and alienating. it to maintain public interest in archaeology, and at Distance between the visitor and archaeology is what point does one compromise on data presenta- still in practice today around the world, particularly tion, vocabulary selection, and argumentation to keep in local museums or national museums in countries that attention? Without the financial funding levels where budgetary constraints are prevalent. Archae- of such fields as engineering, chemistry, or biology, ologists working within a hierarchical or politically archaeology is forced to satisfy public interest, since constrained environment may need to be seen as the it continues through the goodwill of funding bodies, expert and therefore make the subject, and hence museum visits, and donations. Even the legislatures in the museum display, seem complicated. This sort of wealthy countries now funding massive archaeological agenda keeps archaeology firmly behind glass cases. projects ultimately depend on public support. Look- Despite this, it is fair to state that the trend for ing forward, the challenge is to keep and develop this museums in many different countries is increasingly interest while maintaining the public resource.

Archaeology and Society 397 One way to develop this public support is through visit their cultural center, thereby controlling informa- museums, which generally aim their exhibits at se- tion dissemination (Nuttall 1997). Aboriginal commu- lected parts of society that can be categorized accord- nities in Australia are setting up their own community ing to age, ethnicity, gender, or educational level (which museums (Bolton 2003). Control by source commu- often correlates with income and potential donations). nities sometimes extends to the research process itself In countries where the average income prohibits the (Anawak 1989; Allison 1999), but this relies heavily on expense of visiting a museum, exhibits aim at tourists effective communication between archaeologists and or wealthy local visitors. In these cases, the material the local communities. culture presented often promotes the ideological past Communities founding or solidifying their own that best suits the current political agenda (Ferro 1981; identities can present their representation through Gero and Root 1990; Meskell 1998). museums. In the Gulf States, recently formed nations Museums as harbingers of archaeology have been exist in an area which has been successively occupied accused of stereotyping and of having the “winners” by many different peoples. Museums in these Gulf in history controlling representation (Blakey 1990; States work toward installing a sense of pride (Potts Creamer 1990; Paynter 1990; Sommer and Wolfram 1998), in the vein of what Trigger (1984) outlined in 1993). Given that different cultures perceive the past his seminal article regarding the relationship between differently (Bielawski 1989; Layton 1989; Parker Pear- archaeology and nationalism, colonialism and impe- son et al. 1999), variations in time-depth perception rialism. This use of museums extends also to under- have little chance of being represented if the presenters standing regional identities within a nation, as is the do not come from or interact with the cultures con- case in Nigeria (Willett 1990). taining them. Indeed, one criticism Aboriginal com- The trend of open-air museums referred to by Kris- munities have made is that museums represent their tiansen is prevalent in industrialized countries (Ehren- culture as static and time-locked without regard to traut 1996), where museums are considered a political contemporary context (Bolton 2003). Happily, this priority (Hitchcock et al. 1997), or where wealthy bene- historical trend is changing. factors intend to profit from the entertaining visits (see Museums based in imperializing countries are below). Open-air museums such as at Százhalombatta reaching out in new ways to source communities in focus on participation and interaction between visi- the formerly colonized countries (Peers and Brown tors and often comprise live demonstrations. Unlike a 2003). Source communities are not just the groups conventional museum, this entertainment often retains from which artifacts were originally collected, but also the attention of children even when primarily aimed at the descendants of these communities. The heart of adults. In addition to reaching more cross-sections of this trend is that the public, open-air museums can display the archaeological context of excavated houses, settlements, and In this new relationship, museums become stewards artifacts, which helps demythologize the archaeological of artefacts on behalf of source communities. They interpretation. Open-air museums, along with more are no longer the sole voices of authority in display- conventional museums, can involve local communi- ing and interpreting those objects, but acknowledge a ties (Knecht 2003; Merriman 2004). In Asia, popular moral and ethical (and sometimes political) obliga- open-air museums focus on both elite and ordinary tion to involved source communities in decisions af- lives in the past, and often on specific ethnic com- fecting their material heritage . . . At the core of these new perspectives is a commitment to an evolving rela- munities (Hitchcock et al. 1997). In Switzerland, the tionship between a museum and a source community best attended museum exhibit ever was an open-air re- in which both parties are held to be equal and which construction of prehistoric lake villages (Ruoff 1990). involves the sharing of skills, knowledge and power Although not without controversy, open-air and con- to produce something of value to both parties. (Peers ventional museums are one of the principal ways in and Brown 2003:2) which society and archaeology interact.

This new relationship goes beyond outreach to Local Archaeology: source communities. In some cases, source or native Identifying Personally with the Past communities control the museum and interpret the Local archaeology has a tremendous potential for so- artifacts. For example, the Athabascans in Stevens Vil- ciety. It is the frontline of education, outreach, and lage, Alaska, guide tourists down the Yukon river to interaction. A successful local archaeology program

398 gillian wallace makes members of society identify personally with Taylor 2000). Divers undergo a training course taught the archaeology (Binks 1989; Davis 1989). Whether by archaeologists and then report back finds they people identify with the material culture, the archae- came across during their recreational diving. In this ologist, or the interpretation, local archaeology has the way, archaeologists obtain survey information that potential to demythologize the topic. would otherwise be expensive and the divers get a Societal expectations of local archaeology vary sense of participating in a productive pastime. So widely according to geography and ethnicity. People benefits often flow both ways, not only in this context living in areas where there has been little exogenous but in others where public programs contribute to the mixing of peoples (i.e., many European countries) often production of academic research (Platonova 1990; expect the material remains of the past found locally to Richardson 1990; Gardin 1994). apply to their own history. This differs greatly from the Another similarly collaborative approach is the United States, where many people connote archaeology Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. with monuments in Egypt and Mexico, instead of their Metal detecting in these countries is legal. Archaeolo- own country (Bense 1991). Of course, the majority of gists engaging with metal detectors take the stance that Americans are nonindigenous, so while they may relate “we recognise that what you do is legal and we would to historical remains of the same ethnic group or of per- like to record your finds for public benefit and also sonally familiar activities, they perceive prehistoric re- educate you about good practice” (Bland 2004:288). mains as belonging to other people. In countries where This scheme has been very successful, particularly in there is little in the way of funding or personnel trained light of documenting contexts of finds in agricultural to lead formal programs, connections between the ma- areas (Bland 2004). terial past and individuals vary, but are not necessarily Interaction at a local level with the public not only connoted with archaeology per se. helps chart sites but also ideally protects them (McMa- Mapunda and Lane (2004), working in eastern Af- namon and Hatton 2000b). In Canada and the United rica, suggest several different methods through which States, volunteers for the Site Steward Program watch archaeologists can reach out to local communities. over local sites (King 1991) to curb site destruction They point out that conventional methods, such as from development, agriculture and (in some areas) radio, newspapers, and television, do not always work, the illicit antiquities trade, a global problem caused particularly where the language of choice is not a local by poor legislation, greed, and lack of education and language or where there is a lack of electricity or lit- economic opportunity (Brodie et al. 2001; O’Keefe eracy. They point out that instead of using local people 1997; Renfrew 2000). The latter occurs predominately simply for their skills and labor, archaeologists should in war-torn (Naccache 1998), politically unstable (Me- instead aim to teach locals about archaeology during dina 2000), or impoverished areas (Alva 2001) where their interactions. Local people should choose who is locals may identify personally with the remains but are to help on the site, and one person should act as an forced to use their ancestors to put food on the table. ambassador who communicates and builds trust be- The Site Steward Program also guards against pot tween the local and nonlocal participants. Exhibitions hunting (King 1991), which is a pastime that some- should be held on days of rest, such as Sundays and times is based on economic need (Hollowell-Zimmer public holidays. Every season village elders, teachers, 2003) but most often reflects societal ignorance about religious leaders, key informants, and other important the importance of context. people should assess how well the project has worked Unfortunately, looting occurs in places like North- and what could be improved. Finally, low-cost publi- ern Ireland (Hamlin 2000), where local programs are cations, such as covering two sides of A4 paper, should popular and the residents relate directly to their past. be written with illustrations in the local language to Even if one identifies with the past personally, there is disseminate results (Mapunda and Lane 2004). something intrinsically tempting in the goodies be- This heavy emphasis on contact and participa- neath or on the surface. Site stewardship is very im- tion of local communities is important (Derry 2003; portant (Lynott 1995); if local watch programs cannot Watkins 2000; Swidler et al. 1997), for local archae- always prevent looting through vigilance, they may ology programs often hinge on successful outreach. be able to curb it through education and instilling an In the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Program appreciation of what is being lost (Hollowell-Zimmer (RIMAP), archaeologists work with local divers to 2003). Local archaeology programs are, along with identify and record underwater sites (Robinson and museums and to a certain extent university courses,

Archaeology and Society 399 at the fore of connecting people with the past. Local If enthusiasm for the subject sometimes conflicts archaeology programs can be where local businesses, with the scientific ideal, archaeologists can counter governments, and archaeologists meet. Such is the by connecting in innovative ways using the printed case for the privately funded ArcheoTirol, a program word. Novels such as Pitts and Roberts’s Fairweather which funds local excavations, research, and outreach Eden bring the story behind the data to life. Narra- in the Austrian Tyrol (Tomedi 1999). Local businesses tive can also be useful in transmitting ideas between funded the Canadian Main Street Program, a success- archaeologists of different subdisciplines (Wallace ful event organized by Heritage Canada Foundation to 2003). Even poetry has been suggested as a means to preserve historical vernacular architecture (Dalibard connect with the public in the interpretation of his- 1986). The key to successful outreach is a willingness torical houses (Brooks 1989). Popular science books to reach out in new ways to different parts of society. (e.g., Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel) attract the educated and interested public, though many cross GLOBALISM AND INCREASING INTEREST IN AND into the field of physical anthropology. These books, ACCESS TO ARCHAEOLOGY such as Johanson and Edgar’s From Lucy to Language, Although archaeology helps break down myths at the quench public thirst for origin theories, but do less to local level, at the global level they are often reinforced break down the myths and broaden society’s view of via mass media and the Internet. Theoretically these archaeology beyond this popular topic. Despite these modern mediums of communication should widen efforts, nonarchaeologists seem to have a way of writ- access to archaeology. Whereas historically archaeol- ing that appeals more broadly to the public, Jean Auel’s ogy was accessible to upper-middle-class people from Clan of the Cavebear series being one case in point imperializing nations through print, talks, or site vis- (Fagan 1987). its, now people can learn about the past without leav- Although television programs and books are dis- ing home or speaking to a soul. In the United States, tributed worldwide, the Internet constitutes perhaps 56 percent of those polled said they learn about ar- the most accessible means of transmitting ideas about chaeology through television (Ramos and Duganne archaeology. It provides the means for archaeologists 2000). In the United Kingdom, the popular archaeol- and members of the public to interact (Hodder 1999; ogy television series Time Team has been broadcast on McDavid 2003). It is increasingly accessible to people commercial television station for years. This show has in nonindustrialized nations and economically disad- contributed to the public awareness of and interest in vantaged people within industrialized nations. While archaeology in the United Kingdom. It also proves that the Internet may be used for negative purposes, such as archaeology can be an economically viable enterprise the auction of unprovenanced artifacts, on the whole on television. Although archaeologists are regularly it is a useful way to learn. Many academically funded featured on the show, it is hosted by a celebrity, and excavations disseminate information on the Internet, this underlies the need for archaeologists to better and professional societies now maintain websites on market themselves and the profession (Smardz 1996). basic archaeological principles for school teachers and Often television broadcasts, while doing good other interested members of the public. The levels of things such as raising public interest and aware- information vary, but on the whole society today has ness, fail to discuss grounding principles (excuse the the potential to interact and learn about world archae- pun) such as context. Instead, they tend to focus on ology on an unprecedented scale. widely recognized case studies that often resemble The Internet’s ties to globalism are clear-cut. Yet the Indiana Jones/Lara Croft on a quest: alluring objects goals of the Internet highway’s profiteers to “promote are sought at the expense of (1) place and (2) the a world culture” (Gates199:263, as cited in Hodder labors of archaeologists behind the scenes. Validity is 1999) conversely contribute to the desire by many inconsistent in the popular media, which often must people to find their own personal or group’s identity produce a sellable product at the expense of accuracy. within this global world. A perceived ancestral past The pressures on television editors are similar in helps to justify this identity-searching pursuit, which publishing: success is not measured by education but is a common one for communities living within the rather popularity. In aiming for the masses, it is easy boundaries of a larger nation-state (Smith 1995; Wat- to replicate and validate stereotypes (Gero and Root son 1990). 1990) or even outright falsehoods (e.g., “fingerprints In national politics, those in power need the past to of the gods”). justify their country’s existence. The expectations and

400 gillian wallace use of the past by nationalists believing their cause to but alternative archaeologies are an excellent oppor- be a type of religion (Anderson 1991; Gellner, 1983) tunity for a diverse array of people to identify more are now well documented for many parts of the world personally with the material past, and create the past (Atkinson et al. 1996; Díaz-Andreu and Champion through their own interpretations of the archaeologi- 2996; Kohl and Fawcett 1995). Individuals are often cal data. There is a time lag, however, and research ar- the focus of nationalistic and ethnic material culture, guments can be outdated by the time they reach public glorifying the achievements of a particular society or consciousness. Children around the globe are taught person with statues, monuments, or graves. Though about man the hunter and woman the gatherer, out- static markers, the relationship of these material cul- dated concepts that trickled down from academia into ture testaments to their society is purposeful and public conceptions of a gendered past (see Hays-Gil- changeable. In fact, such change includes destruction pin, chapter 20; and Jordan, chapter 26). In order for of anything that does not fit contemporary national- alternative archaeologies to become part of the main- istic or religious beliefs (Layton et al. 2001). Ideology stream while still current, archaeologists may need to is as powerful a force as politics, environment, or eco- communicate at the local level rather than allowing nomics in the destruction of archaeological sites. In their research to trickle down from academia. the former Soviet Union, for example, pre-Soviet national monuments and belief systems were all played THE USE OF MATERIAL CULTURE TO REMEMBER down by that regime. More recently in Afghanistan, AND CLEANSE: CASE STUDIES FROM LITHUANIA in front of the world’s (mostly protesting) eyes, the Themes such as outreach, education, globalism, and Islamic Taliban government destroyed the largest Bud- identity can be applied to case studies. Here they are dha statues in the world, which were carved into a applied to Lithuania, a country which was occupied remote cliff around the sixth to seventh centuries for most of the twentieth century. It was occupied by a.d. (Golden 2004). Among the elites protesting were the Soviets in 1940, and then the German invasion of UNESCO and G10 countries, most of which do not the Soviet Union in 1941 put Lithuania under Nazi have Buddhist majorities, demonstrating that ideolog- government jurisdiction until 1944. Although 220,000 ical monuments are seen as part of a world heritage. Lithuanians of Jewish descent were killed during the Ideology gives meaning to the material past but also Nazi era, most Lithuanians today are coming to terms destroys it (Golden 2004; Layton et al. 2001; Meskell with the more recent Soviet suppression which hap- 2002); considering how ideologies change with time, pened during the Soviet rule from 1944 to 1991, when one wonders how ideological monuments from past Lithuania joined the United Nations. During this sec- societies survive. ond period of Soviet rule, around 275,000 Lithuanians Even on a smaller scale, the artifacts of daily life died and/or were exiled to Siberia (where many per- may be controlled in a way that justifies the desired ished), while another 140,000 were forced to relocate national identity at the expense of an unwelcome one. from Klaipda on the Baltic coast to other parts of the For example, around the World Heritage Site of Car- country, and 200,000 Lithuanian Poles were deported thage, Tunisia, street signs connected with the Punic to Poland. From 1940 to 1991, roughly 30 percent of (i.e., indigenous) period of glory are new, made in tile Lithuanian inhabitants were either killed or deported and placed in prominent places for tourists, whereas from its borders (Aleksaite 2001). Today, roughly a street signs with Roman names are left old and rusting. decade after the Soviet withdrawal, it is possible to In this way, globalism increases access to archaeology view the material expressions of how Lithuanians are but, conversely, leads sometimes to its destruction coming to terms with this collective trauma. (Wallace 2006). The most moving of these is the Museum of Geno- cide Victims, housed in the former KGB headquarters WHAT SOCIETY DOES NOT KNOW TO EXPECT: in Vilnius and funded partially by private individu- ALTERNATIVE ARCHAEOLOGIES als and the Baltic American Committee of Greater In the past few decades, immense inroads have been Cleveland. Outside the museum is a small memorial laid into alternative archaeologies that address such of cobblestones and mortar, with a cross at the top and previously ignored topics as gender, sexuality, disabil- most of the cobblestones inscribed with a name of a ity, children, and the disenfranchised, much of which fallen person. This memorial is a living one, much as at is discussed in other chapters of this volume. So far, other places for collective remembrance like the Sep- public knowledge of these types of research is limited, ulchre or Kensington Palace in London, the Vietnam

Archaeology and Society 401 War Memorial (Pendergast and Graham 1989), or Stalin were removed after he died and have no place in Smetana’s grave in Prague. No bird droppings can be the memory of many living Lithuanians. After Lenin, found on it. Instead, the exterior memorial is adorned the most commonly occurring statue is of Vincas with fresh flower bouquets. Some openly pray while Mickeviius-Kapsukas, a Lithuanian who opposed in- others have a moment of silence as they walk past it on dependence and aided the invasion of the Red Army the street, either individually or in groups. in 1917. Most of the statues are of Lithuanians who The outside of the building is also noteworthy, for committed acts of genocide or repression on behalf of attached to the outer walls are rectangular concrete the Soviets. plaques with the names of different people who were Monuments in this park are removed even more executed within the walls. The explanatory plaque from their original context than in the Museum of (also in concrete) says in both Lithuanian and English, Genocide Victims, and there is a duality of purpose “May the names of Lithuanian patriots, shot to death reflecting the present trend to entertain as well as in this former KGB building, bear witness to duty educate. One reads gruesome explanations of the fulfilled to the mother land, its honor, freedom, and atrocities committed on plaques next to the statues independence.” That ex-patriots funded this museum while jovial Soviet-era music plays in the background. shows that there is both patriotism and an active inter- Children play in the park, but overseeing the play are est in ensuring that no one forgets the fallen. severely uniformed docents, who are quick to act if Inside the museum, one views the different rooms any playing (or picture taking thereof) appears to get used for paper processing, interrogation, torture, and out of hand. People sip tea and enjoy refreshments in execution, each with written explanation in Lithu- a purpose-built area next to a statue of a Soviet soldier. anian and English. Cloth coverings must be worn over There is also a small zoo, in case one gets bored. The shoes of those who enter the execution chamber. The zoo, restaurant, and playground are all within sight of descent into this chamber ends abruptly and unex- some of the statues, and most of the people congregate pectedly with a raised glass floor. Underneath the floor in that central area with only a cursory look into the is a sandy surface with the possessions of the executed other pathways leading to the other statues. strewn about in a seemingly random fashion, includ- Many Lithuanians do not object to the principle ing a pair of smashed spectacles. A museum docent of the park, but rather the person who built it (a man summarized the reasoning for the raised glass floor who had links to the Soviet regime and profited greatly aptly, “It would not be moral to walk on the surface after independence). Indeed, the creator’s wealth is on over which the blood ran.” Written explanations are in display to every visitor, since his mansion is en route Lithuanian, with a small book in English summarizing between the park entrance and the main section of the the text. museum. Yet objections arise also from the tasteless The Museum of Genocide Victims aims to make commercial tendencies of the park: one can buy ice a big impact on visitors, so that they understand the cream sold from one of the railcars that transported trauma inflicted on the victims within the walls. It is Lithuanians to their Siberian exile. Proposals to create a “hot” museum experience (Uzzell 1989). Lithuanian a rail tour of the park using these cars was rejected, institutions, such as schools and the national military much to the appreciation of those still living who rode service, utilize the museum’s in situ setting to educate in them originally. and remember. Institutionalized visits such as these At least one Lithuanian feels it is a good thing to focus on the younger population, some of whom were keep the statues as a reminder of the past. A recent too young to clearly remember the Soviet era. Al- newspaper article (Daily Telegraph, March 12, 2005) though the museum has been receiving many foreign quoted a Lithuanian woman’s reaction to the park. visitors, the paucity of English explanation within the Formerly a member of the pro-Soviet Young Pioneers, innermost hub, the torture chamber, to an outsider she said, “As a child you believe what people tell you . reflects a boundary of mourning: you may look in but . . It is very odd suddenly seeing all these figures from only those directly related to the shock understand. my childhood. Now I see how strange it was. But it’s Contrasting with the Museum of Genocide Victims our history. We can’t forget it.” This person seemed to is Stalin World, which can be described best as a con- use the statues as a way of remembering and reflecting troversial depository for Soviet-era statues. Statues of on the past using hindsight. One wonders, however, if Lenin are most prevalent, but there are also a couple the general atmosphere of the park, with music play- of Stalin statues, which is interesting since icons of ing and Soviet Young Pioneer actors parading, does

402 gillian wallace not contain some residual nostalgia for the Soviet era rescue efforts by local authorities. Some larger digs are (Lowenthal 1985). Parents bring their children to re- beginning to take place through developer funding member, yet how much can be remembered from the and collaborations with foreign universities (Menotti playground and zoo, which are within sight of only a et al., in press). On the odd occasion when excavations few of the statues? To its credit, there is more for chil- are open for public display, they are well attended, dren to do there than at the Genocide Museum (even especially by younger Lithuanians. Yet excavations of- if most of what children can do has nothing to do ten remain closed to the public, partially out of the with the statues). Yet the amusement park atmosphere problem of size (one local archaeologist commenting, of the museum is most inappropriate. The argument “What would there be to see?”), but also out of a fear could be made that the music played is similar to that public interest will lead to looting. that heard in the public squares in which the statues This juxtaposition between the relatively forthright were originally displayed. Alternatively, the music and archaeological museum presentations and the closed park setting is out of keeping with the severity of the archaeological excavations in Lithuania is interesting. crimes described on the plaques. It is the removal of It is perhaps a small artifact of Soviet-era repression, original context that makes this duality of jovial and where control of information was the key to liveli- severe possible. The KGB museum, like Dachau or hood, power, and security. Archaeologists maintain other places of oppressive acts, could not use such an tight control over the dissemination of information in approach. a museum display through the text, choice of artifacts, Finally, the Lithuanian National Museum has a and presentation. In an excavation, control is more more traditional view on presenting the recent op- limited and constrained by chance in terms of what is pressive past: glass containers displaying finds and being uncovered when visitors come to view the site. describing people. Very moving in terms of the recent They may hear the archaeologist’s explanation but past was a temporary exhibit by one of the people walk away with their own views and interpretations. exiled to Siberia, which featured sketches of life as an The purpose of this chapter has been to emphasize exile with brief descriptions of what was sketched: that this is a positive trend some archaeologists are definitely a “hot” exhibit, to again use Uzzell’s (1989) embracing. It promotes personal identification with terminology. the past, which in turn increases public support of The new archaeological wing to the museum deals archaeology. An archaeologist’s job is not threatened with prehistory and history. Although the approach but secured by such an interest. At the end of the is traditional and noninteractive, the displays and ex- day, the years of theoretical and practical training ar- planations are state-of-the-art. For a time, visitors chaeologists undergo ensure their place as a formally could observe the excavation between the new and qualified expert. old wings of the museum and this provided some op- This case study of different aspects of heritage dis- portunity for interaction. Yet if interaction and active play in Lithuania shows how presentation, monumen- interpretation is not the principal force here, there is tality, conservation, and archaeological practice have a significant emphasis on communicating with global been determined by history, nationalism, and society. communities via multilingual displays and versions of Presentation of the recent past is at the forefront of the museum’s Internet site (www.lnm.lt). A significant many Lithuanian agendas and takes different forms, written overview of the history and prehistory of the from the shocking to controversial to conventional. country is also available for purchase in English for The diversity of remembering experiences reflects those visitors wanting to read more about the artifacts strongly those in control of the presentations—here and research behind the exhibits (Kiaupa et al. 2000). ex-patriots (in the true sense), a post-Soviet million- This multilingual material was made available soon aire, and the academic elite. after independence, and this too shows a strong em- The presentation of the distant past is also done in phasis on communication and outreach. a way which keeps the museumologists and archaeolo- One Lithuanian academic informally reported that gists firmly in control of data and interpretation. This not as many Lithuanians as originally hoped visit the aspect of control is contingent on the political history, inside of the National Archaeology Museum, although since elsewhere in the world archaeologists are begin- there was a strong interest in the museum’s excava- ning to let go of their implicit right to control data and tion. Excavations in Lithuania tend to be quite small, interpretation (Derry and Malloy 2003; Gathercole about twenty square meters, and are funded largely as and Lowenthal 1990). Says one colleague, “The stat-

Archaeology and Society 403 ues and rhetoric changed but the mentality stays the Bense, Judith. 1991. Archaeology at home: A partnership same,” a sentiment common for post-Soviet countries in Pensacola, Florida. In G. S. Smith and J. E. Ehrenhard, (Janik and Zawadzka 1996). eds., Protecting the past, 117–122. Boca Raton, FL: CRC The Lithuanian case also highlights how theoreti- Press. cal approaches to archaeological practice require ideal Bielawski, Ellen. 1989. Dual perceptions of the past: Archae- conditions which are historically and financially (Poli- ology and Inuit culture. In R. Layton, ed., Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions, 228–236. London: Unwin tis 1995) contingent. They may not be advocating Hyman. measures of accessibility proposed by archaeologists in Binford, Lewis R. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. Amer- other countries, but this reflects the traditional politi- ican Antiquity 28(2): 217–225. cal, financial, and philosophical constraints of doing Blakey, Michael L. 1990. American nationality and ethnic- research and public archaeology in their society. Most ity in the depicted past. In Peter Gatherole and David archaeologists advocating public access to data come Lowenthal, eds., The politics of the past, 38–48. London: from privileged backgrounds in societies that have Unwin Hyman. traditionally promoted freedom of thought (Eggert Bland, Roger. 2004. The Treasure Act and the portable antiq- and Veit 1998). uities scheme: A case study in developing public archae- In this sense, though archaeologists are more di- ology. In N. Merriman, ed., Public Archaeology, 272–291. verse today than in the past, there is a danger that pub- London: Routledge. lic archaeology programs still lack relevance to many Bolton, Lissant. 2003. The object in view Aborigines, Mela- nesians, and museums. In Laura Peers and Alison K. people in society. For this reason, there is a strong, Brown, eds., Museums and source communities: A Rout- internationally acknowledged need to begin outreach ledge reader, 42–54. London: Routledge. and interaction at the local level. Public archaeology Brodie, Neil, Jennifer Doole, and Colin Renfrew (eds.). 2001. programs have a greater chance than those not in- Trade in illicit antiquities: The destruction of the world’s volving the public to connect the finding to heritage archaeological heritage. Cambridge: McDonald Institute today. This may not be relevant to more theoretical Monographs. use of the data, but is nonetheless a critical step in the Brooks, John. 1989. For the dedicated interpreter of many archaeological process. In the end it is this feedback years: Renewal, invention, and creativity. In David L. Uz- from local communities which may ultimately slay the zell, ed., Heritage interpretation, vol. 1, The natural and dinosaurs. built environment, 96–99. London: Belhaven. Childe, V. Gordon. 1933. Is prehistory practical? Antiquity REFERENCES 7: 410–418. Aleksaite, Irena. 2001. Lithuania: An outline. Vilnius: Clark, Grahame. 1957. Archaeology and society. London: Akreta. Methuen. Allison, John. 1999. Self-determination in cultural resource Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet Spector. 1984. Archaeol- management: Indigenous people’s interpretation of his- ogy and the study of gender. Archaeological Methods and tory and of places and landscape. In P. J. Ucko and R. Lay- Theory 7: 1–38. ton, eds., The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: Creamer, Howard. 1990. Aboriginal perceptions of the past: Shaping your landscape, 264–283. London: Routledge. The implications for cultural resource management in Alva, Walter. 2001. The destruction, looting, and traffic Australia. In Peter Gathercole and David Lowenthal, eds., of the archaeological heritage of Peru. In N. Brodie, J. The politics of the past, 130–140. London: Unwin Hyman. Doole, and C. Renfrew, eds., Trade in illicit antiquities: The Dalibard, Jacques. 1986. The Canadian experience in heri- destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage, 89–96. tage preservation. In R. Yudhishthir Isar, ed., The challenge Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. to our cultural heritage why preserve the past? 183–194. Anawak, Jack. 1989. Inuit perceptions of the past. In R. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Layton, ed., Who needs the past? Indigenous values and Daniel, Glyn. 1981. A short history of archaeology. London: archaeology, 45–50. London: Unwin Hyman. Thames & Hudson. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities. London: Davies, William, and Ruth Charles (eds.). 1999. Dorothy Verso. Garrod and the progress of the Palaeolithic: Studies in the Atkinson, John A., Ian Banks, and Jerry O’Sullivan (eds.). prehistoric archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Ox- 1996. Nationalism and archaeology. Glasgow: Cruithne. ford: Oxbow. Banks, Iain. 1989. Archaeology, nationalism, and ethnicity. Davis, Hester. 1989. Is an archaeological site important to In John Atkinson, Iain Banks, and Jerry O’Sullivan, eds., science or to the public, and is there a difference? In David Nationalism and archaeology. Scottish archaeological fo- L. Uzzell, ed., Heritage interpretation, vol. 1, The natural rum, 1–12. Glasgow: Cruithne. and built environment, 96–99. London: Belhaven.

404 gillian wallace Derry, Linda. 2003. Consequences of involving archaeology management in contemporary society. Perspectives on man- in contemporary community issues. In Linda Derry and aging and presenting the past, 66–75. London: Routledge. Maureen Malloy, eds., Archaeologists and local communi- Hitchcock, Michael, Nick Stanley, and King C. Siu. 1997. ties: Partners in exploring the past, 19–29. Washington, The southeast Asian “living museum” and its antecedents. DC: Society for American Archaeology. In Simone Abram, Jacqueline Waldren, and Donald V. L. Derry, Linda, and Maureen Malloy (eds. ). 2003. Archaeolo- Macleod, eds., Tourists and tourism: Identifying with peo- gists and local communities: Partners in exploring the past. ple and places, 197–222. Oxford: Berg. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Hodder, Ian. 1999. The archaeological process. Oxford: Black- Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Timothy C. Champion (eds.). well. 1996. Nationalism and archaeology in Europe. London: Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie. 2003. Digging in the dirt-eth- UCL Press. ics and “low-end looting.” In Larry Zimmerman, Karen Eggert, Manfred K. H., and Ulrich Veit (eds.). 1998. Theorie Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, eds., Ethical issues in in der Archäologie: Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion. New archaeology, 45–56. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. York: Waxmann. Hudson, Kenneth. 1981. A social history of archaeology the Ehrentraut, Adolf. 1996. Globalization and the representa- British experience. London: Macmillan. tion of rurality: Alpine open-air museums in advanced Ijzereef, Gerard. 1992. The presentation of environmental industrial societies. Sociologia Ruralis 36(1): 4–26. archaeology in “Archeon”: A plan for an archaeological Fagan, Brian M. 1996. Eyewitness to discovery. Oxford: Ox- theme part in the Netherlands. In Nicolas Balaam and ford University Press. James Rackham, eds., Issues in environmental archaeology, ———. 1987. Life with Ayla and her friends: Jean Auel and 71–84. London: Institute of Archaeology/University Col- the new phenomenon of Ice Age fiction. Scientific Ameri- lege London. can 256(6): 132–135. Jameson, John H., Jr. (ed.). 2004. The reconstructed past: Ferro, Marc. 1981. The use and abuse of history or how the Reconstructions in the public interpretation of archaeology past is taught. London: Routledge. and history. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1994. The role of “local knowledge” in Janik, Liliana, and Hannah Zawadzka. 1996. One Europe, archaeological interpretation. In P. G. Stone and B. Mo- one past? In Paul Graves-Brown, Siân Jones, and Clive lyneaux, eds., The presented past: Heritage, museums, and Gamble, eds., Cultural identity and archaeology: The con- education, 110–122. London: Routledge. struction of European communities, 116–124. London: Gates, Bill. 1995. The road ahead. New York: Viking Pen- Routledge. guin. Jones, Siân, and Sharon Pay. 1990. The legacy of Eve. In P. Gathercole, Peter, and David Lowenthal (eds.). 1990. The Gathercole and D. Lowenthal, eds., The politics of the past, politics of the past. London: Unwin Hyman. 160–171. London: Routledge. Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Kehoe, Alice B. 1998. The land of prehistory: A critical history Blackwell. of American archaeology. London: Routledge. Gero, Joan M. 1994. Excavation bias and the woman-at- Kiaupa, Zigmantas, Jrat Kiaupien, and Albinas Kuncevius. home ideology. In Margaret C. Nelson, Sarah M. Nelson, 2000. The history of Lithuania before 1795. Vilnius: Lith- and Alison Wylie, eds., Equity Issues for Women in Ar- uanian Institute of History. chaeology, 37–42. Archaeological Papers of the American King, Thomas F. 1991. Some dimensions of the pot hunting Anthropological Association no. 5. Washington, DC. problem. In George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard, eds., Gero, Joan, and Dolores Root. 1990. Public presentations Protecting the past, 83–92. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. and private concerns: Archaeology in the pages of Na- Kohl, Philip L., and Clare Fawcett (eds.). 1995. Nationalism, tional Geographic. In Peter Gathercole and David Lowen- politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cam- thal, eds., The politics of the past, 19–37. One World bridge University Press. Archaeology 12. London: Hyman. Knecht, Rick. 2003. Tapping into a sense of wonder: Com- Golden, Jonathan. 2004. Targeting heritage: The abuse of munity archaeology and museum building in the Aleu- symbolic sites in modern conflicts. In Yorke Rowan and tian Islands. In Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, eds., Uzi Baram, eds., Marketing heritage archaeology and the Archaeologists and local communities: Partners in exploring consumption of the past, 183–204. London: Routledge. the past, 97–110. Washington, DC: Society for American Hall, Martin. 1995. Great Zimbabwe and the lost city: The Archaeology. cultural colonization of the South African past. In Peter Kristiansen, Kristian. 1981. A social history of Danish archae- Ucko, ed., Theory in archaeology: A world perspective, ology (1805–1975). In Glyn Daniel, ed., Towards a history 28–45. London: Routledge. of archaeology, 20–44. London: Thames & Hudson. Hamlin, Ann. 2000. Archaeological heritage management ———. 1992. The strength of the past and its great might: in Northern Ireland: Challenges and solutions. In Francis An essay on the use of the past. Journal of European Ar- P. McManamon and Alf Hatton, eds., Cultural resource chaeology 1: 3–32.

Archaeology and Society 405 Layton, Robert (ed.). 1989. Who needs the past? Indigenous Naccache, Albert F. H. 1998. Beirut’s memorycide: Hear values and archaeology. London: Routledge. no evil, see no evil. In Lynn Meskell, ed., Archaeology Layton, Robert, Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas (eds.). under fire: Nationalism, politics, and heritage in the east- 2001. Destruction and conservation of cultural property. ern Mediterranean and Middle East, 140–158. London: London: Routledge. Routledge. Lowenthal, David. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cam- Nuttall, Mark. 1997. Packaging the wild: Tourism develop- bridge: Cambridge University Press. ment in Alaska. In Simone Abram, Jacqueline Waldren, Lynott, Mark J. 1995. Stewardship: The central principle of and Donald V. L. Macleod, eds., Tourists and tourism iden- archaeological ethics. In Mark J. Lynott and Alison Wylie, tifying with people and places, 223–238. Oxford: Berg. eds., Ethics in American archaeology challenges for the O’Keefe, Patrick J. 1997. Trade in antiquities: Reducing de- 1990s, 28–33. Society for American Archaeology Special struction and theft. London: Archetype. Report Series. Washington, DC. Parker Pearson, Mike, and Retsihisatse Ramilisonina. 1999. Macdonald, Sharon. 2002. Behind the scenes at the science Ancestors, forests, and ancient settlements: Tandroy rea- museum. Oxford: Berg. dings of the archaeological past. In Peter J. Ucko and Mapunda, Bertram, and Paul Lane. 2004. Archaeology for Robert Layton, eds., The archaeology and anthropology whose interest: Archaeologists or the locals? In Nick Merri- of landscape: Shaping your landscape, 397–410. London: man, ed., Public archaeology, 211–223. London: Routledge. Routledge. Mcdavid, Carol. 2003. Collaboration, power, and the Inter- Patterson, Thomas C. 1995. Toward a social history of ar- net: The public archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. chaeology in the United States. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt In Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, eds., Archaeologists Brace College. and local communities: Partners in exploring the past, 45– Paynter, Robert. 1990. Afro-Americans in the Massachus- 66. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. etts historical landscape. In Peter Gathercole and David Mcmanamon, Francis P. 1991. The many publics for archae- Lowenthal, eds., The politics of the past, 49–62. London: ology. American Antiquity 56(1): 121–130. Unwin Hyman. Mcmanamon, Francis P., and Alf Hatton. 2000a. Cultural Peers, Laura, and Alison K. Brown. 2003. Introduction. In resource management in contemporary society: Perspectives Museums and source communities: A Routledge reader, on managing and presenting the past. London: Routledge. 1–16. London: Routledge. ———. 2000b. Introduction: Considering cultural resource Pendergast, David M., and Elizabeth Graham. 1989. The management in modern society. In Francis P. McMana- battle for the Maya past: The effects of international loot- mon and Alf Hatton, eds., Cultural resource management ing and collecting in Belize. In Phyllis M. Messenger, The in contemporary society: Perspectives on managing and ethics of collecting cultural property: Whose culture? Whose presenting the past, 1–19. London: Routledge. property? 51–60. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Medina, Maria C. 2000. Articulation between archaeologi- Press. cal practice and local politics in northwest Argentina. In Platonova, Nadezhda. 1990. Popularizing archaeology Francis P. McManamon and Alf Hatton, eds., Cultural among schoolchildren in the USSR. In Peter G. Stone and resource management in contemporary society: Perspectives Robert MacKenzie, eds., The excluded past: Archaeology in on managing and presenting the past, 160–167. London: education, 245–249. London: Unwin Hyman. Routledge. Politis, Gustavo. 1995. The socio-politics of the development Mels, Tom. 2002. Nature, home, and scenery: The official of archaeology in Hispanic South America. In Peter Ucko, spatialities of Swedish national parks. Environment and ed., Theory in archaeology. A world perspective, 197–235. Planning D: Society and Space 20: 135–154. London: Routledge. Menotti, Francesco, Zenonas Baubonis, Dziugas Brazaitis, Poroszlai, Ildikó, and Magdolna Vicze. 1998. History of Tom Higham, Mantas Kvedaravicius, Helen Lewis, Százhalombatta. Százhalombatta, Hungary: Matrica Giedre Motuzaite, and Elena Pranckenaite. In press. The Museum. first lake-dwellers of Lithuania: Late Bronze Age pile Potts, Daniel T. 1998. The gulf Arab states and their archaeo- settlements on Lake Luokesas. Oxford Journal of Archae- logy. In L. Meskell, ed., Archaeology under fire: Nationa- ology 24(4). lism, politics, and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean Merriman, Nick. 2004. Involving the public in museum and Middle East, 189–200. New York: Routledge. archaeology. In Public Archaeology, 85–108. London: Ramos, Maria, and David Duganne. 2000. Exploring public Routledge. perceptions and attitudes about archaeology. Rochester, Meskell, Lynn. 2002. Negative heritage and past mastering in NY: Harris Interactive. archaeology. Anthropological Quarterly: 557–574. Renfrew, Colin. 2000. Loot, legitimacy, and ownership. Lon- Meskell, Lynn (ed.). 1998. Archaeology under fire: National- don: Duckworth. ism, politics, and heritage in the eastern Mediterranean and Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. 1996. Archaeology: Theory, Middle East. London: Routeledge. methods, and practice. London: Thames & Hudson.

406 gillian wallace Reyman, Jonathan E. 1994. Gender and class in archaeology: Stepping stones to common ground. Walnut Creek, CA: Then and now. In Margaret C. Nelson, Sarah M. Nelson, AltaMira. and Alison Wylie, eds., Equity issues for women in archae- Tomedi, Gerhard. 1999. ArchaeoTirol-ein Weg für die Zuku- ology, 83–90. Archaeological Papers of the American An- nft? ArchaeoTirol Kleine Schriften 1: 9–12. thropological Association no. 5. Washington, DC. ———. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colo- Richardson, Wendy. 1990. “Well. In the Neolithic . . .”: Teach- nialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355–370. ing about the past in English primary schools. In Peter G. ———. 1986. Prehistoric archaeology and American soci- Stone and Robert MacKenzie, eds., The excluded past: Ar- ety. In David Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabl- chaeology in education, 282–292. London: Unwin Hyman. off, eds., American archaeology past and future, 187–216. Robinson, Paul A., and Charlotte C. Taylor. 2000. Heritage Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. management in Rhode Island: Working with diverse part- ———. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cam- ners and audiences. In Francis P. McManamon and Alf bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatton, eds., Cultural resource management in contempo- Ucko, Peter J. 1990. Foreword. In P. Gathercole and D. rary society: Perspectives on managing and presenting the Lowenthal, eds., The politics of the past, ix–xxvi. London: past, 107–119. London: Routledge. Routledge. Ruoff, Ulrich. 1990. The Pfahlbauland exhibition, Zürich. Uzzell, David. 1989. Contemporary issues in heritage and In Byrony Coles, ed., The wetland revolution in prehistory, environmental interpretation: Problems and prospect. Lon- 135-–46. Exeter: Prehistoric Society/WARP. don: Stationery Office. Silverberg, Robert. 1985. Great adventures in archaeology. Wallace, Gillian. 2006. Globalism and archaeology. London: Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Duckworth. Smardz, Karolyn E. 1999. Presenting archaeology to the ———. 2003. Using narrative to contextualise micromor- public. In John H. Jameson Jr., ed., Presenting archaeology phological data from Neolithic wetland houses. Journal of to the public, 101–113. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Wetland Archaeology 3: 75–92. Smith, Anthony D. 1995. Nations and nationalism in a global Walsh, Kevin. 1992. The representation of the past: Museums era. Oxford: Polity. and heritage in the post-modern world. London: Rout- Sommer, Ulrike, and Sabine Wolfram (ed.). 1993. Macht der ledge. Vergangenheit: Wer macht Vergangenheit? Wilkau-Hass- Watkins, Joe. 2000. Indigenous archaeology. American In- lau, Germany: Beier & Beran. dian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Stone, Peter G., and Robert Mackenzie (eds.). 1990. The AltaMira. excluded past: Archaeology in education. London: Unwin Watson, Michael (ed.). 1990. Contemporary minority nation- Hyman. alism. London: Routledge. Stone, Peter G., and Brian Molyneaux (eds.). 1994. The pre- Willet, Frank. 1990. Museums: Two cast studies of reaction sented past: Heritage, museums, and education. London: to colonialism. In Peter Gathercole and David Lowenthal, Routledge. eds., The politics of the past, 172–186. London: Unwin Stone, Peter G., and Philippe G. Planel (eds.). 1999. The Hyman. constructed past: Experimental archaeology, education, and Wright, Rita P. 2003. Gender matters: A question of ethics. In the public. London: Routledge. Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollow- Swidler, Nina, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. ell-Zimmer, eds., Ethical issues in archaeology, 225–238. Downer (eds.). 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists: Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Archaeology and Society 407