Brent Fortenberry, Boston University
Travis Parno, Boston University

This year’s meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology in Albuquerque, New Mexico examined the interface between the archaeological community and the various publics with whom we interact. Papers explored the logistics, methodologies, and theories behind public archaeologies, a subject which has recently gained much attention.
While a majority of the authors broached these issues, some particularly evoked discussion and meditation regarding creative approaches understanding the nature of public archaeology.
E. Thomson Shields, Charles Ewen, and Donna Kain tackled the challenges resulting from perceptions of archaeology that are generated by popular media outlets such as television and film. While shows such as ‘Digging for the Truth’ bring some form of archaeology into the public sphere, the over-sensationalized nature of these programs misconstrues archaeological ethics and methodologies. Using a video podcast of excavations at the Saint Thomas Church in North Carolina as a case study, Shields, Ewen, and Kain argued that professional archaeology needs to take steps to integrate its data into new multimedia paradigms, thus resulting in a wider engagement with archaeologically-generated knowledge.
Echoing these concerns over accessibility and archaeological data, Mark Freeman and Barbara Heath presented the Poplar Forest: Retreat Home of Thomas Jefferson website as an illustration of the unique ways that archaeological datasets and narratives can be experienced in cyberspace. Its non-linear format allows the user to navigate the intersections between “Place,” “Period,” and “Perspective.” Within this negotiation, the user has control over the order and types of information that they can explore, and in many ways this methodology allows the visitor to be actively involved in the processes of discovery and mediation.
Flordeliz Bugarin and Margaret Wood’s presentation of their work at the Nicodemus National Historic Site highlighted some of the logistical challenges associated with public outreach efforts. During the excavation of this former black community, project coordinators were faced with issues of public apathy, even among the descendent community. To combat these concerns, they moved beyond the tradition archaeologist/public divide and initiated a plan to train interested individuals in the methods of archaeology, thus actively involving the community in the creation and interpretation of their history. The Kansas Archaeology Training Program (KATP) will promote a departure from connoisseurship and give birth to future networks of experienced local archaeologists.

With this year’s SHA come and gone, perhaps we need to critically examine the practice of ‘public archaeology.’ At the risk of sounding cynical we feel that it is important to problematize our aims. Are we simply patting ourselves on the back for our attempts to bring archeology and history to the masses? Are we giving the public narratives, not because it is something they desire, but rather as a means for justifying the practice of historical archaeology? Furthermore, what course of action should be taken in the instance of a public that is apathetic to the idea of archaeology itself (such as the challenges presented in the work of Bugarin and Wood). Indeed, what if our work falls on deaf ears and becomes immediately irrelevant?
While these issues are complex and imbricated in nearly every archaeological endeavor, public archaeologies must be negotiated on a contextual level. The 2008 SHA conference provided a wealth of insight into innovative public archaeology from a multitude of perspectives; there is little doubt that the ideas presented in this forum, coupled with a reflexive methodological outlook, will spark new strategies and practices for successfully engaging the public through archaeology.