I sentence you to be exposed before your peers! Tear down the wall!
Pink Floyd, ‘The trial’ (The Wall, 1979)
Introduction
In times of crisis, budgets are indiscriminately cut and culture is usually one of the first victims. In political discourse, this situation answers to the classical misconception of utilitarianism (Mill Reference Mill2012, 14), which sees utility opposed to pleasure and so culture as useless. However, as politics are not ruled by logic, there is always a need to offer qualitative values for everything. Moreover, the commoditization of daily life transforms these values into an economic category that also affects archaeology.
In this context, archaeology has been reduced to an oriented service that fills some legal obligations and the whims of the public. Research remains in the background, or entrenched in countries where commercial archaeology has not yet appeared. Meanwhile, some sectors of academia do not realize the seriousness of these matters hiding behind the scientific wall and are disconnected from reality.
According to Lonely Planet, one of the mainstream tourism advisers worldwide, many of the most-visited places are in some way related to heritage/archaeology (www.lonelyplanet.com). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas, the ‘archaeo-appeal’ defined by Holtorf (Reference Holtorf2005, 150) is the reflection of a market that we did not directly open, where alternative archaeologies took control. This has distorted the image of archaeology to a point where John Carpenter, George Lucas or Ridley Scott have become spokesmen of our discipline, following the path of classic authors like Lovecraft (Frigoli Reference Frigoli2010) or the mysterious imagination of other moderns like Sitchin or Von Däniken (Fagan Reference Fagan2006).
What do people know about archaeology? There are not many published surveys, but those we do have are interesting (e.g. Ramos and Duganne 2000; Almansa Reference Almansa2006). There is an evident interest in archaeology, but its image among most interested people answers to wrong conceptions. However, basic concepts like ‘past’ and ‘heritage’ remain clear. It is from them that we can find some of the most extended values that archaeology has for contemporary society. In a survey I am currently conducting among Spanish students, to the question ‘What is archaeology good for in real life?’, stereotypes like ‘knowing the past in order to improve the future’ appear constantly. ‘Knowledge’, ‘roots’, ‘heritage’, ‘tourism’, ‘identity’ or ‘nothing’ are some of the other answers.
What is the message we have been delivering?
Talking to a wall . . . and tearing it down
Excluding important exceptions like Sir Mortimer Wheeler (Moshenska and Schadla-Hall Reference Moshenska and Schadla-Hall2011), archaeologists have been disconnected from society, only giving ‘facts’ about the past and heritage for people to consume, alongside internal and external misuses of the past that led to political and economic abuse of archaeology. Current critics from within public archaeology acknowledge the problem of trying to get closer to local communities and making archaeology more understandable (Simpson Reference Simpson2008). However, the impact of those approaches is still too narrow to really affect society in a wider perspective. Are we even capable of changing public perceptions about archaeology?
During the summer of 2012, two movies broke the box office in Spain: Prometheus and Tadeo Jones. (Spoiler alert!) In the first, as a prequel of the Alien saga, Ridley Scott takes the theories of intelligent design and alien intervention to explain the origins of humankind and supports it with fake archaeological evidence (the main character is an archaeologist). In the second, a Spanish production, the Odyssey affair and its repercussions in the media (Rodríguez Temiño Reference Rodríguez Temiño2012, 389–402) influenced the plot of the movie. The main character is a construction worker (and amateur archaeologist) who usurps the identity of a real archaeologist and ends up fighting professional looters, but keeps the image of the treasure hunter. Like it or not, these are the images that permeate society.
Today, the Internet has become a real tool of communication, and social media represent an opportunity for archaeology. However, there are still shadows in the use and misuse of the Internet and some authors are already drawing attention to that (Morozov Reference Morozov2011), even in the field of archaeology (Richardson Reference Richardson2012). There have been some examples of successful engagement with the Internet, like the Prescott Street Project in 2008, which used its own website (www.lparchaeology.com), or Torre dos Mouros in 2012, which extended the action also to social media (torredosmouros.net). Anyway, one of the main obstacles to success, even on the Internet, is audience.
Measuring fans, likes, shares, followers, pins, etc. is still ambiguous. The relationship between the number of followers, likes or shares and the actual impact of messages is not clear. Liking a page on Facebook is a one-moment action that might be forgotten in an overcrowded wall. The same happens with Twitter feeds, when a user follows hundreds of profiles. If there is not a real concern (previous, or properly built by the network) it is very difficult to keep a loyal audience.
In my experience of the publication of a controversial book (Almansa Reference Almansa and Degeffa2011) and its associated blog, lack of participation is a worrying issue even for concerned archaeologists. If engaging them is difficult, opening to the wider public can be even more so. The Internet is not such an efficient tool as we may think, but it helps. It is through direct work with the community that we mainly interact with people. However, this does not seem to be enough, and although projects with public and community archaeology programmes are rapidly increasing, the gap between archaeology and society is still large.
We have started to tear down the wall, but should we stop here?
Finding new values in contemporary contexts
Archaeology has a problem in its name. The science of the old is now becoming a contemporary activity intruding into the present. Little by little some archaeologists become ‘too’ contemporary even for their peers, and this situation makes us face in a clearer way a range of social, political and economic issues that affect our practice and its context. The political misuse of archaeology in nationalistic discourses, and the commoditization of ancient remarkable sites for economic reasons, are well known. What is not as obvious is the political potential of urban archaeology or the social implications of foreign missions in developing countries.
I like to define public archaeology as the study of and action in the multiple relations between archaeology and society (Almansa Reference Almansa2010). It is probably due to this approach that I started to look around myself when working. The context of our work is the context of contemporary society, with the same circumstances. Filling the gap between archaeology and society must start from this reality and our place in the site. What else can we (or should we) do while doing archaeology? Work with the community and wider society should not only be archaeology-related. Learning about the site and our work is an advance in the recognition of archaeology as a profession, but in certain contexts we can actually do more (McGuire Reference McGuire2008; Stottman Reference Stottman2010). The living conflicts and connections between many archaeological sites and current society have opened a line of action that directly interacts with contemporary social reality. But what happens when there is not a clear link?
In 2010, the regional government of Oromia (Ethiopia) contracted me to consult on a pollution problem in Melka Kunture, a prominent Palaeolithic site that aims to be the country's next World Heritage Site. After a first survey, we realized that the problem went far beyond heritage to a serious health issue in the area. What should we do? We modified the project to use the site as a tool instead of an end, making archaeology useful for a local community totally disconnected from it (Almansa and Degeffa Reference Almansa2011). This example shows us that we do not need a contemporary site, but a contemporary approach.
The role of public archaeology as a tool of opinion in contemporary society
We do have a voice in the present, but we still haul a heavy weight of fears and other baggage. Letting people participate in archaeology only fills the gap in one direction, but public archaeology lets us engage with society from a critical perspective, able to offer something beyond the archaeological record.
Is that the way to become a public intellectual? It is difficult to define what a public intellectual really is today. Big names like Chomsky, Dawkins or Krugman are still present in major media. Others like Negri or Bourdieu stay only on the shelves of other intellectuals. In the 2008 Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll conducted by Prospect magazine and Foreign Policy I hardly recognize any among the first ten. Meanwhile, on political television shows, the general public only gets to listen to local polemicists, or other influential celebrities like Jon Stewart from The Daily Show or his equivalent in Spain, José Miguel Monzón (El Gran Wyoming) from El Intermedio.
With a recognized crisis around public intellectuals (Drezner Reference Drezner2009; Etzioni and Bowditch Reference Etzioni and Bowditch2006), it is extremely difficult to become one, at least a recognized one. As mentioned before, the expansion of the Internet has changed the panorama completely. A computer and an opinion can build a public intellectual anywhere. But what is a public intellectual anyway?
As archaeologists we are not accustomed to being identified as public intellectuals, even when we do have an opinion on many political, social and economic issues, not only related to our sites, but to more general issues. However, we still stand dumb in the current conflicts that affect our work. When the regional government of Madrid proposed the new draft law of heritage, which is negligent, less than twenty of the more than five hundred registered archaeologists in the region were concerned to plead (Ansede Reference Ansede2012), approximately the same people who worked for the frustrated labour agreement. After the distorted news of Angela Micol's discovery in Egypt, it was me, as an individual, who called the attention of the newspaper (Delclòs 2012), and so on.
I ascribe this situation to several factors (in Spain at least). First, to the wall that has been built around archaeology for decades. Second, to the distant message we provide the public with. Third, to the fear to do anything that goes beyond archaeology. But mainly to an extremely polarized collective that is not able to agree on the most essential ideas. These factors make it difficult to express opinions when first questioning, and opposition comes from your peers. Hopefully these problems seem to answer to a generational factor, and new trends in Spanish archaeology support this idea.
Anyhow, using public archaeology as a tool of opinion in contemporary society is not only a way to interact with communities in a different way. It also requires a radical, critical approach to the reality we are living in. Actions should involve politics and being consistent with our thoughts might create conflicts at different levels. Standing against your local administration, or some urban development, are normal situations in the life of an archaeologist. These situations are extraordinary contexts within which to set ourselves as public intellectuals, explaining the reasons that made us take certain decisions. Instead, we do not communicate: silence gives rise to the notion that we are an obstacle to development, or treasure hunters, utopian bookworms or evil human beings who do not understand the needs of people (all real descriptions I have documented).
Here, the value of public archaeology is essential, not only as a tool of communication and understanding, but also as a tool of opinion that can make a difference at the local level. Our expert opinion is essential for planning policies, rural development, identity disputes and many other situations of contemporary life. Generally, we are not yet giving this opinion, although it is becoming extremely necessary – for us, first of all.
But are we ready to go further?
Discussion
Education and mass media, and now social media, have given everybody the possibility of expressing their opinions at the highest level. With so many voices telling ‘truths’, we have, on the one hand, an elite of public intellectuals (or celebrities) in television and newspapers, and on the other, noise.
In April 2011, Aleix Saló, a Spanish illustrator, published a very interesting comic, which was promoted with a YouTube video about the real-estate bubble in Spain (Saló Reference Saló2011). The video turned viral on social media, with more than 5 million visits in one year, and the comic became extremely popular. Today, all major media in Spain use Saló's comics to talk about the crisis and he has become a kind of public intellectual whose opinion matters. Several archaeologists have pointed out some of these issues from the relationship between construction and archaeology, but there has been no impact. Gaining influence should be the first task, but how can we do it?
If we try to write a ‘handbook’ of ‘how to become a public intellectual from nothing (archaeology)’, we need to take two facts into account: first of all, that besides any survey, interest in archaeology is not as high as we may think, at least as we understand archaeology; second, that we need to make a lot of noise in order to be heard. Only then will we have the opportunity to be listened to, but this would not ensure our permanence. A traditional way to become a public intellectual would take years of strong research in contemporary politics, economy and social trends, and a series of writings to be valued and reproduced by peers.
In any of the cases, would we still be archaeologists? Hugh Laurie, the famous actor and musician, is also an archaeologist, but nobody tags him as one. I myself was once tagged as a sociologist instead of an archaeologist for doing public archaeology. We risk losing our professional identity for a name in a list. So the first question in the dilemma of intellectuality is, why do we want to become public intellectuals?
If becoming a public intellectual means leaving archaeology to one side, and if we consider that, as archaeologists, we still have certain professional responsibilities, then the value of becoming a public intellectual would not be comparable to becoming a recognized expert in reference to our area of work.
I personally do not think that we need to be public intellectuals, or at least that that should be our goal. Maybe it would be enough to be public archaeologists. We have the tools and need only the attitude. Transforming our daily work into socially committed action can set our profession up as something more than a stereotype. However, the difficulty of conducting projects of this kind is determined by contexts of commercial archaeology or low budgets.
Archaeology is important, and useful. We know it, but we fail to make others know. Before giving opinions on other topics we must learn to communicate the multiple values of our work and its reality. Empowering archaeology in the social (and political) arena helps to improve the image and value of our discipline. Participation in daily matters where we should have a voice facilitates engagement with communities and brings archaeology closer to reality. Also, activism and political action on the part of archaeology promote new values closer to people. This is the way to build a loyal audience. All these are goals of public archaeology, and a way to go further.
Would we need to go further if we accomplished a real public concern for archaeology?
Concluding, there are, in any event, two essential premises that we need to fulfil before considering a step forward:
• Commitment/collectivity. The weakness and polarization of our profession makes it very difficult to progress as a collective and as public figures. It is critical to bring positions closer and to commit to common goals. Corporatism is essential for the profession. I understand this premise as essential from Plautus’ Homo homini lupus. In order to succeed as a group and as individuals, we need to work together. Civil war is not helpful to get a recognized voice in the public sphere.
• Influence/audience. Delivering our message to the wider public is not as simple as we normally think. Once our first role as researchers is accomplished, we can start thinking about building and influencing our audiences. Social media are a great tool of communication, but not the only or the best one. We need to learn to communicate, and after that, to cultivate the loyalty of our audience. Only then can our audience start to grow, and so can our influence. Without a public listening to us, we have nothing to say.
When we have achieved these two premises, public archaeology as a tool for opinion in contemporary society can be successfully practised as a collective. We may not be public intellectuals, but we will have a voice and an acknowledged audience. With patience and commitment, the collective value of archaeology will increase, preparing the ground for other individual progresses in the public arena. In order to become some kind of public intellectuals, keeping our essence as archaeologists, we need to grow together. Meanwhile, public archaeology provides us with a tool of opinion in matters of public concern beyond the archaeological record, and this is something we must use (figure 1).
Figure 1
