The Background to Public Archaeology Initiatives in Poland

Although numerous archaeological projects disseminating and educating archaeology to a wider public have become an integral element of archaeological practice in Poland, public archaeology as a concept has not yet fully emerged. This situation is complicated by the fact that public archaeology is still not considered by many professionals as a legitimate subject within archaeology, as archaeology in Poland has followed a trajectory that diverges from that of other countries and retained specific characteristics influenced by particular historical and political circumstances (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak, Gnecco and Lippert2015: 49). For a long time, archaeology was regarded in Poland as a purely scientific discipline and archaeologists found themselves in ivory towers, satisfied with academically sanctioned positions. Thus, they were exempt from any kind of public engagement; the general public was not thought to be a reliable partner, as archaeologists regarded themselves as the sole guardians of the archaeological heritage. This situation was further fossilized by the fact that archaeology was fully founded by the state and served its goals (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak, Gnecco and Lippert2015: 50). In this respect, Poland is not exceptional, as such a course of events can be observed in many countries in central and eastern Europe where the culture-historical paradigm was dominant (e.g. Piślewska, Reference Piślewska2015: 35). These factors still mean that public archaeology in Poland differs from its counterpart in Anglophone countries, where it has become an integral part of archaeology long ago and is now an accepted topic of academic study and practice (Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez, Reference Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez2015: 196).

Fortunately, the situation is slowly changing in Poland, and the growing interest in public archaeology activities is noticeable. It is clearly evident by the increasing number of publications that cover aspects such as the promulgation of archaeological heritage and the discipline itself to the public (Chowaniec & Więckowski, Reference Chowaniec and Więckowski2012; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017); open-air museums (Gancarski, Reference Gancarski2012); archaeological fairs and open-air events (Nowaczyk, Reference Nowaczyk, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2007; Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2017); museum education (Wrzesiński & Wyrwa, Reference Wrzesiński and Wyrwa2010); historical re-enactment (Bogacki, Reference Bogacki, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2008; Olechnicki & Szlendak, Reference Olechnicki and Szlendak2020); the commercialization of archaeology and archaeological heritage (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2011); archaeological tourism (Werczyński, Reference Werczyński2012; Pawleta, Reference Pawleta, Comer and Willems2019); the social perception of the past (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016; Kajda et al., Reference Kajda, Marx, Wright, Richards, Marciniak and Salas Rossenbach2018); and some community-oriented activities undertaken by archaeologists (Kajda & Kostyrko, Reference Kajda and Kostyrko2016).

The factors that have significantly contributed to the way archaeology has been practised in Poland and given rise to the development of initiatives located within public archaeology were conditioned by specific circumstances within and without the discipline. The first of these was the changing political and socio-economic reality in post-1989 Poland, after the social revolution and the fall of the Iron Curtain in eastern Europe; in short, the collapse of the hierarchical system and the rapid emergence of the ‘neoliberal’ approach to archaeology. This new approach can be defined as a system in which the market is the primary catalyst for research (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak and Lozny2011: 182). The previously existing solid system of state sponsorship and the high status of scientists in the communist-run country collapsed, partly as a result of shrinking government funding for science (Kobyliński, Reference Kobyliński, Biehl, Gramsch and Marciniak2002: 421; Marciniak, Reference Marciniak and Lozny2011: 183). This also led to a fundamental shift in the understanding of archaeological matters from a purely academic domain to a recognition of the cultural and social dimensions of archaeological sites and objects (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak, Gnecco and Lippert2015: 51).

Second, the system in which the market is the primary catalyst for research, that is a shift towards a free-market economy and consumer culture that expanded privatization, caused the commercialization of archaeology and heritage. This has led to the development of the heritage industry, as well as to an increased awareness of the need to conduct archaeology in a publicly and financially accountable manner. Moreover, large-scale infrastructure developments and the construction of a road network took place in Poland in the mid-1990s. This not only created opportunities for research and organizational challenges for archaeologists at an unprecedented scale, but also triggered the commercialization of archaeological research and the necessity to justify—for instance through public outreach programmes—the significance and value of archaeological work funded by developers or through public finances (Kobyliński, Reference Kobyliński, Biehl, Gramsch and Marciniak2002: 421). As a result, the past and its relics have been increasingly treated as a ‘resource’ used for various purposes, and heritage as a deliberately created product, serving the satisfaction of consumer needs, including entertainment. In effect, nowadays commercial initiatives often play an important role in transmitting knowledge of the past in an attractive way and creating images of the past that enable people to access it widely (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 124–30).

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 had a considerable influence on the state of archaeology, requiring it to justify its usefulness and social value. Although it was more noticeable in European countries that felt the impact of the GFC to a significantly greater degree, this development also had an impact on Poland. Hence, numerous initiatives connected with public archaeology and community/inclusive archaeology were set up. Such ways of practising archaeology became most desirable for two reasons. First, they directly engaged society in learning about and discovering the past, and, second, they showed the practical side of archaeology as a discipline, playing a significant role in society from the perspective of the problems and challenges that the modern world is facing (Kajda & Kobiałka, Reference Kajda and Kobiałka2017: 29).

These developments were accompanied by, and codified in, legal international and national instruments related to the protection, management, and access to cultural heritage. For instance, the Malta Convention ratified by Poland in 1996 requires each party ‘to promote public access to important elements of its archaeological heritage, especially sites, and encourage the display to the public of suitable selections of archaeological objects’ (Article 9.ii). Moreover, formal codes of practice were developed by different associations for archaeologists to follow when making ethical decisions and setting out their responsibility to society. For instance, in ‘The Code of Conduct of Members of the Association of Polish Archaeologists’, adopted in 2010, it is specified that members are required to make their work widely accessible and to provide appropriate information about the results of archaeological projects using all possible media. Furthermore, archaeologists should engage with local communities (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak, Gnecco and Lippert2015: 56). This code refers to aspects clearly related to public archaeology as a practice, yet it is not a binding by-law, and failing to comply with it has no serious repercussion.

A profound change in attitudes towards the past among Poles took place after the social revolution of 1989. Such a change has led not only to a revision of expectations and attitudes towards the past but also to a transformation in archaeologists’ priorities regarding their aims and methods in education and dissemination of knowledge of the past. The new approaches include interrelated aspects, namely the increasing importance of memory in public life; the democratization of the past; the privatization of the past, based on creating its personalized visions; the conviction that direct contact with the past is possible through personal and sensuous experience; the commercialization of the past and cultural heritage, which is linked to the transformation of the essence of the past into a marketable product in the form of goods, services, or experiences; as well as a quest for identity and new forms of spirituality (e.g. Szpociński, Reference Szpociński, Best and Wenninger2010; Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 31–77).

The changes listed here have been further strengthened by the development of post-processual archaeology which have stressed that archaeological practice and interpretation are embedded in contemporary ideologies. Hence, there are various approaches to the understanding of heritage and the past, including those of non-professionals. Consequently, ‘archaeology would no longer be an isolated and incomprehensible scientific discipline housed in “ivory towers”, but a form of cultural activity participating in public life’ (Kobyliński, Reference Kobyliński, Biehl, Gramsch and Marciniak2002: 424). All these elements led to profound transformations in the organization of research and altered our understanding of the role of archaeology in the present-day world. Today, archaeologists find themselves in a new market reality; it has increased the pressure to stop serving only the community of scholars and to explicitly demonstrate archaeology's value for contemporary society. Archaeologists realized that intellectual introversion was no longer acceptable. This can be observed in public or community archaeology initiatives. The public is increasingly being recognized as a stakeholder in the decision-making processes regarding heritage management and plays an important role as a consumer of the products of archaeological activities (Marciniak, Reference Marciniak and Lozny2011: 186).

Outreach Projects: Presenting Archaeological Heritage and Archaeology to the Wider Public

The dissemination of archaeological research aims to ensure that its results are available to all interested parties, professional and non-professional. Therefore, it is an important activity in public archaeology and the prime element of the professional responsibility of archaeologists (Deskur, Reference Deskur2009: 284). Archaeological educational and outreach projects have a long lineage in Poland (Piślewska, Reference Piślewska2015: 40–53; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 64–116). Today, archaeological reconstructions feature among the most popular initiatives (Gancarski, Reference Gancarski2012; Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 185–250; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 222–29). They aim to recreate the past through full-sized reconstructions in open-air museums, reserves, archaeological parks, etc. Over the last few years, the process of revitalizing existing archaeological reserves and constructing new archaeological parks, replicas of prehistoric strongholds or settlements, mostly medieval or prehistoric, has grown in Poland and across Europe (Paardekooper, Reference Paardekooper2012). This results from the opportunity to use the European Union's structural funds designed to support the development of regional tourism. There are two basic forms, namely archaeological reserves and parks. An archaeological reserve is a faithful reconstruction, developed on an excavation site (e.g. the reserve in Ostrów Lednicki, a medieval fortified settlement on an island in Lake Lednica), and its fundamental role is to protect the archaeological heritage and open it to the public. An archaeological park is a reconstruction of buildings or a presentation of construction techniques used in a given historical period or region and that is why it can be located anywhere (e.g. the ‘VI Ploughmen Settlement’ in Bochnia). It is designed primarily to entertain, recreate, and educate. Reconstructions and reserves form an ideal backdrop for the recreation of past events by archaeologists or re-enactors during archaeological fairs, historical re-enactments, and living history lessons.

Without doubt, reconstructions are currently one of the most important ways to raise awareness of the past and shape knowledge about it. They help preserve archaeological heritage, make it accessible, serve scientific research, educate the public, and recreate, entertain, and boost local tourism (see Paardekooper, Reference Paardekooper2012). Yet, they have been abundantly criticized. First, building numerous reconstructions of hillforts goes against current conservation practice as they are often created in situ on archaeological sites. Moreover, the credibility and accuracy of many reconstructions are debatable: their components are often stylized and stereotyped for effect. There are also issues concerning the use of modern materials and equipment in the process of construction, which means that the buildings are often simply not the best representations of past remains. A significant element of this criticism concerns questions of authenticity and credibility, and the unlimited combination of buildings without consideration of their original spatial and temporal context. Moreover, archaeological sites are fragile resources, and inadequate site management, or inappropriate or uncontrolled exploitation, can result in deterioration or even destruction of the site and its related social, historical, or educational potential for tourism (Byszewska, Reference Byszewska2011).

Archaeological fairs are a further fundamental aspect of archaeological outreach initiatives (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 251–316; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 238–53). These are outdoor events, intended to raise awareness and educate people about the past, and usually take place at locations that have some connection to the past (e.g. in open-air museums). During the festivals, various facets of the past, material, social, or spiritual, are presented (Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 238–53). They may include demonstrations of different crafts, e.g. pottery making or flint knapping, scenes from everyday life, warriors in battle, folk music concerts, etc. The demonstrations are given by archaeologists or museum workers wearing period costume, and by historical re-enactors (Nowaczyk, Reference Nowaczyk, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2007). One of the largest and most famous events of this type in Poland, and indeed Europe, is the annual festival in Biskupin, visited by tens of thousands of tourists. Other examples include ‘The Slav and Viking Festival’ in Wolin, or ‘The Slavs and Cistercians Festival’ in Ląd nad Wartą. Fairs attract many visitors, indicating that the past can be presented in a way that contemporary audiences find alluring and engaging.

Archaeological fairs are closely related to historical re-enactment. It is understood here as a collection of ‘activities based on the visual presentation of various areas of life in the past by people in costumes using objects relating to the past (replicas or occasionally reconstructions) for a given period, even relatively original artefacts’ (Bogacki, Reference Bogacki, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2008: 222). It involves staging past events based on historical or archaeological facts. It is not a truthful recreation of the past, but this ‘recalled past’, which oscillates between emotions and the visitors’ interaction, creates an illusion in which viewers are in direct contact with the past. The need to preserve ‘historical authenticity’, the accuracy of the presentations (in artefacts, in a screenplay), in relation to the current level of knowledge is equally emphasized (Bogacki, Reference Bogacki, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2008: 236). There are two predominant types of historical re-enactment, namely battle re-enactment and living history recreating aspects of everyday life (Bogacki, Reference Bogacki, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2008: 227). The character of the re-enactment movement is spontaneous, grassroots, and managed by groups and independent societies (often in cooperation with historians, archaeologists, or local cultural institutions). Re-enactment is an increasingly popular pastime, and for many re-enactors it is even a way of life and sometimes a way of making a living. Re-enactors form their own subculture based on a positive valorization of the past, usually of their own nation. In Poland, with respect to the Early Middle Ages, ethnic identification with pre-Christian Slavs is quite common. Viking re-enactment is also present in Poland (Gardeła, Reference Gardeła2016).

Although historical re-enactment and archaeological fairs constitute a new and attractive way of delivering knowledge of the past to a wider public, they have been criticized frequently for their lack of scientific rigour, credibility, accuracy, the poor quality of many presentations, and a growing uniformity and standardization (e.g. Nowaczyk, Reference Nowaczyk, Bogacki, Franz and Pilarczyk2007: 507). It has also been argued that the accepted formula for presenting knowledge of the past often favours spectacle and attractiveness at the expense of scientific reliability (e.g. Dominiak, Reference Dominiak, Grad and Mamzer2004: 85–86). This results in the loss of deep intellectual engagement in favour of shallow information transfer through play with no guarantee of improved understanding (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 313–15). Of crucial concern is the issue of authenticity, conceived of as both proximity to a past material reality and as a subjective experience of the past (Brædder et al., Reference Brædder, Esmark, Kruse, Tage Nielsen and Warring2017: 185). There lies a paradox at the heart of the imperative of authenticity guiding re-enactment efforts. Re-enactors usually seek to create, experience, and negotiate authenticity in the very process of imitating and embodying pasts, yet all kinds of recreations, re-stagings, and replicas are artificial, unoriginal, and arranged; they are merely simulacra of the past (Baraniecka-Olszewska, Reference Baraniecka-Olszewska2018: 121–47). Moreover, the unpretentious and commercial nature of re-enactments is frequently criticized by scholars for containing elements of entertainment that have little to do with recreating the past, instead being merely aimed at making a profit (e.g. Karwacki, Reference Karwacki, Szlendak, Nowiński, Olechnicki, Karwacki and Burszta2012: 125–30). Historical re-enactment is not limited to a particular age or topic, as the spectacular nature of such endeavours can lend itself to many types of combinations: the early Slavs and Vikings, Romans and Celts, Slavic warriors, or Teutonic Knights, all of them can meet at the same time and in the same place. This unintentional syncretism has an obvious entertainment quality but may also be quite confusing (Olechnicki & Szlendak, Reference Olechnicki and Szlendak2020: 15).

More serious concerns relate to the image of the past that re-enactment creates, and these need to be addressed. Unchallenged and often stereotyped images of the past have a considerable potential to influence peoples’ knowledge of their local and national history, as well as the general human condition and social relations. Archaeological festivals, and especially historical re-enactment, often project a heroic warrior ideal and a one-dimensional image of gender roles in the past. It results in the re-enactment of battles or staging of battles as the dominant element of almost every spectacle. This ‘idealization’ and ‘glamourization’ of war can be harmful in terms of education and may promote violence and trivialize war atrocities and the ‘banality’ of evil that every war generates (Baraniecka-Olszewska, Reference Baraniecka-Olszewska2018: 265–68). Equally dangerous is the glorification of past male dominance and the promotion of gender inequalities (Baraniecka-Olszewska, Reference Baraniecka-Olszewska2018: 241; Olechnicki & Szlendak, Reference Olechnicki and Szlendak2020: 4). Moreover, some re-enactment groups are linked to right-wing extremists and overlap with far-right elements of Neo-paganism, and they use open-air museums or archaeological festivals as meeting places (Reichenbach & Hoppadietz, Reference Reichenbach, Hoppadietz, Kusek and Purchla2019: 217, 229). The swastika sign is quite popular among Polish re-enactors as their logo, especially an eight-armed, double swastika called a kolovrat, that is believed to be an ancient Slavic pagan symbol (Reichenbach & Hoppadietz, Reference Reichenbach, Hoppadietz, Kusek and Purchla2019: 217, 229). Such ultra-nationalistic connotations are alarming today, when Europe is under siege from populist and far-right movements that often use the past to legitimize their ideologies (Niklasson & Hølleland, Reference Niklasson and Hølleland2018).

Archaeological museums and exhibitions are further important means of promoting the archaeological heritage in Poland. Today, significant changes have taken place in this domain, brought about by market demands, visitor expectation, and the need for museums to be competitive and better fulfil their mission in society. Although exhibitions in archaeological museums remain the most popular way to present the past to the public, major changes in the forms and strategies governing these exhibitions have taken place, and are linked to the use of multimedia techniques (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 317–91; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 222–38). For instance, the ‘Following the traces of the European identity of Krakow’ exhibition in Krakow's Old Market underground museum combines fragments of original historical walls and streets from the ninth to the fifteenth century preserved in situ with authentic finds, full-size reconstructions, and multimedia presentations (using 3D technology, virtual installations, holograms) that allow visitors to immerse themselves into the daily life of medieval Krakow. Moreover, one of the most important challenges that archaeological museums face today is to enhance their educational role (Pawleta, Reference Pawleta2016: 366–77; Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 253–54). This means moving away from passive learning in favour of active methods that engage visitors, simultaneously emphasizing the development of intellectual skills and practical aspects such as interpreting and selecting information. Most archaeological museums in Poland offer extracurricular classes built around their collections. They are a very effective option in terms of their impact on participants as, during lessons in, for example, pottery making, children can engage directly with aspects of the historical environment.

Changes in archaeological museums in post-1989 Poland did not result from planned curricula or theoretical foundations. On the contrary, they were a practical adaptation to new socio-political and economic conditions, especially market demands and the expectations of contemporary audiences. Although archaeological museums in Poland effectively disseminate knowledge about archaeological heritage, archaeology, and the past, some archaeologists (e.g. Chowaniec, Reference Chowaniec2017: 293–94) claim that, with some exceptions, they are not prepared to play an important role as modern educational institutions and, in many cases, are at odds with new museological assumptions (see Vergo, Reference Vergo1989). This is because usually their activity is limited to traditional forms of conveying knowledge, such as museum lessons, guided tours, and public exhibitions that remain the dominant way of presenting artefacts. The use of multimedia also raises legitimate concerns. The equipment should complement the museum's narration but not dominate the message; it should be used with restraint, so as not to overshadow the authentic object. The commercialization of museum activities, the introduction of elements of entertainment intended to make them more attractive to visitors, and their proliferation are a disturbing trend. It reflects museums that have become focused solely on profit and the mercantile aspect, meaning they are concerned more with attracting visitors in increased numbers than with education. Such a museum may gradually cease to fulfil its defining function, expending time and staff expertise instead on competing with other commercialized centres of entertainment and leaving educational recreation as an afterthought. Thus, we must try to find a balance between what constitutes a museum's intrinsic value (its collection) and additional attractions. Museums must not forget that their fundamental function is to acquire and curate the collection, and not cross the line between the museum as a cultural institution and the corporate entertainment business.

A broad range of other outreach initiatives have been undertaken in recent years in Poland, but these are beyond the scope of this article. Overall, they confirm the view expressed by archaeologists worldwide that public archaeology activities equate mainly with education and dissemination (e.g. Piślewska, Reference Piślewska2015: 34). As such, they can be linked with Merriman's (Reference Merriman and Merriman2004b: 3–4) ‘deficit model’ or Holtorf's (Reference Holtorf2007: 150) mixture of ‘the educational model’ and ‘the public relation model’. Such attitudes have, however, been disparaged for making the role of the public relatively passive and for communicating archaeology in an expert mode, in what has been labelled the ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (Smith, Reference Smith2006). Although ‘the idea of education underlies a great deal of work in public archaeology, based on the principle that experts have a responsibility to share their knowledge with those who can appreciate and use it’ (Moshenska, Reference Moshenska and Moshenska2017b: 8), dissemination cannot be a top-down and one-way process, from archaeologists to the general public. Rather, we have to take into account how public engagement can be integrated into archaeological outreach activities. Luckily, the situation has been slowly changing towards a more participatory archaeology focused on community-oriented projects.

A Step Forward: Community-Oriented Archaeology

As stated, the scope of public archaeology should not be equated with the education of the general public about the past and its archaeology or with outreach programmes alone. Far more important goals determine dialectic relations between archaeology and society; these have been defined in community archaeology (e.g. Moshenska & Dhanjal, Reference Moshenska and Dhanjal2011; Thomas, Reference Thomas and Moshenska2017). Thus, the aims of such an understanding of public archaeology are not directed at teaching people about the past, but ‘rather it is more about treating local communities and various stakeholders as partners in a dialogue about the past and its value in the present’ (Kajda & Kobiałka, Reference Kajda and Kobiałka2018: 80). The involvement of local communities that feel associated with the places where archaeologists work is of crucial importance. The characteristic element of such society-driven initiatives is that they rely on a community's engagement with archaeological projects, so that local groups may have an influence on their goals and outcomes. Such collaboration can lead archaeologists to change the way they approach a particular site or the methods and theories they use to understand past relics and interpret past human actions (Agbe-Davies, Reference Agbe-Davies and Smith2014: 1600).

An example of such an initiative is a project jointly conducted by archaeologists and the Association for the Development of Villages (‘Razem’) at Bieniów, entitled ‘applied archaeology: society-past-remote sensing’ (Kajda & Kostyrko, Reference Kajda and Kostyrko2016; Kajda & Kobiałka, Reference Kajda and Kobiałka2018: 81–85). The research was undertaken in response to a request from the Razem association. The project set out to identify the structure of the early medieval stronghold, located between the villages of Biedrzychowice Dolne and Bieniów, using remote sensing methods and presenting the effectiveness of modern techniques in archaeological investigations. In addition to its scientific goals, the project's objectives were to promote the local archaeological heritage and to show the value of cooperation with local communities. Thus, interviews with the inhabitants of the villages were conducted. They were intended to examine the inhabitants’ attitude to the past, the surrounding landscape, and to illuminate their perception of heritage. Additionally, lessons for children from nearby schools took place at the site to introduce them to archaeology, to the protection of archaeological monuments, and to the significance of cultural heritage.

An international project, ‘Community archaeology in rural environments: meeting social challenges’ (2019–2022) (https://archaeologyeurope.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/), is another interesting initiative. Local rural communities are encouraged to participate in archaeological discoveries in villages from regions as varied in terms of culture, landscape, history, and rurality as the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, and Czechia. Over three years, local people have been working with archaeologists to investigate their village, using finds from multiple test pit excavations, which the residents themselves plan and carry out. The project's objectives include connecting rural communities to their local heritage and drawing attention to the social and scientific value of a heritage that is often overlooked but which is an important element of rural landscapes. Based on the excavated data and local stories, the proposed approach concentrates on writing historical narratives that connect the present-day place and people with their tangible heritage and landscape biography. The project also strives to achieve wider societal benefits, namely to raise the educational aspirations of local communities, improve social mobility and community self-esteem, strengthen social cohesion, and increase opportunities for locally-based extra curricular activities.

In Poland, some initiatives, which follow the guidelines of community archaeology, refer to the increasingly popular trend for investigating the archaeology of the contemporary past. They usually target the study of the relics of the painful events of the twentieth century. Good examples are the projects ‘Archaeology as an antidote to oblivion and vandalism: Towards roadside history lessons from the First World War (1914–2014)’ and ‘Archaeology of reconciliation: Roadside history lessons on the Great War by the Rawka River as lessons in reconciliation (1915–2015)’. Their main idea was to restore ‘the memory of places, things and human deeds that were almost completely erased from historiography’ (Zalewska, Reference Zalewska2017: 67), in this case the memory and knowledge of the use of chemical weapons by the German forces on the Eastern Front during the First World War in 1915. These projects were intended not only to disseminate knowledge about activities carried out in this region at this time, but also to sensitize the public to care for the memory of the past (Zalewska, Reference Zalewska2014). The projects developed numerous didactic tools that proved useful in restoring the memory of events from years ago, directly related to material carriers of knowledge, meaning, and memory of the Great War. The publication on these events was prepared and distributed to the local community, and information boards were put in significant places in the region (Zalewska, Reference Zalewska2014: 34). Much attention was also paid to recognizing attitudes towards the material remains of the conflict among the local population and their level of knowledge about them. Moreover, several community initiatives were carried out to protect the most vulnerable objects, and a workshop was organized for the local youth in the cemetery of Bolimowska Wieś where fallen German soldiers are buried.

The potential of community-oriented projects, which are at an initial stage in Poland, has not yet been fully explored. Although they are usually grant-aided and short-term initiatives, they show a slow but important shift in attitudes and thinking about the relationship between archaeologists and communities that extends beyond simple outreach and includes attempts to engage communities directly with archaeological practice and their own heritage (Olivier, Reference Olivier and Florjanowicz2015: 14). Community-oriented initiatives can be considered enriching when compared to professionally directed projects. Yet numerous challenges and pitfalls must be overcome: for example, the need to reconsider notions of what constitutes a ‘community’, how to conduct participatory research, how to approach alternative understandings of heritage and interpretations of the past, how to foster long-term commitment, or how to avoid superficial involvement. Some scholars also argue that allowing untrained non-professionals to carry out archaeological research is akin to vandalism (e.g. Zalewska, Reference Zalewska and Wojdon2018: 24). Finally, the political exploitation and potential misuses of interpretations of the past must also be considered (Thomas, Reference Thomas and Moshenska2017: 22).

Future Prospects and Conclusions

Despite public engagement being still underestimated by many professionals in Poland, the situation is slowly changing. Nevertheless, we still observe in many initiatives the predominance of the education and the deficit models that see the wider public as an entity to be informed by archaeologists. Public archaeology in Poland can be interpreted as a commitment on the part of archaeologists to make archaeology more relevant to contemporary society and as an endeavour that is more practice-oriented (Matsuda & Okamura, Reference Matsuda, Okamura, Matsuda and Okamura2011b: 7). However, I argue that it is not enough to pay attention just to popularization; we should move beyond it, since ‘outreach is attached to archaeology by principle; it should never be exceptional’ (Almansa-Sánchez, Reference Almansa-Sánchez2018: 202).

Here, I propose a number of actions that should be undertaken in this most promising area for future development. First, it seems urgent to concentrate our efforts on providing theoretical frameworks for public archaeology and to conceptualize what it means and how it operates in the Polish context. As mentioned, there is no discussion among professionals aimed at reaching a consensus on how public archaeology should be defined. Taking into account the different national contexts, the disciplinary traditions of archaeology, and the socio-economic and cultural circumstances under which public archaeology is subject to policy (Matsuda & Okamura, Reference Matsuda and Okamura2011a; Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez, Reference Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez2015: 196), it is not justifiable to simply impose a definition of public archaeology from outside. Thus, a concept that is relevant to the distinctive nature of Polish archaeological practice must be worked out. Only then can more integrated methodologies be implemented, addressing complex issues of practising public archaeology; these would facilitate collaboration across and beyond academic disciplines and point to possible directions which might bring collective benefits.

Second, the development of a training programme dedicated to public archaeology is equally important. The growing interest of non-academics and academics, as well as the increasing involvement of archaeology graduates in public outreach and community-involved activities, is forcing systemic changes in the archaeological curriculum at Polish universities. Courses on public archaeology, museology, archaeological education, and popularization are still insufficient in Poland. A dedicated public archaeology MA programme devoted to theoretical and practical training is needed. It would equip graduates with a distinct set of skills and knowledge that would enable them to pursue careers in professional organizations associated with archaeology, museums, and the cultural and heritage sector, and to effectively implement the aims of public archaeology in their work.

Third, educational and outreach activities should be continued but in a different manner. Regardless of its positive impact on the field, ‘public archaeology as education’ often represents a form of public archaeology that meets the needs of archaeology and is not aimed at the needs of the ‘public at large’ (McDavid & Brock, Reference McDavid, Brock, Gnecco and Lippert2015: 162). This is true in the Polish case. Thus, I advocate setting out potential future directions for public archaeology education in order to progress it in a meaningful way and make it more inclusive and participatory. It demands, on the part of the archaeologists, a different perspective on cooperation: namely a departure from a top-down approach and a move towards ‘teaching through rather than about archaeology’ (Bartoy, Reference Bartoy, Skeates, McDavid and Carman2012). I share the opinion that educational opportunities can empower us collectively towards critical thinking and historical insights, as well as offering an understanding of the human condition within time and space. Such opportunities also foster community building, inclusivity, and pluralism (social, national, cultural, etc.). They can also teach us to practise living more tolerantly in a multicultural society and change people's worldviews, perhaps the most important future direction for public archaeology (Simandiraki-Grimshaw, Reference Simandiraki-Grimshaw and Smith2020: 8982). A proper education can prove to be a remedy to the ‘epistemic popularism’ that public archaeology and heritage studies have been tending towards in present-day Europe (see González-Ruibal et al., Reference González-Ruibal, Alonso-González and Criado-Boado2018).

The engagement of local communities in archaeological research and cooperation with the public at a local level is very important since the heritage belongs to the community and is part of its world (Chroustovský, Reference Chroustovský2019: 3). The archaeological heritage is not exclusively the domain of archaeologists, and broad access to it is a sine qua non condition if heritage is to be an important element of social life and archaeological heritage protection policies are to be continued. Such an approach requires a change in the attitude of professionals, who should accept that archaeological heritage is not only about the past but predominately about the present. Moreover, heritage can serve multiple social stakeholders, their interests and desires. Archaeology and heritage are meaningful for them; there is therefore a need to take them seriously throughout the heritage management process. Thus, we, as archaeologists, must learn ‘how to fulfil a public role by engaging with communities as co-creators placing the past at the service of the public so that it is relevant and useful in the context of their daily lives’ (Olivier, Reference Olivier and Florjanowicz2015: 13).

Further, academia must become more involved in public archaeology and assimilate the goals of public archaeology into its research projects. Although outreach or community involvement might be mandatory in some state-funded projects, this is not enough, since the engagement of professionals in such initiatives is crucial if we are to conduct research that inspires community-oriented work and fosters the self-reflexivity that must underpin serious community engagement (Agbe-Davies, Reference Agbe-Davies and Smith2014: 1600; Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez, Reference Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez2015: 205). To fulfil these aims, more funding opportunities to support research from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education should be made available. Yet, today, in calls for application to the relevant archaeology panel of the National Science Centre, issues regarding public archaeology are not included. Consequently, there are no possibilities or sufficient funds for conducting such projects. Such a situation has not been improved by the fact that other smaller programmes allow for minor funding opportunities; for example, the National Heritage Board of Poland, which regularly calls for archaeological projects and requires applicants to include the public visibility of their project activities (e.g. open lectures for local people, exhibitions, etc.). Further, a partial solution to this situation is offered by the participation of Polish archaeologists in international projects, but such initiatives do not fill the gap. Thus, effective undertakings on a much wider scale must be secured on a national level for public and community archaeology initiatives within programmes designed specifically to support basic research.

The evaluation of the attitudes of archaeology's stakeholders and of public archaeology projects is of crucial importance. It should be the first and essential step in any initiative of that kind. Unfortunately, such research is an exception in Polish archaeology and only a few studies have been conducted so far. The NEARCH survey of the perception of heritage and archaeology by European citizens (including Poles) (Kajda et al., Reference Kajda, Marx, Wright, Richards, Marciniak and Salas Rossenbach2018) or small-scale studies, concentrating on local communities and their view of heritage (e.g. Kajda & Kostyrko, Reference Kajda and Kostyrko2016), can serve as examples. For now, the paucity of data is probably the greatest barrier to future developments in public archaeology in Poland. Consequently, there is an urgent need to conduct large-scale surveys using qualitative and quantitative social research methods as a means of gauging public attitudes, concerns, and expectations. Evaluation would produce a more sophisticated body of knowledge to make informed choices about the conservation, management, presentation, and interpretation of archaeological heritage and make community engagement initiatives more proactive and relevant (e.g. Moshenska, Reference Moshenska and Moshenska2017b: 12–13; Almansa-Sánchez, Reference Almansa-Sánchez2018: 203).

Finally, archaeology has to actively engage in the crucial issues of the contemporary world. The assumptions of community archaeology are similar in many places, with aims set out in ‘contemporary archaeology’ (Moshenska & Dhanjal, Reference Moshenska and Dhanjal2011; Zalewska, Reference Zalewska and Wojdon2018: 22). As a result, archaeological research is increasingly accompanied by the proactive involvement of people from outside the archaeological milieu. Contemporary archaeology requires the discipline to redefine its public role so that it not only addresses the greatest challenges of the present, marked by dramatic events and conflicts, but also resists attempts to glamourize or forget them. We must abandon those paternalistic attitudes that perpetuate the top-down transmission of knowledge from archaeologists to the general public in order to develop more inclusive and participatory attitudes to interpretation of archaeological heritage and the past, such as those promoted by community archaeology.