Umeå University's logo

Public Archeology 2015 was a twelve-month project led by archaeologists and non-archaeologists to create public engagement with archaeology

This article examines the ‘punk archaeology’ movement through the lens of the present economic circumstances of public archaeology in the United Kingdom. It will situate the DIY aesthetic of punk archaeology within the capitalist economy, and will discuss the variety of political and economic issues demanding critical examination which emerge from the punk aesthetic enjoyed by the protagonists of the movement. It will discuss the impact of surveillance and digital capitalism, prosumer commodification, using volunteer labour to replace paid professionals and overarching ethical considerations. It argues that, while the ambitions of the punk archaeology manifesto are laudable, too little critical thought has been applied to the claims it has made for revolution within the discipline of archaeology, and this article will instead make a case for a more considered approach to public archaeology practice.

From early discussions of the disruptive potential of computer technologies for archaeological applications, to the present era of digital archaeology as the technical underpinning of modern archaeological practice, we have continued to debate the potential impacts of digital communication and digital capture and storage on our knowledge, profession and communications. The increased use of digital tools and methods for archaeological research and dissemination, as well as what Roosevelt (2015) has referred to as the shift to the digital paradigm within archaeological practice, leads us to suggest that the impact of this paradigm shift requires careful and critical examination. This article will examine the edges of the disciplines of archaeology and sociology, where we aim to advance our understanding of the relationship between digital technologies and archaeological knowledge from a uniquely social perspective, using the theoretical approaches of both classic and modern sociologists. The application of this lens of sociology to digital archaeology equips us to understand how archaeology and archaeological practice is situated in a social world, which is especially relevant in the Global West, where digital technology is ubiquitous. Through a critical consideration of the complexity of use of digital technologies within digital archaeology, we can begin to shift our focus away from the character and method of tools and workflow, to the background of intellectual power and influence. 

Public Archaeology 2015 was a year-long project dedicated to the creation of public engagement and involvement with archaeological projects and subjects. Month-long projects were devised and enacted by both archaeologists and non-archaeologists, with the impact of the project residing in the moments of engagement themselves rather than critical or academic analysis with the benefit of hindsight. In this short article, the convenors of the project discuss the project's central ethos and its relationship to wider debates on co-production and impact assessment in public archaeology. It expands discussion on the opposition therein between impetus provided by 'experts' and from 'amateurs'. The project aimed to use a different mode of operation to existing 'top-down' or 'bottom-up' models of collaboration, and created a democratic situation where different kinds of public engagement with archaeology took place within a wider context of those central terms — public, archaeology, engagement — being kept intentionally fluid and open to interpretation.

This research was presented at the UCL Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage workshop and here it is summarised as a response to the lead forum article 'Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage: Reflections and Agendas'.

Archaeology is a discipline influenced by emerging cultural trends, especially with regard to theoretical approaches to interpretation and practice. Public archaeology is a relatively young approach, still finding its feet, and loose definitions of it have opened the door to multiple perspectives and opportunities. When research agendas include the issue of public engagement, we need to approach our practices critically from the beginning, and consider the consequences of 'doing' public archaeology. Moving beyond an understanding of the theoretical backdrop to our work, we first need to situate our work socially, politically and economically. This article will bring necessary critique to some current trends in public archaeology, proposing that commitment to sustainability, inclusivity and ethics are the basis for a responsible practice.

The dominance of social media technologies on the Internet has located virtual communities around the use of proprietary social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, although the situation, location and definition of any online community are constantly evolving. Belonging to a number of these online communities, through social networking sites or forums is becoming a normal practice among Internet users. Yet much of the academic analysis of these online communities and networks takes place in isolation from the activities of the community itself in real life. This abstracts the community ties that people also hold offline with their online networks and does not consider the relationships and interactions that may also exist offline. This article will explore the experiences of archaeologists using the micro-blogging platform Twitter, and explore how the format and communication supported by Twitter creates a sense of community online and offline, and support professional and personal networking, using the concepts of weak ties and social capital.

These survey results are from an online survey of 577 UK-based archaeological volunteers, professional archaeologists and archaeological organisations. These data cover a variety of topics related to how and why people access the Internet for information about archaeology, including demographic information, activity relating to accessing information on archaeological topics, archaeological sharing and networking and the use of mobile phone apps and QR codes for public engagement. There is wide scope for further qualitative and quantitative analysis of these data.