8th August 2009, 05:18 PM
I think that I had two points in mind. Firstly, just that people don't always seem overly keen on the past if it's viewed as something that is dead and gone, especially if it is not seen as "their" past (e.g. the under representation of ethnic minorities in British archaeology). However, if you can demonstrate to people that the past can be used to understand the world around them today, i.e. that it has relevance, then they are more likely to be interested in it.
Secondly, that in my view (and YMMV), archaeology, no matter how gifted and dedicated the archaeologists, can never hope to fully explain the past and answer the questions. Indeed, even working out the questions in the first place is often a stumbling block. It can only hope to create stories that use interpretations of the past as their framework but are really metaphors for the present. Thus, returning to the point above.....archaeology probably says more about the world today than it can ever hope to say about the past because what we call the past is only yet another tool that we use to express our understandings of present reality.
So, taking the second point into account...I'd say that to engage the public in the past we can take two further steps. Firstly, we can demonstrate how we have engaged with the process (with a little 'p') of archaeology on personal and social levels as well as formal, and thus demonstrate what a rich 'life-way' it is. And, rather than telling people what happened in the past as a "done deal", we give them a framework to base their own interpretations on, and to place themselves within the ever-evolving pastscape.
I hope that makes sense?
Secondly, that in my view (and YMMV), archaeology, no matter how gifted and dedicated the archaeologists, can never hope to fully explain the past and answer the questions. Indeed, even working out the questions in the first place is often a stumbling block. It can only hope to create stories that use interpretations of the past as their framework but are really metaphors for the present. Thus, returning to the point above.....archaeology probably says more about the world today than it can ever hope to say about the past because what we call the past is only yet another tool that we use to express our understandings of present reality.
So, taking the second point into account...I'd say that to engage the public in the past we can take two further steps. Firstly, we can demonstrate how we have engaged with the process (with a little 'p') of archaeology on personal and social levels as well as formal, and thus demonstrate what a rich 'life-way' it is. And, rather than telling people what happened in the past as a "done deal", we give them a framework to base their own interpretations on, and to place themselves within the ever-evolving pastscape.
I hope that makes sense?