Why are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow

AU - Perry, Sara Elizabeth

N1 - This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

PY - 2018/8

Y1 - 2018/8

N2 - 'Heritage interpretation' is generally conceived as the development and presentation of knowledge about the past for public audiences. Most obviously evidenced in descriptive signs, guides and related media installed on archaeological and cultural sites, heritage interpretation has more than a half-century of theory and applied practice behind it, yet it continues to sit uncomfortably within the typical archaeological workflow. While the concept can be criticized on many fronts, of concern is the lack of recognition that it is of equal relevance to *both* non-expert and expert audiences (as opposed to non-expert audiences alone). Our profession appears to rest on an assumption that archaeologists do their own kind of interpretation—and, separately, non-experts require a special approach that heritage interpreters must facilitate, but that field specialists have no need for—or from which little obvious expert benefit can be derived. For this reason, it is rare to find heritage interpreters embedded in primary fieldwork teams. Here I call for a rethinking of the traditional workflow, with a view to integrating the heritage interpretation toolkit and heritage interpreters themselves into our basic field methodologies. Their direct involvement in disciplinary process from the outset has the potential to transform archaeological interpretation overall.

AB - 'Heritage interpretation' is generally conceived as the development and presentation of knowledge about the past for public audiences. Most obviously evidenced in descriptive signs, guides and related media installed on archaeological and cultural sites, heritage interpretation has more than a half-century of theory and applied practice behind it, yet it continues to sit uncomfortably within the typical archaeological workflow. While the concept can be criticized on many fronts, of concern is the lack of recognition that it is of equal relevance to *both* non-expert and expert audiences (as opposed to non-expert audiences alone). Our profession appears to rest on an assumption that archaeologists do their own kind of interpretation—and, separately, non-experts require a special approach that heritage interpreters must facilitate, but that field specialists have no need for—or from which little obvious expert benefit can be derived. For this reason, it is rare to find heritage interpreters embedded in primary fieldwork teams. Here I call for a rethinking of the traditional workflow, with a view to integrating the heritage interpretation toolkit and heritage interpreters themselves into our basic field methodologies. Their direct involvement in disciplinary process from the outset has the potential to transform archaeological interpretation overall.

U2 - 10.1017/aap.2018.21

DO - 10.1017/aap.2018.21

M3 - Article

SN - 2326-3768

VL - 6

SP - 212

EP - 227

JO - Advances in Archaeological Practice

JF - Advances in Archaeological Practice

IS - 3

ER -