Reuben Grima

But Isn't All Archaeology ‘Public’ Archaeology?

This paper focuses on two trends in the debate over the scope and nature of public archaeology. The first is a growing concern to define and codify its disciplinary boundaries. The second trend, arguably in tension with the first, is the ever-widening exploration of how people engage with their past, and the ramifications for the way archaeology, in its widest sense, is practised. It is argued that an excessive preoccupation with demarcating the disciplinary boundaries of public archaeology may risk obscuring a far more important objective, tied to the second trend referred to above. Debates on the relationship between the public, the past, and archaeological practice have resulted in a sea-change in attitudes to the responsibilities of the archaeologist, in the relationship between scientific knowledge and popular and indigenous knowledge, and in ideas about the relevance and usability of the past. Public archaeology is concerned with all these issues. It is argued that, to fulfil this wider vision, public archaeology cannot afford the strictures of a specialized discipline within archaeology, but must remain a persistent, essential, and foundational ingredient in the competencies and sensibilities of every archaeologist and co-worker in the field.

Archaeology as encounter

Among the influences that have altered the nature of archaeology over the past two decades, two major trends are singled out for discussion here. The first is the emerging interest in understanding the subjective experiences and perceptions of life in the past. The second trend is the growing concern with making archaeology more meaningful and accessible to a wider public. Some of the characteristics of these two trends will be considered in turn. It is then argued that, although these two movements are generally considered as quite separate issues, they stem from shared social and historic roots. The recognition of the inseparability of these two areas of concern has far-reaching implications for the nature and role of future archaeological practice.

The protective shelters at Hagar Qim and Mnajdra : impacts, dilemmas and values

Engineering technology has opened up many new possibilities for the protection of cultural heritage, which have brought with them the attendant dilemmas on the risks and impacts posed by those possibilities themselves. The case of the protective shelters over ĦaġarQim and Mnajdra, completed in 2009,is examined here in order to explore some of the dilemmas that were faced from inception to completion, the values that informed the decisions that were taken, and some reflections two years after their completion. Apart from the benefits for the material conservation of the monuments, it is argued that their symbolic and aesthetic values may have been reinterpreted rather than degraded by the intervention.

Sheltering archaeological sites in Malta: lessons learnt

The purpose of this paper is to review the performance of the protective shelters installed over three archaeological sites in Malta over the past decade, and to draw some key lessons learnt that may be useful to others when considering whether to adopt a similar solution. The conservation threats to the Megalithic Temples of Malta are introduced and defined—these range from material issues (loss of surface) to structural issues (cracking and dislodgement of stones leading to structural instability and collapses). Causes identified specifically included fluctuating environmental conditions: wetting and drying cycles and thermal fluctuations, combined with the salt-laden Mediterranean island environment. The recognition during the late twentieth century of these issues as key factors in the deterioration of these structures, and the strategy that was developed in response, are outlined. A key component of this strategy was the installation of protective shelters over three of the main megalithic sites. The process through which the design requirements for the shelters were defined is reviewed. The performance of the shelters is then examined, through a critical review of unpublished reports and published studies. An evidence-based summary of the beneficial effects of the shelters is provided, and the possibility of any harmful effects discussed. A number of lessons learnt through this process are then identified. One key lesson is that the microenvironment in a newly-sheltered site is at a transitional stage that does not necessarily reflect longer-term trends, which therefore require long-term monitoring to be understood. The choice and number of environmental parameters to be monitored need to be informed by a careful consideration of their sustainability, both in terms of equipment and human resources. Any monitoring programme, however well-designed, needs to be open to re-evaluation and revision where needed. As more experience and data are accumulated from different sheltering projects, it will become more feasible to establish performance indicators in advance of a sheltering intervention, on the basis of which to evaluate its performance. The experience of these projects is then used to inform a checklist of key considerations for anyone considering whether to shelter an archaeological site. The foremost consideration is that every site requires a site-specific strategy tailored to its needs. The decision whether a shelter is desirable, and what its performance requirements should be, may only be taken in the context of such a strategy. This paper should help define the parameters for such a decision to take place.