*THIS IS THE DRAFT VERSION OF THE ARTICLE Jaime Almansa Sánchez To be or not to be. Public archaeology as a tool of public opinion and the dilemma of intellectuality. Abstract Stating the value of archaeology for contemporary society is a very difficult task hardly played by archaeologists. The work with a contemporary record directly linked with local communities and the approach of public archaeology, have helped to bring closer society and archaeology. However, the role of a public intellectual goes beyond archaeology, delving into current social worries. Is it possible to play this game from archaeology? The multiple and complex relations between archaeology and society open the door to participate in public debates, but we stand to lose our essence. With a Shakespearian dilemma, we face the possibility of having an influential voice in the present, or just an expert opinion. Keywords: Public Archaeology, Contemporary Society, Opinion, Influence, Social Media, Public Intellectual “I sentence you to be exposed before your peers tear down the wall!” Pink Floyd, The trial (The Wall, 1979) Introduction. In times of crisis, budgets are indiscriminately cut and culture is usually one of the first victims. In the political discourse, this situation answers to the classical misconception of Utilitarianism (Mill 1895, 14) that sees utility opposed to pleasure and so, culture as useless. However, as politics are not ruled by logic, there is always a need to offer qualitative values for everything. Moreover, the commoditization of daily life transforms these values into an economical category that also affects archaeology. In this context, archaeology has been reduced to an oriented service that fills some legal obligations and the whims of the public. Research remains in the background, or entrenched in countries where commercial archaeology has not appeared yet. Meanwhile, some sectors of Academia do not realize the seriousness of these matters hiding behind the scientific wall and disconnected from reality. According to Lonely Planet, one of the mainstream tourism advisors worldwide, many of the most visited places are in some way related to heritage/archaeology (www.lonelyplanet.com). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas, the archaeo-appeal defined by Holtorf (2005, 150) is the reflection of a market that we did not directly open, where alternative archaeologies took over the control. This has distorted the image of archaeology up to a point where John Carpenter, George Lucas or Ridley Scott have become spokesmen of our discipline following the path of classic authors like Lovecraft (Frigoli 2010) or the mysterious imagination of other modern ones like Sitchin or Von Daniken (Fagan 2006). What do people know about archaeology? There are not many published surveys, but the ones we have are interesting (e.g. Ramos and Duganne 2000; Almansa 2006). There is an evident interest in archaeology, but its image among most interested people answers to wrong conceptions. However, basic concepts like ‘past’ and ‘heritage’ remain clear. It is from them how we can find some of the most extended values that archaeology has for contemporary society. In a survey I am currently conducting among Spanish students, to the question ‘What is archaeology good for in real life?’ stereotypes like knowing the past to improve the future appear constantly. Knowledge, roots, heritage, tourism, identity or nothing, are some of the other answers. What is the message we have been delivering? Talking to a wall… and tearing it down Excluding important exceptions like Sir Mortimer Wheeler (Moshenska and Schadla-Hall 2011), archaeologists have been disconnected from society, only giving ‘facts’ about the past and heritage to consume, alongside internal and external misuses of the past that led to a political and economical abuse of archaeology. Current critics from public archaeology state this problem trying to get closer to local communities and making archaeology more understandable (Simpson 2008). However, the impact of those approaches is still too narrow to really affect society in a wider perspective. Are we even capable of changing public perceptions about archaeology? During the summer 2012, two movies have broken the box office in Spain; Prometheus and Tadeo Jones. [Spoiler] In the first one, as a prequel of the Alien saga, Ridley Scott takes the theories of intelligent design and alien intervention to explain the origins of humankind and supports it with fake archaeological evidence (the main character is an archaeologist). In the second one, a Spanish production, the Odyssey affair and its repercussion in the media (Rodríguez Temiño 2012, 389-402) modified the plot of the movie. The main character is a construction worker (amateur archaeologist) that usurps the identity of a real archaeologist and ends up fighting professional looters, but keeping the image of the treasure hunter. We like it or not, these are the images that permeate society. Today, the Internet has become a real tool of communication, and social media represent an opportunity for archaeology. However, there are still shadows in the use and misuse of the Internet and some authors are already drawing attention to it (Morozov 2011), even in the field of archaeology (Richardson 2012). There have been some examples of successful engagement from the Internet, like the Prescott Street Project in 2008, which used its own website (www.lparchaeology.com), or Torre dos Mouros in 2012, which extended the action also to social media (torredosmouros.net). Anyway, one of the main obstacles to succeed, even in the Internet, is audience and both of them had a strong support in the field too. Measuring fans, likes, shares, followers, pins, etc. is still ambiguous. It is not clear the relation between the number of followers, likes or shares and the actual impact of messages. Liking a page on Facebook is a one-moment-action that might be forgotten in an overcrowded wall. The same happens with Twitter feeds, when a user follows hundreds of profiles. If there is not a real concern (previous, or properly built from the network) it is very difficult to keep a loyal audience. In my experience after the edition of a controversial book (Almansa 2011) and its associated blog, lack of participation is a worrying issue even for concerned archaeologists. If engaging them is difficult, opening to the wider public can be even more. The Internet is not such an efficient tool as we may think, but helps. It is through direct work with the community how we majorly interact with people. However, this does not seem to be enough, and although projects with public and community archaeology programs are rapidly increasing, the gap between archaeology and society is still large. We have started to tear down the wall, but should we stop here? Finding new values in contemporary contexts Archaeology has a problem in its name. The science of the old is now becoming a contemporary activity intruding the present. Little by little some archaeologists become ‘too much’ contemporary even for their peers, and this situation makes us face in a more clear way a range of social, political and economical issues that affect our practice and its context. The political misuse of archaeology in nationalistic discourses, or the commoditization of ancient remarkable sites for economic reasons are well known. What is not as obvious is the political potential of urban archaeology or the social implications of foreign missions in developing countries. I like to define public archaeology as the study of and action in the multiple relations between archaeology and society (Almansa 2010). It is probably due to this approach how I started to look around when working. The context of our work is the context of contemporary society, with the same circumstances. Filling the gap between archaeology and society must start from this reality and our place in the site. What else can we (or should we) do while doing archaeology? The work with the community and the wider society should not only be archaeology-related. Learning about the site and our work is an advance in the recognition of archaeology as a profession, but in certain contexts we can actually do more (McGuire 2008; Stottman 2010). The living conflicts and connections between many archaeological sites and current society have opened a line of action that directly interacts with contemporary social reality. But what happens when there is not a clear link? In 2010, the regional government of Oromia (Ethiopia) contracted me to consult on a pollution problem in Melka Kunture, a prominent Palaeolithic site that aims to be the next World Heritage Site of the country. After a first survey, we realized the problem went far beyond heritage to a serious health issue in the area. What should we do? We modified the project to use the site as a tool instead of an end, making archaeology useful for a local community totally disconnected from it (Almansa and Degeffa 2011). This example shows us we do not need a contemporary site, but a contemporary approach. The role of public archaeology as a tool of opinion in contemporary society We do have a voice in the present, but we still haul a heavy weight of fears and hurdles. Letting people participate from archaeology only fills the gap in one direction, but public archaeology lets us engage with society from a critical perspective, able to offer something beyond the archaeological record. Is not that the way to become a public intellectual? It is difficult to define what a public intellectual really is today. Big names like Chomsky, Dawkins or Krugman are still present in mayor media. Others like Negri or Bourdieu stay only in the shelves of other intellectuals. In the 2008 list of the Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll conducted by Prospect Magazine and Foreign Policy I hardly recognize one among the first ten. Meanwhile, the general public only gets to listen to local polemists on political TV shows or other influential celebrities like Jon Stewart from The Daily Show or his equivalent in Spain, José Miguel Monzón (El Gran Wyoming) from El Intermedio. This being optimistic and not talking about the social impact of gossip media. With a recognized crisis around public intellectuals (Drezner 2009; Etzioni and Bowditch 2006), it is extremely difficult to become one, at least a recognized one. As said before, the expansion of the Internet has changed the panorama completely. A computer and an opinion can build a public intellectual anywhere. But what is a public intellectual anyway? As archaeologists we do not have this conception, even when we do have an opinion in many political, social and economical issues, not only related to our sites, but to more general aspects. However, we still stand dumb in current conflicts that affect our work. When the regional government of Madrid proposed the new draft law of heritage, which is negligent, less than twenty of the more than five hundred registered archaeologists in the region worked concerned to plead (Ansede 2012), approximately the same ones who worked for the frustrated labour agreement. After the distorted news of Angela Micol’s discovery in Egypt, it was me, as an individual, who called the attention of the newspaper (Delclòs 2012), and so on. I ascribe this situation to several factors (in Spain at least); first, to the wall built around archaeology for decades. Second, to the distant message we provide the public with. Third, to the fear to do anything that goes beyond archaeology. But mainly to an extremely polarized collective that is not able to agree on the most essential ideas. These factors make it difficult to express opinions when first questioning and opposition comes from your peers. Hopefully these problems seem to answer to a generational factor, and new trends in Spanish archaeology support the idea. Anyhow, using public archaeology as a tool of opinion in contemporary society is not only a way to interact with communities in a different way. It also requires a radical, critical approach to the reality we are living in. Actions should involve politics and being consistent with our thoughts might create conflicts at different levels. Standing against your local administration, or some urban developments are normal situations in the life of an archaeologist. These situations are extraordinary contexts to set ourselves as public intellectuals, explaining the reasons that made us take certain decisions. Instead, we do not communicate promoting ideas like we are an obstacle for development, treasure hunters, utopian bookworms or evil human beings that do not understand the needs of people (all real descriptions I have documented). Here, the value of public archaeology is essential, not only as a tool of communication and understanding, but also as a tool of opinion that can make the difference in the local level. Our expert opinion is essential for planning policies, rural development, identitary disputes and many other situations of contemporary life. Generally, we are not giving this opinion yet although it is becoming extremely necessary, first of all, for us. But are we ready to go further? Discussion Education, mass media and now social media, have given everybody the possibility of expressing their opinions to the highest level. With so many voices telling ‘truths’, we have on the one hand an elite of public intellectuals (or celebrities) coping television and newspapers, and on the other one, noise. In April 2011, Aleix Saló, a Spanish illustrator, published a very interesting comic, which promoted with a YouTube video about the real estate bubble in Spain (Saló 2011). The video turned viral on social media with more than 5 million visits in one year and the comic became extremely popular. Today, all major media in Spain use Saló’s comics to talk about the crisis and he has become a kind of public intellectual whose opinion matters. Several archaeologists have pointed out some of these issues from the relation construction-archaeology, but there has been no impact. Gaining influence should be the first task, but how can we do it? If we try to write “The handbook to become a public intellectual from nothing (archaeology)”, we need to take two facts into account; first of all, that besides any survey, the interest for archaeology is not as high as we may think, at least as we understand archaeology. Second, that we need to make a lot of noise to be heard. Only then we would have the opportunity to be listened to, but this would not ensure our permanence. A traditional way to become a public intellectual, would need years of strong research in contemporary politics, economy and social trends, and a series of writings to be valued and reproduced by peers. In any of the cases, would we still be archaeologists? Hugh Laurie, famous actor and musician, is also an archaeologist, but nobody tags him as one. I myself was once tagged as sociologist instead of archaeologist for doing public archaeology. We risk losing our professional identity for a name in a list. So the first question in the dilemma of intellectuality is, why do we want to become public intellectuals? If becoming a public intellectual means to leave archaeology apart, and considering that, as archaeologists, we still have certain professional responsibilities, the value of becoming a public intellectual would not be comparable to becoming a recognized expert in reference to our area of work. I personally do not think we need to be public intellectuals, or at least that should not be our goal. Maybe it would be enough to be public archaeologists. We have the tools and only need the attitude. Transforming our daily work into a socially committed action can set our profession as something more than a stereotype. However, the difficulty of conducting these kinds of projects is determinant in contexts of commercial archaeology or low budgets. Archaeology is important, and useful. We know it, but we fail to make others know. Before giving opinions on other topics we must learn to communicate the multiple values of our work and its reality. Empowering archaeology in the social (and political) arena helps to improve the image and value of our discipline. Participation in daily matters where we should have a voice facilitates engagement with communities and brings archaeology closer to reality. Also, activism and political action from archaeology promote new values closer to people. This is the way to build a loyal audience. All these are goals of public archaeology, and a way to go further. Would we need to go further if we accomplished a real public concern for archaeology? Concluding, in any case there are two essential premises we need to fulfil before considering a step forward: -Commitment/Collective. The weakness and polarization of our profession makes it very difficult to progress as a collective and as public figures. It is critical to bring positions closer and to commit for common goals. Corporatism is basic for the profession, not only by sectors. I understand this premise as essential from Plauto’s ‘Homo homini lupus’. In order to succeed as a group and individuals, we need to work together. Having the enemy home is not helpful to get a recognized voice in the public sphere. -Influence/Audience. Delivering our message to the wider public is not as simple as we normally think. Once our first role as researchers is accomplished, we can start thinking about building and influencing our audiences. Social media is a great tool of communication, but not the only or the better one. We need to learn to communicate and after that, to cultivate the loyalty of our audience. It is then, when this audience can start to grow, and so our influence. Without a public listening to us, we have nothing to say. Achieved these two premises, public archaeology as a tool for opinion in contemporary society can be successfully practiced as a collective. We may not be public intellectuals, but we will have a voice and an acknowledged audience. With patience and commitment, the collective value of archaeology will increase, preparing the ground for other individual progresses in the public arena. In order to become some kind of public intellectuals, keeping our essence as archaeologists, we need to grow together, and only then it will have sense. Meanwhile, public archaeology provides us with a tool of opinion in matters of public concern beyond the archaeological record, and this is something we must use. [Image: Keep calm and do #pubarch (by author)] Bibliography Almansa, J. 2006: La imagen popular de la arqueología en Madrid, ArqueoWeb 8(1). [URL: http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/pdf/8-1/almansa.pdf] Almansa, J. 2010: Pre-editorial: Towards a Public Archaeology, AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology 0, 1-3. [URL: http://www.arqueologiapublica.es] Almansa, J. (ed.), 2011: El futuro de la arqueología en España, Madrid, JAS Arqueología Editorial. [URL: http://elfuturodelaarqueologia.blogspot.com/] Almansa, J., and Degeffa, S. 2011: Decontaminating archaeology. Fighting pollution in Awash and Attebela rivers from public archaeology. [Unpublished paper at the 3rd conference of the East African Association for Palaeoanthropology and Palaeonthology. Session: Public understanding and engagement] Ansede, M. 2012: Arqueólogos denuncian que Madrid facilitará la destrucción de yacimientos para atraer Eurovegas, Materia, 16th June 2012. [URL: http://esmateria.com/2012/06/25/arqueologos-de-madrid-vinculan-eurovegas-a-cambios-ley-de-patrimonio/] Delclòs, T. 2012: ¿Dónde están las pirámides? El País, 9th September 2012. [URL: http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/09/08/opinion/1347119792_713914.html] Drezner, D. 2009: Public Intellectuals 2.1, Society 46(1), 49-54. Etzioni, A., and Bowditch, A. 2006. Public Intellectuals. An endangered species? New York, Rowman & Littlefield. Fagan, G. (ed.), 2006: Archaeological fantasies, London, Routledge. Frigoli, R. 2010: Las excavaciones de R’lyeh. La Arqueología como método, la Prehistoria como idea y la Literatura fantástica de H.P. Lovecraft, Madrid, JAS Arqueología Editorial. Holtorf, C. 2005: From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as popular culture, Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press. McGuire, R. 2008: Archaeology as political action, Berkeley, University of California Press. Mill, J.S., 1895: Utilitarianism, Forgotten Books [Reprint for ebook in 2012] Morozov, E. 2011: The net delusion. The dark side of Internet freedom, New York, Public Affairs. Moshenska, G., and Shcadla-Hall, T. 2011: Mortimer Wheeler’s Theatre of the Past, Public Archaeology 10(1), 46-55. Ramos, M., and Duganne, D. 2000: Exploring public perceptions and attitudes about Archaeology. Report from the SAA. [URL: http://www.saa.org/pubedu/nrptdraft4.pdf] Richardson, L. 2012: An Internet delusión. Public Archaeology online. [Unpublished paper at the 18th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Session: Using social media technologies to engage people in archaeology] Rodríguez Temiño, I. 2012: Indianas jones in futuro. La lucha contra el expolio del patrimonio arqueológico, Madrid, JAS Arqueología Editorial. Saló, A. 2011: Españistán. Este país se va a la mierda, Barcelona, Ediciones Glénat. [YouTube video: http://youtu.be/N7P2ExRF3GQ] Simpson, F. 2008: Community archaeology under scrutiny, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 10(1), 3-16. Stottman, J. (ed.), 2010: Archaeologists as activists. Can archaeology change the world? Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press. Biographical Note Jaime Almansa Sánchez (1983) is founder and general manager of JAS Arqueología SLU, a commercial company based in Spain and devoted, as him, to Public Archaeology. His research focuses in the social image of archaeology and ethical, theoretical and practical models for the management of archaeological heritage. With one foot in Ethiopia and the other one in Spain, he struggles for a better archaeology through the public concern. Very active in the social media, he tries to bring debate to archaeology from different profiles in different platforms. More at: about.me/JaimeAlmansa [email protected] Plaza de Mondariz, 6 28029 – Madrid (Spain) +34 669050804 +34 917312473 lmansa, J. 2012. To be or not to be? Public archaeology as a tool of public opinion and the dilemma of intellectuality. Archaeological Dialogues 20(1), 5-11. PAGE 1