Public Archaeology Fieldtrip, 22-26th March 2013.
Eduardo Escalante, Lewis Glynn and AgatheDupeyron
The MA in Public Archaeology is not only characterised by the wide range of topics
covered: its propensity to show students the social, political and economic context of our
discipline is unique, and best emphasised throughout field trips.
Figure 1: Tim Schadla-Hall (here in Kilmartin Glen) was leading the trip.
The most important fieldtrip on the course, because of its duration and the number of
places visited, is the fourth and last one, which aims to show how archaeological sites are
presented to the public in Scotland and the North of England. It enables students to geta
wider perspective on Public Archaeology in the UK.
Between the 22nd and 26th March 2013, fourteen students embarked on an incredible
journey led by Tim Schadla-Hall and Gabe Moshenska, from Kilmartin Glen in Scotland to
the Jorvic Viking centre in Yorkshire. From this trip, some major themes of learning
emerge: landscape and site interpretation, museums and display,reconstructing the past,
the economic context of archaeology, and outreach and education.
1
Landscape interpretation
Kilmartin Glen is an interesting example of how archaeological sites are presented to the
public in a rural context. Landscape interpretation is presented through a site museum and
walkthroughs, which determine how the public engages with the discipline and with the
preservation of such important cultural heritage. Visiting this site allowedMA students to
focus on a particular case study within a different administration (Historic Scotland),
where the interpretative approach provides visitors withthe spatio-temporal context of the
site. We also noticed the development of a sense of place around the local community.
Figure 2: Photos of Kilmartin Glen monuments in their landscape context. Photos by Eduardo Escalante.
2
Site interpretation
Arbeia and Segedunumare two contemporary Roman fortswithin the same geographical
context in North East England, struggling with urban development. The fieldtrip experience
turns in a comparative perspective, whereby students can appreciate different approaches
to site interpretation on museums. Both forts are presented to the public through
interpretative reconstruction of Roman buildings, showing how life was in the Roman
period and how the landscape changed through time.
Arbeia is a Roman fort located in South Shields, characterized by the reconstruction of one
of the fort’s gates, and several barracks, including the commanding officer’s apartments.
Segedunum, located in Wallsend, has the particularity of being part of the wider Hadrian’s
Wall World Heritage Site context and features an observatory tower on the site museum
from which visitors can appreciate how the archaeological site relates with the modern
urban landscape and its changes through time.
This temporal aspect is crucial on Public Archaeology fieldtrips, organized with the aim to
enable students to compare and critic how the wider public can experience and understand
the archaeological record.
Figure 3: Reconstructed gate of Arbeia Roman fort.Photo by Eduardo Escalante.
3
Figure 4: Commanding officer's apartments, Arbeia.Photo by Eduardo Escalante.
Figure 5: Segedunum museum, Wallsend.Photo by Eduardo Escalante.
4
Figure 6: Arbeia archaeological site.Photo by Eduardo Escalante.
Museums and display
The trip highlighted fundamental differences in the way archaeological objects can be
displayed in museums. The local museum at Kilmartin Glen had displays created by
designer Chris Hudson, who emphasizes the need to provide a context for objects. Each
room focuses on a different period of the Kilmartin landscape, with visual, audio and tactile
prompts to stimulate imagination and recreate some of the perceptions that may have
surrounded the inhabitants of that landscape. For instance, grinding stones are available
for the public to engage with, and they can also listen to the sounds of recreated
instruments from the Neolithic period. The aim is to understand how these people lived
over time, in an environment that can be harsh and unforgiving, as we experienced later in
the day when we visited the most impressive monuments of that landscape under heavy
snow and wind.
5
Figure 7: Exhibition case from the Kilmartin museum, design by Chris Hudson. Photo byAgatheDupeyron.
This avowed attempt to summon the context in which objects were created and used
stands in stark contrast to the ‘Early People’ exhibition at the National Museum of Scotland,
Edinburgh. The artefacts, which come from all around Scotland, are stripped of any
contextual or chronological indication. They are presented as artistic objects, and the aim is
to show the public that people in the past were not so different from us. However, one
wonders whether this strategy is successful: the statues designed by Sir Eduardo Paolozzi,
for instance, generated a variety of reactions in our group of students. Some of us thought
they made past people look alien and inhuman, while others enjoyed the attempt at
stimulating imagination.
The difference between these two interpretational strategies asks a fundamental question
for public archaeologists. To what extent do we need to show people what we think the
past looked like? To what extent should we leave it up to their imagination?
Reconstructing and Understanding the Past
The physical remains of the past are often hard to interpret for those who are not trained in
the practice of archaeology. The central issue with reconstruction is the ease in which they
can be undertaken incorrectly. However, with the backing of comprehensive research and a
passion for creativity, reconstructions can form some of the most successful and engaging
routes towards understanding the past. Of the cornucopia of examples that exist around
the UK, this field trip brought to our attention one of the best examples the country has to
offer, the ‘Jorvik Viking Centre’ in the picturesque city of York.
6
Public attraction to the past can be explained through the conjuring of emotions such as
mystery, wonder and awe. The ‘Jorvik Viking Centre’ succeeds in tapping into these feelings
that transports anyone back to the child-like state of fascination and discovery. The visitor
is subjected to a ‘Jurassic Park’ style ‘tour’ of the ancient town of Jorvik through the vehicle
of a time capsule. The personalised narrator interacts with the every day inhabitants of the
town, providing an un-rivalled glimpse into the lives of the Vikings. To add to the overall
atmosphere of the centre, even the staff members are dressed in traditional Viking attire
and describe their experiences almost as if the public have actually been transported back
in time. In a move from the sublime to the grotesque, we also visited ‘Bede’s World’ in the
small town of Jarrow in the back end of South Shields.
Figure 8: Bede's head in Bede's World, Jarrow. Photo by Lewis Glynn.
7
‘Bede’s World’ forms the perfect blueprint of how an institution should never attempt any
form of reconstruction of the past. This centre attempts to reconstruct the history of Early
Medieval Northumbria through the life of the venerable Bede. In reality, it is a fumbled
mess of a building that fails to present any form of clarity, relevance or general historical
understanding. The reconstructions exist in a void of ambiguity with no clear relevance to
their subject matter or original context. The finale of this ‘experience’ was what we could
only imagine as an attempt to present a medieval farm to the public. A crippling lack of
supporting signage and the confusing mix of traditional and modern construction material
suggest that ‘Bede’s World’ fails in its role as either a museum or a centre of medieval
reconstructions.
Archaeology and economy: success stories and difficulties
In the current economic climate, archaeology needs to increase its visibility and attract
visitors and capitals in order to survive. The trip has highlighted a variety of ways in which
archaeological sites cope with the economic crisis, at their own scale.
Jorvic and the Dig have put the emphasis the fascination exerted by archaeology within
popular culture. While the former takes its visitors back in time through a theme-parkesque ride, and is hugely popular regardless of age or background, the latter focuses on the
act of digging itself, debunking some of the myths surrounding fieldwork whilst retaining
the excitement that comes with uncovering the past. However, despite this accent on
entertainment, both attractions are also highly educational, and this unique combination
makes them hugely popular. Jorvic has welcomed 15 million visitors in the last 25 years,
and is one of the few successful archaeological attractions in the face of the global crisis.
On the other hand, Segedunum fails to meet its economic expectations, and is currently
going through a rough patch. The site features reconstructed Roman baths, a panoramic
tower, and an impressive museum with interactive components illuminating the Roman,
industrial and recent history of the area. In spite of these impressive characteristics, it does
not attract enough visitors: this could be due to its location in a struggling area. York, by
contrast, is easier to access and situated in a wealthy area. Arbeia is undergoing similar
difficulties. Geographical location, as well as economic situation, are two important factors
determining how archaeological sites will fare.
Outreach and Education
8
The practice of archaeology is a fascinating undertaking, and it would be a shame if the
public never had the opportunity to participate. Furthermore, if the modern archaeologist
is to break the traditional barrier between the ‘high class academic’ and the ‘public’, then
outreach and educational strategies are vital. The final stop on our 5-day fieldtrip was the
Jorvik DIG. DIG offers a unique selling point of an archaeological adventure that is familyorientated.
The visitor is taken on a tour of the centre; the tour begins with a relatable and entertaining
talk about what archaeology is. However, the piece de resistance is the chance to take part
in a simulated archaeological dig, which follows all the principles of any normal excavation.
Groups are asked to work in teams to uncover the most about the history of Viking York as
possible. In a move from excavation to object analysis, the final area of the tour focuses on
interpreting material remains, ranging from animal bone to pottery.
To describe DIG as a revolutionary step in the development of public archaeology would be
an understatement. It is the only experience that gets the visitor interacting with the past
to the same extent as any professional archaeologist. From the reactions of the other
groups that were at the centre, it is clear that DIG is highly engaging, highly entertaining
and most importantly, highly educational.
--------
By enabling us to compare and contrast how information is conveyed to the public, how
archaeological sites deal with the administrative structure and economic situation, and
how their educative aims are put into practice, this fieldtrip encapsulates and blends
together some of the most crucial themes studied throughout the year. We thoroughly
enjoyed it, and would like to thank Tim Schadla-Hall and Gabe Moshenska for taking us
around this variety of archaeological sites, landscapes and museums.
9
Figure 9: Our group atop the Dunadd, an Iron Age hillfort in the Kilmartin landscape, Scotland. Photo by Eduardo
Escalante.
10