In this issue we present three compelling papers which share an important focus on archaeology and marginalized constituencies, in both contemporary and historical contexts. Sara Perry’s paper describes early efforts of public engagement at the Institute of Archaeology in London during the 1930s, and in particular highlights the role of several women in these endeavours. The value of the paper is both its fascinating glimpse of how the presentation of archaeological methods was adapted for the new technological medium of television, but moreover the way in which it reinserts the contribution of women into this particular history, one that is often overpowered by the magnetic persona of Sir Mortimer Wheeler. This work falls into a wider contemporary discourse that emphasizes the role of women in the history of archaeology; work that is occurring in academic terms to restate particular legacies (e.g. Carr, 2012; Thornton, 2011) and also in creative forms such as the #RaisingHorizons project by Trowelblazers (2018), which includes a touring exhibition of photographs of fourteen women working in archaeology and associated sciences today, posing as their historical counterparts. In the second paper, Caroline Pudney provides an account of an archaeology outreach project at a Young Offenders Institution inWales. This is the first of two linked articles by the author — the second will be published in the subsequent issue (16.2) — which considers the benefits that encounters with archaeology and heritage can bring to a cohort of young men, both in terms of practical skills gained through working with archaeological material but also the sense of pride that learning about the historic environment can foster. Such experiences, it is hoped, could contribute to a reduction in reoffending rates, and the paper contributes to a broadening of the literature on the social utility of archaeology in general (e.g. Little & Shackel, 2014) and the issue of heritage crime in particular (Grove, 2013). A key element of Pudney’s paper is in emphasizing the importance of the specialist researcher in directing and managing projects, and evaluating their core value. There is an increasing tendency, both in public archaeology and other humanistic disciplines, to attempt to capture the value of projects using hard data and robust statistical evidence; a position that has been strongly advocated for by the editors of this journal. Pudney’s article reminds us that such approaches, particularly for projects in sensitive social environments (including hospitals and prisons) may not always be the most appropriate evaluative method, and that in some circumstances it is important to recognize the expertise of the academic conducting the project in question, and to trust in their ability to be reflexive, adaptive, and to mediate the intrinsic value of particular interventions. public archaeology, Vol. 16 No. 1, February 2017, 1–2

中文翻译：

---

社论

在本期中，我们展示了三篇引人注目的论文，它们共同关注当代和历史背景下的考古学和边缘化选区。Sara Perry 的论文描述了 1930 年代伦敦考古研究所公众参与的早期努力，并特别强调了几位女性在这些努力中的作用。这篇论文的价值不仅在于它对考古方法的呈现如何适应电视新技术媒体的迷人一瞥，而且在于它重新将女性对这段特殊历史的贡献的方式莫蒂默·惠勒爵士的磁性人格。这项工作属于更广泛的当代话语，强调女性在考古史上的作用；以学术术语重述特定遗产（例如 Carr，2012 年；Thornton，2011 年）以及诸如 Trowelblazers 的 #RaisingHorizo​​ns 项目（2018 年）等创造性形式的工作，其中包括 14 位女性在工作中的照片巡回展览今天的考古学和相关科学，冒充他们的历史对手。在第二篇论文中，卡罗琳·普德尼 (Caroline Pudney) 介绍了威尔士青年罪犯机构的考古外展项目。这是作者两篇相关文章中的第一篇——第二篇将发表在下一期（16.2）——其中考虑了与考古学和遗产相遇可以给一群年轻人带来的好处，无论是通过使用考古材料获得的实践技能，还是学习历史环境可以培养的自豪感。希望这些经验有助于降低再犯罪率，该论文有助于拓宽有关考古学社会效用的文献（例如 Little & Shackel，2014 年），特别是遗产犯罪问题（格罗夫，2013 年）。Pudney 论文的一个关键要素是强调了专业研究人员在指导和管理项目以及评估其核心价值方面的重要性。在公共考古学和其他人文学科中，越来越倾向于尝试使用硬数据和可靠的统计证据来捕捉项目的价值；本刊编辑极力主张的立场。Pudney 的文章提醒我们，这种方法，特别是对于敏感社会环境（包括医院和监狱）中的项目，可能并不总是最合适的评估方法，并且在某些情况下，重要的是要认识到进行项目的学术人员的专业知识问题，并相信他们的反思能力、适应能力和调解特定干预措施的内在价值的能力。公共考古学，卷。16 No. 1, 2017年2月, 1-2 并且在某些情况下，重要的是要认识到进行相关项目的学者的专业知识，并相信他们的反思能力、适应能力和调解特定干预措施的内在价值的能力。公共考古学，卷。16 No. 1, 2017年2月, 1-2 并且在某些情况下，重要的是要认识到进行相关项目的学者的专业知识，并相信他们的反思能力、适应能力和调解特定干预措施的内在价值的能力。公共考古学，卷。16 No. 1, 2017年2月, 1-2