Theoretical considerations of public archaeology adopt almost universally a global perspective. This has been so from the first attempts to provide definitions and associated theory, and remains so today; the recent articles by Reuben Grima (2016) and Akira Matsuda (2016) in this journal are good examples of this. Without in any way wishing to gainsay many of the principal arguments advanced in these theoretical considerations, it needs to be recognized that there is a significant disjuncture between such considerations and most writing about public archaeology that is not explicitly presenting a theoretical review. The latter almost invariably takes the form of siteand area-specific studies. The result is that most books and journals devoted to public archaeology consist of a series of geographically distinct studies gathered from all over the world. I want to suggest that the importance of the public archaeology that is predominantly presented from the perspective of particular, largely geographical, contexts needs to be recognized. Such reflections are at present more likely to be rooted in terms of practice than theory. Yet their significance will be greatly enhanced when they can situate the work they are reporting within a theoretical framework rather than merely as possible examples of good practice. This will require a much richer theoretical framework than is presently offered in the global theoretical discussions. It will need to reflect and integrate harmoniously both global and regional issues. My concern here is not an attempt to fashion the required theoretical structure. Instead, by concentrating on a single geographical area, Britain, I hope to provide an argument for its required existence by demonstrating the variability in matters of concern and alternative opportunities that a geographically restricted perspective highlights. Not everything in public archaeology is of equal concern to all practitioners. For instance, Britain has undoubtedly contributed significantly through its past actions to the legacies of colonialism and the contested issues around indigenous peoples that figure strongly in many considerations of public archaeology. It would, though, be wholly misleading to suppose that either the legacies of colonialism or concerns with indigenous people figure highly in the public archaeology agendas of contemporary British archaeology. Here the overriding question for public archaeology has to be how to establish the importance of that archaeology public archaeology, Vol. 15 Nos. 2–3, May–August 2016, 136–140

中文翻译：

---

公共考古：缩小视野，扩大野心

公共考古学的理论考虑几乎普遍采用全球视角。从第一次尝试提供定义和相关理论开始就是如此，直到今天仍然如此。Reuben Grima (2016) 和 Akira Matsuda (2016) 最近在该期刊上发表的文章就是很好的例子。无论如何都不想反驳这些理论考虑中提出的许多主要论点，但需要认识到，这些考虑与大多数未明确提出理论评论的公共考古学著作之间存在重大脱节。后者几乎总是采取特定地点和区域研究的形式。结果是，大多数致力于公共考古学的书籍和期刊都包含一系列从世界各地收集的地理上不同的研究。我想表明，公共考古学的重要性主要是从特定的、主要是地理环境的角度来呈现的。目前，这种反思更有可能植根于实践而非理论。然而，当他们能够将他们所报告的工作置于理论框架内而不仅仅是作为良好实践的可能示例时，它们的重要性将大大增强。这将需要比目前全球理论讨论中提供的更丰富的理论框架。它需要反映和协调全球和区域问题。我在这里关心的不是试图塑造所需的理论结构。相反，通过专注于一个单一的地理区域英国，我希望通过展示受地理限制的视角所强调的关注事项和替代机会的可变性，为其必要的存在提供一个论据。并非所有从业者都同等关注公共考古学中的所有内容。例如，英国无疑通过其过去的行动对殖民主义的遗产和围绕土著人民的有争议的问题做出了重大贡献，这些问题在公共考古学的许多考虑因素中占有重要地位。不过，它会 假设殖民主义的遗产或对土著人民的关注在当代英国考古学的公共考古议程中占有重要地位，这完全是误导。在这里，公共考古学的首要问题必须是如何确定该考古学公共考古学的重要性，卷。15 第 2-3 号，2016 年 5 月-8 月，136-140