In the nearly five decades since McGimsey (1972) published Public Archaeology and gave a name to an emerging field of practice, archaeologists wrestling with practical, ethical, and legal imperatives have extended tremendously the domain of public archaeology. McGimsey’s vision was limited and essentially self-serving for the profession: educate the public so they will support us and, perhaps, provide volunteer labour. Two decades later, Schadla-Hall empowered archaeologists to search for the ‘public’ in virtually every element of their practice when he declared that public archaeology is ‘concerned with any area of archaeological activity that interacted or had the potential to interact with the public’ (Schadla-Hall, 1999: 147). By the late 2010s, public archaeology and its concerns have become the subject of university degrees and public mandates are embedded in laws, treaties, and the codes of ethics of professional bodies. Increasingly, public archaeology is begging for some organizing principles to position it in the broader (and itself broadening) discipline of archaeology. Not surprisingly, a cluster of books has emerged that, taken together, constitute first efforts to convert the arguably inchoate practice of public archaeology into a recognizable discipline. That is, to impose some boundaries on the discipline, to initiate development of theories of practice and accepted methodology, and to position public archaeology and its close cousin community archaeology within historical, ethical, and legal issues of concern to archaeologists generally. Merriman’s (2004) volume, also named Public Archaeology, was perhaps the first of these. In recent years, we have seen a growing number of efforts to theorize, codify, and define the boundaries, however broad, of public archaeology. Moshenska (2017; Moshenska & Dhanjal, 2012) has been a driver of this effort, albeit with a largely European focus. Okamura and Matsuda (2012) have extended the range of the discourse to other parts of the globe. Specialists have focused on practice in specific international contexts (e.g. Schmidt & Pikirayi, 2016) or areas of public contact such as educational practice (Bender&Messenger, 2019; Erdman, 2019). Specialized journals such as Public Archaeology, the Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, country-specific online public archaeology journals, and a host of specialist heritage publications have further extended the literature. Into this emerging genre, Isi̧lay Gürsu has introduced an intriguing highbred volume, part theoretical and historical overview, part case studies in three Mediterranean contexts (Turkey, Crete, and Italy). As do several of the recent books, this volume touches on the history of the public in archaeology, public archaeological education and engagement, looting and treasure seeking, human rights, the commoditization of heritage and its converse — the economic value of archaeological resources, and the practice of cultural heritage management as it impacts on local communities. What is distinctive about Gürsu’s book is the manner in which it puts a human face on issues and challenges that feel impersonal in much archaeological scholarship. Gürsu’s volume begins with three chapters that focus on the evolution and theoretical foundations of public archaeology. A chapter by Reuben Grima does an admirable job of putting public archaeology in broad historical context, from nineteenth-century interest in colonial public archaeology, Vol. 17 No. 4, November 2018, 214–216

中文翻译：

---

公共考古学：理论方法和当前实践

自 McGimsey (1972) 发表《公共考古学》并为一个新兴的实践领域命名以来的近 5 年中，与实践、伦理和法律要求搏斗的考古学家极大地扩展了公共考古学的领域。McGimsey 的愿景是有限的，本质上是为这个行业服务的：教育公众，让他们支持我们，或许还提供志愿服务。二十年后，当 Schadla-Hall 宣称公共考古学“关注与公众互动或可能与公众互动的任何考古活动领域”时，他授权考古学家在他们实践的几乎每一个元素中寻找“公众”。 (Schadla-Hall, 1999: 147)。到 2010 年代后期，公共考古学及其关注点已成为大学学位的主题，公共任务嵌入法律、条约和专业机构的道德守则中。越来越多的公共考古学正在寻求一些组织原则，以将其定位于更广泛（并且本身正在扩大）的考古学学科。毫不奇怪，出现了一系列书籍，它们合在一起构成了将可以说是早期的公共考古学实践转变为可识别学科的初步努力。也就是说，对学科施加一些界限，启动实践理论和公认方法的发展，并将公共考古学及其近亲社区考古学置于考古学家普遍关注的历史、伦理和法律问题中。梅里曼 (2004) 卷，也称为公共考古学，也许是其中的第一个。近年来，我们看到越来越多的努力来理论化、编纂和定义公共考古学的边界，无论多么广泛。Moshenska (2017; Moshenska & Dhanjal, 2012) 一直是这一努力的推动者，尽管主要关注欧洲。Okamura 和 Matsuda (2012) 已将话语范围扩展到全球其他地区。专家们专注于特定国际背景下的实践（例如 Schmidt 和 Pikirayi，2016 年）或公共接触领域，例如教育实践（Bender&Messenger，2019 年；Erdman，2019 年）。专业期刊，例如公共考古学、社区考古与遗产期刊、特定国家/地区的在线公共考古学期刊、许多专业遗产出版物进一步扩展了文献。在这一新兴流派中，Isi̧lay Gürsu 引入了引人入胜的高血统书，部分是理论和历史概述，部分是三个地中海背景（土耳其、克里特岛和意大利）的案例研究。与最近的几本书一样，这本书涉及考古学、公共考古教育和参与、抢劫和寻宝、人权、遗产的商品化及其反面——考古资源的经济价值，以及文化遗产管理对当地社区的影响。Gürsu 的书的独特之处在于，它以人性化的方式面对在许多考古学研究中感觉非个人的问题和挑战。Gürsu 的书以三章开始，重点关注公共考古学的演变和理论基础。鲁本·格里马（Reuben Grima）的一章将公共考古学置于广阔的历史背景中，从 19 世纪对殖民公共考古学的兴趣开始，这一工作令人钦佩，卷。17第4期，2018年11月，214-216