Editorial

In the first paper of this issue, Chris Hudson and his colleagues provide an update on their important work concerning archaeology and tourism in Ecuador. The authors first instigated the use of archaeological resources to attract tourists to Agua Blanca in the mid-1980s, with the construction of an archaeological site museum. Members of the community have since run both the site and auxiliary tourist facilities, creating an operating model that succeeds in both preservation but that also generates tangible local benefits. Hudson, et al., describe the achievements at Agua Blanca and reflect on the most important lessons that this experience has produced. The paper is particularly significant as it is one of only a few examples documenting the long-term sustainability of a small-scale archaeological tourism initiative.

Colin Sterling's paper takes as its focus the relationship between photography and the ways in which visitors construct experience at heritage sites. Using the case study of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Sterling grapples with the idea of the photographic cliché, and contends that what has previously been deemed a trivial practice can provide meaningful insight into methods of engagement at archaeological and heritage sites. This research is welcome given the increasing ubiquity of the camera over the past twenty years, particularly as a result of such technology becoming embedded within mobile phones. Increasingly, such devices provide a multiplicity of ways of capturing and personalizing experiences (using apps such as Instagram and Snapchat). Sterling's work helps us understand the individual agency of the visitor and encourages us to consider ways to accommodate such practices from the perspective of site management.

Moving onto broader theoretical concerns, in recent years there has been a move to reconceptualize heritage studies. Many of these efforts are centred around the concept of the Anthropocene (cf. Harrison, 2015), and include significant future-scoping exercises such as the current Heritage Futures project (n.d.) which have moved to consider heritage in post-human contexts. In light of this, Butler's paper is an effort to refocus attention on the prevailing human practices that constitute engagement with heritage at a grass-roots level. Focusing her analysis on Jerusalem/Palestine, Butler proposes a way of conceiving of heritage by understanding it as a syndrome. She presents three pathways for engagement that subvert top-down, institutionalized approaches and that offer a means of returning the heritage project to understanding the significant meanings that people attach to and bind up within objects.

Further, we continue our debate on the nature of public archaeology — begun in the previous issue — with two important contributions. Jaime Almansa Sánchez provides a personal reflection on what public archaeology means and how this philosophy influences his approach to the discipline. Conversely, David Clarke offers an insightful commentary on the way in which archaeology is practised in the UK, emphasizing the need to realign research agendas with areas of interest to local and regional communities to help foster an engaged citizenry and provide archaeological commentary that can stimulate and inform substantive discussion on key social concerns.

These debates will continue in subsequent issues of the journal but in a distinctly different context, in light of the UK government's decision to leave the European Union following the outcome of a nationwide referendum in June. Two aspects of the vote to ‘Leave’ were particularly striking. The first was the presence of a resurgent English nationalism, while the second was a desire to ‘take back control’ of decision-making from a perceived faceless bureaucracy in Brussels. In part, the result can be seen as a rejection of global/centralized (Westminster) centres of power and a return to that of nation/locality. The broader implications for UK archaeology are unclear at present, although particular alarm will be raised regarding EU Higher Education funding and problems posed to professional, cross-border collaboration (cf. CBA, 2016). Of immediate concern is the increased nationalist rhetoric surrounding the ‘Leave’ campaign. As Brexit moves from idealistic pipe-dream to a messy and likely acrimonious process of disentanglement from the EU, there is an increased potential for nationalist myths, narratives, and symbols to be revived and mobilized to achieve social and political ends. It is crucial that archaeologists remain mindful of such opportunistic uses of archaeology and continue to pursue critical approaches and forms of engagement that provide substantive insights into the archaeological process and the nuance of the past, and that can contest historical posturing with tangible evidence where necessary.