Editorial

This issue of Public Archaeology is devoted to the investigation of the popular understanding and representation of archaeology, and includes two papers that focus on the subject from very different angles.

In the first paper, Tina Paphitis explores the potential for folklore to enrich archaeological studies. Although the recognition of the importance of folklore in archaeology is not new in scientific literature (see e.g. Gazin-Schwarts & Holtorf, 1999), this paper provides a theoretical framework to approach folklore in public archaeology, since it ‘arises from meaningful engagements with places in particular contexts, rather than ignorant explanations for the presence of a site’. In this sense, rather than being a nice ‘add-on’ to research, the paper demonstrates that engaging with folklore is useful for investigating the complex relationships with sites and landscapes and can become a tool for including different perspectives in archaeological research. Through understanding the significance of archaeological features for the social groups who created historic folklore and contemporary ethnographies, Paphitis points out that this study ‘can … be seen as a form of interpretive public archaeology, where we go beyond what the public think or how they engage with the past to why and to what end’. Although folkloric studies can foster public participation throughout different stages of archaeological work, the paper shows that they are not used consistently in the UK, despite the efforts to promote inclusive practices, with several organizations trying to embed diversity and inclusion in their strategies (see e.g. Historic England, 2020).

The second paper focuses on pseudoarchaeology, conspiracy theories, and their relationship with nationalism in the United States. Franco Rossi uses AlienCon 2018, a conference for the fans of the History Channel series Ancient Aliens, to consider how archaeology is (mis)used to promote ideological narratives. The paper analyses the links with archaeology in AlienCon and in the TV series, and reflects on the portrayal of academia and the links with Christianity. Alongside other works related to the topic of alternative archaeology (e.g. Fagan, 2006; Moshenska, 2017), this paper aims to better understand the phenomenon and think about how archaeologists might respond: a timely topic, considering the recent (mis)use of archaeology by some extremist parties in Europe (see Rodríguez-Temiño & Almansa-Sánchez, 2021).

Finally, we publish a book review of ‘The Brutish Museums’, written by Dan Hicks (2020), which focuses on the issue of repatriation — widely debated in museum studies, but also for objects in public spaces, such as the Ethiopian monument recently repatriated by Italy (Santi, 2014). Johanna Zetterström-Sharp engages with the book through the ‘academic activist’ lens, examining ‘what this book has the potential to enable, over and above its integrity as an intellectual process’.