“Presentation and Interpretation of Archaeological Sites: the Case of Tell Mozan, Ancient Urkesh,”
in N. Agnew and J. Bridgland (eds.), Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington D.C. 22-26 June 2003, Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 152-156.
The main strategy in reconstructing the past of Tell Mozan is clearly defined: “From [our] perspective, the best management practice is one that reflects the strategy that has brought the site back to light in the first place. As part of management, the excavator ought to communicate the motivation behind the recovery, because that is the same motivation that governs any effort at conserving and presenting” (p. 152, abstract).
The first step towards the explanation of this concept leads with the definition of ‘localization’: “The term ‘localization’ has come to be used regularly in information technology and related domains […]. There is a whole industry built around this concept: it addresses the particular need to make commercial websites accessible not only and not so much in different languages, but in different cultures. How to advertise bathing suits to Eskimos might be a reductio ad absurdum of this process […]. So it should be, I would argue, with the presentation and interpretation of archaeological sites” (p. 152, abstract).
Despite it could resemble the same, this concept is far from that of ‘archaeological advertising’, because it aims at making growing the self-consciousness about our past, thus being capable of shaping our present identity.
This has always been one of the first purposes of the Mozan project, hinting to education and outreach of knowledge to a wider (both local and foreign) public.
Three points are stressed in this paper:
1) “there is an intrinsic value to presentation and interpretation […]. Culture is here perceived not as a personal property of archaeologists working on field, but as a human characteristic feature: “Culture is a continuum, and there should be no hopeless rift between the technical aspects of archaeology and the interests of the layperson. Gradual transitions in the kind and amount of detail, yes. But a sharp break – no. When presenting and interpreting, the archaeologist must be like an orchestra conductor: few if any people in the audience may be able to read the score, but the music performed is the score, not a watered-down semblance of it. It is such a profound respect for the continuity of culture that will save us from any form of paternalism, whether vis-à-vis stakeholders or tourists” (p. 152).
2) “Second, presentation and interpretation are the extension of our teaching mission. […] We must identify with legitimate interests [of the public], stir them, and provide answers” (p. 156).
3) “Third, presentation and interpretation should enrich our own archaeological horizon. We must become better archaeologists precisely through the effort of explaining” (p. 156). In this respect, ‘popularization’, i.e. the public (popular) presentation of archaeological results, is indeed a focal aim of any archaeologist.
The author then presents some concrete application of this concept, explaining the conservation strategies applied on Urkesh’s walls (by mean of a new system of covering consisting of metal structures and canvas which allows both the preservation of the mudbrick structures and an easy-accessible ‘reading’ of the buildings [further details in Bonetti and Buccellati 2003, Buccellati 2006, Buccellati 2014a (brief article) and Buccellati 2014b]).
The following paragraph deals with the inclusiveness of local communities in the processes of conservation and interpretation: “ We may now consider the effect on conservation of popularization taken in the sense of proper presentation and interpretation. An effort to promote understanding of a site is a two-way street. On the one hand, a site that is well understood encourages people to preserve it. On the other hand, eliciting meaning for others, even the occasional others, raises the archaeologist’s awareness for meaning tout court” (p. 154). The commitment of archaeologist with the local communities of the ‘stakeholders’, avoiding any paternalistic approach, led the Urkesh team to develop conservation strategies which encourage the local people to feel involved in the project and the displaying presentation-aids (such as reconstructed walls, posters, flyers, handouts, stations on the itinerary on the field [with ‘signposts’ and ‘panoramas’] and an audiotape) describing ‘the site as a book’.
In conclusion, ‘localization’ crosses the meaning of semiotics of archaeology itself: “‘Localization’ must be inserted in the archaeological work itself […]. The main reason, I have argued, is that archaeology as such benefits from the effort, that is, that we learn about our side of archaeology by seeking to present it and explain it to the local and the wider public. Unquestionably, better archaeology results from proper localization” (p. 155).
The final goal of any archaeologist (i.e. to entangle past in the present) is further defined: “Properly, we seek to identify the value that signs had for the ancients. But an invaluable support to this effort is the parallel endeavor to identify the value that the same signs ought to have for our contemporaries. In this way, we all-archaeologists working at the site, modern inhabitants of the area, and outside visitors – become stakeholders of our common past” (p. 156). Thus, archaeology retrieves its ethical concern.
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 2006