Co-creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice

Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice Robert Connolly projects that provided the public with educational, participatory, and research opportunities. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBLEM This paper addresses two speciic problems of archaeological practice at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa (CHNM). First, the CHNM faced iduciary, ethical, and methodological best practice responsibilities for a 50-year accumulation of archaeological materials and their associated records curated at the facility. The second problem focused on the CHNM’s responsibility as an institution to serve and be responsive to the public who ultimately own and fund the facility. Besides legal considerations, the responsibilities low from the CHNM’s mission “to protect and interpret the Chucalissa archaeological site’s cultural and natural environments, and to provide the University Community and the public with exceptional educational, participatory, and research opportunities” (C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa 2015). As a museum, the CHNM exists to serve the visiting public. Without public visitation, the CHNM would exist only as a repository for archaeological collections or a research facility. Therefore, the CHNM staff prioritized collections-based The CHNM staff sought innovative solutions through activities that addressed both problem areas: cultural materials and public engagement. Staff employed a co-creative approach in which the CHNM partnered with the public in designing and implementing those solutions. The processes also incorporated the expressed needs of the public. In so doing, the CHNM prioritized activities in which the multiple “publics” of students, volunteers, and community service learners were engaged in collections-based projects. BACKGROUND TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBLEM Chucalissa is a Mississippian culture (A.D. 1000–1500) temple mound complex, located in the southwest corner of Memphis, Tennessee. The site was “discovered” in the 1930s by a Jim ABSTRACT This paper evaluates attempts over the past seven years to address two archaeological challenges at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa. The irst challenge was the proper curation of 50 years of accumulated collections from a wide array of sources by a staff one-third the size of when the collections were acquired. Second, the Museum faced the challenge of becoming a viable and socially relevant public institution in the twenty-irst century. Ultimately, the C.H. Nash Museum embraced a co-creative approach to face the challenges. Co-creative processes resulted in a renewed and expanded base for public engagement, allowing the Museum to maximize the potential for preservation, research accessibility, and the exhibition of cultural materials curated at the institution. Este documento evalúa los intentos en los últimos siete años para hacer frente a dos retos arqueológicos en el museo C.H. Nash de Chucalissa. El primer reto era el inventario adecuado de las colecciones procedentes de una amplia gama de fuentes que se acumularon durante más de 50 años por un tercio del personal que había cuando se adquirieron estas colecciones. Segundo, el museo se enfrentó al reto de convertirse en una institución pública viable y sostenible para el siglo 21. Finalmente, el museo C.H. Nash adoptó un modelo de creación en colaboración para enfrentar los retos. Sobre la base de esa experiencia, los procesos de creación en colaboración sentaron las base para la participación pública extensa y renovada con las partes interesadas, llevando al museo por el camino del futuro sostenible. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(3), 2015, pp. 188–197 Copyright 2015© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.188 188 188 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) Crow-era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) project to construct a segregated park, known then as the Shelby Bluff State Park for Negroes, for the African-American community of Memphis. When the CCC encountered evidence of the prehistoric occupation, the area identiied as containing the rich Native American deposits was removed from the park development. In 1956, a museum was opened to provide greater public access to the prehistoric site. In 1962, the University of Memphis (UM) (then Memphis State University) assumed administrative responsibility for the site and museum. Through the 1990s, the CHNM amassed a sizable collection of both prehistoric and historic archaeological collections. The collections resulted from several sources. First, the CHNM ultimately became the repository for all collections excavated by archaeologists employed by the UM. Second, the CHNM curated materials generated through cultural resource management projects conducted either by Museum personnel or other archaeologists in the Midsouth. Third, through the 1980s, Chucalissa accepted cultural materials donated by avocational archaeologists and the general public. Like all museums, with the advent of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the CHNM faced the task of completing an inventory of all curated collections. For the materials excavated at the Chucalissa archaeological site, NAGPRA compliance was not dificult. Archaeologists who conducted ield research at Chucalissa maintained detailed and meticulous records. For the curated materials excavated through cultural resource management projects, regional excavations by academic institutions, and donated collections, the quality and completeness of the available associated records were inconsistent. From the 1990s through 2007, the CHNM staff attempted to inventory the poorly documented components of the non-Chucalissa site collections. In 2007, responsibility for curating all UM archaeological collections was formally transferred to the CHNM, effectively doubling the size of the Museum’s collections.1 The transferred materials were not inventoried or accessioned and resulted from UM staff research over a 40-year period. With the transfer, the CHNM initiated a re-inventory of all curated cultural materials. To assure compliance with all iduciary responsibilities, the CHNM adopted a collections management policy that speciied the best practices for the curation and preservation of all cultural materials and the public use and accessibility of the materials and prioritized the curation of materials from West Tennessee. The West Tennessee scope of the newly adopted collections management policy led to the deacessioning and transfer of curated collections from sites in neighboring states (e.g., Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Missouri) back to those states. As well, collections with no provenience information were deaccessioned for use in educational projects. At this writing (2015), the re-inventory, deaccession, and transfer project is 95 percent complete. In 2007, the CHNM faced two substantive logistical problems upon assuming responsibility for the collections. First, portions of the collections required considerable attention for curation by best practice standards. However, in 2007 the CHNM no longer employed a collections manager, and the staff size was reduced by two-thirds from the time when the collections were acquired. UM resources were not available to hire replacement personnel. In 2008, the CHNM launched a volunteer program to assist in the collections tasks. The volunteer program was successful, grew beyond collections projects, and adopted participatory (Connolly and Tate 2011) and third-place perspectives (Tate 2012). With that experience the CHNM expanded the participatory framework of the collections programs to include community outreach into Southwest Memphis (Connolly et al. 2012; Connolly and Rea 2015) and, most recently, to international collaboration (Connolly et al. 2015). THE PARTICIPATORY, CO-CREATIVE APPROACH In structuring volunteer activity, the CHNM adopted a framework of three project types developed by Simon (2010:187–191) that draw on a citizen science model. First, contributory volunteers have limited input on the direction of a project that remains controlled by the institution. Second, in collaborative projects, volunteers have more latitude in their tasks and serve as active partners in processes that originate and remain under the control of the sponsoring institution. Finally, in co-creative projects, both the volunteer and the institution are responsible for deining and creating the project goals. This paper focuses on co-creative projects. Simon (2010:187) elaborates that the purpose of co-creative projects is “to give voice and be responsive to the needs and interests of local community members; to provide a place for community engagement and dialogue; and to help participants develop skills that will support their own individual and community goals.” In this paper, I use the term “co-creation” speciically to prioritize acting on the public’s expressed needs and interests. Cocreation is the essence of the civic engagement envisioned over one decade ago in Mastering Civic Engagement, the seminal publication of the American Association (now Alliance) of Museums, in which Hirzy (2002:16) wrote that “[w]orking together or diversifying audiences is not enough. What is needed are reciprocal, co-created relationships that connect the assets and purposes of organizations.” Co-creation aligns with Chambers’s (2004:194) assertion that applied archaeology is not simply a means to create knowledge, but also serves to engage communities to make decisions about the preservation and presentation of their cultural heritage resources. Such an understanding of applied archaeology means a practice with and not for the public. Merriman (2004:6– 11) notes that such an approach moves practice from a deicit model in which the public needs proper education in archaeology to a practice that establishes a conversation between the archaeologist and public about cultural heritage resources. Merriman also notes that implicit in this understanding is a constructivist approach in which people relate archaeological meaning to their own lives, less so than to current archaeological trends. In this way, co-creation also aligns with Carol McDavid’s (2003:57) discussion on “de-centering” the authority of the archaeologist in project direction. August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 189 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) Below, this paper reports two such co-creative case studies and sets them within the context of collection management tasks and the mission of the CHNM. The two case studies involve different publics, collection types, and archaeological practices. In addition, the two case studies demonstrate the range of possibilities in co-creative projects. The two studies use materials excavated from a 1920s-era African-American farmstead, the Big Hackberry Site (40SY607) located on the present-day grounds of the Chucalissa site and the Fred Jobe site (40LN195 and 40LN196), located in Lincoln County, Tennessee. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE C.H. NASH MUSEUM AT CHUCALISSA AND THE BIG HACKBERRY SITE From their inception in 1956, the Chucalissa Museum (now the C.H. Nash Museum) and site complex created an oasis of white privilege in the heart of the African-American community of Southwest Memphis. African-Americans were not permitted into the segregated museum complex, and the Native American presence was limited to employment as interpreters or actors on a stage directed by a white staff (Connolly 2011). Even after formal segregation policies were overturned in 1959, the surrounding communities, whose residents today are 95 percent African American, remained alienated from the CHNM complex. In 2007, the UM, and by extension Chucalissa, had an unfavorable reputation in Southwest Memphis. Area residents were concerned about unemployment rates, the stench from the sewage treatment plant, environmental code violations, and crime rates. University interests in the area were perceived by residents to be irrelevant research from which faculty gained prestige and grant funds but the community gained little or nothing in return. As one resident stated at a 2008 community meeting: Don’t tell me what the University of Memphis is going to do for my community. The last time you were here doing your research for two years and all we got was a map on the wall. In an attempt to function as a social asset, in 2008 the CHNM began to engage area residents by hosting community events, such as a locally produced photography exhibit, and by sponsoring ilm showings such as Black Indians: An American Story both at the CHNM and the local community center. The CHNM also hosted and participated in events such as “Toxic Tours” of the neighborhood and environmental justice and community partnership events organized by the Memphis chapter of the Sierra Club. A turning point in the community engagement occurred in the summer of 2010 when the CHNM partnered with a local nonproit, the Westwood Indian Hill Neighborhood Development (WIND) to create a permanent exhibit on the AfricanAmerican Cultural Heritage of Southwest Memphis at the Museum. Over a six-month period, WIND and the CHNM met regularly to develop a process that aligned with the mission of each institution. The exhibit proposal centered on seven cubic 190 feet of artifacts, ield notes, and plan maps from a 1920s-era African-American farmstead, the Big Hackberry site (40SY607), excavated at the Chucalissa site complex. The 2002 excavation of 40SY607 remained unreported at the CHNM because of a past interpretive focus that included only the Native American occupation of the site. The farmstead exhibit proposal provided a means to further the mission of each organization. For WIND, the exhibit provided an educational opportunity while creating a cultural heritage product in an under-served community. For the CHNM, inclusion of a historic-era exhibit enhanced the holistic interpretation of Chucalissa’s built environment. The exhibit would incorporate a voice not heard in any other cultural heritage venue in Memphis, the African-American community of Southwest Memphis. To provide the local community voice, nine high school students from an application pool of 35 were selected to create the exhibit. The application criteria required that the students live in the zip code surrounding the Chucalissa site, be enrolled in an area high school, and complete an essay on why knowing about the cultural heritage of their community was important. The high school students created the exhibit (Figure 1) over a ive-week period, working 30 hours each week. The students were compensated with a modest stipend. A UM Anthropology Department graduate student coordinated the project for her M.A. practicum. A second graduate student served as a project intern from the UM’s Museum Studies Graduate Certiicate Program. The two graduate students facilitated the work of the high school students on a daily basis. Exhibit creation methods included artifact analysis, structured interviews with community members and historians, literature research, and the physical creation and installation of the exhibit. The students made all of the inal decisions on exhibit content. In the irst week of the project, one of the high school students asked what the CHNM intended to do with the artifacts and the exhibit after the students left. The staff member replied that the exhibit would be permanently on display at the CHNM and that if the students’ children visited 20 years in the future, the exhibit might be updated, but would still be in place. The response to this question was a turning point for the high school students’ engagement in the project. The answer demonstrated that the CHNM was serious about the project and the exhibit creation was the students’ opportunity to tell the story of their community. Initially, WIND and the CHNM planned that the only product would be an exhibit based on the artifacts excavated from the farmstead. However, because the high school students made the inal content decisions, they chose to create much more. In addition to the farmstead exhibit, the students also created six 60-x-180-cm banners that traced the history of the African-American community in Southwest Memphis from the early 1800s to the present day. The students also created a series of “Did you know?” wall placards that recounted important historic facts about their neighborhood. The students recorded over 30 hours of oral history interviews that resulted in a 20-minute documentary. Finally, the students began a resource center at the CHNM to curate the research documents they obtained during the ive-week project. Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) FIGURE 1. Angel Conway, one of the student co-creators, leading a tour of the African-American Cultural Heritage exhibit. The only project criterion the CHNM insisted on was that the exhibit must be focused on Southwest Memphis—the basis for the grant that funded the project. For example, at irst when discussing the Civil Rights Movement, the student’s default was the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel in downtown Memphis, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Similarly, the default for music was to consider the famous Beale Street in downtown Memphis. When refocused to Southwest Memphis, the students interviewed their own pastors and elders who were active in the Civil Rights Movement, participated in bus boycotts, and were imprisoned with Dr. King. When refocused on musical traditions in their neighborhoods, they discovered that recording artists such as Al Green, Little Howlin’ Wolf, and others lived in Southwest Memphis. The soundtrack for the documentary they produced was performed by a neighborhood resident, Mrs. Bobbie Jones, who was the high school music teacher of Stax recording artist Isaac Hayes. The CHNM staff insured that both the high school and UM graduate students used best practices in the exhibit creation, but the content was decided by the students. The CHNM hosted an exhibit opening on September 11, 2010, that premiered the community voice of Southwest Memphis in the Museum’s physical space. As one of the students noted in his comments at the opening, “It was all on us to decide what was going to be in the exhibit.” At the opening, the individual who was so critical of the University’s community role in 2008, attended and stated “We need to let more community members know about our exhibit at the Museum.” The 2010 co-creation of the African-American Cultural Heritage in Southwest Memphis exhibit led to several related projects: • Shortly after the exhibit opening, the CHNM staff met with community residents and the high school students who worked on the exhibit to discuss future projects. The CHNM staff suggested hosting a Black History month event focused on Southwest Memphis. The Black History month event is now completely organized by community residents and is held each year at the CHNM. Additionally, the CHNM now routinely hosts local community events and regional showings such as the American Library Associations’ traveling exhibit The Emancipation Proclamation 1863 to the Civil Rights Movement 1963. • Since 2012, the African-American Cultural Heritage exhibit has been updated. High school and college student interns who are residents of Southwest Memphis digitized all text panels and the resource center. The iles were placed on the website Cultural Heritage in Southwest Memphis (2015). In 2014, additional oral histories were uploaded to the website by both area high school students (volunteers) and UM students (independent study course credit). August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 191 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) • The CHNM has become a magnet for community service learning opportunities for area high school and college students. Although initially focused on artifact processing, the CHNM expanded the service learning activities to include tasks related to oral history and other natural and cultural heritage projects. • While conducting a focus group with community residents for exhibit upgrades at the CHNM, one community member relected that the display on prehistoric agriculture was of particular interest and reminded him of traditional foods grown in his youth. He lamented the lack of a suitable public space for such a garden today. In response, the CHNM met the community’s expressed interest and need by providing protected space on the Museum grounds for an urban garden. • The CHNM is able to provide technical and logistical support to address other expressed community interests and goals. For example, the CHNM facilitated a UM student’s graduate research project to address a concern regarding abandoned cemeteries by using the Cemetery Resource Protection Training (CRPT) Program created by the Florida Public Archaeology Network (Miller 2015). • In 2012, through a partnership with T.O. Fuller State Park and the Westwood Neighborhood Association located in Southwest Memphis, the CHNM hosted an AmeriCorps NCCC Team. Over an eight-week period, the Team worked with each of the three partnering agencies. Since 2012, the CHNM hosted four eight-week AmeriCorps Teams and in 2013 was presented the Sponsor of the Year Award by the Southern District of AmeriCorps NCCC. At the CHNM, the teams completed renovations to the repository, assisted in shovel-test programs, processed artifacts, built several outdoor activity structures, and performed other infrastructure improvements. The community projects focused on elderly and military veteran homeowners on ixed incomes to correct environmental code violations and perform minor to moderate structural repairs. • In the summer of 2015, the CHNM served as a resource for ive one-week summer camps for high school students at the nearby Freedom Prep Charter School (FPCS). The camp topics were determined as needs by the FBCS faculty and included journalism, engineering, oral history, web design, and archaeology. The CHNM provided resources to meet those needs. The seeds for the above list of projects were planted in the 2010 discussion between the CHNM and WIND based on three boxes of historic materials from a forgotten excavation of the Big Hackberry site. Beyond considerations of engagement and stakeholder building, a co-creative approach proved necessary to insure that the exhibit was of interest to the community members who visit the CHNM. Because the project was not just about but also by the community, subsequent projects generated increased community support. The content of Black History Month events, the community garden decisions, the type and location of AmeriCorps community projects, selecting the interviewees for oral history projects, and topics for the FPCS summer camps were made by the community members. This is not to suggest that the CHNM staff offered no opinions on process or content. Co-creation does not mean abstention from the process. But the CHNM staff has the latitude to “de-center” not just 192 the authority of the archaeologists but also the authority of the discipline. In so doing, co-creators build more robust products that meet the needs of all participants. In a ive-year summary of the foregoing project, Connolly et al. (2012:241) note that: if in 2007 we asked the residents of Southwest Memphis what the C.H. Nash Museum meant to them, in all likelihood, their response would focus on how some of “our children visit for school ield trips and Chucalissa is where the Indian Mounds are located.” If we ask that question today, the response will include “Chucalissa is the place where there is an exhibit on the cultural heritage of our community; where there is a resource center on our community history; the place where we hold our Black History Month celebrations; where our traditional foods garden was planted last year; where the AmeriCorps Teams that work in our community live; and also where the Indian Mounds are located.” CO-CREATION AND THE FRED JOBE SITE SURFACE COLLECTION2 The second co-creative case study presented in this paper began in the spring of 2013 with a collection of surface artifacts curated at the CHNM from the Fred Jobe Site (40LN195 and 40LN196). The co-creators in this project were members of the Memphis Archaeological and Geological Society (MAGS), a student intern, and Graduate Assistants (GA) at the CHNM. All of the co-creators ultimately participated in the project as equal partners addressing their expressed needs that were supported by the regular CHNM staff. In the project, the co-creators were the ultimate decision-makers in content and focus. The CHNM staff trained, consulted, and assisted in the direction of the public participation in the project and held ultimate veto power in any process not in line with best practices for the preservation and presentation of the archaeological collections. In addition to one student intern who worked with the Fred Jobe collection, the project also involved the four GA students assigned to the CHNM. Each GA works for 20 hours per week during the academic semester. The work consists of visitor services and special projects. Special projects are negotiated with each GA based on their research interests and the needs of the CHNM. GA projects typically include collections work, program development, event planning, and exhibit design. MAGS was formed in the 1950s as a group of avocational archaeologists who conducted some of the irst excavations at the Chucalissa site and published the irst report on site research (Beaudoin 1953). Although the MAGS focus evolved more toward geology over the past 50 years, many members maintain an interest in archaeology. In 2012, MAGS formed an Archaeology Interest Group and scheduled regular education and work meetings to further their participation in activities at Chucalissa. To support the educational component, the CHNM created binders with contextual readings that included articles on the 1950s MAGS excavations at Chucalissa, archaeological methods, projectile point and stone tool analysis, museum exhibit design, and a glossary of archaeological terms. Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) During one of the volunteer work sessions, MAGS members inventoried artifacts from the Fred Jobe site collection. The CHNM accepted and accessioned the collection in 1982. The 3,000 or so prehistoric artifacts included many whole projectile points, ground stone, and ceramic sherds. The MAGS members were intrigued by the quality and quantity of the whole artifacts, particularly the projectile points in the collection. Upon inventory, the collection seemed ideal for a museum exhibit with a “Big Idea” (Serrell 1996:1–6) or central theme on how information obtained from prehistoric surface collections can be used to answer questions about the prehistory of the area— an important message to communicate in any archaeology or history museum. When contacted, the Lincoln County Museum in Fayetteville Tennessee, about 350 km from the CHNM and located near the Fred Job site, expressed an interest in installing an exhibit on site collections. on the exhibit creation. By the end of the semester, Nur created and installed the temporary exhibit (Figure 2). The MAGS Archaeology Interest Group began to brainstorm what such an exhibit might include. All agreed that the Big Idea—From the Field to the Museum—was a good one. However, after performing a preliminary typing and sorting of the artifacts, the MAGS members were not interested in actually creating the exhibit for the Lincoln County Museum. Instead, for their next project, MAGS members chose to use unaccessioned CHNM surface collected materials to create traveling trunk exhibits for display in area schools and at education and mineral shows. The CHNM has successfully used this multi-stage co-creative process in other exhibits projects. The oversight and mentorship by the CHNM to the community partner and students assures that best practices are observed and incorporated in all products. For example, the exhibit created by Nur Abdalla (Figure 2) conforms to best practices (e.g., Parman and Flowers 2008; Serrell 1996) on font size, text labels, arrangement, and low. Aesthetically, the exhibit appears stark and lat compared to other exhibits at the CHNM. The exhibit’s aesthetics was a primary critique and recommendation by the Museum Practices seminar students. The sequence of events and activities with the MAGS Archaeology Interest Group is typical of the co-creation process. Community partners participate based on their expressed needs and interests. This does not mean that the CHNM must satisfy every request. Rather, as a practical matter, the CHNM and community are in dialogue such that a subset of community interests and needs jibe with the Museum’s interests and needs. When the MAGS members lost interest, the Fred Jobe exhibit Big Idea did not go away. Through UM archaeology and museum studies courses, the CHNM recruits interns each year. The CHNM maintains a list of potential intern projects. Speciic topics are typically determined by matching the intern’s interest and needs with those of the CHNM. In the fall of 2013, Anthropology undergraduate Nur Abdalla chose to take on the analysis of the Fred Jobe collection for an internship. She chose the speciic collection because the materials and their context drew on her combined interest and needs to gain experience in collections analysis and exhibit design. By the end of the 150-hour internship Nur gained experience in ceramic and stone tool analysis, along with the steps to document archaeological sites. In the spring of 2014, for her class project in the Applied Archaeology and Museums course at UM, Nur proposed to create and install a temporary exhibit on the Fred Jobe collection at the CHNM. Nur inalized the Big Idea for the exhibit as From the Field to the Museum: What We Can Learn from Artifacts Collected in Plowed Fields. Over the course of the semester, she explored subtopics, such as the information artifacts can provide on trade and exchange, site function, stone tool use, and the temporal span of the site occupation—all relevant to the Big Idea of the exhibit. In consultation with professionals and a review of best practices, she made all of the inal decisions In the fall semester of 2014, students in a Museum Practices graduate seminar, one of the two core courses in the UM Museum Studies Graduate Certiicate Program, took the next step with the Fred Jobe collection. Nur Abdalla, by then a graduate student in Anthropology, was enrolled in the Museum Practices seminar. The 15 seminar students critiqued the exhibit created by Nur the previous semester. Through a “what works and what does not work” review, the students made recommendations for exhibit revision. A future internship will combine the student recommendations to create the exhibit that will be permanently installed in the Lincoln County Museum in Fayetteville, Tennessee, just down the road from the Fred Jobe farm where the collection originated. The CHNM GA students then considered using a portion of the Fred Jobe collection or a similar type of collection for another exhibit upgrade project.3 In the spring of 2008, the CHNM launched a “Hands-on Archaeology Lab” (Figures 3 and 4) using deaccessioned or never accessioned educational collections curated at the CHNM. A goal was to provide visitors with a tactile/sensory experience with archaeological materials that are usually visible only behind glass. Since 2008, minor changes and upgrades to the lab were added through internships and other projects. With six years of experience and based on visitor evaluations, in 2014 the CHNM decided to upgrade the Hands-on laboratory exhibit (Figure 5). The four GA students assigned to the CHNM are taking the lead in determining the content and form of the upgraded lab, which may also include materials from the Jobe Site collections. DISCUSSION The two studies presented in this paper are typical of co-creation experiences with collections at the CHNM. Projects such as the Big Hackberry site have a clear beginning, middle, and end and ultimately become decentered from both traditional archaeological interests and archaeological authority. Projects such as the Fred Jobe site collection expand into additional directions but remain focused on traditional archaeological interests and interpretation. Key components for co-creative projects at the CHNM are processes and products that result from the expressed needs and interests of the multiple publics that include community and student partners. Had the Southwest Memphis community not expressed a need and interest August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 193 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) FIGURE 2. From the Field to the Museum temporary exhibit created by Nur Abdalla. in exploring their cultural heritage, the activities and products lowing from the Big Hackberry site artifacts would not have occurred. Had the MAGS Archaeology Interest Group not rejuvenated the organization’s focus in archaeology, coupled with the student educational/research interests, the Fred Jobe site collection project likely would not have gone beyond a simple artifact inventory. The driving force behind the two case studies presented in this paper was that they incorporated the expressed interest and need of the CHNM and the community. Co-creative processes seem ideal for small museums with limited inancial resources that need to perform meaningful projects with curated collections. However, the signiicance is more far-reaching. Connolly and Tate (2011:325–326) argue that, even with unlimited resources, museums must still solicit volunteers. The argument views museums as public institutions in the service of society. Co-created projects are about not just archaeological research that needs to occur for institutional needs, but archaeological research that must occur based on community needs and interests as determined by the community. Or, returning to Chambers (2004:194), co-creation is in part viewed as “the act of engagement with others who are trying to make decisions related to particular heritage resources.” A limitation of this paper and the co-creation practice to date is the lack of a comprehensive set of data to demonstrate that the process achieves the desired goals. However, for the problems 194 noted at the outset of this paper—the need to properly curate collections and enhanced community engagement—we can point to several success measures: • 95 percent of the CHNM collections (over 500,000 artifacts) are now inventoried, processed, and curated by best practices standards. • The CHNM is an active participant in numerous ongoing community engagement projects and programs. • The CHNM annual visitation has increased from 8,000 to 12,000 between 2007 and 2012. • In 2007, the CHNM logged no internship or volunteer hours. Since 2012, the ratio of internship/volunteer hours to paid staff hours is approximately 1:2. But are these meaningful measures? For example, Worts (2006:41) writes, “Isn’t it odd that museums—one of society’s principal institutions dedicated to culture—do not measure their success or impacts in cultural terms? Attendance, revenue, objects accessioned, exhibits mounted, and publications published are some of the measures that museums use to assess their operations. But, it can be argued, none of these are cultural indicators. They do not relect on the cultural needs, opportunities, or well-being of the community.” Worts (2006) proposes a Critical Assessment Framework of intangible cultural indicators as an alternative. In applying a modiied version to Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) FIGURE 3. Space used for the Hands-on Archaeology lab exhibit in 2007. FIGURE 4. Hands-on Archaeology lab exhibit in 2008. August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 195 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) FIGURE 5. In the process of updating the Hands-on Archaeology lab exhibit, December 2014. evaluate co-creative volunteer projects at the CHNM, Connolly and Tate (2011:338–342) concluded that 85 percent of the 35 Framework’s cultural attributes were successfully addressed. opportunities and assets that the UM offers, the institution is ideally situated to maximize the co-creative potential of a broad array of stakeholders. An additional concern expressed in co-creation is the quality or context of the products. At the CHNM, following Herreman (2004:92) we distinguish between permanent and core exhibits. The former is a ixed presentation that is replaced in total but does not evolve through time. Core exhibits allow for change, revision, and upgrades that can evolve gradually as new information or opportunities become available. Co-creation is ideal for core exhibits, as shown in the From the Field to the Museum project. Because of the role of museum staff in co-creation processes, content and best practices quality can be achieved. Based on the two examples in this paper, co-creation projects are clearly not linear or unambiguous. The experiences at the CHNM show that, with time, co-creative projects become easier to integrate into the Museum operation because the ambiguity becomes an expected part of the process. More importantly, all participants have the opportunity to go through an experience in which all are empowered to act on their interests and needs and to determine how each entity can be an asset in accomplishing those goals. Co-creation, without question, has allowed the CHNM to more fully live into its mission of providing the public with “exceptional educational, participatory, and research opportunities.” The Fred Jobe collection project is an example of providing increased public accessibility to curated collections. Not only does the exhibit explore an important Big Idea, but both volunteers and students used the collection to further their own interests and develop their skills in archaeological and museum research. In her summary paper at the conclusion of her internship in 2014, Ms. Abdalla noted that “the whole process was deinitely the most educational and inluential experience as an undergraduate in helping me to form my career interests.” CONCLUSION The co-creation processes discussed in this paper work best from interdisciplinary and collaborative perspectives. The process cannot work when individuals operate only in their silos of self-interest. Based on the CHNM position in the community, and as an administrative unit of the UM, beneiting from the 196 Following Simon (2010:187), the co-creative processes discussed in this paper have “give[n] voice and be– responsive to the needs and interests of local community members; to provide a place for community engagement and dialogue; and to help participants develop skills that will support their own individual and community goals.” In so doing, the co-creation process also proved an effective means for addressing the challenges the CHNM faced in collections management and public engagement. Acknowledgments I thank the anonymous reviewers of this paper, along with Chris Dore and Beth Bollwerk, for their critiques, support, and insights. I also thank Allison Hennie, Ron Brister, Natalye Tate, Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation as a Twenty-First Century Archaeology Museum Practice (cont.) Giovanna Peebles, and all of the co-creators involved in the processes reported in this paper. Data Availability Statement No original data were developed or used in this article. REFERENCES CITED Beaudoin, Kenneth 1953 A Report of Excavations Made at the T.O. Fuller Site, Shelby County Tennessee. Manuscript on ile, C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa, Memphis, Tennessee. Chambers, Erve 2004 Epilogue. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers, pp. 193–208. Routledge, New York. C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa 2015 Mission Statement. Electronic document, http://www. memphis.edu/chucalissa/, accessed April 27, 2015. Connolly, Robert P. 2011 From Actors to Directors: Evolving Voices of American Indians in Museum Presentations. Practicing Anthropology 33(2):35–39. 2015 Archaeology, Museums and Outreach. Electronic document, http://www.rcnnolly.wordpress.com, accessed April 27, 2015. Connolly, Robert P., Rebecca E. Bria, and Elizabeth Cruzado Carranza 2015 Co-creating with Indigenous Communities in Huaylas, Peru. In Engagement and Access: Innovative Approaches for Museums, edited by Juilee Decker, pp. 71–78. AltaMira Press, New York. Connolly Robert P., Samantha E. Gibbs, and Mallory L. Bader 2012 Transforming a Museum into a Community Stakeholder and Asset. Museums and Social Issues 7(2):227–244. Connolly, Robert P., and Ana M. Rea 2015 Making African American History Relevant through Co-Creation and Community Service Learning. In Interpreting African American History and Culture, edited by Max Balgooy, pp 175–180. Rowman and Littleield Publishers, New York. Connolly Robert P., and Natalye B. Tate 2011 Volunteers as Mission. Collections 7(3):325–346. Cultural Heritage in Southwest Memphis 2015 African American Cultural Heritage Exhibit. Electronic document, http://southwestmemphis.com/african-americancultural-heritage/, accessed April 27, 2015. Herreman, Yani 2004 Display Exhibits and Exhibitions. In Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook edited by the International Council of Museums, pp. 91–104. ICOM, Paris. Hirzy, Elizabeth 2002 Mastering Civic Engagement: A Report from the American Association of Museums. In Mastering Civic Engagement: A Challenge to Museums, edited by the American Association of Museums, pp. 9–20. American Association of Museums, Washington, D.C. McDavid, Carol 2003 Collaboration, Power, and the Internet: The Public Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. In Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past, edited by Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, pp. 45–66. SAA Press, Washington, D.C. Merriman, Nick 2004 Introduction. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 1–17. Routledge, London. Miller, Sarah 2015 Cemeteries as Participatory Museums: The Cemetery Resource Projection Training (CRPT) Program across Florida. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:275–290. Parman, Alice, and Jeffrey Flowers 2008 Exhibit Makeovers. AltaMira Press, New York. Serrell, Beverly 1996 Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach. AltaMira Press, New York. Simon, Nina 2010 The Participatory Museum. Museum 2.0, Santa Cruz Tate, Natalye B. 2012 Museums as Third Places or What? Accessing the Social without Reservations. Museums and Social Issues 7(2):269–283. Worts, Douglas 2006 Measuring Museum Meaning: A Critical Assessment Framework. Journal of Museum Education 31(1):41–49. NOTES 1. 2. 3. The only collections not transferred were those curated by the Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology at the Art Museum of the University of Memphis and collections from ongoing research or loans to individual UM faculty. Posts published on the author’s blog Archaeology, Museums and Outreach (Connolly 2015) contain detail that is synthesized is this section. Through the 1990s, the C.H. Nash Museum accepted numerous donations from avocational archaeologists and the general public, principally stone tools and ceramic sherds (not whole ceramic vessels). The collections typically have no provenience information beyond county. Many of the collections were never formally accessioned. Today we use these materials for educational collections. AUTHOR INFORMATION Robert Connolly ■ Departments of Anthropology and Earth Sciences, University of Memphis, 316 Manning Hall, Memphis, TN 38152 (rcnnolly@memphis.edu) August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 197 

INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE ON CO-CREATION Co-Creation and Public Archaeology Elizabeth Bollwerk, Robert Connolly, and Carol McDavid This paper serves a dual purpose. First, it is an introduction that aims to frame a set of papers that describe and discuss the process of co-creation in a variety of archaeological projects (see Advances in Archaeological Practice: A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 3[3]). We discuss the challenge of community engagement in public archaeology and offer co-creative practice as a method for improving our relationships with descendant communities and the general public. We begin by providing a deinition of public archaeology and a brief overview of its evolution over the last few decades. Second, we discuss co-creation’s origins and utilization in the museum and business sectors, where the process is applied to address challenges similar to those faced by archaeologists. We then demonstrate how co-creation its into the public/ applied archaeological framework. We argue that co-creation must be both co (that is, share power ABSTRACT This paper serves a dual purpose. First it is an introduction that aims to frame a set of papers that describe and discuss the process of co-creation in a variety of archaeological projects. We discuss the challenge of community engagement in public archaeology and offer co-creative practice as a method for improving our relationships with descendant communities and the general public. We begin by providing a deinition of public archaeology and a brief overview of its evolution over the last few decades. Second, we discuss co-creation’s origins and utilization in the museum and business sectors, where the process is applied to address challenges similar to those archaeologists face. We then demonstrate how co-creation its into the public/applied archaeological framework. We argue that co-creation must be both co (that is, share power in some way) and creative (that is, not just do the same things better, but do something new). Within this framework, we discuss how co-creation aligns with and informs current trends in public archaeology practice drawing from the case studies included in this issue. We conclude that co-creation has an important place on the collaborative continuum and can help our discipline become more responsive to the needs of our many publics. Este trabajo tiene un doble propósito. Primero, se trata de una introducción que tiene como objetivo enmarcar este conjunto de trabajos que describen y analizan el proceso de la “creación en colaboración” en una variedad de proyectos arqueológicos. Primero, discutimos el desafío de la participación comunitaria en la arqueología pública y ofrece la práctica de la creación en colaboración como un método para mejorar nuestras relaciones con las comunidades de afro descendientes y el público en general. Comenzamos por dar una deinición de arqueología pública y una breve descripción de su evolución en las últimas décadas. En segundo lugar, discutimos los orígenes de la creación en colaboración y su uso en el museo y en los sectores de negocios, donde el proceso se implementa para enfrentar retos similares a los de los arqueólogos. A continuación, demostramos como la creación en colaboración se inscribe en el marco de la arqueología pública/aplicada. Debatimos que la creación en colaboración debe ser tanto en colaboración (es decir, compartir de alguna forma el poder) y creativa (es decir, no sólo hacer las mismas cosas de mejor forma, sino hacer algo nuevo). Dentro de este marco, debatimos como la creación en colaboración informa y se alinea con las tendencias actuales en la práctica de la arqueología pública a partir de los estudios de caso que se incluyen en este número. Concluimos que la creación en colaboración tiene un lugar importante en la continuidad de la colaboración y puede ayudar a nuestra disciplina a ser más receptiva a las necesidades de nuestros muchos públicos. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(3), 2015, pp. 178–187 Copyright 2015© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.178 178 178 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) in some way) and creative (that is, not just do the same things better, but do something new) (McDavid 2014). Within this framework we discuss how co-creation aligns with and informs current trends in public archaeology practice drawing from the case studies included in this issue. We conclude that co-creation has an important place on the collaborative continuum (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008) and can help our discipline become more responsive to the needs of our many publics. PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY Before explaining co-creation, we must irst provide our deinition of public archaeology. Public archaeology is any endeavor in which archaeologists interact with the public and any research (practical or theoretical) that examines or analyses the public dimensions of doing archaeology (McDavid 2012:12). Our deinition is very broad and aligns with those used by the various public archaeology-focused journals, such as Public Archaeology, the newer Online Journal of Public Archaeology, and the newest Journal of Community Archaeology (the latter of which concerns itself with one subcategory in a much broader public archaeology discourse). Additionally, when we use the word “public,” we mean any person or any group of people, not themselves professional archaeologists, who intersect with archaeology in some way. Public archaeology as a term, and a mode of practice, has been around since McGimsey used it in 1972 in reference to archaeology that was mandated by public law and sometimes funded by the public purse—today referred to as CRM, salvage, compliance, and contract archaeology. Around the late 1980s and early 1990s, largely in response to problems with widespread looting, the practice of public archaeology expanded to include archaeology education, outreach, and public interpretation. The expanded agenda was, for the most part, to persuade people that archaeological sites were worth saving, and that archaeological knowledge was worth society’s time and money. Programs such as Archaeology Southwest (2015), for example, continue to actively use this approach, known as “preservation archaeology.” The essence of that expanded agenda remains and is a worthwhile component of public archaeology today. However, throughout the 1990s and into this century, public archaeology has also come to mean (ideally, if not always in practice) work conducted alongside and with the public, and not just for them. The same social and disciplinary forces that led to NAGPRA, projects like the African Burial Ground project in New York City, the creation of the World Archaeology Congress, and recent efforts to “decolonize” archaeology, fueled this evolution. In his winning response to the question “What makes #pubarch important?” in a contest sponsored by the AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology, Gabriel Moshenska (cited in Sánchez 2012) succinctly sums up the thinking behind this movement. Moshenska explains: Public archaeology is the study of archaeology in context. This includes social, political, economic and intellectual contexts … Archaeology is produced and consumed: by studying these processes in all their dimensions public archaeologists are the conscience of the discipline. We are all public archaeologists [Moshenska cited in (Sánchez 2012:3)]. This is the perspective discussed by Merriman (2004:6), which moves public archaeology from a deicit model that “sees the public as needing education in the correct way to appreciate archaeology” and moves to the idea of a “conversation” between archaeologists and the public, rather than a “presentation” or “education” (McDavid 2004a:167). Implicit in this understanding is a constructivist approach “that people derive meaning from an encounter with archaeology by relating it to their own lives, rather than whether it corresponds to current archaeological consensus” (Merriman 2004:11). In the past 20 years, numerous edited volumes have reported on the many case studies written from the with not for perspective (e.g., Derry and Malloy 2003; Little 2002; Little and Shackel 2014; Merriman, ed. 2004; Nassaney and Levine 2009; Shackel and Chambers 2004) and have considered the empowerment of speciic communities (e.g., Ashmore et al.2010; Atalay 2012; Brighton 2011; ColwellChanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Lambert-Pennington 2007; Warner and Baldwin 2004). One project where both sorts of approaches were explored was McDavid’s research at the LeviJordan Plantation that sought to be relexive, multivocal, interactive, and contextual (McDavid 2004b:42), framing the work in an explicitly post-processual framework. Not all work about, for example, community empowerment is framed as such theoretically. Most recently, an increase in such community engagement is visible in a host of projects from the United Kingdom (Duffy 2014; Sutcliffe 2014) with an archaeology from below (Rowe et al.2014:167) and in the Philippines, where community engagement is “humanized” and attempts to counter the exclusivity in the authority of colonial archaeology, subsequently resulting in increased community interest (Acabado et al. 2014:14). Borrowing a framework suggested by Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson (although they did not use it in precisely the same way) we submit that all public archaeology since the early 1970s can be seen as a range of discourses and practices, all of which lie at one place or another along a collaborative continuum. These discourses and practices have both distinct and overlapping literatures and strategies and have been referred to variously as: • Cultural resource management (CRM) • public education • public outreach • public interpretation • consultation and archaeology • public participation • applied archaeology • applied anthropology August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 179 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) • civically engaged archaeology • action archaeology • activist archaeology • service-learning archaeology • covenantal archaeology • cooperative archaeology • collaborative archaeology • ethnographic archaeology • archaeological ethnography • community archaeology • reciprocal archaeology • community-based participatory research (CBPR) • participatory action research (PAR) • And, now, added to this constellation, co-creative archaeology While we recognize the importance of not conlating these discourses (they are not all the same thing), they do all represent areas of practice in which archaeology and multiple publics intersect. Also, we note that any particular strategy—outreach, for example—can be implemented in a way that is more or less collaborative, participatory, activist, and so on. Likewise, any archaeologist can use more than one discourse or strategy at the same time. For example, one of us (McDavid) often frames her own work as community archaeology, or activist archaeology, but also includes a great deal of “traditional” non-collaborative public outreach—site tours, displays, talks, and so on. In so doing, McDavid also deploys, in an instrumental way, a variety of theoretical and philosophical discourses—pragmatism especially, but also post processual theory, critical theory, and critical race theory. The discourse—or, put another way, the toolkit—used by any of us at any given time depends on our individual training, disciplinary background, and preference. Not all archaeologists are anthropologists, for example. Moreover, the appropriate tools vary by situation or context. For example, Connolly has given Archaeology Month library presentations on consecutive evenings in different towns located in the Mississippi Delta. Residents of the City of Greenville interested in the general prehistory of the area attended the presentation in their city. In contrast, collectors from the rural agricultural community near the Poverty Point culture Jaketown site were the primary attendees of the presentation in Belzoni. The Greenville presentation was a PowerPoint talk to city residents who asked questions or sought out references for assigned school papers. The Belzoni attendees were interested in “trying to make decisions related to particular heritage resources” (Chambers 2004:194) and were anxious to hear about the signiicance of surface collections they brought to the meeting. As a result of such presentations and the work of numerous archaeologists working in the area, the collectors who attended the three consecutive years of Archaeology Month evening library meetings in 2007 opened a small museum in Belzoni composed of donated collections. The Greenville library presentation was a one-off experience. Both experiences were based on the typical 180 Archaeology Month library presentation, yet the contexts and levels of engagement were dramatically different. So, again, these discourses can be located on a collaborative continuum that ranges from archaeology mandated by public law to the most recent work framed as collaborative, with “true” collaboration (the quotation marks are important) taking place when the public (whether identiied as descendants, communities, or other) has some degree of control or power. But what does this control or power mean in practice? ARCHAEOLOGY, THE PARTICIPATORY MUSEUM, AND CO-CREATION As can be seen from the above discussion, an applied approach and public engagement is nothing terribly new in archaeology. What is different about the set of papers in this issue? This issue builds on the idea of power sharing by incorporating the concepts of the participatory museum and co-creation that have become buzzwords over the past few years in museum studies. Interacting and working with the public is a vital part of the professional mission of museums. Nevertheless, museums, like archaeology, and anthropology more broadly, have shared the challenge of being colonialist institutions with authoritative attitudes towards their collections and the interpretation of these collections. In the last few decades, however, museums have faced a growing mandate from their communities to make themselves more accessible and engaging for the public (AAM 2002; Weil 2002). This movement has taken many forms. As early as 1917, John Cotton Dana’s The New Museum pushed for museums to shift their focus from collections to responding to expressed public needs. In 1971, Duncan F. Cameron posited that a museum should be both a temple and a forum—an authoritative space and place for dialogue that coexists within a museum but remains separate. Other scholars and practitioners have taken up this call, noting that museums should seek not only to disseminate information/knowledge but also to encourage knowledge sharing and creation that is reciprocal. In this context, successful engagement necessitates an exchange rather than a one-way dissemination of information with the general public and descendant communities (Adair el al. 2011; Crooke 2007; Karp et al. 1992; Phillips 2013; Satwicz and Morrissey 2011; Shirky 2012; Simon 2010; Tchen 1992; Weil 2002). As a result of this movement, museum practitioners have created models to implement these calls into daily practice. One of the most popular models is the Participatory Museum, advanced by Nina Simon. Based on a citizen science model, Simon deines the Participatory Museum as a participatory cultural institution as a place where visitors can create, share, and connect with each other around content. Create means that visitors contribute their own ideas, objects, and creative expression to the institution and to each other. Share means that people discuss, take home, remix, and redistribute both what they see and what they make during their Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) visit. Connect means that visitors socialize with other people—staff and visitors—who share their particular interests. Around content means that visitors’ conversations and creations focus on the evidence, objects, and ideas most important to the institution in question [Simon 2010:ii-iii]. Another conceptual model, called Open Authority (Phillips 2013, 2014) emphasizes the need for museums to share Authority and open themselves to new perspectives from their visitors. Phillips calls for museums to actively engage community perspectives around collections. A large part of her argument revolves around reframing how the public interacts with museums and their collections. Drawing from the principles put forth by the Open web and Open source software community, Phillips (2013:224) argues that museums should learn from the technology sphere and see visitors as “users” and “participants,” rather than as an “audience.” In this way, museums can serve simultaneously as temples and forums—as curators of objects but also as places where the public can interact and learn from objects, museum staff, and each other. In a similar manner, Macalik et al. (2015:2) have asked fellow museum professionals to consider referring to those who walk through the door as “users,” in contrast to the more traditional “visitors” or “guests.” Both of the latter terms imply that there is some degree of hosting or welcoming on the part of the museum, whereas the term “users” indicates that people actively use the museum for their interest and beneits, which can include expanding their knowledge on a particular topic. Moore (2014) has also argued for more “culturally competent language that reinforces inclusion,” especially for visitors of color. She notes that using terms like “co-create” reinforces inclusion in contrast to the use of “invite,” which emphasizes a perception of outsider status, despite an intent to be more inclusive. Like the previously mentioned continuum of collaborative engagement for archaeology, Simon’s (2010) Participatory Museum model and Phillip’s (2013) Open Authority model can also be mapped as a spectrum, starting with contribution at one end, continuing to collaboration, and then culminating with co-creation. Contributory projects provide users or audiences with predetermined opportunities to participate or contribute to a project with an institutionally controlled process. One wellknown example of this is crowdsourcing, in which users can tag, transcribe, and contribute data to a project but are not part of the decision-making in broader discussions about its direction or focus. The next area of the spectrum, collaborative projects, are programs in which the general public, visitors, or users are invited to serve as active partners in a project’s development and have some authority in determining and reining the higherlevel goals and design of the program. However, the ultimate decision-making remains with the professional organization. Finally, co-creative projects involve programs in which communities work together with institutional staff members from the beginning of the project to deine the project’s goals and generate the program based on community interests. The key features of co-creation are that a reciprocal relationship is created in which power is shared equally and that multiple perspectives and types of knowledge are acknowledged and integrated into a project design that addresses the expressed needs of both community members and staff members. The papers in this thematic special issue focus on the cocreation end of the spectrum, although notably not all of the contributors to this issue are conident that they have reached that level. Simon (2010:187) writes that the purpose of co-creative community projects is “to give voice and be responsive to the needs and interests of local community members; to provide a place for community engagement and dialogue; and to help participants develop skills that will support their own individual and community goals.” A group of museum planners developed a similar deinition of museum co-creation as A mission-aligned collaborative process through which multiple stakeholders … identify a need, deine the challenge, articulate congruent goals, and then generate ideas, objects, expressions or solutions that yield new or deeper beneits for the co-creators, the institution, and the public…. [A]ll participants have the tools they need to lead or to signiicantly shape the outcomes of the endeavor. Each feels empowered and capable to do so…. Co-creation succeeds when the group arrives at solutions or outcomes—intended or unintended—that they did not imagine at the outset and that none of the participants could have generated on their own [National Art Education Association 2013; emphasis added]. Although our introduction to co-creation was through museum studies, there are several substantive disciplinary threads in which the concept or process emerged. Co-creation seems to have started in business writing, in marketing in particular (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004; Welch 2012), and was quickly adopted in museum studies and other non-market contexts, such as psychology (Roser et al. 2009). These ields have explored, through a lens of co-creation, such approaches as “feminist community psychology” (Angelique and Mulvey 2011). Co-creation, according to one business-oriented deinition, stands for “creative collaboration processes between an organisation and its customers … [and] the ways in which this collaboration takes place may vary” (Roser et al. 2009:16). Some writers suggest that any organization considering a co-creation strategy needs to consider the following questions (Roser et al. 2009:16–17): • Who will be involved? • What is the purpose? • Where does the work occur? • How much involvement is optimum? • For how long? (very important with respect to sustainability) • How will the work be incentivized? Perhaps the closest alignment within archaeology to these movements within the business and museum sectors is found in Little and Shackel’s Archaeology, Heritage, and Civic Engagement: Working Toward the Public Good (2014), in which the business understanding of “expressed needs and interests” aligns with Little and Shackel’s framing of cultural heritage as “whatever matters to people today that proves some con- August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 181 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) nection between past and present” (2014:39). The co-creative component of the Participatory Museum movement echoes the ways that Little and Shackel frame civic engagement and aligns as well with Chambers’ (2004:194) earlier statement that “Applied anthropology (and consequently, applied archaeology) is directed toward helping people make decisions . . . [W] hat makes this work applied is not the knowledge itself, which certainly can be relevant to the interests of others, but the act of engagement with others who are trying to make decisions related to particular heritage resources.” The piece that cocreation adds to the movement (again, from operating for to operating with) is the understanding that the movement is also toward a community’s expressed needs and interests. Little and Shackel’s (2014:100) sequential phasing of civic empowerment is also closely aligned with Simon’s (2010) sequence of contribution, collaboration, and co-creation. Likewise, for both Little and Shackel (2014:100) and Simon (2010), being co-creative is sympathetic with Rosenblatt’s (2010) “engagement pyramid” (Figure 1), with most participants at the base and the fewest at the top, with a declining number of participants at each level, who move, in turn, from “observing,” to “following,” “endorsing,” “contributing,” “owning,” and, inally, to “leading.” A distinction between the two models is Little and Shackel’s emphasis on civic engagement and community building as end goals. In the museum context, the goal often seems to be the survival of the cultural institution. So how is co-creation different from other forms of collaborative public archaeology? As stated earlier, the end goal of co-creation is that it has to be both co (that is, it has to share power in some way) and creative (that is, we cannot just do the same things better; we need to do something new). The business literature highlights this distinction: [Collaboration] is about working together, especially in a joint intellectual effort. And ‘co-creation’? [It means] Doing the above in creative manner…. [This] demands we open ourselves up to new ideas, accept new norms, embrace new ways of seeing the world and, sometimes quite courageously, take comfort in the road less traveled. [Welch 2012; emphasis added] Although the business application cited here clearly resonates with public archaeology, we admit to some discomfort about using a framework that is so overtly rooted in capitalist structures—even though it is clearly applicable to non-market frameworks as well. Nevertheless, while co-creation shares similarities to strategies that are being implemented, we suggest that it also provides additional beneits. The papers in this issue point to two beneits in particular that we will discuss in the next section: decentering (the “co” aspect) and unforeseen results (the “create” or “creative” aspect). CO-CREATION AND DECENTERING McDavid (2003:57) uses the term “decentering” archaeology to describe the process of engaging groups beyond the professional community as a means of incorporating public authority 182 FIGURE 1. Adaption of Rosenblatt’s (2010) “Engagement Pyramid.” into archaeology. Chilton (2010:147–18) uses an example of this approach in ield school contexts and notes that: The overarching and explicit goal of the ield schools that I direct is to teach and promote heritage values and management to multiple stakeholders, including: (1) students; (2) research community; (3) landowners and local residents; (4) state and other government constituencies; and (5) Native American and other descendent groups . . . While the often-cited goal of an archaeological ield school is to teach archaeological ield methods, we do a disservice to students of archaeology (and the community of stakeholders) if ield methods are taught outside of the context of heritage values. Much of the business writing on co-creation distinguishes between co-created value and co-created knowledge, where “dialogue, access, transparency, and understanding of risk-beneits [are] central to … value creation” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). This distinction can be important for archaeologists as well. For example, those who work with communities as they negotiate choices between site preservation and community economic survival must co-create knowledge about and around archaeology before they can co-create value. Furthermore, at times, archaeologists must accept that their values do not align with the values of local or descendant communities. Such an approach challenges the assumption that archaeological knowledge and methods in fact have value, or immediate, obvious value, for a community. In this thematic issue, Bria and Cruzado’s (2015) work with Santa Cruz communities in Peru and Reeves’s (2015) work with metal detectorists at the historic house site of Montpelier in Virginia highlight both the importance of co-creative knowledge and the relative nature of value. Bria and Cruzado (2015) ask a key question: whether archaeologists’ visions of what community members should strive for (i.e., the Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) preservation of local archaeological sites) are actually more valid than the community’s vision of progress. In this case, they are referring to infrastructural improvements that negatively impact cultural resources but positively impact community members’ daily lives. To address this conundrum, Bria and Cruzado argue that archaeologists must seek to understand what local communities value (and why) and acknowledge those values as important. This understanding is co-created knowledge that opens up opportunities to design programs and projects that have value both to archaeologists and to community members and can positively impact communities. Reeves’s (2015) work at Montpelier, which connects staff archaeologists with metal detectorists from all over the United States, also demonstrates the utility of programs that seek to understand non-specialist communities by actively interacting with them. A critical component of the metal detecting program was to create a team-focused atmosphere that would provide both archaeologists and metal detectorists with opportunities to demonstrate their methods, skillsets, and how they assigned value to artifacts. Although these differing sets of values are typically viewed as irreconcilable, Reeves demonstrates in his paper that this was not the case. Instead, the archaeologists and metal detectorists were able to reach a shared understanding of the value of metal detectorists’ methods and archaeological methods and information. Ultimately working together allowed these groups to build a shared understanding of the value of artifacts as vital components of research. Reeves asserts that creating an environment in which all parties’ perspectives are acknowledged and respected can produce new knowledge and insights that are valuable to both archaeologists and non-specialists and can build ties that make them part of the same community. Atalay (2012:241) notes that focusing on the needs of the community can mean that archaeologists do not serve as organizers but as supporters who provide information and research that may end up being supplemental to other forms of knowledge. Ferguson et al. (2015) make a similar observation in their contribution to this thematic issue, noting that anthropological and archaeological knowledge and methods can become secondary in a framework in which knowledge is co-created. Yet in other cases, archaeological information can serve as the primary focus for stories that have already been identiied as important to a community. Kasper and Handsman’s (2015) contribution provides an example of the value of archaeobotanical research to Mashantucket Pequot Survivance stories. They note that the data will be used at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center (2015) to guide new programmatic approaches focused on educating the public on the little known histories of Mashantucket families living and working in and against the modern world. Finally, as Miller (2015) describes in her contribution on the Florida Cemetery Restoration Program, archaeological methods can provide the framework to develop a program that directly addresses a need identiied by a non-specialist community—such as deteriorating conditions of abandoned cemeteries—and empower the community to improve the condition of their cultural resources. For some archaeologists, decentering archaeology has more drastic results as the projects they engage with may seem to be far outside what they prepared for during their training as professional archaeologists. For example, Bria and Cruzado’s (2015) work with Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológico Regional Ancash (2015) in Peru helped build toilets and showers and sponsored a school recycling program. Moyer (2015) notes in her paper that National Park Service archaeologists may have limited experience in digital media but can produce a program that empowers urban youth to relect on archaeological stewardship with the help of teenage digital media know-how. Finally, Popetz (2015) notes that learning to operate within the schedule constraints of high school teachers and students and determining how to navigate their communication systems were two of the most important factors that enabled the success of her project. Thus, in some projects, archaeological (or for that matter, ethnographic) ieldwork takes a back seat and is replaced with a variety of activities that may or may not be directly related to ideas and issues that archaeologists consider priorities. For others, the same ieldwork provides an opportunity to build relationships with underserved communities, even those typically ostracized by archaeologists. This decentering process is time consuming, costly, and complicated. However, it moves toward a truly co-creative process. Regardless of the form it takes, a common thread running throughout all of the projects reported in this issue is that archaeologists are willing to understand communities and their needs, whatever those needs are. Once mutual respect is built, authority is shared and relationships form to ensure that a suite of expressed needs (both those of communities and those of archaeologists) are met. Whether primary or secondary, archaeological knowledge can serve an important role in helping communities to address their needs and to understand the deep and recent history of cultural resources and in providing evidence that helps ensure resource protection. This common ground can help build new relationships, programs, and co-creative and innovative products. CO-CREATION AND INNOVATIVE OUTCOMES Another beneit of co-creation is community building and the innovative programs and products that can result. Co-created knowledge helps to build new views of what is valuable and how value is deined. Whatever “new” means is very content speciic. Ultimately, the key is that the new relates to something that none of the organizations or individual groups could produce on their own, but simultaneously is something that all parties ind valuable because it addressed their expressed needs and interests. In this section, we explore examples of the innovative outcomes of co-created processes. One of the most pertinent beneits for archaeology is that co-creation can broaden the methods used to assign value to physical objects. In co-created projects, the value extends beyond the physical content because the products incorporate the stories of collective identities of the past and present (Holtorf 2010:43–44). For example, Connolly (2015) demonstrates how three boxes containing a handful of bricks, scraps of metal farm implements, nails, broken bottles, and a few pieces of crockery from a 1920s-era African-American farmstead provided the impetus for a suite of projects that helped an archaeological museum become a valued social asset in an underserved community of Southwest Memphis. In this instance, the com- August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 183 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) munity determined the value, consistent with Little and Shackel’s (2014:39) understanding that “Heritage is luid in the ‘moving target’” sense, and that “what matters can seem to some to come from nowhere when it appears to dredge up a forgotten or neglected past.” The success of the metal detectorist program at Montpelier (Reeves 2015) demonstrates that co-creative outreach programs can establish shared values that respond to the commodiication of cultural heritage presented in the popular media today, whether in American Digger or the more reined PBS version Antiques Roadshow. In both, cultural heritage value is answered in three questions: “Is it real? How old is it? And how much is it worth?” However, by the end of their time in Montpelier’s teambased program, metal detectorist participants are more focused on what research questions the artifacts can answer. In addition, the program resulted in an improved research and methodological design that the archaeologists could not have established without help from the metal detectorist community. Co-creation results in other innovative outcomes as well, such as the formation of shared languages. Miller (2015) observes, in her relections on the Florida Public Archaeology Network’s Cemetery Resource Protection Training (CRPT) program, that archaeologists must learn a shared lexicon for effectively communicating with non-specialists, instead of solely training collaborators to use archaeological terms. Moyer (2015) drew a similar conclusion during her collaborations with the National Park Service and the non-proit organization Groundwork Anacostia River DC, when co-creating youth-oriented digital media programs. The creation of a shared terminology and understanding of how each organization worked was a crucial step to develop programs that addressed a need perceived by both institutions. Technology also has a role to play in co-creation, and some of the projects discussed in this thematic issue demonstrate how the digital world can add a new level to co-creation’s implementation. Bollwerk’s (2015) discussion of the Mukurtu CMS, which integrates cultural protocols into software development, demonstrates that it is a provocative example of a co-creative project that empowers indigenous peoples to curate their own history and culture, while simultaneously challenging Western privileging of Open Access. Kasper and Handsman (2015) note in their contribution that the inclusion of iPads at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center will ultimately provide the Mashantucket Pequot with new ways to tell the Survivance stories that are an important part of the tribe’s history. Finally, Means (2015) discusses the growing role of digital preservation in the form of 3D objects. He notes that these forms of archaeological visualization enable the broader public to dynamically and meaningfully interact with rare and fragile objects in ways that would otherwise not be possible, empowering their own contributions to interpreting, understanding, and reimagining the past. These examples demonstrate the variety of “new” outcomes that would not be possible without different communities working together in a co-creative fashion. CONCLUSION We suggest that co-creative experiences can lead to several desired results, if: 184 • The activities foster reciprocal relationships in which the needs and interests of community members, students, archaeologists, and museum professionals are equally supported and valued. Creating the noted products is not possible without the full participation of all partners. All partners’ expressed needs beneit equally. • The activities focus on real-world concerns beyond the walls of the academy or the excavation trench. • The co-created products follow best practices for archaeological research efforts and ultimately result in outcomes that could not be achieved without employing the “co” and the “creative.” Stefan Stern, who wrote a “Co-creation Primer” in the Harvard Business Review (Stern 2011) developed some interesting do’s and don’ts for co-creation, often clearly echoing what many archaeologists have concluded when practicing collaborative archaeology. One “do,” in an archaeology context, would be to remember that “our” taken-for-granteds—ethically, epistemologically, and otherwise—are not necessarily the same as those held by our community co-creators. Another “do” is to be creative about recruiting possible co-creators. Reeve’s (2015) contribution in this issue is particularly relevant in this regard. Another “do” noted by Stern is the need to get top people involved—the hands-on work cannot be something done just by lower-level or hired “outreach” people. In archaeological terms, project investigators should be just as committed to co-creation as the “outreach” staff. The contributors of this issue, many of whom have advanced degrees and run programs that involve juggling multiple projects, have shown that it is possible for project leaders to be integrally involved in co-creative projects. However, it is important to avoid underestimating the amount of time this kind of work takes, both in terms of scheduling daily, weekly, and monthly agendas and in terms of the years it can take to build a truly co-creative relationship. Finally, and probably most importantly, “co-creation” means letting go of control and being prepared to be guided by the community in order to create signiicant change in the status quo. In a postcolonial world, this is arguably the whole point of public archaeology (of any sort)—to learn to let go of control in order to, over time, transform archaeology from a closed discipline to one that takes full account of the contexts in which we work. To return to a previous point in this paper, power is one of these contexts. The papers in this special issue have demonstrated how power sharing took place to varying degrees as archaeologists worked with communities to plan, execute, analyze, interpret, and present archaeological research. As Connolly (2015) notes in his contribution to this special issue, sometimes power can be shared simply by virtue of asking community members what they want and actually listening to the answer. Other strategies discussed in the papers of this thematic issue demonstrate that power can be shared when recruiting and training the public to participate in research: gathering input, providing support for local agendas, providing space for community engagement, being responsive to community needs, and so on. If deployed purposefully, these participative activities can lead to mutual empowerment, co-creation, and even to the transformation of Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) practices that produce inal products all parties deem useful and beneicial. But co-creative practices do not guarantee transformative results. This understanding brings a useful tension that can be productively unpacked when writing about co-creative work. Key practices are to remain critical, relexive, and transparent about where any of our speciic strategies and methods might fall on the collaborative continuum, especially with respect to power. By acknowledging and analyzing the limitations and possibilities of sharing real power in any given context, we can avoid making claims that any particular strategy is truly empowering, or collaborative, or co-creative, when it may not be—or, in some cases, cannot be. A critical part of understanding whether a strategy is successful (or not) is evaluation. A number of the articles in this thematic issue demonstrate that gathering substantive feedback from all partners is an essential component of understanding whether co-creation is reaching its desired goal. Kasper and Handsman (2015) illustrate that visitor studies were an invaluable means of evaluating which aspects of the exhibits at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center were working and what could be improved. As a result, future exhibit designs can shift to be more inclusive of different perspectives and histories. Moyer (2015) and Popetz (2015) emphasize that evaluation has been crucial in determining whether co-creative programs that seek to empower youth are actually reaching this important demographic and enabling them to learn useful skills. With a focus on the digital realm, Bollwerk (2015) discusses the importance of using qualitative and quantitative assessments conducted both on- and ofline to ensure that digital resources are built to meet community needs. Finally, both Connolly (2015) and Bria and Cruzado (2015) have noted that a current weakness of the co-creative approach is the lack of long-term metrics to measure the success of projects. Thus, there is always room for improvement. Nevertheless, no matter what the program or partnering community, many of the papers in this issue emphasize that gathering feedback throughout the co-creative process is critical to enabling the production of a resource that is beneicial for all parties involved. It is also necessary to acknowledge that, even if all parties involved are doing their best to address each other’s interests, natural ebbs and lows that are part of co-creative work can challenge its success. The realities of project timelines, along with the fact that a community’s interest can wane if other pressing concerns emerge, can lead to relationships changing over time. Connolly (2015) explains that, at times, partnering communities do not want to engage in the ways that were previously agreed upon and that factors outside of one’s control can cause a project’s focus to shift. Thus, while sustained community building is key, projects can cycle through all levels of the engagement spectrum, depending on the parties involved and on competing interests. While relecting on one of their projects that angered some local community members, Bria and Cruzado (2015:215) astutely note that co-creation is an “iterative process, [in which] community collaborations should emerge as moments within an ongoing process of revision in order to engage and serve stakeholders.” Ferguson et al.’s (2015) contribution is one of the best examples of the types of long-term partnerships that can develop through this process. Of importance, we acknowledge that what is possible in certain communities will vary drastically. For example, recently McDavid participated in an intense week-long workshop on community archaeology in Africa, exploring ideas with archaeologists working in South Africa, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Ghana (Schmidt and Pikirayi 2014). Many of them were themselves African, working in contexts in which participatory public archaeology—in any form—was new. For some, it was also dangerous, due to political and religious cleavages and the active resistance of some publics to archaeological knowledge. In some situations, even simple “outreach” is not simple at all. Her African colleagues in this workshop were, indeed, working towards co-creating a new way of doing archaeology in Africa, but what each was able to accomplish with respect to sharing real power was very context-speciic. To close, co-creation clearly has a place on the collaborative continuum of practices that take place at the intersection of archaeology and a wide range of publics. Many of the contributors to this issue explore both the co and the creation of co-creation quite deeply. That is, the papers address both power and newness. In addition, all contributors are honestly attempting to account for the contexts in which they work and to ind a place on the more co-creative end of the collaborative continuum. All are travelling a road less travelled, and more power to them. Like any collaborative work, co-creation may seem simple—but it is certainly not easy (Stern 2011). Acknowledgments We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for carefully reading this paper and Elizabeth K. Cruzado Carranza for translating our abstract into Spanish. Data Availability Statement No data are included in this article. REFERENCES CITED Acabado, Stephen, Marlon Marin, and Adam J. Lauer 2014 Rethinking History, Conserving Heritage: Archaeology and Community Engagement in Ifugao, Philippines. The SAA Archaeological Record 14(5):12–17. Adair, Bill, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski 2011 Introduction. In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, edited by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, pp. 10–15. Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, Philadelphia. American Alliance of Museums (AAM) 2002 Mastering Civic Engagement. American Alliance of Museums Press, Washington, D.C. Angelique, Holly, and Anne Mulvey 2011 Feminist Community Psychology: The Dynamic Co-Creation of Identities in Multilayered Contexts. Journal of Community Psychology 40:1–10. Archaeology Southwest 2015 Archaeology Southwest. Electronic document, http://www. archaeologysouthwest.org/, accessed April 26, 2015. Ashmore, Wendy, Dorothy Thompson Lippert, and Barbara J. Mills 2010 Voices in American Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 185 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) Atalay, Sonya 2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bollwerk, Elizabeth 2015 Co-Creation’s Role in Digital Public Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:223–234. Bria, Rebecca, and Elizabeth Cruzado 2015 Making the Past Relevant: Co-creative Approaches to Heritage Preservation and Community Development at Hualcayán, Rural Ancash Peru. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:208–222. Brighton, Stephen A. 2011 Applied Archaeology and Community Collaboration: Uncovering the Past and Empowering the Present. Human Organization 70:344–354. Cameron, Duncan F. 1971 The Museum, a Temple, or the Forum. Curator 14(1):11–24. Chambers, Erve 2004 Epilogue: Archaeology, Heritage, and Public Endeavor. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackle and Erve Chambers, pp. 193–208. Routledge, New York. Chilton, Elizabeth 2010 Teaching Heritage Values through Field Schools: Case Studies from New England. In Heritage Values in Contemporary Society, edited by George S. Smith, Phyllis March Messenger, and Hilary A. Soderland, pp. 147–157. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson 2008 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Connolly, Robert 2015 Co-creation as an Essential Means Toward Open Authority in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:188–197. Crooke, Elizabeth 2007 Museums and Community: Ideas, Issues, and Challenges. Routledge, New York. Dana, John Cotton 1917 The New Museum. The Elm Tree Press, Woodstock, Vermont. Derry, Linda, and Maureen Malloy (editors) 2003 Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Duffy, Paul 2014 Grassroots Archaeology: An Experiment in Monument Resurrection and Suburban Identify in North Dublin. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 1:193–209. Ferguson, T.J., Stewart B. Koyiyumptewa, and Maren P. Hopkins 2015 Co-Creation of Knowledge by the Hopi Tribe and Archaeologists. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:249–262. Holtorf, Cornelius 2010 Heritage Values in Contemporary Popular Culture. In Heritage Values in Contemporary Society, edited by George S. Smith, Phyllis M. Messenger, Hilary A. Soderland, pp. 43–54. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Karp, Ivan, Christine Kreamer, and Steven Lavine (editors) 1992 Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Kasper, Kimberly, and Russell Handsman 2015 Survivance Stories, Co-Creation, and a Participatory Model at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:198–207. 186 Lambert-Pennington, Katherine 2007 What Remains? Reconciling Repatriation, Aboriginal Culture, Representation and the Past. Oceania 77:313–336. Little, Barbara 2002 Public Beneits of Archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Little, Barbara, and Paul A. Shackel 2014 Archaeology, Heritage, and Civic Engagement: Working Toward the Public Good. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Macalik, Jana, John Fraser, and Kelly McKinley 2015 Introduction to the Special Issue: Discursive Space. Curator: The Museum Journal 58:1–3. McDavid, Carol 2003 Context, Collaboration and Power: The Public Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. In SAA Community Partnership Handbook, edited by Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, pp. 45–66. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 2004a Towards a More Democratic Archaeology? The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 159–187. Routledge, London. 2004b From “Traditional” Archaeology to Public Archaeology to Community Action: The Levi Jordan Plantation Project. In Places in Mind: Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve Chambers, pp. 35–56. Routledge, New York. 2012 Response to Tom King’s “Archaeology Is a Menace to the Public” in Forum: Is Public Archaeology a Menace? Online Journal in Public Archaeology 2:10–14. 2014 Co-Creation, the Public, and the Archaeological Record. Discussant comments presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin. McGimsey, Charles R. 1972 Public Archaeology. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center (MPMRC) 2015 Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Electronic document, http://www.pequotmuseum.org/default. aspx, accessed April 26, 2015. Means, Bernard 2015 Promoting a More Interactive Public Archaeology: Archaeological Visualization and Relexivity through Virtual Artifact Curation. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:235–248. Merriman, Nick 2004 Introduction: Diversity and Dissonance in Public Archaeology. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 1–19. Routledge, New York. Merriman, Nick (editor) 2004 Public Archaeology. Routledge, London. Miller, Sarah 2015 Cemeteries as Participatory Museums: The Cemetery Resource Protection Training (CRPT) Program Across Florida. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:275–290. Moore, Porchia 2014 Shifting Paradigms: The Case For Co-Creation and New Discourses of Participation. Electronic document, http:// incluseum.com/2014/02/26/shifting-paradigms-the-case-for-cocreation-and-new-discourses-of-participation/, accessed January 15, 2015. Moyer, Teresa 2015 Building Capacity for Co-Created Digital Moviemaking through Youth Programs. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:291–300. Nassaney, Michael S., and Mary Ann Levine (editors) 2009 Archaeology and Community Service Learning. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology | August 2015 Co-Creation and Public Archaeology (cont.) National Art Education Association 2013 Introduction: Co-Creation. Electronic document, https:// naea.digication.com/2013_naea_museum_education_ preconference/Co-creation, accessed January 15, 2015. Phillips, Lori Byrd 2013 The Temple and the Bazaar: Wikipedia as a Platform for Open Authority in Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 56:219–235. 2014 The Role of Open Authority in a Collaborative Web. In Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage, edited by Mia Ridge, pp. 247–269. Ashgate, Burlington. Popetz, Kimberley 2015 Turning Privies into Class Projects. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:301–312. Prahalad, C. K., and Venkat Ramaswamy 2004 Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3):5–14. Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológico Regional Ancash (PIARA) 2015 Welcome to PIARA! Electronic document, http://www. piaraperu.org/, accessed April 27, 2015. Reeves, Matthew 2015 Sleeping with the Enemy: Metal Detecting Hobbyists and Archaeologists. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3: 263–274. Rosenblatt, Gideon 2010 The Engagement Pyramid: Six Levels of Connecting People and Social Change. Electronic document, http://www.idealware. org/articles/engagement-pyramid-six-levels-connecting-peopleand-social-change, accessed April 20, 2015. Roser, T., A. Samson, P. Humphreys, and E. Cruz-Valdivieso 2009 New Pathways to Value: Co-Creating Products by Collaborating with Customers. In LSE Enterprise Report. London, UK. Electronic document, http://www.promisecorp.com/ documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf, accessed January 20, 2015. Rowe, Samantha, Elizabeth J. Stewart, and David Roberts 2014 Perspectives on Community Archaeology: Exploring Collaborations between Merseyside Archaeological Society and the Museum of Liverpool. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 1:155–172. Sánchez, Jaime Almansa 2012 Editorial: Public Archaeology in Debate. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology 2:1–4. Satwicz, Tom, and Kris Morrissey 2011 Public Curation: From Trend to Research-Based Practice. In Letting Go?Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, edited by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, pp. 196–205. Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, Philadelphia. Schmidt, Peter, and Innocent Pikirayi 2014 Workshop on Community Archaeology and Heritage in Africa. Held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, March 24–28, 2014. Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc. Shackel, Paul A., and Erve Chambers (editors) 2004 Places in Mind: Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. Routledge, New York. Shirky, Clay 2012 Help, the Price of Information Has Fallen and It Can’t Get Up. Clay Shirky’s Writings about the Internet. Electronic document, http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/ information_price.html, accessed January 19, 2015. Simon, Nina 2010 The Participatory Museum. Electronic Document, http:// www.participatorymuseum.org/read/, accessed April 26, 2015. Stern, Stefan 2011 A Co-creation Primer. Harvard Business Review Online, Electronic document, http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/02/co-creation/, accessed April 1, 2014. Sutcliffe, Tara-Jane 2014 Skills for the Future: An Introduction to the Community Archaeology Bursaries Project. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 1:107–117. Tchen, J.W.K. 1992 Creating a Dialogic Museum: The Chinatown History Museum Experiment. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, edited by Ivan Karp, Christine Kreamer, and Steven Levine, pp. 285–326. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Warner, S. Mark, and Daryl Baldwin 2004 Building Ties: The Collaboration between the Miami Nation and Archaeology. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers. Routledge, New York and London. Weil, Stephen E. 2002 Making Museums Matter. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Welch, Andrew 2012 Collaboration and Co-Creation for Brand Innovation. Electronic document, http://www.wpp.com/~/media/sharedwpp/ readingroom/branding/yandr_co_creation_aug12.pdf, accessed April 1, 2014. AUTHOR INFORMATION Elizabeth Bollwerk ■ Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., P.O. Box 316, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (ebollwerk@gmail.com) Robert Connolly ■ Departments of Anthropology and Earth Sciences, University of Memphis, 316 Manning Hall, Memphis, TN 38152 (rcnnolly@memphis.edu) Carol McDavid ■ Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University,1638 Branard, Houston, TX 77006 (www.publicarchaeology.org) August 2015 | Advances in Archaeological Practice | A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 187