ABSTRACT
The past is almost always about the present, and the “history” of the past depends on who does the interpreting. Archaeologists are the interpreters-in-chief of a site, and their narratives and “reconstructions” are part of a broader disciplinary narrative. In addition, archaeologists must work within the sociopolitical environment of the cultures-societies-communities where the site is located. The effect of these “constraints” suggests that understanding the issues of cultural embeddedness and sensitivity is necessary not only for those who observe-interact-participate in the site but also for those who serve as the professional experts in making the site ready for consumption as a product (Castañeda 2008; Duke 2007; Matthews 2008). Archaeological sites “tell” multiple, potentially conflicting “stories” that relate to past historical periods, as well as to everyday contemporary subcultures (Leone 2008; Smith 2006). Thus, the mutability of archaeological enterprise and the multicultural nature of visitors and members of communities adjacent to archaeological sites necessitate debate about how to present information and interpretation for multiple historical cultures at any one archaeological site to the potentially multiple, diverse, and even conflicting visitor cultures and subcultures. This is also the case with conflicting perspectives of professional archaeologists who provide the interpretation of the site (Handler 2008; McDavid 2004). We could also add here that often tour guides at the site add another level of interpretation that reflects both local perspectives (stories) and professional training (Diekmann and Hannam 2012; Handler and Gable 1997).
