Archaeol Rev Cambridge 7

Frederick Baker (141-4) sets the scene for this critique of 'Archaeology and the heritage industry' by identifying the source of the modern term in 1975, the Civic Trust's Heritage Year; it has been widely copied in archaeology, history, architecture, and the natural world. It is an industry because it uses many devices of modern technology, and because 'heritage centres' have to make profits; it tends to ignore the history of the vanquished or the downtrodden, or sanitizes them into hazy nostalgia, whereas archaeology could uncover and present the 'other heritage'. Nick Merriman (146-56) in 'The heritage industry reconsidered' reports a survey which showed that visitors do not uncritically accept a sentimental view of the past; it also showed that since the 'dominated' classes rarely attend heritage centres they cannot well be suffering 'indoctrination' with a dominant ideology. Even so, museums could well provide more thought-provoking displays. Alf Hatton (157-68) argues, in 'Museums and heritage: is there really any conflict?', that heritage centres and theme parks all contribute to helping people reconcile past and present, and museum workers would do well to find and meet the real needs of society. Richard Hodges (170-6) in 'Towards a proper study of mankind' argues that good academic research designs should lead to good public archaeology: three Sheffield University projects are among those cited as evidence. Caroline Wickham-Jones (185-93) writes of 'The road to Heri-tat: archaeologists and interpretation', contending that as the past is exploited for money archaeologists must take steps to retain control over what is done in their name, whether for specialists, local people, or tourists. A variety of techniques, from 'time-car' to information sheet, can be used but must always aim at people. Anna Zissimatou (194-6) and Carol Boyne (197-9) respectively revew Donald Horne's The great museum (1985) and R Hewison's The heritage industry (1987).

A participant in the Mainz Congress re-examines concepts of academic freedom and archaeology as a political weapon, and offers some personal reflexions on Mainz with particular reference to the division in our profession between UISPP-ites and WAC-ites over the apartheid issue.