{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03231292517006803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01020408163265306, 'mean_word_length': 5.371841155234657, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Engaging with multiple pasts: Reply to Francis McManamon

Francis McManamon's passionate plea for improved public outreach by professional archaeologists is laudable in so far as archaeology's role in society continues to be an issue in need of discussion and critique (McManamon, 2000). But these discussions and critiques should not be pre-empted by senior professionals who assert their own perspective as that of all archaeologists. Passages in McManamon's essay and similar literature (e.g. Feder, 1984) come across as rather prescriptive to his colleagues, and just a mite uncharitable to his fellow citizens: 'One way of improving effectiveness would be to target messages and means of delivery on different portions of the general public ... There are possibilities for making a positive impression on the mass audience in such approaches'; 'It is imperative, therefore, that the professionals teaching these [introductory or general survey] courses use them as effectively as possible to inculcate in their audiences an appreciation and understanding of archaeology'; 'Individuals among the general public can serve as the eyes and ears of local, state or even national officials who are responsible for archaeological preservation' (McManamon, 2000; 13,16, 7). This language frightens me. I am challenging the principal assertion that all archaeologists ought to share McManamon's concerns. In my experience, archaeologists are not all willing to transmit the same 'messages' to their audiences, nor do they necessarily see themselves as 'messengers' at all. Several important questions and issues that remain unresolved in McManamon's essay need to be raised. (1) What exactly is a 'mistreatment' of archaeological sites? Who says what can and cannot be