The last fifteen years has seen the swift emergence and development of heritage and wellbeing studies, most especially within the last five years with the production of numerous reports (e.g., Heritage Alliance, 2020; Reilly et al., Reference Reilly, Nolan and Monckton2018), systematic reviews (e.g., Pennington et al., Reference Pennington, Jones, Bagnall, South and Corcoran2018) and practice-based studies (e.g., Darvill et al., Reference Darvill, Barrass, Drysdale, Heaslip and Staelens2019). Archaeology, Heritage and Wellbeing: Authentic, Powerful, and Therapeutic Engagement with the Past, the latest collection of heritage-based wellbeing studies, demonstrates just how far the field has come in such a short space of time and offers discerning guidance on how it might progress in the future.

Archaeology, Heritage and Wellbeing brings together contributions from a group of renowned heritage and mental health scholars with the intention of assisting archaeologists and heritage professionals to refine their modes of assessment, while also presenting to health practitioners the tremendous value that archaeology, heritage, and the historic environment have to offer wellbeing. The volume is divided into five distinct parts: Context; Museums, Healing, and Wellbeing; Connecting with the Land; Archaeology as Therapeutic Tool; and Engaging with Wellbeing. Covering diverse topics such as defining wellbeing, environmental and wellbeing inequality, difficult heritage, Indigenous wellbeing, metal detecting, veteran archaeology, archaeological pedagogy, and psychogeography, the volume advances the field of heritage-related wellbeing in a variety of new directions. At the same time, by emphasizing core challenges relating to evaluation, social inclusion, safeguarding, and policy, the volume proves itself not just as a collection of novel, evidence-based studies dedicated to the development of this research area, but also as a valuable reference book for senior researchers, practitioners, clinicians, and students. These aspects of the volume, which I found particularly instructive and enlightening, are outlined below.

The book begins with Louise Baxter and Karen Burnell's (Ch. 1) thorough discussion on how wellbeing is variously defined and evaluated in different contexts. This chapter is essential reading for researchers or practitioners, as it clearly sets out the different definitions and approaches used in wellbeing research, highlights common misinterpretations of wellbeing, and critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of different models and measures including their ability to account for contrasting cultural experiences of wellbeing. This discussion addresses the clear need to improve the quality of evidence reporting within heritage-related wellbeing research (Gallou, Reference Gallou2022; Nolan, Reference Nolan2020) and steer it on a course to greater robustness. The chapter impresses upon the reader the importance of selecting the model of wellbeing and method of evaluation most appropriate to the aims of a given study. Accordingly, it emphasizes that the definition of wellbeing used in heritage projects has a direct bearing on their ability to improve the wellbeing of project participants and contribute data that is relevant and meaningful for both practice and policy. Indeed, Linda Thomson and Helen Chatterjee (Ch. 4) provide a good example of how attention to this logic works in practice in their case-study on evaluating the impact of cultural participation using the UCL Museum Wellbeing Measures.

These themes are developed further in Chapter 3 with Karen Burnell and Giles Woodhouse's realist review of existing literature on active engagement with heritage to improve the wellbeing of people living with mental health issues. Their thematic analysis of data from different projects, based on the criteria of context, method, and outcome, results in a candidate programme theory which identifies four main areas where heritage appears to consistently support wellbeing. These include activities that connect people, take place in non-clinical settings, connect people to the past via objects and landscape, and value equal participation. Building on and complementing other heritage-based wellbeing frameworks (i.e. Gallou, Reference Gallou2022; Reilly et al., Reference Reilly, Nolan and Monckton2018), this programme theory serves to further define the wellbeing benefits of heritage engagement for participants with a formal mental health diagnosis. As this analysis excludes the experience of participant without a clinical diagnosis, it does not necessarily provide a definitive guide to all of the ways that heritage can specifically influences wellbeing. Nevertheless, it adds an additional and insightful perspective to this particular area of inquiry. In doing so, it presents an impact mapping template which may help to streamline the project design and aims of future studies, improving evidence reporting in the process.

Richard Benjamin's article (Ch. 6) on greening sites of heritage highlights the wellbeing and environmental inequalities that are enacted in heritage spaces (Historic England, 2022). Taking the International Slavery Museum (ISM) as a case-study, Benjamin discusses the role that heritage institutions can play in improving access to the wellbeing benefits that museums and their green spaces can provide for diverse communities. Not limiting the discussion to access, Benjamin also examines the powerful function that the ISM performs in sensitively helping descendants of enslaved Africans or members of the global African diaspora to process difficult colonial histories, combatting racial violence and injustice, and promoting black pride and wellbeing through positive memory work.

Themes of social inclusion and safeguarding of participants engaging in therapeutic heritage activities frequently arise in different contexts throughout the volume. Niall Finneran and Christina Welch's (Ch. 15) psychogeographic work with economically deprived and diverse ethnic communities in Tower Hamlets is a perfect example of this attention to social inclusion. However, these agendas come up especially in the case of veterans participating in archaeological projects for rehabilitation and as a way of reintegrating into civilian life (Ch. 10-12). These examples underscore the inclusive nature of heritage and archaeology projects for veterans, but also the importance of these programmes in terms of providing much-needed access to therapeutic support, which is either in short supply for this group (Ch. 5, 9, 12) or not seen as a viable option due to socio-cultural (Ch. 12) and economic barriers (Ch. 5).

A number of chapters (Ch. 5, 9-12) also stress the severity of trauma and injury that veterans live with, and the need to safeguard the wellbeing of those who participate in archaeology-based wellbeing projects without stigmatising them as ‘victimised heroes’ (Ch. 12). Treva Walters-Barham and Stephen Humphreys (Ch. 12) advise that this can be achieved by focusing on participants’ unique strengths and capabilities within these projects. As previously raised by Burnell and colleagues (Reference Burnell, Everill, Baxter, Makri, Watson, Monckton and Gradinarova2021), this approach is of course relevant to other vulnerable groups participating in heritage projects and something which should be factored into future studies.

Continuing with the theme of inclusion, this time within the field of heritage and wellbeing studies itself, Claire Smith and colleagues’ (Ch. 7) focus on the Ngadjuri people of Southern Australia and the recovery of their archaeological heritage is a very welcome addition to the existing heritage-related wellbeing evidence base, which for a long time was largely UK-based and associated with a narrow demographic (Ch.14; Reilly et al., Reference Reilly, Nolan and Monckton2018). Furthermore, only a very small number of studies concerning Indigenous populations have been published to date within the frame of heritage-related wellbeing (e.g., Shaepe et al., Reference Shaepe, Angelbeck, Snook and Welch2017). Along with Benjamin's work at the ISM and Finneran and Welch's Tower Hamlets study, this focus on the intrinsic link between archaeology and Indigenous sense of place and identity enables scholars to look at wellbeing from very different cultural perspectives and to conceive of it in different ways. This is essential for researchers in order to understand the full range of benefits that heritage involvement can afford cross-culturally. Moreover, Smith et al.'s study demonstrates how important heritage and wellbeing research is to the project of decolonization. It also provides an example of best practice with regard to co-produced heritage-based wellbeing projects and demonstrates that collaborative approaches are an asset to this work.

Weaving together many of the topics discussed above, Linda Monckton's chapter (14) on strategic and organisational approaches to wellbeing, maps out how the wellbeing potential of the historic environment might be maximised for society as a whole with respect to the aims of public policy. Monckton's People and Place Matrix (p. 248) identifies where the historic environment can make a difference (i.e. promoting place and place-shaping) for communities and individuals through pro-active, preventative, responsive, and healing approaches. This elevated perspective simplifies the apparently complex relationship that exists between wellbeing, society, and the historic environment. As such, echoing the sentiment of Paul Everill's chapter (2) on the unique social value of archaeology, Monckton's assessment refocuses the reader on the rudimentary dynamic between these three pillars, with the reminder ‘…that the historic environment is a fundamental tool in mapping the kinds of people who came before us and the human and social impact on where we live, and producing indicators for the way ahead’ (p. 239).

Archaeology, Heritage and Wellbeing succeeds in underlining the areas that need to be developed and improved upon in order for heritage and wellbeing practice to achieve its aims and receive greater recognition and support. In this way, it has certainly helped to refocus and broaden the discourse, and ultimately move it forward. For instance, together with Smith et al.'s chapter (7) on Indigenous heritage in Australia and the focus on veteran projects conducted in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Georgia, and the United States, the volume has broadened the remit of the field to include heritage contexts and communities outside of the UK. This is crucial for not only understanding how different groups experience wellbeing, but also how different historic narratives impact their wellbeing. The majority of these studies concentrate on veteran communities (Ch. 5, 8-10, 12), which is evidently necessary given the good practice these projects exemplify, the immense benefit they deliver, and the lack of peer-reviewed papers on wellbeing and veteran archaeology (Ch. 11) prior to this publication. However, by its very nature this narrower focus also indicates that future heritage and wellbeing projects need to be carried out with more diverse populations and in a range of different settings.

While this review has centred on the ways in which this volume addresses the challenges faced by the field of heritage and wellbeing research, it has perhaps not given enough attention to the quality and success of the wellbeing work that is reported in its chapters. Most importantly, the contributions presented in this volume underscore the deep healing that heritage and the historic environment can facilitate, especially for certain communities. Consequently, Archaeology, Heritage and Wellbeing serves the field of heritage and wellbeing research well not only through its critical lens but also by expounding the fundamental value that heritage and the historic environment hold for society.