Public Archaeology in the Mediterranean Context (#pubarchMED) is a project that focuses on the management of archaeological heritage in the Mediterranean context from the perspective of public archaeology. Ranging from fully public models where preventive archaeology itself is a challenge to mixed models where the outsourcing of this work has been accomplished to a full extent, the variety of solutions is wide and with a common trend: struggle with mitigation and little space for creativity. This article will delve into the range of models that exist in the Mediterranean, exploring the way they approach, first of all, preventive/rescue archaeology, and then, the relationship between archaeology and society in the process. Building on the challenges of an underfunded scheme for an extremely archaeologically rich territory, different solutions have been set in practice—in some cases, under the auspices of competent administrations in the form of public policy—in the endeavor to include public archaeology in the practice, mostly encouraged by professionals as a personal or corporate initiative, and sometimes even consciously avoided. The discussion will offer some ideas for creative mitigation in the different scenarios, built on the comparative study and the broad possibilities to engage stakeholders positively in the process.

This article focuses on the development of preventive and commercial archaeology in Europe during the last thirty years by examining the case of Italy. This country has a mixed public-private system, where the law establishes that the State manages all archaeological activities, although archaeological services are provided mainly by private individuals or companies and funded by private developers. This framework leads to a mismatch between law and practice, which impedes the development of professional archaeology and the full implementation of the Valletta principles. The issue is examined from an historical perspective, from the 1970s to the present day, and is augmented by a brief analysis of the current trends in cultural heritage policy. The study concentrates on the regulatory elements of archaeological activities, since these legal matters are generally overlooked by scholars.

Rather than being bashed around in view of its contents, the nation state – or at least the ‘state’ part of this compound term – needs to be cherished for the context it provides. Without the state, instilling regulations, procedures and common purpose, archaeology will not really thrive. This is confirmed through an exemplary case study, namely the seemingly measured and consensual retrenchment of the state occurring in England over the past 25 years. A brief presentation of the structure of English archaeology serves to highlight the situation of each of its main sectors, commercial contractors, curators at local levels and national bodies. Recent changes at the last level, involving English Heritage Trust and Historic England, highlight the risks posed by state disengagement, by funding withdrawal and by the enforced commercialization of public services.

The triple disaster that hit eastern Japan on 11 March 2011—earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown—was a momentous event with long-term implications for archaeology and heritage. The sheer scale of the damage experienced generated a form of ‘disaster-led’ preventive archaeology, in line with the reconstruction efforts. As radioactive contamination continues to affect cultural assets including museums and monuments in the exclusion zone, the massive decontamination efforts under way bring about further heritage complications. Alongside its immediate applications, archaeology also has a wider critical role to play: with its mastery of materiality and temporality, it can help envisage the ‘contemporary future’ at Fukushima, a defining landmark of the feats and failures of late modernity.

We have no choice: we must excavate, first because whole continents are still barely known from an archaeological point of view, and second because thousands of archaeological sites disappear every day as a result of economic development. Rescue or preventive archaeology is thus an ethical duty. Nevertheless, there is a serious risk of a split between academic archaeology, with its wealth of thinking but poverty of funding, and commercial archaeology, where the situation is the opposite and the goal is, above all, financial profit. So the question is not just to know why one excavates, but also how.