Members of a global goddess community verses local Islamic communities at Çatalhöyük, Turkey; the Kashaya Pomo tribe and a State Agency in the excavation of a site on the Sonoma Coast of California; the National Archaeological Service and local developers in the town of Hermione, Greece—given the bewildering varieties of interests, associations, passions, believes, there should be no surprise that the ‘co-production’ of the past is rife with controversy. Within this state of affairs, archaeologists are finding it more and more difficult to develop a coherent picture of a given material past. The data produced in the archaeological process no longer enjoy the status they once held.

The burden of public proofs is leading practitioners to invite audiences to become participants in the archaeological process. But while these strategies may be effective as an immediate fix, the question of manifestation remains. Between the steel edge of the trowel and the fine edge of publication, ambiguity, multiplicity, presence and corporeality, unruly qualities of the material past remain in the trenches, or on the shelves of the storeroom. Not every thing can be shown; not every vested person can be heard. In revisiting the question of an accurate portrayal with regards to the material past, this paper considers the different modes of engagement offered by located and participatory media.