Conclusion

An archaeological approach to contemporary homelessness contributes to existing literature on the subject by materializing this familiar yet alien social status in a number of ways. Globally, homelessness continues to suffer from being conceptually constructed according to essentially British nineteenth-century ideologies that are class-based and heavily gendered, whilst, increasingly commonly, manifesting physically as a diverse and phenomenological experience. Approaching homelessness using participatory cultural heritage methodologies enabled those involved in the Homeless Heritage project to collectively destabilize some of the pernicious myths that surround homelessness, present alternative perspectives, and identify practical ways in which homeless people might be better helped to survive and recover. Positive outcomes from the Homeless Heritage project include the ways in which people involved experienced increased social connectedness and enhanced well-being. Homeless colleagues actively chose to (re)engage with existing social and public services with more robust commitment than had previously been the case, while reconnecting with family also emerged as a strong and important outcome from the Homeless Heritage project. There were theoretical implications too. Where archaeology may be considered an ‘intervention’—a methodology for engaging with the material world— heritage is the human context by which such engagement is made possible. Heritage, a mode of cultural production, has an important role to play in facilitating redemptive and cathartic conversations about difficult or distressing human experiences and could powerfully affect the course of social policies in the future. Conversations facilitated through Applied Heritage can produce more nuanced understanding, which could feasibly be used to improve and enhance social justice on local levels and promote tolerance, understanding, and peace on the wider international stage. The initial aim of the project was to see whether an archaeological cultural heritage approach to contemporary homelessness might contribute to wider understanding of the social condition. A significant outcome was a more nuanced understanding of homelessness in the twenty-first century. This helped to powerfully counter definitions and rationalizations of homelessness in terms of nineteenth-century constructions of vagrancy. A more surprising outcome concerns evidence that Applied Heritage can function as a powerful therapeutic form of social intervention. In approaching homelessness archaeologically, from the perspective of a range of individual agents, the Homeless Heritage project clearly showed why a homeless person might ‘choose’ to appropriate, for example, space beneath a willow tree or a bin cupboard over conditions in temporary accommodation deemed ‘suitable’ for statutorily homeless people.