Archaeologists are confronted with requests from local communities to translate their researches into local museums. How are the histories dealt with in the Southeast Asian community museums
Everywhere in the world, recent decades have witnessed demands for locally-centered histories, often related to regional claims for recognition at a national level and for local histories and local/site museums. Internet and new technologies have enabled new forms of intense contacts between local communities and N.G.O or archaeologists finding means to have their voice heard
Archaeologists, especially in various regions of the American continent, in Australia and New Zealand where native indigenous were able to claim ancestral rights on their heritage have come to collaborate with communities and anthropologists and to develop new approaches to archaeology. Taking into account the multiple practices, histories produced and demands implies questioning each disciplines' foundations: a reflexivity that concerns as much archaeologists, anthropologists and the increasing number of other people getting involved into heritage (Hodder 2008). Another challenge is for museography to display these different discourses into one of those local heritage centres whether called site museums or ecomuseums desired by the local people.
We would like to confront experiences in Southeast Asia that archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, museologists or other academic faced when dealing with displaying the different histories that people want to hear from their cultural or natural heritage. How are the pasts dealt with in the Southeast Asian community museums? Is Southeast part of a global trend or does it show specificities in the prolixity of local museums' demands?