Value and Significance in Archaeology

Ars & Humanitas: revija za umetnost in humanistiko, 2023

The paper focuses on heritage value systems, particularly investigating the archaeological understanding of heritage values and evaluation. The literature review shows that the postmodern archaeological paradigm predominantly covers the topic, while the perspective of the intrinsic value is less explored. The starting point of our research is the thesis that archaeological paradigms obstruct better public support if they refrain from using axiological considerations. By archaeological paradigm, we refer to the processual and post-processual ones (the latter focusing on understanding past social phenomena). Axiology, as the theory of values, developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its approach is now used in many areas of social sciences (for example, education and medical care). Public archaeology is more open to societal needs than processual and post-processual archaeology but has yet to apply a values-based approach consistently. To clarify our thesis, we analyse the theoretical and practical considerations on the values of (archaeological) heritage, including the issues of the categorization of values, reflection on who assigns values to heritage and how this affects the reception of archaeological knowledge in society. The paper addresses some critical aspects of the evaluation in archaeological heritage conservation, management and building alliances with locals and communities who identify with heritage. We outline a comprehensive archaeological evaluation system considering systemic, extrinsic and intrinsic archaeological values in the conclusions.

Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Post-Medieval Archaeology, 2019

The abundance of goods in the modern world has a tendency to prejudice interpretation of their value, but the way people value their goods is complex, relative and changeable — scarcity is just one factor. There is a long history of value theorization across the social sciences, but archaeological considerations of value remain uncommon and focused on prestige goods. In this paper, I review alternative conceptions of value through the lens of the modern world, with an example of Spode creamware used by a governor in the early decades of colonial Sydney. I argue that the process of devaluation, through discard and waste, offers a unique archaeological understanding of the shifting values people of the modern world placed on commodities.

Public Archaeology, 2014

The use of archaeology for economic development represents a nontraditional use of resources normally valued for their cultural aspects. Economic benefits and uses are often resented in opposition to cultural ones in much of heritage management theory and practice. This divide has lead to a lack of data and an inadequate consideration of the economic value of archaeology and its place in economic development. Based on research in Scotland and in Jordan, this paper presents concepts to help bridge the gap between these values and provide a more holistic view of archaeological resources which considers the relationships between cultural and economic values.

International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2020

The notion and possibilities of (in)significance arose in 2015 when we developed an idea for a one-day symposium titled '(in)significance: a discussion about values and valuing in heritage'. At the symposium, we aimed to explore the history, theory and practical application of the concept of significance and broach the idea and potential application of '(in)significance'. Based on the level of interest generated, this special edition of the International Journal of Heritage Studies was developed in order to build upon some of the thinking and discussion that arose from these experiments. Together, the six papers presented here explore a broad range of approaches to significance and value as enacted in different parts of the world and at different scales: from the local, to the national and the international.

Barbara Hoffman (ed.), Art and Cultural Heritage Law for the Twenty-first Century: Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–63., 2006

In theory, archaeology was born as a knowledge-based activity in which the most important concern was getting to know the past better. Since the very beginning, we have been creating ‘products’ in terms of heritage and archaeological information. In some way, perhaps due to the broadly extended capitalist mentality of the leading Anglo-Saxon stream, these ‘products’ soon became commodities in a Heritage market that has now become a commodity itself. “What are you selling?” is one of the most frequently asked questions during the quest for project funding. We are selling Knowledge, Identity, Dreams, Pride and, sometimes, even stones. The first ethical issues arise here, in the building of ‘products’ that are usually misused by the public in its different facets. The mix of politics, money and media has created a ‘Culture of Archaeology’ that deeply affects daily issues not directly related to archaeology. Are we responsible for that? Looking at the growth of archaeology in developing countries might answer this question. The imposition of a value for the past/heritage from an occidental point of view has created a tourism-related market, supported by International Organizations that, in some way, are still having a neo-colonial attitude towards archaeology. Moreover, since the growth of urban archaeology, CRM and commercial archaeology have become a major issue for the profession. Archaeological practice itself has become a commodity for developers who need a new ‘paper’ for their building permission. How ethical is it to sell ourselves for something else than research? Can we call ‘research’ what we do in this framework? Answers should be easy and clear, but this market, which covers more than 90% of all archaeological practice in many countries, has too many shadows. Today, commercial archaeology is growing fast, expanding it activities from outreach to management. Thus, the main ethical concern that arises is this: Can we privately work in archaeology viewing it as a commodity, when it still is a public resource that belongs to all of us?

Over the last decades, archaeological heritage has suffered considerably from threats caused by armed conflict. The destruction of Bamiyan's Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Iraqi museums ransacking and looting and, more recently, the destruction of Palmyra by Daesh (also referred to as IS, ISIS or ISIL) are among the most famous examples. Before they were damaged, the public did not know most of these heritage sites, which, nevertheless, were appropriated as symbols of Western values against the ideology of Islamic extremists. UNESCO defined the deliberate destruction of Syria's cultural heritage as a war crime and the academic world is launching several projects aiming at preserving endangered archaeological heritage. At the same time, antiquity trafficking from Syria and Iraq to Europe and United States represents one of the most relevant revenues for Daesh. The debate on the notion of appropriation and ownership, the role of a globalized scientific archaeology and the impact of armed conflict on archaeological practice are topics that this issue of Ex Novo wants to address. We will welcome papers exploring the various ways the past is remembered, recovered, created, and used. In particular, we want to discuss the role of archaeology in present-day conflicts and its function as peacekeeping tool or as a weapon of war.

EAC Occasional Paper No. 19 , 2024

“Contemporary Archaeology” deals with sites, features and fi nds from the period after the beginning of industrialisation, obtained through excavation and documentation using techniques and methods applied in all fi elds of archaeology. The topic and the comparatively ‘young’ period in focus are not completely new for archaeological monument preservation, even if they are explicitly considered in only a relatively few monument protection laws. It has long been common practice in many places across Europe to protect, preserve, and research monuments of the recent past—simply because they are there. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for archaeological heritage management, considered in the 2023 EAC symposium papers. Archaeological heritage preservation gains weight because it is accompanied by a special interest from the public and, thus, can develop opportunities to participate in political education. The material remains of war and terror lead us to the limits of archaeology and beyond: they become evidence, crime scenes, and anchors for commemoration and political education.

A values-based approach is the current most preferred approach to heritage conservation, adopted and advocated by major conservation authorities, both at national level (eg USA, Canada, Australia, and UK) and at international level (eg UNESCO World Heritage Centre), and by major research and educational institutions (eg Getty Conservation Institute). This paper argues that a values-based approach cannot apply to all types of heritage sites. There is a specific type of sites, called ‘living heritage sites’, that cannot be embraced within this approach, and thus require a different conservation approach. The first part of the paper sets the framework for the discussion by presenting the basic concepts of heritage conservation. Emphasis is on the concept of discontinuity. The second and the third part review a values-based approach, stressing the weaknesses of the approach. The fourth part concentrates on ‘living heritage sites’, describing their basic characteristics and the practices of their maintenance. Emphasis is on the concept of continuity. The fifth part attempts to demonstrate why living heritage sites, as well as the maintenance practices, cannot be embraced within a values-based approach. The sixth part presents a new approach for the operation and management of these sites: a living heritage approach. The seventh part compares a values-based approach and a living heritage approach, focusing on the different ways the two approaches look at authenticity. The paper aims at moving beyond a values-based approach towards a new international approach in conservation: a living heritage approach.