The archaeological public trust in context (1991)

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 32: 135-141, 2008

The topic will be about how the Philippine government handle archaeology through the institutions such as the National Commission on Culture and the Arts, National Historical Institute, National Museum, etc. and through the national cultural heritage acts and laws such as the Omnibus Cultural Heritage Law. As such, this paper will also contain some information about heritage, both tangible and intangible. This paper will also cover international laws and guidelines with regard to cultural heritage and archaeology such as archaeological sites, and possible repercussions of violating the agreements. The paper will tackle as well, the future of archaeology in the Philippines.

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.

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

It should be obvious to everybody working in archaeology today that the position of the discipline has gone through some rather drastic changes over the past 15 years or so. As the former Chief Archaeologist of English Heritage, Geoff Wainwright, put it in a lecture on The future of European Archaeology at the inaugural meeting of the Europae Archaeologiae Consilium few years ago: 'the central importance of cultural heritage for social and economic progress around the globe is increasingly recognised as a vital element in creating a different kind of world and as an essential building block in the social and economic well-being of people. Indeed, archaeology and its allied cultural-historical disciplines are more important than its practitioners care to admit. In Europe today we start from the proposition that we simply cannot have social and economic development without recognition of our cultural heritage and history. It is widely recognised by international bodies, national and local governments, the international world of commerce; academia; the media and non-governmental bodies that society cannot move forward into the future unless it understands and acknowledges the past from which we come. This view of the relationship between cultural heritage and socio-economic development is not controversial nor is it solely the view of an elitist practitioner. It is a view that will be found in towns and villages throughout Europe, who cherish their sense of place and provide the fuel for many debates regarding its future' (Wainwright 2000). Obviously, this perception of heritage is very much one of the 21 rst century and is rather different from the ideas about the role of cultural heritage that we grew up with. I assume that in retrospect, the adoption -in 1992 -of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, or the Malta Convention as it is better known, which has meanwhile been ratified by most European countries, will prove to have been a watershed, at least in Europe. It defines a standard for the management of archaeological properties and provides a frame of reference for countries that have not ratified the convention yet and also for countries outside Europe, where a comparable international standard is lacking.

Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, 2014

European collaboration, in Belgium last year, which we publish in full. This is a perceptive survey of the under-used potential of the Forum and its members and an indication of how it might best be deployed, by a professional archaeologist who has succeeded in standing back from the preoccupations of his profession. His vision of a heritage protection movement akin to and perhaps allied with the Green movement is an alluring one, worthy of consideration and implementation. In the closing years of the 20th century the philosophical, legislative, and organizational apparatus for the protection and management of the archaeological heritage is slowly fitting into place in certain parts of the developed world. But much remains to be done, and quickly, otherwise little is likely to survive into the 21st century and beyond.

papers.ssrn.com

Heritage advocates and nations of origin have an impressive and grow-ing array of legal measures to help protect and preserve antiquities: national ownership declarations, export restrictions, and enforcement of these measures by various domestic and international courts and law ...

Current Anthropology, 2008

The Archaeological Institute of America’s (1999) code of professional standards requires that archaeologists “work actively to preserve the [archaeological] record in all its dimensions and for the long term” and “give due consideration to the interests of others” in their work. At the AIA’s 2006 annual meeting in Montreal, participants in a session entitled “WhenPast and Present Collide: The Ethics of Archaeological Stewardship” explored the implications of these obligations for the conduct of archaeology and suggested ways for archaeologists to engage with stakeholder collaboration, site preservation, and political aspects of archaeology. Presentations by Lynn Meskell, Michael Galaty, Roger Atwood, Daniel Shoup, Ian Hodder, and Lyra Monteiro included case studies from South Africa, Peru, Albania, and Turkey. They examined when archaeologists should take sides in political conflicts over archaeology, how economic and social issues that are unrelated to archaeology can be decisive in site preservation efforts, whether acceptance of universal heritage values should be a precondition for inclusion of nonarchaeologists in stewardship planning, and when the actions of archaeologists themselves can be harmful to site preservation efforts. Rather than being prescriptive these contributions offered a variety of perspectives and suggestions for integrating stewardshipand collaboration into archaeological research.

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.