2006 An archaeologist's view of the trade in unprovenanced antiquities (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Archaeological Dialogues, 2018
The paper ponders on the object of archaeology, called here 'the archaeological.' It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of 'Nature' and 'Culture' that eventually leads us to a confrontation of archaeological statics with the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics, consequently, leads to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.
The National and Global Care for Archaeological Resources
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
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.
No compensation needed: on archaeology and the archaeological
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2017
The archaeological is regularly perceived in negative terms as lacking and deficient. It is fragmented, static and crude, a residue of past living societies. Accordingly, much of archaeologists' efforts are directed towards the amendment of these flaws. The present paper, however, argues that these so-called deficiencies are in fact constitutive absences. Whatever the archaeological lacks, it lacks by definition. It thus follows that working to render the archaeological " complete " is in fact an effort to undo it, to convert it into something else. For the sake of discovering the past, archaeological practice is a sustained effort to rid itself of the very phenomenon that defines it, consequently setting in motion self-perpetuating circularity predicated on deficiency and compensation. The reason for this, it is suggested, is the otherness of the archaeological, being at one and the same time a cultural phenomenon and a fossil record, a social construct and a geological deposit. This condition is so baffling that it is approached by transforming it into something familiar. The paper argues that understanding the archaeological should be archaeology's first priority. Insofar as it is also the study of the past, this should be predicated on the understanding of the archaeological present.
Objects of inquiry. Archaeological Remains, Politics and the Public
Nuncius 37, 2022
Contrary to other forms of heritage (i.e., art collections), archaeology is based on allegedly objective data and is, therefore, particularly suitable to support ideological narratives on the past. Its scientific nature, combined with the proximity between its subject, material findings, and the cultural heritage of certain groups, entails that its history is key to understanding the interactions between science and its public. From an historical analysis that highlights the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, participation and narration of heritage, we can move on to reconstruct a critical approach to museums, collections, and cultural heritage in the society of the present and the future and re-imagine the role of history of science in this complex process.
Reclaiming archaeology (introduction)
In A. González-Ruibal (ed.): Reclaiming Archaeology: beyond the tropes of Modernity., 2013
Archaeology has been an important source of metaphors for some of the key intellectuals of the 20 th century , including philosophers, writers, art historians and historians: Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Alois Riegl, Michel Foucault or George Bataille to mention but a few. Some of them resorted to archaeological metaphors in a very explicit way (Freud, Foucault), others more unconsciously (Husserl or Heidegger: Edgeworth 2006), but, in any case, the allure of the archaeological is very present in the making of modern thought. However, this power of archaeology has also turned against archaeology, because the discipline has been dealt with perfunctorily as a mere provider of metaphors that other intellectuals have exploited (Olsen 2010: 2), often in more fruitful ways. Not surprisingly, if one searches the word "archaeology" in Google Scholar, the first three results refer to Foucault's work, not to "real" archaeology-which is ironic, because the book is actually a rejection of classical archaeological tropes (such as origins and depth).
Trading archaeology is not just a matter of antiquities. Archaeological practice as a commodity
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?