The Problems of "Black Archaeology" in Estonia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Excavating Archaeology On Regulating Heritage, ‘Black’ and ‘White’ Archaeology
The world is in a state of flux, where that that seems to speak for itself is no longer so: all is up for grabs; everything demands reconsideration. Old certainties have lost their validity and we have to get to grips with new uncertainties. This state of anxiety also relates to how we trust institutions such as the state. We turn to the state for guidance and demand from it to take action to preserve a sense of security. Criminal law, or penal law, is an instrument to which one easily turns to ‘achieve’ this sense of security. Indeed, criminal law is used as an instrument to effect change and manipulate behaviour repressively (rather than using it as a measure of last resort). The measures pertaining to fighting terrorist threat is illustrative but also other measures such as camera surveillance, area restrictions, stop-and-search actions in centres of leisure, etc. are illustrations of the instrumental repressive use of criminal law. But does it work? What do we gain? What do we lose? Considering the protection of archaeological heritage and its exploration I sense a similar demand: regulation through a variety of legal instruments to preserve the heritage as well as to preserve, or so it seems, the monopoly upon heritage preservation. So the solution is easy: repressive action through criminalisation, effected by a proper organisational back-up of inspectors, police and administration. It will be sold well, politically, considering the goal: preservation of the physical past combined with the need to re-establish national identities throughout Europe. In this lecture, I seek to ask some fundamental questions, about law and, as far as my knowledge goes, about archaeology. Taking the Valetta convention as a guiding line (as well as Dutch legal measures), I wish to explore: 1. The worth and function of preserving archaeological objects and the political, scientific, cultural and social significance of these objects; 2. The role of the state and the professional body of archaeologist in respect of the political, scientific, cultural and social significance; 3. Legal instruments to regulate archaeology, physical heritage and excavation, with a special emphasis on the role of criminal law; and 4. Alternative ways of thinking that could be explored to redefine the first aspect and to develop alternative instruments of regulation and control.
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology, 2021
The aim of the article is to reflect the currently existing regulatory environment for damages caused to archaeological sites by illegal human intervention and its implementation by law enforcement sector and the courts in Latvia. The article is mostly focused on legal and socio-economic consequences of endangerment of archaeological sites. It analyses liability aspects, examines case law, determines the existing challenges and proposes basis for improvement in administrative and legal procedures. Methods applied in the research are literature review, legal framework and documentary analysis, statistical and case law analysis. The results of the research could be used inter alia for the purposes of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings, amending legal regulation and damage assessment mechanisms.
DAMAGE TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND SITUATION IN LATVIA
Damage to Archaeological Sites: Assessment Criteria and Situation in Latvia, 2020
The aim of the article is to reflect the necessity of introducing objective criteria in articulating monetary value of the damage caused to archaeological sites (immovable cultural monuments) as a result of illegal activities. The research focuses on the damage assessment criteria and resulting diminishment of economic value that are used in several countries, as well as examines the key interests and stakeholders in damage assessment process and outcome. It further describes the corresponding situation in Latvia, determines the existing challenges and proposes the basis for improvement in administrative and legal procedures. Methods applied in the research are literature review, legal framework and documentary analysis, statistical analysis and elements of qualitative content analysis. International intercomparisons have been made consulting with foreign experts. The assay is mostly done from legal and socioeconomic point of view. The results of the research could be used for the purposes of amending legal regulation and damage assessment mechanisms.
AP: online Journal in Public Archaeology, 2013
The use of metal detectors is an important issue in the management and protection of archaeological heritage. However, metal detectors have been generally tagged as a tool for looting more than a tool for research or protection. Their use has evolved in a way that is now considered a problem in many countries, and each country takes a different path to tackle it. From prohibition to indulgence, there is no clear idea of what is the best way to deal with this problem. The forum at hand is a starting point for a debate on the topic of looting; it presents several perspectives on the use and misuse of metal detectors and the consequences for archaeological heritage, together with a broader perspective on looting in those countries where metal detectors are not a fundamental tool for finding archaeological remains. We deliberately avoided to include the well-known system that is being used in England through the PAS (see latest, Campbell 2013), as we preferred to present other, lesser-known examples from Europe and America; cases from Spain, Moldova, Flanders (Belgium), Estonia, Mexico, Bolivia, and Peru provide different viewpoints and examples, as well as the latest developments. This is only an outline of the forum, and we welcome new papers from different countries as well as answers to those included in this volume.