Trading Archaeology Is Not Just a Matter of Antiquities: Archaeological Practice as a Commodity

Sánchez, Jaime Almansa

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1646-7_10

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Archaeology is currently embroiled in a deep debate: many professionals are watching the commodification of archaeological objects with fear [72][73][74]. A deeper exploration of the terms of this debate exceeds the scope of this paper; suffice it to say that it is driven by resistance to allowing archaeological heritage to be consumed in the neoliberal practice spearheaded by the proponents of a hegemonic politically conservative ideology.…”

Section: The Commodification Of Archaeological Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Temiño

2019

Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic assessment of damage to movable and immovable objects considered part of archaeological heritage is a matter of increasing interest, both at the legal level and in terms of government management. The primary reason for this interest is the urgent need to agree on a sound and reliable approach to economically quantifying not so much the cultural value of the damage caused as the civil liability for having caused it in those cases in which it was produced by a harmful human act. Assessment methods require a broad consensus to be considered reliable. The lack of consideration given to this matter has only made the absence of such a consensus more acute. This paper offers a mainly Spanish case-based analysis of the most common valuation methods for both movable and immovable archaeological objects. With regard to movable objects, it examines the problems involved in both the exclusive use of an object’s market price as its cultural value and the lack of justification for the chosen valuation system, concluding that current methods are insufficient. This insufficiency, also perceived by the authors of the expert reports used in the analyzed proceedings, has been dealt with arbitrarily. With regard to immovable object, it concludes that the systems currently used to assess the damage to sites are likewise insufficient, despite having been legally acknowledged in some cases. This paper will thus examine the methods used in environmental assessments—whose parallels with archaeological heritage are clear—and proposes that they be adapted for this purpose.

show abstract

Section: The Commodification Of Archaeological Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Temiño

2019

Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Occasionally these books are not only about the UK, but still they clearly do not represent a global approach like Okamura and Matsuda's book actually did (2011). This is not just a rant about a title, but about an academic system monopolized by Anglo-Saxon academics, a language -I know it sounds hypocritical from here-, and a "market" (Almansa 2015) that makes it difficult to get access to content.…”

Section: Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology, the Public and the Recent Past

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in South America Under the Critical Gaze

Gnecco

2018

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In South America, as elsewhere, development projects have to go through environmental permitting, a component of which is the archaeological assessment of the areas to be impacted. Because such an assessment is paid for by the development companies seeking such a permit, it has come to be known as contract archaeology. Given the accelerated pace of development projects in the region, it is not surprising that contract archaeology has grown exponentially. The academic literature dealing with it and related fields has also witnessed a rapid growth, which this article seeks to review. In doing so, it discusses the literature that accepts and promotes contract archaeology ( a) as a part of environmental permitting; ( b) as the primary stimulus responsible for widening the job market, whose structure has transformed disciplinary practice to a large extent; and ( c) in terms of its relationship with the archaeological record and with heritage education. This article also reviews a growing literature, both supportive and critical, that assesses contract archaeology.

show abstract

Trading Archaeology Is Not Just a Matter of Antiquities: Archaeological Practice as a Commodity

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Assessing Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

Archaeology, the Public and the Recent Past

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in South America Under the Critical Gaze

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About