Value and significance in archaeology

Abstract

The concept of value increasingly fills archaeological debates. An examination of how value works within the diverse practices of archaeology (reconstructions of the past, heritage management and self-reflexive critique) provides an integrating factor to these debates. Through a genealogy of value in the management of material heritage, I highlight how 'significance' has been institutionalized from contingent forms, and the 'the past' rendered an object. Moreover, I follow the translation of these management procedures from the national to the global stage to highlight the emergence of economic significance in international heritage management. Providing an alternative approach to significance, the anthropological work of Weiner and Graeber locates value within practices that manage material heritage. These theories provocatively suggest that archaeological practice and heritage management are one and the same, both capable of producing value. This requires archaeologists to reconsider their discipline, and the contemporary contexts and situated ethical conditions of their work.

Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education

“…This is not to say that archaeology is a text(book) (cf. Hodder 1988); rather, by recognizing that any archaeological action (education or excavation) profits from its concomitant ethical engagements (Lafrenz Samuels 2008), ArchEd is an opportunity to revisit our practice and re-situate it relative to various publics. Conceptualizing the process thus may yield new insights into how we 'do' archaeology.…”

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

“…The ability of archaeology to act as an economic asset is one of the reasons people are willing to preserve it and give resources to it (Mason 2008b Economics is a major part of the relationship between the public and archaeology, and must be carefully observed and understood if it is to be managed successfully. However, research into the conceptual approaches to archaeological economics has been recognised as underdeveloped (Hodder 2010;Lafrenz Samuels 2008). Equally, large-scale literature reviews of economics and cultural heritage have noted a general lack of research and data on archaeology as an economic asset (Rypkema et al 2011) although recent studies suggest some increased activity (Dümcke and Gnedovsky 2013).…”

La materialidad de ficción y el tercer tiempo del objeto arqueológico-histórico (Siglos XIX-XX)

“…Aunque esbozado sólo de forma preliminar nos ha interesado también formular como problema de estudio, en el marco de una lectura arqueológica alternativa sobre los tiempos del objeto, las modalidades de descripción de ellos desde el sentido de ésta como voz narrativa y estructura del discurso tanto de ficción como académico (texto) (Holtorf, 2010), el lugar de los objetos en la sociedad que los describe (contexto) y su rol específico como protagonistas y no solamente como accesorios (agentes). Queda pendiente aún profundizar, entre otras cosas, la reflexión sobre el valor de cada uno de los tiempos del objeto: el valor simbólico del objeto literario, el valor estético del objeto artístico y el valor patrimonial del objeto arqueológico (véase por ejemplo Shanks y Tilley, 1987;Graeber, 2001;Samuels, 2008;Papadopoulos y Urton, 2012), así como una evaluación crítica de las innovaciones tecnológicas en multimedia, la realidad virtual y los nuevas modalidades de registros visuales, tales como la documentación en 3D, que demuestra notras formas de relacionarnos con la materialidad en el presente (Olsen et al, 2012). Por último, creemos que lo propuesto aquí entrega un aspecto interesante para una discusión amplia sobre el uso social del objeto histórico y del pasado reciente en la práctica arqueológica-histórica asociada a las políticas económicas y patrimoniales en esta nueva "expansión capitalista" del siglo XXI (Cáceres, 1999;Patterson, 1999;Cáceres y Westfall, 2004;Clifford, 2004;Dawdy, 2009;Pétursdóttir, 2013).…”