What do you think?
Rate this book
Debates in Archaeology
Debating the Archaeological Heritage
Throughout the world, competing interest groups lay claim to the material remains of the past. Archaeologists, developers, indigenous 'first peoples', looters, museum curators, national government officals, New Age worshippers, private collectors, tourists - all want their share. This introduction to contemporary debates surrounding their rival claims deals with defining, owning, protecting, managing, interpreting, and experiencing the archaeological heritage.
Fundamental questions are considered: What is 'archaeological heritage'? Who should own and control the material culture of the past? How should these remains be protected? How should the archaeological heritage be presented to the public?
Robin Skeates calls for greater communication and co-operation between archaeologists and other interest groups, urging archaeologists to increase the involvement of local people in the culturally valuable and vulnerable material remains of their past, and in archaeological research that attempts to be objective.
Fundamental questions are considered: What is 'archaeological heritage'? Who should own and control the material culture of the past? How should these remains be protected? How should the archaeological heritage be presented to the public?
Robin Skeates calls for greater communication and co-operation between archaeologists and other interest groups, urging archaeologists to increase the involvement of local people in the culturally valuable and vulnerable material remains of their past, and in archaeological research that attempts to be objective.
- GenresArchaeologyNonfiction
128 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 19, 2014
Skeates provides a low-threshold overview for the themes and debates shaping our archaeological heritage today. It is easy to read, provides fascinating case studies and even manages to make the most economic and law-related chapters interesting food for thought.
The book is divided into six easy chapters focusing on the defining, owning, protecting, managing, interpreting, and finally experiencing of the archaeological heritage. It is self-critical, open-minded, and yet academical and scientific in nature, without being too elitist about it. Especially the paragraphs on Native Peoples, other minorities, and alternative (religious) groups were neutral and balanced, without judgement, showing awareness of the sensitivity required to deal with these topics.
Although Skeates is an archaeologists, he went out of his way to allow room for other opinions of other stakeholders, calling on archaeologists to learn how to collaborate and compromise.
There are, however, a few things I found lacking in this book. Although it criticizes a long-standing tradition that emphasizes the archaeology of certain peoples and time periods (most notably Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East) at the cost of others, this book seems to fit right in with that tradition. Most of its examples were based on European archaeology of post-colonial archaeology that centered around empowering the people oppressed by Europeans in the past (like the Americas and Australia).
With the exception of one or two case studies (often comprising of one or two sentences), India, Near East, the Far East, Central Asia, Polynesia, and Africa were hardly mentioned. Yet it is in these countries that archaeological heritage can find new impulses for better suitable definitions and policies, because of its dynamic role in ancient or new nations, old and relatively new religions, and a history that is not immediately dominated by modern Western Christian Capitalist thoughts.
So while this book gives a fantastic overview of the debates surrounding archaeological heritage, it is very Eurocentric.
Another point of critic is the position of the archaeologists in these debates. Though I agree largely with Skeates on a number of things (namely that archaeologists are increasing forced to accept and use their political power and be wary of their position in (inter)national political debates and that everyone is entitled to their opinion on archaeological remains and archaeologists can greatly benefit from listening to them), I disagree that the expertise and elitist position of archaeologists on archaeological remains should be questions within the field of archaeology and outside of that.
The archaeologist is the expert on remains of the past. This expertise that forms the basis of archaeological interpretation is not the result of personal experience and good conversations accompanied by a glass of wine. It is the result of scientific research of archaeological remains and incessant critical reviews by colleagues. This means there is a distinct difference between an opinion of the layperson and the scientific interpretation of an archaeologist.
That being said I do agree that archaeologists need to be far more sensitive about living traditions and how they relate to the past. It is not the elitist position of the archaeologist on ancient remains that should be met with scepticism, but the restricted access to the position of the archaeologists by Native peoples and the general public. This restricted access may be the result of political and personal agendas in Communist nations and dictorships as well as continuous poverty, lack of education, and racial oppression in former colonies. And it is this restricted access that is inherent to the Eurocentric definition of archaeological heritage and practices.
The book is divided into six easy chapters focusing on the defining, owning, protecting, managing, interpreting, and finally experiencing of the archaeological heritage. It is self-critical, open-minded, and yet academical and scientific in nature, without being too elitist about it. Especially the paragraphs on Native Peoples, other minorities, and alternative (religious) groups were neutral and balanced, without judgement, showing awareness of the sensitivity required to deal with these topics.
Although Skeates is an archaeologists, he went out of his way to allow room for other opinions of other stakeholders, calling on archaeologists to learn how to collaborate and compromise.
There are, however, a few things I found lacking in this book. Although it criticizes a long-standing tradition that emphasizes the archaeology of certain peoples and time periods (most notably Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East) at the cost of others, this book seems to fit right in with that tradition. Most of its examples were based on European archaeology of post-colonial archaeology that centered around empowering the people oppressed by Europeans in the past (like the Americas and Australia).
With the exception of one or two case studies (often comprising of one or two sentences), India, Near East, the Far East, Central Asia, Polynesia, and Africa were hardly mentioned. Yet it is in these countries that archaeological heritage can find new impulses for better suitable definitions and policies, because of its dynamic role in ancient or new nations, old and relatively new religions, and a history that is not immediately dominated by modern Western Christian Capitalist thoughts.
So while this book gives a fantastic overview of the debates surrounding archaeological heritage, it is very Eurocentric.
Another point of critic is the position of the archaeologists in these debates. Though I agree largely with Skeates on a number of things (namely that archaeologists are increasing forced to accept and use their political power and be wary of their position in (inter)national political debates and that everyone is entitled to their opinion on archaeological remains and archaeologists can greatly benefit from listening to them), I disagree that the expertise and elitist position of archaeologists on archaeological remains should be questions within the field of archaeology and outside of that.
The archaeologist is the expert on remains of the past. This expertise that forms the basis of archaeological interpretation is not the result of personal experience and good conversations accompanied by a glass of wine. It is the result of scientific research of archaeological remains and incessant critical reviews by colleagues. This means there is a distinct difference between an opinion of the layperson and the scientific interpretation of an archaeologist.
That being said I do agree that archaeologists need to be far more sensitive about living traditions and how they relate to the past. It is not the elitist position of the archaeologist on ancient remains that should be met with scepticism, but the restricted access to the position of the archaeologists by Native peoples and the general public. This restricted access may be the result of political and personal agendas in Communist nations and dictorships as well as continuous poverty, lack of education, and racial oppression in former colonies. And it is this restricted access that is inherent to the Eurocentric definition of archaeological heritage and practices.
Displaying 1 of 1 review