Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T00:50:38.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘anthropologization’ of archaeological heritage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2009

Jan Kolen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the growing impact of postprocessual orientations, archaeologists have become increasingly aware that the production of values resides in all aspects of archaeological research. This awareness has also paved the way for a more encompassing concept of archaeological heritage, which of course not only includes the management of material traces but also the transmission of values through archaeological practice, method and theory. Many archaeologists and heritage managers now propagate the belief that reflecting on value production will better equip archaeology for ethical concerns or that it will improve its engagement with society, and that adopting anthropological perspectives and key notions may help to achieve this goal. This contribution explores the opposite proposition: that an anthropologically informed reflexive attitude is important to understand present-day heritage practices, but in most cases it is desirable for archaeologists to tell stories about the past, not about themselves, in order to be really engaged with public and ethical issues. Arguments for this proposition can be derived from the discipline's specific articulation of discovery, difference and time depth (including the ‘long term’), which traditionally shape archaeological research and narrative to a high degree, not only within academic discourse but also in a wider social setting.

Keywords

archaeological heritageanthropologydiscoverydifferencetime depth
Type
Note
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , December 2009 , pp. 209 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, B., 1998: Timescapes of modernity. The environment and invisible hazards, London.Google Scholar
Alexander, C., 2008: If the stones could speak. Searching for the meaning of Stonehenge, National geographic, June, 34–59.Google Scholar
Antkowiak, M., 2002: Ausgrabungen an Orten des Nationalsozialismus, Archäologie in Deutschland 2002 (5), 70–71.Google Scholar
Ankersmit, F., 2005: Sublime historical experience, Stanford, CA and Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A., 1990 (1986): Introduction. Commodities and the politics of value, in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge, 3–63.Google Scholar
Augé, M., 1995 (1992): Non-places. Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity, trans. John Howe, London and New York.Google Scholar
Bailey, G.N., 1983: Concepts of time in Quaternary prehistory, Annual review of anthropology 12, 165–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G., 1995: A Mediterranean valley. Landscape archaeology and Annales history in the Biferno Valley, Leicester.Google Scholar
Bazelmans, J., 2006: Value and values in archaeology and archaeological heritage management. A revolution in the archaeological system, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek = Proceedings of the National Service for Archaeological Heritage in the Netherlands 46, 13–25.Google Scholar
Bazelmans, J., Dommelen, P. van, Kolen, J. and Shanks, M., 1994: A ruined past. An archaeological dialogue with Michael Shanks, Archaeological dialogues 1, 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, B., 1993: Stonehenge. Contested landscapes (medieval to present-day), in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape. Politics and perspectives, Oxford and Providence, RI, 245–80.Google Scholar
Bender, B. and Winer, M. (eds), 2001: Contested landscapes. Movement, exile and place, Oxford.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W., 1969 (1936): The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, New York.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. (ed.), 1991: The Annales School and archaeology, Leicester.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 2004a: Experiencing archaeological fieldwork, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), A companion to archaeology, Malden and Oxford, 397–405.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 2004b: Time, structure, and agency. The Annales, emergent complexity, and archaeology, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), A companion to archaeology, Malden and Oxford, 174–94.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 2002: The past in prehistoric societies, London and New York.Google Scholar
Burke, H., Jones, C. and Smith, C., 1994: Beyond the looking glass. Some thoughts on sociopolitics and reflexivity in Australian archaeology, Australian archaeology 38, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D., 1991: Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management, History and anthropology 4, 269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosgrove, D., and Daniels, S. (eds), 1988: The iconography of landscape. Essays on symbolic representation, design and use of past environments, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., 2006: Stonehenge. The biography of a landscape, Stroud.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1992: Societies of nature and the nature of society, in Kuper, A. (ed.), Conceptualizing society, London and New York, 107–25.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1996: Constructing natures. Symbolic ecology and social practice, in Descola, P. and Pálsson, G. (eds), Nature and society. Anthropological perspectives, London and New York, 82–102.Google Scholar
Fabian, J., 1983: Time and the other. How anthropology makes its object, New York.Google Scholar
Frijhoff, W., 2007: Dynamisch erfgoed, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G., 1990 (1960), Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Gotthard, A., 2007: In der Ferne. Die Wahrnehmung des Raums in der Vormoderne, Frankfurt and New York.Google Scholar
Graeber, D., 2001: Towards an anthropological theory of value. The false coin of our dreams, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M., 2000: Archaeology and the modern world. Colonial transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake, London.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., and Yalouri, E., 1996: Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern Greek society, Antiquity 70, 117–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzfeld, M., 1991: A place in history. Social and monumental time in a Cretan town, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1982: The present past, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.), 2000: Towards a reflexive method in archaeology. The example at Çatalhöyük, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 1998: The life history of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany), World archaeology 30, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, J., 1998: Biographical objects. How things tell the stories of people's lives, London and New York.Google Scholar
Huizinga, J., 1936: A definition of the concept of history, in Klibansky, R. and Paton, H.J. (eds), Philosophy and history. Essays presented to Ernst Cassirer, Oxford, 1–10.Google Scholar
Huizinga, J., 1995: De taak der cultuurgeschiedenis (ed. Krul, W.), Groningen.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2000 (1993): The temporality of landscape, in T. Ingold, The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London and New York, 189–208.Google Scholar
Jones, A., 2007: Memory and material culture, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, A.B. (ed.), 1992: Archaeology, Annales and ethnohistory, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolen, J., 1995: Recreating (in) nature, visiting history, Archaeological dialogues 2, 127–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopytoff, I., 1990 (1986): The cultural biography of things. Commoditization as process, in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge, 64–91.Google Scholar
Küchler, S., 1993: Landscape as memory. The mapping of process and its representation in Melanesian society, in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape. Politics and perspectives, Oxford, 85–106.Google Scholar
Küchler, S., 2002: Malanggan. Art, memory and sacrifice, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lafrenz Samuels, K., 2008: Value and significance in archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 15, 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaire, T., 1997: Archaeology between the invention and destruction of landscape, Archaeological dialogues 4, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M.P., 1984: Interpreting ideology in historical archaeology: Using the rules of perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland, in Miller, D. and Tilley, C. (eds), Ideology, power and prehistory, Cambridge, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M.P., and Silberman, N.A., 1995: Invisible America. Unearthing our hidden history, New York.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D., 1985: The past is a foreign country, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D., 1996: Possessed by the past. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history, New York and London.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D., 1998: The past is a foreign country. For the motion (1), in Ingold, T. (ed.), Key debates in anthropology, London, 206–12.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2005: The archaeology of time, London and New York.Google Scholar
Mathers, C., Darvill, T. and Little, B.J. (eds), 2005: Heritage of value, archaeology of renown. Reshaping archaeological assessment and significance, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Mayne, A., and Murray, T. (eds), 2002: The archaeology of urban landscapes. Explorations in slumland, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. (ed.), 1998: Archaeology under fire. Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreland, J., 1992: Restoring the dialectic. Settlement patterns and documents in medieval central Italy, in Knapp, B.A. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales and ethnohistory, Cambridge, 112–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, N., 1986: The fame of Gawa. A symbolic study of value transformation in a Massim society, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Murray, T. (ed.), 1999: Time and archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Pollard, J., and Reynolds, A., 2002: Avebury. The biography of a landscape, Stroud.Google Scholar
Putnam, H., 1985: Reason, truth and history, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M., 1993: The role of memory in the transmission of culture, World archaeology 25, 141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roymans, N., 1995: The cultural biography of urnfields and the long-term history of a mythical landscape, Archaeological dialogues 2, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roymans, N., Gerritsen, F., van Der Heijden, C., Bosma, K. and Kolen, J., 2009: Landscape biography as research strategy. The case of the southern Netherlands, Landscape research 33–34, 337–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, M., 1979: The biography of landscape. Cause and culpability, in Meinig, D.W. (ed.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes, New York and Oxford, 51–88.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 1992: Experiencing the past. On the character of archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1992 (1987): Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice, London.Google Scholar
Stewart, P.J., and Strathern, A. (eds), 2003: Landscape, memory and history. Anthropological perspectives, London and Stirling.Google Scholar
Thorley, P., 1996: Self-representation and Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Implications for archaeological research, Australian archaeology 43, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toebosch, T., 2006: Graven in het graf, archeologen corrigeren herinneringen aan Nazi-tijd, NRC Handelsblad, 28–29 januari.Google Scholar
Tollebeek, J., and Verschaffel, T., 1992: The particular character history, History & memory 4, 69–95.Google Scholar
Trigger, B., 1978: Time and traditions. Essays in archaeological interpretation, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Weiner, A.B., 1992: Inalienable possessions. The paradox of keeping-while-giving, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H., 2004: Modes of religiosity. A cognitive theory of religious transformation, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar