Damage to Archaeological Sites: Assessment Criteria and Situation in Latvia

Andris Kairišs,Irina Oļevska

doi:10.2478/bjreecm-2020-0005

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Highlights

IntroductionDespite the fact that Latvia is a relatively small country, its cultural and historical heritage (including archaeological heritage) is quite rich
Despite the fact that Latvia is a relatively small country, its cultural and historical heritage is quite rich
The negative effect caused to socio-economic potential of the area by the damage done to a cultural monument should not be underestimated

Summary

Introduction

Despite the fact that Latvia is a relatively small country, its cultural and historical heritage (including archaeological heritage) is quite rich. As of 18 May 2020, according to the information of the NCHB (SPCMR), there were 7361 immovable cultural monuments in the SPCMR, while 2520 (or 34 %) of immovable monuments were archaeological. Data on illegally acquired archaeological antiquities are not listed in Latvia’s official criminal statistics (Kairiss, 2016), the study (Nagle, 2016) revealed that, e.g., in 2014 a significant number of antiquities of the Latvian origin were illegally acquired and sold abroad. Even though the number of cases where.

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion