Links: Going Beyond Cultural Property

John Carman

doi:10.1007/s11759-018-9337-y

Abstract

Taking as its start-point a radical intervention in the field of archaeology and heritage—one that laid down a direct challenge to the unspoken discourse of property relations inherent in our management of cultural resources—this article considers how much has changed since that intervention. In particular, the article considers developments in the manner of legal regulation of archaeological heritage, the adoption of ideas from economics, and relations with communities that have taken place in archaeology. It identifies differences between the rhetoric of commentators and practitioners and their actual practice that we need to address if we seek truly to turn our field into one that serves the wider community rather than merely telling others how to be.

Highlights

IntroductionThe book Against Cultural Property (Carman 2005a) examined the role of property relations in respect of the cultural heritage
The book Against Cultural Property (Carman 2005a) examined the role of property relations in respect of the cultural heritage. It did so by focusing on the property half of the ‘cultural property’ equation, which has been the part conventionally omitted in discussions of cultural property which largely focus on justifying the designation of such material as cultural
The book sought to examine those alternative forms of property relation—especially communal property and ‘open access’ or non-property—as alternative approaches to the management of our heritage

Summary

Introduction

The book Against Cultural Property (Carman 2005a) examined the role of property relations in respect of the cultural heritage. This is a move away from a traditional view that heritage professionals are acting on behalf of a wider community to offer a ‘‘wise use of resources’’ (Bender and Smith 2000, 34) that others cannot provide This shift has been noted very recently by Hollowell (2013), who commented upon several effective critiques of the stewardship model [including that contained in Against Cultural Property (Carman 2005a, 75–76)], but noted the lack ‘‘of a reenvisioning of stewardship among the majority of practicing archaeologists’’ in response. ‘‘Deliberative democracy’’ (Shoup and Monteiro 2008, 331) which adopts a ‘listening’ approach and a willingness to include local needs and interests into decision-making All of these represent different versions of the kind of approach that challenges the idea of cultural material as the exclusive concern of heritage professionals and opens the door to the consideration of alternative forms of its management. The obligation is to accord that recognition to all who require it with no restrictions

Beyond Cultural Property

Open Access