Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T13:11:20.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On archaeological value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Martin Carver
Martin Carver*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of York, King's Manor, York YO1 2EP, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present system of English resource management relies on legal protected status given to a pre-designated group of monuments. When it is replaced by an adversarial debate between social values, hosted by the planning system, archaeology will need to arm itself with a definition of ‘archaeological value’. The new management system would favour research rather than monumentality as the principal asset of the heritage.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 70 , Issue 267 , March 1996 , pp. 45 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Biddle, M. 1994. What future for British archaeology? Oxford: Oxbow. Oxbow Lecture 1.Google Scholar
Breeze, D. 1993. Ancient monuments legislation, in Hunter, & Ralston, (ed.): 44–55.Google Scholar
British Property Federation. 1986. British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group Code of Practice. Printed in Field Archaeologist 8 [1988]: 118-19.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1987. Underneath English towns. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1989. Digging for ideas, Antiquity 63: 666-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1990. Digging for data; archaeological approaches to data definition, acquisition and analysis, in Francovich, R. & Manacorda, D. (ed.), Lo scavo archeologico: dalia diagnosi all'edizione: 45–120. Firenze: All'insegna del giglio.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1993. Arguments in stone: archaeology and the European town in the first millennium AD. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. Forthcoming. La valuta e ia valutazione nell'archeologia. Romo: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
Cleere, H. (ed.). 1984. Approaches to the archaeological heritage: a comparative study of world cultural resource management systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cleere, H. (Ed.). 1989. Archaeological heriloge management in the modern world. London: Hyman Unwin.Google Scholar
Dalwood, H. 1987. What is professional archaeology?. Field Archaeologist 7: 104-5.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. 1988. Monuments Protection Programme: monument evaluation manual Pt 1/II. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. 1993. Valuing Britain's archaeological resource. Bourne-month: Bournemouth University.Google Scholar
Darvile, T., Saundeks, A. & Startin, W.. 1987. A question of national importarme: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme, Antiquity 61: 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenviele, J. 1993. Curation overview, in Hunter, & Ralston, (ed.): 125-33.Google Scholar
Geoube, L.M. & Bowdkn, M.C.B.. 1982, The archaeology of rural Dorset: past, present and future. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Monograph 4.Google Scholar
Hermann, J. 1989. World archaeology — the world's cultural heritage, in Cleere, (ed.): 30–37.Google Scholar
Hoüder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Camhridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (ed.). 1993. Archaeological resource management in the UK: an introduction. Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeologists.Google Scholar
Klindt-Jensen, O. 1975. A history of Scandinavian archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1989. Perspectives on the archaeological heritage: history and future, in Cicero, (ed.): 23-9.Google Scholar
Lipe, W. 1984. Value and meaning in cultural resources, in Cleere, : 1–11.Google Scholar
MAP 2. 1991. Management of archaeological projects. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Mayek-Oakes, W.J. 1989. Science, service, and stewardship — a basis for the ideal archaeology of the future, in Cleere, (ed.): 52-8Google Scholar
Petrie, W.F. 1904. Methods and aims in archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Schaaesma, C.F. 1989. Significant until proved otherwise: problem versus representative samples, in Cleere, (ed.): 38–51.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C.. 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Startin, W. 1993. Assessment of field remains, in Hunter, & Ralston, (ed.): 184-96.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. 1993. English Heritage funding policies and their impact on research strategy, in Hunter, & Ralston, (ed.): 138-48.Google Scholar
York archaeology = OVE ARUP & DEPAR TMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF YORK. 1991. York: development and archaeology study. York: English Heritage & York City Council.Google Scholar