The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- I INTRODUCTION
- II INSIGHTS AND PROSPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL-HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE STUDIES
- III LINKING KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION
- IV IMAGINATION - FACTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS
- V SHARING KNOWLEDGE - STORIES, MAPS AND DESIGN
- VI SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
- VII MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
- VIII AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE
- IX SUMMARY
- X APPENDIX
- Subject Index
- Index of Places and Regions
9 - Knowledge and Legal Action: a plea for Conservation. Comment on ‘Protection and Management of Spanish Archaeological-Historical Landscapes. Possibilities and Perspectives for the Application of a Protective and Developmental Approach’ by María Ruiz del Árbol & Almudena Orejas
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- I INTRODUCTION
- II INSIGHTS AND PROSPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL-HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE STUDIES
- III LINKING KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION
- IV IMAGINATION - FACTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS
- V SHARING KNOWLEDGE - STORIES, MAPS AND DESIGN
- VI SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
- VII MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
- VIII AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE
- IX SUMMARY
- X APPENDIX
- Subject Index
- Index of Places and Regions
Summary
ABSTRACT
Facing the worldwide melting of archaeological heritage everybody knows that we have to slow down this process as well as possible. But concerning the way to reach this aim the accordance already ends. Do we first need a better common awareness of archaeological heritage to achieve more preservation or would better archaeological heritage protection cause a change of awareness? What significance should legal protection have? Why are aspects of protection, conservation and management nearly absent in the common view on archaeology? What are the reasons for the common view on archaeologists as primarily excavating researchers? Do we have to choose between research and heritage protection? Are archaeologists able to act successfully in planning and approval procedures claiming to respect the archaeological heritage?
Such questions and a short discussion of different aspects and incisive positions point to structural deficiencies in archaeology. A few examples of planning procedures shall illustrate that forceful and competent use of all judicial possibilities in the procedures is indispensable to reach the successful inclusion of the archaeological heritage.
KEYWORDS
Legalistic archaeological action and protection, planning and approval procedure, conservation, Rhineland cases
TWO OPPOSING POSITIONS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE STRATEGIES
The PDL/BBO symposium showed that there are two opposing positions in archaeology towards the way in which archaeological heritage should be protected. One refuses legal protection and legalistic action. The protection and management of archaeological-historical resources has to happen on a different level (Ruiz del Arbol/Orejas Ch. V.8, 487). This position is based on the idea that protection can only be accomplished if accompanied by a change of mind in society. A new understanding of the value of archaeological heritage should make everyone feel responsible. However, for the other position, definitely mine, it is indispensable to exhaust all legal possibilities of planning and approval procedures in order to attain the maximum care of archaeological heritage. In this context the method of procedure should definitely include legal protection as much as possible because it improves the preconditions for appropriately considering archaeological heritage in the procedures.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cultural Landscape and Heritage ParadoxProtection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its European Dimension, pp. 493 - 500Publisher: Amsterdam University PressPrint publication year: 2010