Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance

From the beginning of archaeology as a discipline, the concepts of value and significance have played a key role in the development of theory and practice. Similarly, ideas about the value and significance of archaeological resources continue to dramatically affect how we define, manage and conserve the cultural record world-wide.

As the concepts of value and significance have expanded in recent years to include a broader range of resource types, analytical scales and wider scientific/public concerns, the complexities of heritage management seem to have frequently outpaced both our imagination and methodological tools. While varying degrees of idiosyncratic, ad hoc and implicit assessment strategies continue to be commonplace in the day-to-day practice of heritage management, theoretical models and operational examples of best practice continue to be rare.

Although critical debate concerning significance and value has generally languished since the peak in professional and legislative interest nearly twenty years ago, important theoretical and methodological developments have taken place in different parts of the world since that time. Presentation of these new approaches will revive a wide variety of heritage issues that are crucial to the growth of responsible management and research strategies. In addition, these discussions promise to make important contributions to the emergence of comprehensive heritage policies in both developing and developed nations.

The papers presented in this session highlight a variety of new theoretical and pragmatic approaches to value and significance that are currently being applied by archaeologists in North America, Europe and Australia. Particular emphasis will be placed on the importance of: (a) explicit, but flexible assessment criteria; (b) the use of complementary scales of analysis (from isolated finds and regional landscapes to provincial and national domains); and (c) the need to document the historical impact of archaeological theory, methods and conservation strategies on the extant archaeological record. In addition, the session will explore the socio-political and economic context of heritage management - particularly the active/proactive role archaeologists can play in helping to preserve samples of heritage resources that will better reflect our culturally diverse societies and origins.

The Accounting, The Economic and The Social: What Price the Archaeological Heritage?

There are currently three independent schemes of value being applied to the material heritage. Under the 'accounting' school, heritage is given a financial value. Under the 'economic' school, sites are assessed for their significance or importance. Under the 'social' school, objects with symbolic value create a stock of cultural capital for an individual or for a community. This paper will outline the consequences of these 'schools' of value theory for the archaeological heritage and will emphasize how they can be used in a co-operative manner to benefit archaeology as a discipline.

Sorted for Ease and Whizz": Approaching Value and Importance in Archaeological Resource

Notions of "value" and "importance" now have wide currency in archaeological resource management, providing cover-terms for rather ill-defined measures commonly used to inform decision-making at various levels. This paper argues for a distinction between "value", as a set of socially defined orientations applicable to the whole resource, and "importance" as an archaeologically defined scale applicable to specific elements of the resource to allow ranking or discrimination. It is suggested that the successful development, and widespread acceptance, of comprehensive and easy to apply systems of discrimination in archaeological resource management hinges on the integration of archaeological interest with more general social interests.

Archaeological Deposits and Value

To bolster the position of archaeological value in the marketplace, one model has been presented which weighs archaeological values against the interests of business and development in England. This model was developed at the University of York and is articulated by Martin Carver. Key foundations of this model are that archaeological value is better expressed as a research asset than as monument and that unless proposed excavation matches key research questions, archaeological deposits should be protected from development interests. This paper, from two researchers from the same department, reviews the model in the cold light of practical situations.

Handling the Unknown: The Expanding Role of Predictive Modeling in Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands

The availability of distribution maps and an overall picture of the scientific state of affairs is a precondition for significance evaluation and selection. The foundation of the expertise centre ARCHIS in 1989 marks the beginning of a systematic effort on these frames of reference of in the Netherlands. Due to various circumstances, the archaeologically documented distribution patterns still contain numerous misrepresentations and conceal major gaps in our knowledge - in space as well as in time. The rapid reorganisation of the Dutch landscape poses an acute threat, especially to the unknown (and best preserved) part of the archaeological heritage, which is buried under natural sediments and man-made (plaggen) soils. The paper will show how sub-soil sampling and predictive modelling are being used to make the unknown more manageable within an overall environmental planning policy. One example of this strategy is the recently completed archaeological sensitivity map of the Netherlands.

The National Register of Historic Places and the Shaping of Archaeological Significance

Evaluation criteria for the National Register of Historic Places are used for the daily work of Cultural Resource Management. Defining the research potential (and, rarely, other values) of archaeological properties according to these criteria has affected the way the public as well as the profession regards the significance of sites. I address the questions: Since the establishment of the National Register, how has the evaluation of sites changed? and has the application of Criterion D changed? I also comment on the importance of context development to evaluating sites, districts, and multiple properties related under a particular theme.

'Drawing Distinctions': Towards a Scalar Model of Value and Significance

Despite the relative and context dependent nature of archaeological significance, the methods used to evaluate it continue to emphasize limited assessment criteria, resource types and analytical domains. Defined in this narrow and piecemeal fashion, current approaches to archaeological significance provide a poor foundation for the interpretation and conservation of our cultural/ecological heritage. In an effort to expand the depth and breadth of archaeological significance evaluations, this paper illustrates how GIS and Exploratory Data Analysis tools can be used in a variety of thematic and geographic contexts to promote more responsible, comprehensive and informed decisions about heritage management and conservation.

Archaeological Significance and the Governance of Identity in Cultural Heritage Management

This paper examines how public debates over the meanings and values given to material culture and the past are arbitrated through the CHM process.
It is argued that CHM fulfils a governmental role in the management not only of physical places, but also the intangible values associated with and
ascribed to heritage items.  As a consequence CHM becomes directly involved in the governance of a range of social and cultural identities that are
built upon and reinforced by interpretations and knowledge about the past and its material culture.  These arguments are illustrated with reference
to particular case studies in indigenous CHM from south-eastern Australia.

Heritage Management, Significance and Contemporary Environmental Change

Archaeology and heritage management should lead the study of contemporary environmental problems. Their failure to do so stems from several factors, including customary approaches to significance evaluation. Traditional assessments implicitly assume that the value of a heritage property is inherent and immutable, and related linearly to size, depth, and material content. These assumptions select against the preservation of many properties important to understanding today's environmental issues. Resolving this problem will come in part from recognizing that evaluation is both value-laden and transitory, and that the intensity of past behaviour is related non-linerarly to contemporary criteria of significance.