The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

The past in the present
• 303 •
experts with expert knowledge. First is the existence of some evidence, record or memory of
things to be drawn upon. Second is our ability to attribute meaning to what we have. Such meanings
are not necessarily right or wrong, they are attributed as part of the process of recognition,
derivation and renegotiation into a future state.
The focus of this value set is the evidential nature of the resource as something that can be
exploited to develop a tangible return. Ancient things (here including structures and relationships
as well as objects) are taken out of their original social context and given a new context and a new
set of meanings within another society: history is used to make history. Kristian Kristiansen
(1993) has presented a very useful critical analysis of the way in which the past is used in the
present, emphasizing in particular the interdependence of archaeology and politics in the widest
sense. The following contemporary uses of archaeological remains are especially common:
• Archaeological research: one of the most obvious uses we make of the archaeological resource
is for archaeological research, the discovery of information or knowledge about the past.
• Scientific research: all sorts of scientific research uses data from archaeological sites.
• Creative arts: artists, writers, poets and photographers draw inspiration from archaeological
monuments and translate and renegotiate the material world into visual, literary or oral images.
• Education: archaeological resources play a substantial role in the general education of children
and adults.
• Recreation and tourism: ancient monuments are used for recreation, tourism and indeed
entertainment. Some monuments are very heavily visited by domestic and overseas tourists
(Figure 17.3).
• Symbolic representation: archaeological sites are widely used as symbols of various sorts.
Stonehenge is probably the most widely recognized; it has featured in advertisements for
things as diverse as lawnmowers, cigarettes, computer consultancy services and photographic
materials.
• Legitimation of action: the ascription of meaning to archaeological evidence is not always left
to archaeological scientists. Archaeological evidence is frequently used to support or legitimize
particular propositions, especially politically motivated propositions.
• Social solidarity and integration: archaeological remains bolster social solidarity and promote
integration.
• Monetary and economic gain: the use of remains for monetary gain, both legitimate and
otherwise, is among the oldest known calls on the monuments and objects we have.
Option value
Turning now to the second value system, something rather different is encountered. Here emphasis
is on production rather than consumption, but the process of production is deferred because the
temporal context of this value system is not the present but rather some unspecified time in the
future. It shows a particular respect for those individuals and communities who will come after
us (our children’s children) and who might expect to use the resource in the future or at least may
wish to do so. Axiomatic to this value system is the physical preservation of things in order to
achieve the notional preservation of options. It is a focus that lies at the very heart of the ‘green
debate’ (Macinnes and Wickham-Jones 1992).
Option values hinge on a projected understanding that future generations will both want to
and be able to make some use of the resource or resources in question; in other words, that we
have a duty to those who follow. But identifying the interest base of these values is rather difficult,
not least because specific uses cannot be predicted; there will always be new questions about the
past to be addressed, new data needed to renegotiate the future with, and new techniques and