Rigorous Reasoning, Reflexive Research and the Space for ‘Alternative Archaeologies’. Questions for Maritime Archaeological Heritage Management.

Abstract

As England's heritage policy is shaped around us, it is vital that there is debate, and some consensus, among the maritime archaeological community on core management questions. These include approaches to degrading underwater sites, how to deal with shipwrecks threatened by development, and crucially, who should be driving these decisions. This paper argues that there is a need for self‐critical analysis of the meaning of ‘heritage’. It problematises the notion of professional archaeologists as ‘guardians of the archaeological record’ and the conception of ‘heritage’ formed without reference to ideas of the past being a product of the present and, therefore, the potential for the production of multiple pasts.

© 2007 The Author

Key words:

• heritage management
• professionalisation
• the ‘archaeological record’
• ethics
• multiple pasts
• alternative archaeologies

Acknowledgements

This article grew from a paper presented at the 2005 Land and Sea: Integrated Archaeologies conference. It was a personal response to several papers by Yannis Hamilakis and was intended to be reflective. However, it proved more provocative than expected, and I am grateful for comments from Jorge Manuel Herrera and Charlotte Andrews, which provided me with impetus to review my ideas. I am also grateful to Kevin Camidge, Hannah Cobb, Dave Parham, Mick Palmer and Lucy Blue for comment on this subsequent version of the paper; and finally, to Ian Oxley for his encouragement and for originally suggesting I go and say exactly what I thought.