Is a Shared Past Possible? The Ethics and Practice of Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century

  • Ian Hodder


I take it for granted that archaeological stewardship should be based on dialogue between stakeholder groups. Some form of collaboration and consultation is at the heart of most attempts today to deal with long-term stewardship issues, whether it is the consultancy involved in the development of the Stonehenge management plan or the dialogues involving archaeologists, governments, and indigenous peoples throughout the world (e.g., Swidler et al. 1997). I also take it for granted that many guidelines and procedures have been discussed for such stewardship collaboration dealing with a wide range of issues, including the need to identify all potential stakeholders, provide time for consultation, evaluate varying cultural values regarding heritage, and assess economic implications (e.g., de la Torre 1997


Cultural Heritage Heritage Site Deliberative Democracy Universal Principle Collaborative Discussion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Australia ICOMOS, 1981, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter). Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Benhabib, S., 2002, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, D., 1991, Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management. History and Anthropology 5: 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De la Torre, M., editor, 1997, The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  5. Doughty, L., and Hodder, I., editors, 2007, Mediterranean Prehistoric Heritage: Training, Education and Management. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Dural, S., 2007, Protecting Çatalhöyük: Memoir of an Archaeological Site Guard. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J., 2000, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Kane, S., editor, 2003, The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Scham, S., and Yahya, A., 2003, Heritage and Reconciliation. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3): 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Swidler, N., Dongoske K., Anyon, R., and Downer, A., editors, 1997, Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations