It is a bit long-winded, I know, but here is my summary:
The heritage is a public phenomenon, consisting of items promoted out of the
everyday world. The types of values it carries are those of the "eternal"
object, the symbolic and the cultural, rather than the currently utilitarian
and economic. Culture is held to be durable and long-lasting, and
encompasses all that is common to a society or a self-affirming community.
What is symbolised by the durability of shared culture is that sense of
Hope it helps!
Dr John Carman
co-Director, 'Bloody Meadows' Project and
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Tel: +44 1223 333323
Fax: +44 1223 333503
Email: [log in to unmask]
--On 26 April 2001, 12:47 +0100 "Ben Timberlake" <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear All,
> I've been asked to help script a documentary on how people value the past.
> It asks why governments and the general public should give money to
> preserve archaeological sites and what 'returns' cultural and otherwise we
> can hope for. I am looking for good quotes that can help summarise the
> various arguments. I am particularly interested in how we can justify
> spending lots of money on sites in areas of extreme poverty when many
> locals may argue that the money is better spent on the present i.e the
> living vs. the dead. Some of the better britarch discussions have touched
> on many of the points these questions raise, is there some incredible
> that sums it all up yet is short enough for Chris Smith to get as a
> On that note...
> Ben Timberlake