The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology
Abstract
In this book an international team of archaeologists, philosophers, lawyers and heritage professionals addresses significant ethical questions about the rights to access, manage and interpret the material remains of the past. The chapters explore competing claims to interpret and appropriate the past and the major ethical issues associated with them, including handling the sacred; contested rights over sites, antiquities and artifacts; the involvement of local communities in archaeological research; and the legal status of heritage sites. The book covers a range of hotly debated topics in contemporary archaeological practice, focusing particularly on the relationship between academic archaeologists and indigenous communities for whom the material remnants of the past that form the archaeological record may be part of a living tradition and anchors of social identity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“it is not surprising that archaeologists notoriously have a hard time 'letting go' [40,41].”
From What Is There to Do If You Find an Old Indian Canoe? Anti-Colonialism in Maritime Archaeology (2022) · cites this paper as [41]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Is There to Do If You Find an Old Indian Canoe? Anti-Colonialism in Maritime Archaeology
Rich, S. A., Sievers-Cail, C., & Patterson, K. (2022) · Heritage · doi:10.3390/heritage5040191 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2012-11-12
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review