Search results
money at Lanciani’s disposal with Rothschild’s Italian branch. In January 1888, Lanciani complained to Loring about the immobility of the antiquarian market after the scandal at the building site for Vittorio Emanuele’s monument (Coppola, 2009). Many coins found during the construction work were illegally sold by the workers and from that point the authorities became more suspicious. In his letters Lanciani focused on the market’s dynamics: [B]etter to bargain with the producers: only these producers are becoming a myth! Since I came back two excavations only have
professional. ROBERTS 9781526134554 PRINT.indd 177 03/12/2019 08:56 178 Communities and knowledge production in archaeology As with many field sciences, a degree in Egyptology alone did not give Breasted professional standing. Erman thus urged Breasted to go to Egypt ‘for the sake of his health and scientific future,’ and gave him an important task: collating inscriptions in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo for a massive dictionary Erman was writing (C. Breasted, 1943: 51). Understanding the importance of this fieldwork, Breasted scraped together money from a variety of
into the school. Picard characterised the French School’s support of Salač’s Samothraki excavations as ‘scientific liberalism’.48 To the French Ministry of Education, he wrote, ‘[a] good future is expected from this enterprise, which, in principle, renews that of Asine (1922).’49 Picard was referring to the excavations of Salač’s Foreign Section colleague, the Swedish archaeologist Axel W. Persson (1888–1951), at Asine. In the Národní listy Salač reported: ‘[T]hough we had very little money at our disposal’ – a persistent motif in Salač’s research – ‘we obtained
of very great or infinite value. The idea behind the wording is that heritage, like that which is sacred, belongs to a sphere of its own, independent of the market and of economics. So heritage neither can nor should be valued in money, or indeed measured in relation to anything else at all. And still, paradoxically, heritage is valued all the time – and converted into money. As a rule, heritage is preserved with reference to its values, and value is a concept drawn precisely from the economic sphere. Valuations and values are therefore crucial to the selection
it appeared. Norman W. Brown thought that his own present was in a state of sickness on account of civilisation, money, urbanisation, and capitalism (Brown 1959 : 234ff). Claude Lévi-Strauss took the view that modern society creates social classes and human exploitation (Lévi-Strauss 1966 : 121f). Fred Davis described modern society as characterised by discontinuity and problems (Davis 1979 : 97ff). Donald Horne took the view that modernity had caused a crisis (Horne 1984 : 21ff). Andreas Huyssen criticised the media and described his present as chaotic
and care for the Museum’s collections. But it can also be understood as a father’s concern about his daughter and her opportunities to develop her scholarly mission. In 1929, 15,000 Swedish crowns was a considerable sum of money, equivalent to more than 400,000 SEK today. Whatever the motivation, it seems to have been a win-win situation for all three of them. However, this harmonious picture seems to have cracked. In 1931, a letter dated 10 March was written by Andersson to Professor Bernhard Karlgren regarding Hanna’s second contribution to the Bulletin. Karlgren
visited by large numbers of tourists; that they are valued in terms of money, generally in the form of paying visitors and hotel nights; and that they do not remain unchanged, but are actually modernised – all this is part of the narrative of the border-crossing paradoxes inherent in World Heritage. The new concept Heritopia, made by uniting Heritage and Utopia, signifies the land of the future, which is being pursued with the aid of a modernised heritage and World Heritage. Here, remains of the past are used to create the future in a manner completely opposed to
). Excavating urban archaeological sites such as the mithraeum beneath the Santa Prisca obviously costs time and money, as well as demanding a large workforce with expertise in complex stratigraphy and diverse material. Substantial sums were required for personnel and for the complex techniques and tools needed to detach the frescoes and remove the filling of the surrounding areas of the mithraeum. But again, private prestige and networks could be mobilised to cover these costs. Given the swiftness of the Italian authorities in permitting the excavation, the Dutch had to
that history was the only possible escape in a turbulent present (Fritzsche 2004 : 10), he was not convincing. First, people could physically escape to other places, that is emigrate, as many were forced to do during the French Revolution, a point that Fritzsche himself noted (Fritzsche 2004 : 33ff). Second, people could move in their imagination, not only to the past but also to fictional places in the present or the future. Today, many are able – provided they have the necessary resources (passport, visa, and money) – to travel in both time and space, both in
different archaeologies with their own designations, including my own specialities “historical archaeology” and “church archaeology” (Rudebeck 2009 : 18). But there is undoubtedly room for “a thousand archaeologies” in the future. Specialisation is encouraged by an academic dynamic, in which positions and capital are sought at the “forefront of research”. New perspectives are soon defined as their own specialities and, if possible, as their own subjects, which may generate a return in the form of appointments, money, and prestige. In addition, specialisation is an