Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:24:23.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Academic critique and the need for an open mind (a response to Kristiansen)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Cornelius Holtorf
Cornelius Holtorf*
Affiliation:
*School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In two recent books, From Stonehenge to Las Vegas – Archaeology as popular culture (AltaMira 2005) and Archaeology is a brand! The meaning of archaeology in popular culture (Archaeopress 2007), Cornelius Holtorf wants us to readdress the focus of archaeology from being predominantly a study of the past to becoming a study of its use in popular culture in the present. While I am in general sympathy with the attempt to analyse the role of archaeology in modern popular culture – and his 2007 book especially provides some good examples of that – I am deeply sceptical of Holtorf's theoretical and political programme for archaeology. It represents a dangerous attempt to deconstruct archaeology as a historical discipline in order to allow modern market forces to take over the archaeological heritage and the consumption of the past as popular culture.

Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 82 , Issue 316 , June 2008 , pp. 490 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Holtorf, C. 1999. Defining the real issues – a short response to Kristian Kristiansen. Arkeologen 5(1):9–12.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas – Archaeology as popular culture. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2006a. Getting to the bottom of things: a reply to Mads Dengso Jessen. Arkologisk Forum 15: 24–6.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2006b. Can less be more? Heritage in the age of terrorism. Public Archaeology 5: 101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2007a. Archaeology is a brand! The meaning of archaeology in popular culture. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2007b. What does not move any hearts – why should it be saved? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany. International Journal of Cultural Property 14(1):33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, C. & Ortman, O.. 2008. Endangerment and conservation ethos in natural and cultural heritage: the case of zoos and archaeological sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 14(1):74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1993. The past and its great might: an essay on the use of the past. Journal of European Archaeology 1:3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1999. The consumer's past? – A critique of ‘The past as a renewable resource.’ Arkeologen 5(1):4–8.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D. 2005. Why sanctions seldom work: reflections on cultural property internationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the past: on the character of archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 2004. Archaeology and politics, in Bintliff, J. (ed.) A Companion to archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar