Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:32:47.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritage in danger. The collapse of commercial archaeology in Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Eva Parga Dans
Eva Parga Dans*
Affiliation:
Institute of Natural Products and Agrobiology (IPNA-CSIC) (Spain) and CICS.NOVA (Portugal) Email: eva.parga.dans@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As in most European countries and elsewhere, Spanish commercial archaeology is a business model based on the theoretical and technical principles of safeguarding heritage that thrived during the 1990s and 2000s. However, nearly half of the Spanish archaeological companies closed by 2014, stressing the drama associated with the redundancy of its workforce in a mere five-year period and the threat to heritage protection and management. The current context of global crisis has impacted this sector, which is on the brink of extinction. This emphasizes the need for a new paradigm of archaeological heritage management in the 21st century. This breakdown calls into question the extent to which archaeology can generate initiatives of sustainable heritage management. By analysing data derived from an empirical study of Spanish archaeological companies between 2009 and 2017, this paper explores the underlying factors behind the collapse of commercial archaeology. In doing so, it contributes to the current global debate about the future possibilities of heritage management in a post-industrial context.

Keywords

Commercial archaeologycrisisSpainheritage managementpublic archaeologyarchaeological heritage
Type
Articles
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 111 - 122
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Aitchison, K., 2009a: After the ‘gold rush’. Global archaeology in 2009, World archaeology 41(4), 659–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, K., 2009b: Archaeology and the global financial crisis, Antiquity 83, 319–32.Google Scholar
Aitchison, K., 2009c. Discovering the archaeologists of Europe. Transnational report , Reading (Institute for Archaeologists).Google Scholar
Alonso González, P., 2014: From a given to a construct. Heritage as a commons, Cultural studies 28(3), 359–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso González, P., 2019. The heritage machine. Fetishism and domination in Maragateria, Spain, London.Google Scholar
Alonso González, P., and Macías Vázquez, A., 2014: Neoliberalismo corporativo y clientelismo en España. Etnografía de la financiación europea del desarrollo rural a través de un proyecto fallido, AIBR 9(3), 223–50.Google Scholar
Bonini Baraldi, S., Shoup, D.D. and Zan, L., 2017: When megaprojects meet archaeology. A research framework and case study from Yenikapi, Istanbul, International journal of cultural policy 24(4), 423–44.Google Scholar
Cazorla Pérez, J., 1995: El clientelismo de partido en la España de hoy. Una disfunción de la democracia, Revista de estudios políticos 87, 35–52.Google Scholar
Cleary, K., Frolík, J., Krekovič, E., Parga-Dans, E. and Prokopiou, E.S., 2014: Responding to the financial crisis in five European countries. People, roles, reactions and initiatives in archaeology, Archaeologies 10(3), 211–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criado-Boado, F., 1996: El futuro de la arqueología, ¿la Arqueología del futuro?, Trabajos de prehistoria 53(1), 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoule, J.-P., 2002: Rescue archaeology. The French way, Public archaeology 2(3), 170–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M., 2017: Heritage values and the public, Journal of community archaeology & heritage 4(1), 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament, 2017: Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018), § OJ C 88, 21.3 2017.Google Scholar
Farías, A., Ibarra-Colado, E. and Guedes, A., 2010: Internationalization of management, neoliberalism and the Latin American challenge, Critical perspectives on international business 6(2–3), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnecco, C., and Dias, A.S., 2015: On contract archaeology, International journal of historical archaeology 19(4), 687–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnecco, C., Langebaek, C.H., Nielsen, A.E., Haber, A., Laguens, A., Barreto, C. and Londoño, W., 2006. Contra la tiranía tipológica en arqueología. Una visión desde Suramérica, Bogotá.Google Scholar
González Álvarez, D., 2013a: Del precariado a la nada. La situación laboral de la Arqueología Comercial en el Estado Español a comienzos del s. XXI, in J. Almansa (ed.), Arqueología pública en España, Madrid, 151–68.Google Scholar
González Álvarez, D., 2013b: Las ‘excavaciones de verano’. Forjando superarqueólogos fácilmente precarizables, ArkeoGazte 3, 201–19.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., Alonso González, P. and Criado-Boado, F., 2018: Against reactionary populism. Towards a new public archaeology, Antiquity 92(362), 507–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2018: Decolonial archaeology as social justice, Antiquity 92(362), 518–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernando Álvarez, C., and Tejerizo García, C., 2011: La arqueología y la academia. Del siglo XIX al ‘Plan Bolonia’. Revista Arkeogazte 1, 53–69.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as popular culture, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2008: Academic critique and the need for an open mind (a response to Kristiansen), Antiquity 82(316), 490–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerez Darias, L.M., Martín Martín, V.O. and Pérez González, R., 2012: Aproximación a una geografía de la corrupción urbanística en España, Ería 87, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jiménez, F., 2009: Building boom and political corruption in Spain, South European society and politics 14(3), 255–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., 2017: Wrestling with the social value of heritage. Problems, dilemmas and opportunities, Journal of community archaeology & heritage 4(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2008: Should archaeology be in the service of ‘popular culture’? A theoretical and political critique of Cornelius Holtorf’s vision of archaeology, Antiquity 82(316), 488–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2009: Contract archaeology in Europe. An experiment in diversity, World archaeology 41(4), 641–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londoño, W., 2016: Arqueología por contrato y nuevos contratos arqueológicos, Jangwa pana 15(1), 117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macías Vazquez, A., and Alonso González, P., 2016: Knowledge economy and the commons. A theoretical and political approach to post-neoliberal common governance, Review of radical political economics 48(1), 140–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín Suárez, C., and Parga Dans, E., 2017: Arqueologia de Gestão em Madrid. Presos pelo modelo de especulação capitalista do território, Revista de arqueologia 28(2), 118–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Rios, C., and Parga-Dans, E., 2016: Service response to economic decline. Innovation actions for achieving strategic renewal, Journal of business research 69(8), 2890–2900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, K., 2015: A future of archaeology, Antiquity 89(343), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parga-Dans, E., Barreiro, D., and Varela-Pousa, R., 2016: Isomorphism and legitimacy in Spanish contract archaeology. The free-fall of an institutional model and the caveat of change, International journal of heritage studies 22(4), 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio Arostegui, J.A., and Rius-Ulldemolins, J., 2018: Cultural policies in the South of Europe after the global economic crisis. Is there a Southern model within the framework of European convergence?, International journal of cultural policy, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2010. Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Brussels.Google Scholar
Shoup, D.D., Bonini Baraldi, S. and Zan, L., 2014: A centralized decentralization. Outsourcing in the Turkish cultural heritage sector, International journal of cultural policy 20(1), 54–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L., and Campbell, G., 2018: It’s not all about archaeology, Antiquity 92(362), 521–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zapatero, G.R., 2005: ¿Por qué necesitamos una titulación de arqueología en el siglo XXI? Why do we need a degree in archaeology in the twenty-first century?, Complutum 16, 255–69.Google Scholar
Zarankin, A., and Pellini, J.R., 2012: Arqueologia e companhia. Reflexões sobre a introdução de uma lógica de mercado na prática arqueológica brasileira, Revista de arqueologia 25(2), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, L.J., 2018: Changing archaeology’s ‘brand’ would be helpful, Antiquity 92(362), 523–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorzin, N., 2015: Archaeology and capitalism. Successful relationship or economic and ethical alienation?, in Gnecco, C. and Lippert, D. (eds), Ethics and archaeological praxis, New York, 115–39.Google Scholar