PREVIOUS   NEXT   CONTENTS   SUMMARY   ISSUE   HOME 

List of Figures

Figure 1: The complexity of the cultural heritage management system in Hungary c.2016. The structure has been dramatically changed twice up until September 2017 and two more alterations are expected to come in 2018. (Image: R. Virágos)

Figure 2: The archaeological heritage management structure in Hungary in 1999. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 3: The archaeological heritage management structure in Hungary in 2001. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 4: The archaeological heritage management structure in Hungary in 2006/2007. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 5: The archaeological heritage management structure in Hungary in 2010/2012. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 6: The archaeological heritage management structure in Hungary in 2017. The relevant law on cultural heritage has been amended more than 25 times in 16 years. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 7: Cultural heritage is part of the overall environment, situated in the section of each set (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 8: The structure of cultural heritage as defined by the law in most countries. Only a small proportion are under legal protection. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 9: Cubic work — as was all archaeological excavation — with local peasants in Hungary between the two world wars. (Image used with permission http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/historia/01-02/ch05s02.html)

Figure 10: Archaeological excavation with a local workforce in Hungary in the 2010s. The equipment and the professional preparedness of the persons carrying out the excavation work has not changed much in the last hundred years. (Image used with permission http://cdn.blog.hu/

Figure 11: The changes in cultural heritage policy in Hungary before and after the economic crisis of 2008. The economic competitiveness of companies or states is also dependent on archaeological costs

Figure 12: Rapid technological development in detecting archaeological sites is astonishing. However, costs are still challenging and data processing is often not complete. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 13: A still image of a 3D model created from aerial photos captured by a drone-camera rig. Technology in documenting archaeological sites is also well advanced. However, whatever technology we have, we can only document what has been excavated (cf. Figure 13) (Image: B. Kreimer/Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project)

Figure 14: The proportion of funding research in cultural heritage by the national research and cultural institutions of Hungary is not significant. The vast majority of archaeological work is financed by developers, but this work almost never is published because of a lack of scientific consideration. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 15: An abandoned castle site (Csobánc in Hungary). Low income vs. high maintenance costs (Image used with permission. http://omegahirek.hu/pannon/index.php/pannon/item/89-32-helyi-ertek-aminek-a-megyei-ertektarban-van-a-helye

Figure 16: Tourism can generate significant income, covering even restoration costs, but only in exceptional cases (e.g. the Tower of London). (Image used with permission. https://londonbeep.com/tourist-guide-in-london)

Figure 17: Museum exhibitions are not always interesting to the public and professionals do not always know how to communicate with visitors. (Image used with permission. http://faninfo.hu/kultura/galeria/magyar-nemzeti-galeria-muzeum-budapest)

Figure 18: Some collections are assets to generate income. Archaeology has the potential for this as well. (Image used with permission. http://vtv.vn/du-lich/bao-tang-louvre-dong-cua-vi-nan-moc-tui-81003.htm)

Figure 19: A simple game: the top ranked Google search results for the query 'the most well-known archaeologist of the country'. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 20: Decision-making happens across many levels. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 21: The aptitude, skills, preparedness and other characteristics of a person strongly influencei their decisions. Some are under their own control, but others are not. (Image: G. Virágos)

Figure 22: We can adapt and apply relevant models on decision-making used in economy and management to cultural heritage, models such as MCDM (multi-criteria decision-making), AHP (analytical hierarchy process) and risk-return analysis (Image: Harvard Business Review)


 PREVIOUS   NEXT   CONTENTS   SUMMARY   ISSUE   HOME 

Internet Archaeology is an open access journal. Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY) Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI are given.

Terms and Conditions | Legal Statements | Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Citing IA

Internet Archaeology content is preserved for the long term with the Archaeology Data Service. Help sustain and support open access publication by donating to our Open Access Archaeology Fund.