|Names :||Jaime Almansa-Sánchez; Lorna Richardson||Titles :||Mr.; Mrs.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||EAA Working Group in Public Archaeology; JAS Arqueología; UCL||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Jaime Almansa-Sánchez||Session Type :||Round_Table|
Nowadays, public archaeology, or more strictly community archaeology, has become a trend among archaeology professionals. The concept that working with communities is important brings with it another assumption: doing so is simple. However, community archaeology brings with it a series of ethical and practical difficulties. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of wider challenges for public archaeology: Understanding the communities we deal with, how we undertake co-created projects with non-professionals, why we, as professionals would want to, and need to do this, and the consequences of this work, are questions that urgently need further scrutiny. We must also consider the kinds of projects we should be involved in, the consequences of these projects, the scope of our impact and how can we support communities, whilst maintaining our professionalism. Following the debate in Pilsen 2012, this session seeks to delve into the multiple ethical implications of the practice of public archaeology and the possible solutions we can find to the issues raised above in these two blocks: -Ethics in the community: How do we work with(in) local communities. -The ethics of a political practice: What are the consequences of our work within today’s Europe.
|Names :||(1) Frank Siegmund, (2) Julian D. Richards||Titles :||(1) PD Dr. (2) Prof.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||(1) University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany (2) University of York The King's Manor York, YO1 7EP, UK||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Frank Siegmund||Session Type :||Regular|
The European Science Foundation and other leading European research-funders have declared their support for the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities”: a far-reaching restructuring of scientific publishing in favour of open access will take place before the end of the current decade. In parallel, the infrastructure necessary for open data is being created and the political pressure to use it will increase. Many areas of the humanities in Europe, including archaeology, still find this a difficult step to take. At present, the majority of highly renowned journals continue to be published in the traditional way, and research data are still generally unpublished. At the same time, the early adopters of open access and open data are still battling with the problems of how to implement it in practice. This session will attempt to provide an up-to-date overview of open access and open data. We welcome papers from academics, projects and publishers interested in this issue. Archaeologists need to think one step ahead at this early stage: will the availability of open data change the nature of archaeological research and publication, and will it also impact the ways in which archaeologists engage with wider communities?
|Names :||Manolakakis L., Slavchev V., Weller O.||Titles :||DR., DR., DR.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||MAE. Trajectoires. 21 allée de l'Université. 92023 Nanterre Cedex, France. /Department of Prehistory, Varna Historical Museum, 41 Bul. Maria Luisa, 9000Varna, Bulgaria.||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Laurence Manolakakis||Session Type :||Regular|
After the centuries of neolithic being, during 5th millennium BC the Balkan peninsula and the areas around show numerous evidences of complex social and economical organisation. These significant changes have radically changed the way of life forever. The session would like to contribute to a better and finer understanding of the different levels of this social complexity during this period. It will focus on new studies about exploitation of natural resources (i.e. gold, copper, flint, graphite, marble, obsidian, shells, salt...) and craft production with new/specific organisations, settlement patterns (enclosures, tells, protocities, necropoleis, etc.), exchange networks at long distance and control of the networks, funerary practices and symbols of prestige. We invite the participants to present new data, new crossing studies and new interpretations/scenarios about the complexity of the social and technical organisation of "long-time-neolithized" societies. Any contribution on the understanding of reasons, essence and results of the social processes during 5th millennium are warmly welcome.
|Names :||Gerry Wait; Kerri Cleary||Titles :||Dr; Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||EAA-CPAA and Nexus Heritage; Instituteof Archaeologists of Ireland||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Gerry Wait||Session Type :||Regular|
One of the roles of professional associations is to maintain a register of (or to recognise) its professionals. However, in many countries this recognition is only self-regulated (if regulated at all) and there are not shared clear standards or rules for this activity. Who is an archaeologist? Does it mean the same to be an archaeologist in every European country? Although we usually have clear ideas about our own professional identities, official administrative definitions of ‘Archaeology’ and ‘the archaeologist’ are essential for building the profession. European Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications came into force in 2007, providing a tool that allows for the recognition of qualifications within the European Union. This could be a way to recognise Archaeology as a ‘sectoral profession’, facilitating the official recognition of the profession itself. Following this Committee’s debates in 2012 and 2013, this session aims to find contributions from different European countries reporting on the regulated or unregulated situation of the ‘profession’, the possibilities of convergence (or not) at the European level, and the role professional associations could have in supporting this process.
|Names :||Anastasia Sakellariadi; Katerina Chatzikonstantinou||Titles :||Honorary Research Associate; PhD Candidate|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square London WC1H 0PY United Kingdom; Department of Architectural Design and Visual Arts, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Engineering, School of Architecture, University C||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Anastasia Sakellariadi||Session Type :||Regular|
Interest in public perceptions of the past, heritage, and archaeology is constantly increasing among archaeologists. Research has focused so far in a variety of different segments of the public, including but not restricted to local communities, sites’ and museums’ visitors, online communities, minority groups etc. A respective range of methodologies has been employed accordingly: from quantitative questionnaire surveys and the use of online statistics to interviews with focus groups, ethnography and others. But how can our improved understanding of people’s perceptions about the past, heritage and archaeology render the way we manage archaeology more effective and sustainable? Has such research been applied to archaeological heritage management? If yes, how and what were the outcomes of its application? If no, why? What are the implications of different methodologies? What are the benefits and the shortcomings when it comes to application? In this session, experience from research into public perceptions and their application or potential application in archaeological management will be presented and discussed with the aim to further participants’ understanding of the implications of public perceptions’ research and its applicability. Appropriate venues for the publication of the papers presented will be suggested and discussed at the end of the session.
|Names :||Cordemans Karl; Humble Jon; Byrnes Emmet||Titles :||archaeologist; Inspector of Ancient Monuments ; archaeologist|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Flemish Land Agency, Belgium; English Heritage, UK; Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Dublin, Ireland||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Karl Cordemans||Session Type :||Regular|
The Working Group is a joint group of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC). It's purpose is to improve understanding and management of the impacts on the historic environment of farming, forestry and those forms of rural land management which lie beyond the remit of the spatial planning systems of European member countries. The group was established at the 10th Annual EAA Meeting held in 2004 at Lyon, and thus in 2014 will be celebrating a decade of existence. In this session we’ll look back at what has happened since the start of the WG. What has changed, what have we accomplished and what can we learn from past events? At the same time we want to look ahead and determine where the future focus of the WG should be, and how we can do better. Since the Common Agricultural Policy has been such a big focus of the group's attention over the past decade, and particularly over the last two years (as a new policy has been negotiated), part of this assessment of our achievements – and the continuing obstacles – will look at how member states have managed to incorporate heritage in their Rural Development Programmes for 2015 onwards.
|Names :||Annemarie Willems / Cynthia Dunning / Ben Thomas||Titles :||MA / Dr. / Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||ArchaeoConcept, Schützengasse21 / 21 Rue du Stand, 2502 Biel/Bienne, Switzerland / ArchaeoTourism2012, Schützengasse21 / 21 Rue du Stand, 2502 Biel/Bienne, Switzerland / Archaeological Institute of America, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA, www.||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Annemarie Willems||Session Type :||Regular|
The two fields of archaeological heritage and tourism are not as far apart as they may seem and are in fact growing even closer as more sites are being developed for tourism. Archaeological sites are often major tourist attractions. They are also part of the history and heritage of a particular region and can have great value on a national or even international level. There is an area of great opportunity in the cooperation between cultural mangers and tourism experts but these efforts must be considered carefully and care must be taken to maintain the integrity of archaeological research and archaeological sites. In this session we will examine how archaeologists and tourism experts can work together and determine where the opportunities and challenges lie within this cooperative effort. We will explore the possibilities and best practices of presenting archaeological research and communicating the importance of archaeological heritage to an interested public. We would also like to explore how archaeologists can work with tourism experts to create public awareness and make the development of archaeological sites profitable in a sustainable way.
|Names :||Ghattas Sayej and Donald Henson||Titles :||Dr. and Mr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Department of regional development, Vest-Agder County Council, Kristiansand, Norway and Insitute of Archaeology, University College London||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Ghattas Sayej||Session Type :||Regular|
What is the value of archeological record if it will only end up in museum storage? What is the significance of preliminary reports if only a handful of people have access to it? What do archaeologists achieve if their only concern is publishing their materials in prestigious scientific journals? Is our main goal doing research? If so, for whom we are researching, who are our intended audience? Are we just aiming to communicate among ourselves about our discoveries and achievements? Questions like these lead us as social-scientists and as citizens in our respective countries to strive to educate and give the public the answers they deserve. Awareness is the key for understanding and protecting cultural heritage. Traditionally, people have to obtain answers to their curiosity by visiting museums or reading books. But it is equally important to present archaeological record outside the museum walls, back where the material culture were uncovered. Shared cultural heritage creates better understanding of the archaeological record, both amongst local societies as well as amongst visitors. But which method works where? Who are the target audience? Is it pupils, adolescents, adults, locals or tourists? Is there a joint method that covers all of the above mentioned audiences? Most likely the awareness among people increases when they get closer to archeology. In other words, being able to visit archaeological sites, talking to archaeologists while they are digging the site, or even participate in some of the archaeological activities, are the key issues for a better understanding. Kids of all ages are inquisitive and willing to learn new things all the time. And as the famous philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey said it: they love “learning by doing”. Children have the ability to learn better by being a part of the told stories, and thus they can digest knowledge easily.Where do we want to impart cultural heritage; on site or via digital media and/or by written sources? Many archaeologists are keen to excavate and uncover archaeological records and have a limited budget to convey their discoveries directly to local societies. Shall we consider a portion of the excavations budget to communication? Different countries have implemented different methods concerning cultural heritage management and we wish in this session to open a debate about this issue and learn from each other’s expertise.
|Names :||Lekakis Stelios and Nota Pantzou||Titles :||PhD, Research Associate CAA-UCL/ Dr. Museum of Politial Exiles of Ai Stratis|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||CAA, Institute of Archaeology University College London 31-34 Gordon Square London WC1H 0PY United Kingdom/Museum of Political Exiles of Ai Stratis, Ag. Asomaton 31, Athens, Greece||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Nota Pantzou||Session Type :||Regular|
The research and protection of cultural heritage in war time is a much discussed and heated topic among archaeologists,media and the public. It instantly stirs debates about ethics, decision making and effective action taking, shaking the foundations of archaeology. At the same time, the study of war sites and conflicts gains constantly ground with battlefield and conflict archaeology emerging as independent academic branches of the archaeological discipline. Yet we feel that there is a lot more to explore pertaining to the place archaeology, archaeologists and archaeological sites hold on occasions of political crisis and conflict. The proposed theme aspires to bring together examples that will illuminate the context, practicalities and implications of research i.e. surveys, excavations and studies performed, the function of archaeological sites and monuments and their tangible or intangible associations, the role that archaeologists voluntarily or involuntarily assume when political tension is looming and the impact of war upon their routine.
|Names :||Pascale Chevalier and Jana Maříková-Kubková||Titles :||Dr. and Mgr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Blaise-Pascal University-Clermont-Ferrand 2, UFR LLSH, 29 boulevard Gergovia, 63037 Clermont-Ferrand cedex, France ; Archaeological Institute ASCR, Prague, Letenská 4, 11801 Prague 1, Czech Republic||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Pascale Chevalier||Session Type :||Regular|
The CARE project (Corpus Architecturae religiosae Europeae / CARE - IV-X saec.), an international program initiated in 2002, intends to identify and catalog churches built in Europe during the first millenium. 15 countries are involved, 6 other are interested. A joint team of French computer scientists and archaeologists created in 2008-2011 the online computer database shared in 4 langages (italian, spanish, german and english) – an annotated database using a Wiki interface (WikiBridge) and the semantic Web 2.0, with online inputs and queries in SARQL mode and a GIS for instant webmapping. The Corpus of textual and graphical data will gradually be known on the online database (http://care.tge-adonis.fr). Ultimately, this online scientific tool will facilitate comparisons, exchanges and discussions. Country teams work separately. The aim of this session is to allow them to gather these works in progress, to confront experiences, successes, problems with other searchers, in order to progress. The database, which allows an easy processing of different sets of documents, old or very new, such as photographs and 3D, is now tested for other types of data. Its flexibility and adaptability would make it easy to use for other periods.
|Names :||Veysel Apaydin-John H Jameson||Titles :||Mr.- Mr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Institute of Archaeology, University College London-ICOMOS ICIP) International Committee on Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Veysel Apaydin||Session Type :||Regular|
The increasing importance of encouraging a widespread understanding of the past has received a great deal of attention in recent years. This session aims to explore ways in which models of education programmes in Public Archaeology could be more effective in ensuring the protection of heritage sites. Increasingly, archaeological education programmes by museums, archaeology projects, or NGO’s have tended to follow different approaches in order to protect and preserve heritage sites, highlighting many important issues such as engaging with indigenous communities, identity, and authenticity. Although heritage education programmes have not always considered their audiences in terms of their ethnic, social, and political backgrounds, it is important to pay attention to this multi-vocal element, not least in order to develop a more democratic and participatory archaeology. In order to be more effective in protecting heritage sites, approaches to public education and the ways in which they are implemented must contain multiple voices and be developed from “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” in order to be reflexive and capable of evaluation in differing circumstances. Specifically, this session will explore archaeological education programs for different audiences that can lead to greater heritage awareness within communities in order to protect and preserve the heritage sites
|Names :||W.J.H. Willems, I. Lilley, L. Godwin||Titles :||Prof. dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||PO Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||W.J.H. Willems||Session Type :||Regular|
Heritage protection in non-Western contexts is gaining impetus owing to a range of factors including expanding urban and industrial development and growing interest in boosting heritage tourism as an economic strategy. Such protection is almost exclusively conceptualised and executed in Western terms, whether by expatriate actors or local authorities trained in Western ways. Yet in many regions, ‘best practice’ from a globalising Western perspective proves unworkable because it does not align with local concepts of the past and the way that material remains of past human action should be treated. This means that well-intended heritage protection programs, whether driven by expatriate concerns or local heritage agencies working in a Western paradigm, usually fail over the medium to longer term. This session considers how this problem might be overcome by translating local and global interests and approaches in ways that ensure that all parties are satisfied. This does not mean seeking unattainable ‘perfect’ solutions in which everyone gets everything they want. Nor does it mean seeking ‘zero-sum’, winner-takes-all outcomes. Rather, it means delivering “glocal” compromises recognising a range of priorities and giving everyone enough of what they need to demonstrate their points of view are taken seriously and given due respect.
|Names :||Suzie Thomas, Claire Smith, Sergiu Musteata||Titles :||Dr; Professor; Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Glasgow, UK; Flinders University, Australia; State Pedagogical University "Ion Creanga", Moldova.||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Suzie Thomas||Session Type :||Regular|
Community archaeology continues to emerge as a distinct sub-discipline of archaeology. It is proving to manifest itself and be applied differently in different places and contexts, and in many ways still has to be defined. This session will include presentations exploring the concept of ‘community archaeology’ from throughout the world, encompassing a wide range of approaches, each of which is informed by the local community and conditions. Contributors to this sessions will present case studies from Chechnya, Transylvannia, Australia, Moldova, the USA and the UK among others. This global approach will contribute to and strengthen debates on the definition of community archaeology.
|Names :||Kenneth Aitchison; Heleen van Londen||Titles :||Dr; Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Landward Research Ltd UK; University van Amsterdam NL||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Kenneth Aitchison||Session Type :||Regular|
Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2012-14 is a project supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union that has brought together participants from 20 European states. These partners have worked together to identify how archaeology is defined as a profession across Europe, who are the archaeologists of Europe and what are the bigger issues that are shaping professional archaeology across Europe. The previous Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe project (2006-08) focussed on worker mobility – whether archaeologists could move around Europe to find work – but this project has been all about coping with the changed economic times that the global crash of 2008 and the ongoing sovereign debt and Eurozone crises have brought to the profession. There is no single European story, however, and this session will hear how professional archaeology is functioning in many of the project partner countries (and papers are welcomed from beyond the boundaries of the project). This session seeks to bring together and welcomes papers from anyone who has anything to say about employment and training in professional archaeology.
|Names :||Ian Straughn ; Jeremia Pelgrom||Titles :||Visiting Asst Prof. of Anthropology; Director of Ancient Studies|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Brown University, Box A Providence RI, USA, firstname.lastname@example.org ; Royal Dutch Institute in Rome, via Omero, 10-12 00197 ROMA, Italy, email@example.com||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Ian Straughn||Session Type :||Round_Table|
Archaeologists have increasing sought an engagement with post-colonial critiques of imperialist practice even within the discipline's own history. Yet archaeology persists in the notion that the world, its heritage in particular, needs saving. This forum proposes a critical examination of the presumed dangers and moral imperatives that we are asked to cultivate and embody in order to face them. From where do these dangers stem? Who and what is at risk? What “logics of care” or ethical standards constitute the framework for the practices of such salvation? At stake in this dialogue is an opportunity to examine the potential damage to the power of monuments and artifacts that stems from practices of preservation, curation and collection. What place does archaeology allow for vernacular heritage practices in which the processes of decay and even destruction have their own value? As archaeology charts the ethics, aesthetics, and economics of the lived reality of its construction of a heritage universe, the participants in this discussion force us to reflect on the genealogy of that invention and its political ramifications within the space of neo-liberalism, neo-imperialism, and the rhetoric of a global cosmopolitanism.
|Names :||Fassbinder Joerg, Korobov Dmitry||Titles :||Professor, Doctor; Doctor|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Bavarian Archaeological Survey, Hofgraben 4, 80539 Munich, Germany ; Institute of Archaeology RAS, Dm. Uljanova 19, 117036 Moscow, Russia||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Korobov Dmitry||Session Type :||Regular|
The proposed session is devoted to the application of geophysical prospection in archaeology as an important tool for investigation, reconstruction and protection of the archaeological heritage. Recent development of geophysical technologies such as magnetometery, GPR, electric and electro-magnetic measurements leads to discoveries of new sites and even new cultures in different parts of Europe. Such field survey could be supported by Remote Sensing data and GIS application that forms new possibilities for nondestructive approach in archaeological science. Thus geophysical prospection could be considered as one of the most valuable method in modern archaeological field investigation. The case studies of application of geophysical survey on different types of archaeological sites as well as other nondestructive technologies such as aerial reconnaissance, satellite images and LIDAR are expected in frameworks of the proposed session.
|Names :||De Reu, Jeroen; Chu, Wei; Frischer, Bernard||Titles :||Dr.; Drs.; Prof.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Belgium; Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, UK; School of Informatics, Indiana University, US||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||De Reu, Jeroen||Session Type :||Regular|
The application of 3D recording techniques in archaeology has drastically increased in the last decade. These techniques have documented a wide variety of sites, features, and artifacts, from entire archaeological landscapes to monuments, rock art, and impliments. This session will examine the scientific value of the 3D recordings. How can a 3D recording be used as an analytical tool for archaeology, as opposed to a means of simple visualization? It will focus on how 3D data can aid in the study and interpretation of archaeological heritage and how it opens new research opportunities that have been difficult or even impossible to investigate through traditional recording techniques. The goal of this session is to discuss the new possibilities (and limitations) of image-based/range-based 3D reconstruction in the study and interpretation of the archaeological heritage. Ultimately, we aim to discuss how its application can improve the quality of the archaeological research.
|Names :||Çiğdem Maner and Alan Greaves||Titles :||Dr, Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Koç University, Liverpool University||Contact Email addresses :||CMANER@ku.edu.tr|
|Contact Person:||Çiğdem Maner||Session Type :||Regular|
The future of cultural heritage is in children’s hands. This session will discuss practices that raise awareness of preservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in children and young people and evaluate the impact such interventions have of society more broadly. The traditional model of a historical education is heavily didactic, in which the child is a passive recipient of historical knowledge that can itself be imbued with political and nationalistic values can ultimately be to the detriment of broader heritage preservation. In this session we will explore alternative models in which children are active participants in learning partnerships that promote general educational awareness alongside the need for heritage preservation. We welcome theoretical and methodological contributions to this discourse. We particularly welcome reflective assessments of case studies that share lessons learned as well as successes. Questions discussed include: What forms of intervention awaken children’s interest in heritage preservation? Can we convert interest in historical and mythological topics in popular books, films, television programmes and computer games into an active interest in cultural heritage? What is the role of school education in children’s understanding of heritage preservation? Is it possible to put in place sustainable interventions and that are fundable long-term?
|Names :||Gizem Dörter, Kathrin Franklin, Carsten Paludan-Müller||Titles :||Ph.D.; M.Phil.; General Director|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Koc University; University of Chicago; NIKU, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Carsten Paludan-Müller||Session Type :||Regular|
This session will focus on heritage that has lost its original constituency, and on heritage that has multiple constituencies. We want to discuss heritage as a medium for dialogue and for understanding of hybridity between identities. Examples could be found among heritage, whose afiliation has been affected by the great geopolitical shifts of the 20th century. This is heritage that we are slowly learning to appreciate as important assets in our thinking about the future. An illustration of what we want to talk about could be Jewish heritage in Germany, German heritage to the east of the German border and Palestinian heritage in Israel. Much of the heritage we are dealing with has its origins long before the nation state. In this context it is relevant to discuss how we can deal with issues of historicity, and the problems caused by heritage in modern national contexts. We are interested in thinking about 'borders' of all kinds-- including both those transcended by heritage ideals and those which can be constructed by claims to heritage and history.
|Names :||Dick de Jager; Eva Kars; Carolina Andersson; Vibeke Vandrup Martens||Titles :||Masters|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Municipality of Almere. Postbus 200, NL 1300 AE Almere, the Netherlands; EARTH Integrated Archaeology B.V. Basicweg 19, NL 3821 BR Amersfoort, the Netherlands; National Swedish Heritage Board, Samhällsavdelningen, Box 5405, 114 84 Stockholm, Sweden; NIKU||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Dick de Jager||Session Type :||Regular|
Is preservation in situ, more than twenty years after Malta, still the preferred solution? Practice has shown that that some preserved sites, like Medieval deposits in Swedish towns, have rapidly lost their information due to weathering and erosion. What happens if monitoring shows such accelerated degradation? Will roads and buildings be removed to facilitate a rescue excavation? Or will this mean that the heritage is essentially lost, and that monitoring is a cheap way for the developer to avoid archaeological excavations – and a societal illusion of preserving more than is actually the case? Even if safeguarded, sites are often essentially abandoned and no scientific (protective) measures are taken, resulting in a potential loss of the valuable archaeological heritage. Preservation in situ is not the end, but just a beginning. On-site heritage management should include physical protection measures, monitoring of the quality of the site and a design of the surface area that reflects the archaeological value. That would be an attractive way to communicate the hidden heritage which will be usable for the scientific community as well as for the general public. We invite papers that present theoretical views on preservation in situ and the problems connected to it.
|Names :||Kenny Brophy; Chris Dalglish; Gerhard Ermischer; Benjamin Grahn-Danielson; Leif Gren; Alan Leslie; Gavin Mcgregor; Thomas Risan; Aphrodite Sorotou; an||Titles :||Dr; Dr; Dr; Dr; Dr; Dr; Dr; Dr; Mrs; and Mr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Glasgow, UK; University of Glasgow, UK; Spessart-Projekt, Germany; Rio Kulturkooperativ, Sweden; Swedish Natural Heritage Board, Sweden;Northlight Heritage, UK; Northlight Heritage, UK; Swedish Natural Heritage Board, Sweden; Mediterranean I||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Aphrodite Sorotou||Session Type :||Round_Tabl|
Implementation of the European Landscape Convention remains a challenge given the complexity and heterogeneity of landscapes and the resulting need for more integrated policies and practices. Integration between disciplines, sectors and interests has been identified as a key to achieving better landscape governance and development and addressing the major social challenges facing us - but such integration has yet to be achieved in practice. This session will focus on the need for greater collaboration between those involved in the study, protection, management and planning of the ‘natural’ and the ‘cultural’ in landscape. Modelled on participatory management and planning methods, the session will use real-life scenarios to inspire discussion between archaeologists from different sectors and countries, and experts from other disciplines such as ecology and planning. What can be gained from a more collaborative approach to the cultural and natural heritage inherent in our landscapes? What are the obstacles preventing the development of such a collaborative approach and how might we overcome, circumvent or minimise them? How can collaboration help generate decision-making, planning and development practices which achieve greater synergies between environmental, social, cultural and economic objectives? This session is organised by the European Network for Archaeology & Integrated Landscape Research.
|Names :||Suzie Thomas, Luiz Oosterbeek, Dragos Gheorghiu, Styliani Kaltsogianni||Titles :||Dr.; Prof.; Prof.; Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||1) College of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK; 2)Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Instituto Terra e Memória, PT; 3)Doctoral School, National University of Arts, Bucharest, RO; 4)Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Prof.Dragos Gheorghiu||Session Type :||Regular|
The discovery, reconstruction, display, and transmission of material heritage constitute a major cultural problem of the 21st century. A similar tendency could be identified with immaterial heritage. Ancient technologies, as well as those of traditional societies are recovered and presented to the public by means of scientific experiments and re-enactments. The last decade digital technologies allowed the development of a new archaeological discipline, Virtual Archaeology, whose role is to represent, reconstruct, and preserve the [incomplete] material heritage. The amount of information offered can be augmented by mixing different media, producing an augmented or a mixed reality. Taking into account these contemporary trends to approach both material and immaterial heritage, the present session is an invitation to propose and discuss new methods to improve the “reality” of the Past, as well as to present current research, which brings new contributions to the 21st century research on this subject. It will also discuss the epistemological implications of the new virtual reconstructions of the Past.
|Names :||Elif Denel, Matthew Harpster||Titles :||Dr, Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||ARIT - Ankara, Sehit Ersan Cad. 24/9, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey; Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology in Room ARTS 304 University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Elif Denel||Session Type :||Regular|
Since the initial stages of archaeology as an intellectual discipline, the cooperative atmosphere between North America and Turkey has grown considerably. Archaeological expeditions from the United States and Canada have had a significant presence across Turkey’s landscape through their targeted investigations leading to insights about past societies and developments of methods and theories fundamental to investigating the past. The recognition and value of this longstanding dynamic is best demonstrated through the knowledge that emerged in Turkey and impacted studies far beyond those borders. The papers in this session will focus on the innovative questions and methodological approaches emerging from this international archaeological collaboration, and their impact on our knowledge of Turkey’s past, the surrounding region, and on conducting historical and archaeological research.
|Names :||Europa Nostra Turkey, Nuran Zeren Gulersoy, Ege Uluca Tumer, Ebru Torun, Daniel Shoup||Titles :||Prof.Dr. , Assoc.Prof.Dr. Arch.Ass.Director|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||ITU Faculty of Architecture, IKU Faculty of Architecture||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Nuran Zeren Gulersoy||Session Type :||Regular|
Management of heritage sites has become a more widely discussed concept in last ten years after it was highlighted in the ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’ of 2005 [ ]. The management plans are thought to be the implementation tools for achieving a balance between the conservation and restoration of cultural heritage, the priorities and needs of local community, and development of tourism and economy. The management plans take the task of a framework that set forth the guidelines for future decisions and aim to ensure conservation of significance and values of the site and its sustainability, and to help the local community and visitors in appreciating the significance and values of the site. Archaeological sites are also subjected to management plans, as not to become the focus for the struggle between the potentially conflicting aspirations of conservation and tourism [ ]. The aim of this session is to discuss the status of archaeological site management plans and conservation practices in archaeological sites. 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf (accessed 03/18/2013). MILLAR, S., 1989. “Heritage Management for Heritage Tourism”, Tourism Management, Volume 10, Issue 1, March 1989, pp. 9-14.
|Names :||Friedrich Lüth, Adrian Olivier, Willem J.H. Willems, Douglas Comer||Titles :||MR,Mr,Mr,Mr|
|Addresses of the afffiliations||EAA, ICAHM||Contact Email addresses :||Friedrich.Lueth@dainst.de|
|Contact Person:||Friedrich Lueth [Friedrich.Lueth@dainst.de]||Session Type :||Round Table|
Integrating planning and heritage management on the basis of the EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON
THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (revised) has led to a greater implementation and integration of heritage issues into the pre-investment phase of major infrastructure projects. Heritage issues are being incorporated into evaluation systems and issues raised during the different stages of planning and implementation of projects has brought significant benefits: in particular archaeological issues are taken care of during the pre-investment phase of work and this has resulted into greater security for construction companies.
This principle is widespread throughout Europe but it seems that we have not yet reached a common standard in practice. The round table wants to explore and discuss which steps in the process of planning and implementation should be followed and what the expected outcome of such procedures are. Keynote speakers from different parts of Europe and overseas will address some of these issues, before all participants around the table will discuss possible actions. It is expected to lead to recommendations that shall be passed on to the EAA-ABM for acknowledgement.
|Names :||MERC||Titles :|
|Addresses of the afffiliations||MERC||Contact Email addresses :|
|Contact Person:||Session Type :||Round Table|
All contributions welcome from the floor. Your chance to guide research directions and instruct your Committee.
|Names :||Holly Wright||Titles :||Dr.|
|Addresses of the afffiliations||University of York||Contact Email addresses :||
|Contact Person:||Holly Wright||Session Type :||Regular|