Integrating Archaeological Heritage into Towns and Settlements

ABSTRACT

This article explores factors concerning the urban integration of archaeological heritage in towns and settlements. Archaeological heritage refers to visible, immovable archaeological remains (such as the remains of buildings or structures), sites, and areas (larger complexes). As part of the multidisciplinary process of archaeological heritage management, based on understanding the significance of a site and the goal of enhancing and preserving archaeological heritage in situ, urban integration and its determining factors have not been the subject of systematic research. The present study is derived from the application of deductive research based on theoretical assumptions validated by a qualitative survey. Research has identified 17 factors as the basis for the urban integration of archaeological heritage in towns and settlements. These factors represent a theoretical and practical contribution not only to urban planning but also to archaeological heritage management.     

Preserving Knowledge, not Objects: A Somali Perspective for Heritage Management and Archaeological Research

This article argues that the Somali people have a distinctive view on heritage and a different approach to its preservation relevant to their society. It suggests that a locally appropriate theoretical framework for heritage management and archaeological research can only be achieved if this local approach is taken into consideration and integrated into archaeological and heritage methodologies. The lack of qualified Somalis and indigenous perspectives in the archaeological research and heritage management policies characterizes Somali cultural heritage and archaeological research history. This research shows that previous approaches that have been pursued lacked dialogue and incorporation of local views of heritage practice. This lack of dialogue has been of paramount importance for the failure of the preservation of Somali cultural heritage, evident both in the previous neglect of its preservation and in the current looting and destruction of archaeological sites in Somaliland, Puntland and south-central Somalia. It is demonstrated how Somali indigenous perspectives are concurring and contributing to world heritage management and archaeological research methods. I suggest that any heritage work must integrate local approaches and trained local groups should lead archaeological research and heritage management in order to achieve sustainable development and self-representation.     

Combining New Awareness and Public Support for Archaeology with In Situ Preservation of an Archaeological Monument

Preserving archaeological remains in situ is one of the main objectives of the Valletta Treaty, which was signed by the Dutch government in 1992. Subsequently, preservation in situ has become one of the pillars of archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands. Another objective of the Treaty is the promotion of heritage education and raising of public awareness for the protection and investigation of archaeological heritage. Until recently, this goal has received too little attention. The design and building of an underground visitor centre, DOMunder, raised an important question: How can we transform an archaeological monument into an asset for the community and at the same time ensure long-lasting preservation? Not many parallels exist, as most archaeological sites in urban environments are seen as a burden for development. Sites are generally either excavated or left in situ; in both cases the archaeology remains invisible and inaccessible to the public. In the case of DOMunder, the location in a wet sedimentary environment provided even more challenges. This paper focuses on a few of the many questions and problems that were raised before and during the building process and the (preliminary) answers and solutions.     

Archaeological Ethnography,Heritage Management,and Community Archaeology: A Pragmatic Approach from Crete

This article examines the introduction of archaeological ethnography as an approach to establish positioned research and bring context-specific and reflexive considerations into community archaeology projects. It considers recent critiques of heritage management in archaeology and the role of archaeologists as experts in it, contending that smaller and less prominent sites exist in different contexts and pose different problems than large-scale projects usually addressed in the literature. We describe how the ‘Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete’ project, investigating prehistoric Minoan ritual sites, involves communities and stakeholders and what demands the latter pose on experts in the field. Archaeological work is always already implicated in local development projects which create and reproduce power hierarchies. It is therefore important that archaeologists maintain their critical distance from official heritage discourses, as they are materialized in development programmes, while at the same time engaging with local expectations and power struggles; they also have to critically address and position their own assumptions. We use examples from our community archaeology project to propose that these goals can be reached through archaeological ethnographic fieldwork that should precede any archaeological project to inform its methodological decisions, engage stakeholders, and collaboratively shape heritage management strategies.     

Founding of a Monumentenwacht for Archaeological Heritage in Flanders (Belgium)

Abstract

In August 2009, Monumentenwacht Vlaanderen set out to develop a new service and monitoring system for archaeological heritage in Flanders. Such an initiative takes time, for it needs to be done thoroughly, and there are many questions that need to be addressed. The answers can be found partly in examples in other countries, but must also be evolved in practice within the Flemish context, where a policy on in situ preservation of archaeological heritage is still in its infancy. This paper explains how this new service has been set up.     

The Protection of Archaeological Sites in Taiwan

Abstract

There are roughly 2300 recognized archaeological sites in Taiwan. Under the Cultural Properties Preservation Law (CPPL) of 1982, archaeological heritage falls under the category of 'historic relics'. However, archaeological sites are not designated as such until they have been excavated and studied to prove their cultural value. Protection of the archaeological heritage has been reinforced through the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA), which regulates all environmental management plans. These study and determine the degree and scope of the potential impact of development on the cultural environment.

The CPPL was extensively amended and promulgated in 2005, and in this recent document discussed archaeological heritage in a distinct chapter (Chapter 3 with 16 acts). Furthermore, three regulations have been issued concerning the examination of designations of archaeological sites, qualification standards for excavation, as well as the administration and protection of archaeological sites. The newly enacted Cultural Law and Regulations confer competent authorities at all levels with all powers to supervise, administer, and then protect valuable buried cultural property. Although the protection of archaeological heritage has been better enforced since 2005, archaeological remains in Taiwan are still under various threats. Preservation of the cultural heritage is threatened by development, in many cases resulting in impasse. This paper discusses several recent examples of such dilemmas and presents a personal opinion on a better way to settle the controversy.     

Teaching Archaeological Heritage Management. Towards a Change in Paradigms

ABSTRACT

The concept of archaeological heritage management (AHM) has been key to wider archaeological research and preservation agendas for some decades. Many universities and other education providers now offer what is best termed heritage management education (HME) in various forms. The emphasis is commonly on archaeological aspects of heritage in a broad sense and different terms are often interchangeable in practice. In an innovative working-conference held in Tampere, Finland, we initiated a debate on what the components of AHM as a course or curriculum should include. We brought together international specialists and discussed connected questions around policy, practice, research and teaching/training, at local, national, transnational and World Heritage levels. In this article we take the Tampere discussions further, focusing especially on the meaning, necessity, implications and prerequisites of interdisciplinary HME. We offer our thoughts on developing HME that reflects the contemporary aspects and needs of heritage and its management.     

Visible Archaeological Remains in Towns and Parks

This paper relates a specific and professional understanding of the nature of archaeological sites to management needs and approaches. It focuses on how the nature of the resource itself relates to a system of valuation, conservation and preservation. The perspective taken is that of the contribution of landscape planning to the development of tourism and heritage management. One of the central aims is to explain the visual values of archaeological remains in the landscape, relating them to the different measures of preservation available for archaeological sites. Examples are included from Latvia and other European countries.     

Occupying the Past: Colonial Rule and Archaeological Practice in Israel/Palestine

Scholars working on issues of cultural heritage politics have repeatedly argued that archaeological sites in Israel/Palestine serve as grounds for the creation of a nation-state narrative that erases other histories. Expanding on this view, my paper first explores a set of spatio-political strategies that Israeli settlers use to carve out a national space within a larger colonial landscape. Second, as I trace those strategies into the realm of archaeological work, it is my goal to highlight how practices of heritage management and colonial rule in Israel/Palestine are co-constitutive. In this context, I also consider how the occupation, confiscation, and demolition of archaeological sites take place before the background of a modernist discourse that references a universal or global heritage.     

UNESCO, URI, and Archaeology in the Deep Blue Sea: Archaeological Ethics and Archaeological Oceanography

Multiple groups have interests that intersect within the field of deep submergence (beyond the 50 meter range of SCUBA) archaeology. These groups?? differing priorities present challenges for interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly as there are no established guidelines for best practices in such scenarios. Associating the term ??archaeology?? with projects directed at underwater cultural heritage that are guided by archaeologists poses a real risk to that heritage. Recognizing that the relevant professional organizations, local laws, and conventions currently have little ability to protect pieces of cultural heritage across disciplines and international boundaries, the authors propose institution-specific mechanisms, called Archaeology Review Boards, guided by local and international laws and conventions concerning cultural heritage, as the best means to provide oversight for academically centered archaeological activities at the local level.     

大遗址概念起源发展及共属性探究

大遗址一词出现于建国之初的经济恢复时期。在配合大规模基本建设进行大遗址清理的实践中,提出了“既对基本建设有利,又对文物保护有利”的“两利原则”。大遗址概念形成于改革开放后新的经济建设高峰期,受国外文化遗产概念启发,逐步发展成考古领域的遗址与相关环境结合的综合体概念。大遗址从起源来看属于工作概念,在文物知识概念体系内难于恰当定位,以现阶段研究的各种概念定义皆难于对具体遗址进行大遗址判定。大遗址也不太符合术语的透明性要求,“大”的义项不明确、界限不清。事买上,大遗址只有经国家公布才能得到认可,因此,大遗址尚处于工作概念阶段。     

Archaeological Sites as Self-Sustained Resources for Economic Regeneration: Towards the Creation of Living Archaeological Parks on the Islands of Kythera and Antikythera

Abstract

This paper argues that less known archaeological sites on marginalized or non-touristic areas can contribute to the formation of local economies that can benefit from alternative heritage tourism and public participation in the archaeological excavation process. The discussion of a proposal for turning two archaeological sites on the Greek islands of Kythera and Anitkythera respectively (Paleokastro and Kastro) into living archaeological parks serves as an example that highlights the possibilities for the creation of self-sustainable heritage projects that need not rely on direct state funding.     

Control of Indigenous Archaeological Heritage in Ontario,Canada

Few Indigenous peoples have control over their heritage, despite international recognition of this right in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 regulates archaeology and grants licences to archaeologists to investigate archaeological heritage. Indigenous people want more control of their archaeological heritage in Ontario. To uphold Indigenous rights to archaeological heritage in Ontario, heritage legislation and policy needs to be revised and site protection increased. This paper recommends that Indigenous archaeological heritage in Ontario would be best protected by strengthening Ontario government land development policy and legislation to require the free, prior, and informed consent from affected Indigenous communities before removal of significant archaeological sites and remains from their ancestral territories.     

Archaeological site conservation and management An appraisal of recent trends

Abstract

There is an increasing awareness and interest in the issues of archaeological site conservation and management. The acknowledgement of these issues has encouraged greater collaboration between the allied professions of archaeology and heritage conservation. From this is evolving a new body of literature and practice. This paper offers an assessment of the field through a literature review of the past 25 years. The investigation reveals a lack of commonly agreed upon standards, principles and practices and the need for active cooperation between the related disciplines and local communities. It traces the development of the field from isolated material and object studies to recent interdisciplinary conferences. What emerges is a new focus on the archaeological site, as those involved in its protection expand conservation from object or material to an integrative practice of concomitant concerns. A selected bibliography is included.     

A Predictive Map of Compression- Sensitivity of the Dutch Archaeological Soil Archive

Abstract

Weak soils like unconsolidated clay and peat may deform and compress considerably by loading, for example, by sand bodies for roads and railways. Archaeological sites within such easily compressible soil layers may therefore be heavily affected by different kinds of construction works. The vulnerability of archaeological sites to compression is largely dependent on soil properties like lithology, grain-size, and previous loading history. This may therefore differ considerably. Predicting the compression sensitivity is of great value for planners, since they can estimate in which areas in situ protection of archaeological sites may be feasible and where it would require (costly) technical measures or plan adaptations.

As part of the Cultural Heritage Agency’s research programme on construction and archaeology, we prepared predictive maps of the compression sensitivity of the subsurface sediments in the Netherlands for 1 m depth intervals from 0 to 20 m depth.

The maps were constructed using a full 3-D model of the subsurface of the Netherlands.

In combination with the Indicative Map of Archaeological Values (IKAW) that is already available, these maps can be used to better estimate the technical measures needed and costs involved for in situ protection of archaeological sites in the planning phase of construction projects.     

Protecting Libya's Archaeological Heritage

Libya's archaeological heritage is truly spectacular, comparatively little studied and hugely under threat. Following an extended period of isolation, improvement in Libya's relations with the rest of the world and a rise in the price of oil have stimulated a huge amount of development in the country, especially in the hydrocarbon and infrastructure sectors of the economy. With a rapidly growing population, and expanding youth unemployment, the Libyan government is attempting to develop a new way forward for its society and economy. Archaeology and heritage have not traditionally been high on Libya's agenda. The custodian of Libyan heritage, the Department of Antiquities, has been poorly supported by the state (perhaps in part relating to postcolonial Libya's ambivalent feelings towards its past) and is now badly positioned to deal with the nature and scale of development threats in the cities, the agricultural zone, and especially the desert where the greatest number of heritage assets are located. Most major development projects in these areas and elsewhere have been undertaken with little or no archaeological impact assessment, monitoring or mitigation activities, with unfortunate consequences for buried and standing archaeological remains. There are some encouraging signs of a sea change in the state's attitude to archaeology, heritage, conservation and tourism.     

Quality Assurance in Archaeological Survey

To have confidence in the results of an archaeological survey, whether for heritage management or research objectives, we must have some assurance that the survey was carried out to a reasonably high standard. This paper discusses the use of Quality Assurance (QA) approaches and empirical methods for estimating surveys’ effectiveness at discovering archaeological artifacts as a means for ensuring quality standards. We illustrate with the example of two surveys in Cyprus and Jordan in which resurvey, measurement of surveyor “sweep widths,” and realistic estimates of survey coverage allow us to evaluate explicitly the probability that the survey missed pottery or lithics, as well as to decide when survey has been thorough enough to warrant moving to another survey unit.     

大遗址保护与考古遗址公园建设

建设考古遗址公园,是新时期大遗址保护新模式,是建设和谐社会和中华民族共同精神家园的重要举措。建设考古遗址公园的根本目的是保护遗址、服务考古。考古遗址公园建设必须科学规划,严肃论证,循序渐进,稳妥扎实。考古学家应积极支持考古遗址公园建设。文物管理部门应对考古遗址公园建设热情支持,善加引导,健全规章,严格管理。     

Some Issues on the Management of Archaeological Sites in Mainland China

Abstract

The conservation of archaeological sites in mainland China has not attracted much academic and public attention until recently. However, after the 1990s, both the Chinese government and academia have been increasingly concerned with the management of archaeological sites, as illustrated by the introduction of national guidelines (China Principles) and the establishment of research centres in universities and research institutes. Economic development and related social needs are major driving forces behind this phenomenon, while the impact of globalization on academic development in China cannot be denied. However, the natural and social environments in mainland China, as well as the characteristics of archaeological sites, differ from other countries, and whether international principles regarding conservation and management of archaeological sites are applicable to China needs to be considered. While it is a challenging task for mainland Chinese scholars to find suitable strategies to conserve and manage hundreds of thousands of archaeological sites, the problems and experiences in the process of applying international principles to China may provide valuable lessons, not only for Chinese scholars but also for scholars in other areas.     

Archaeological applications of polynomial texture mapping: analysis,conservation and representation

Polynomial Texture Mapping is an image capture and processing technique that was developed by HP Labs in 2000. It enables the recording and representation of subtle surface details using a standard digital camera and lighting, and software that is free for non-commercial use. Cultural heritage applications have been associated with the technology from its earliest stages, including examples in areas such as cuneiform, numismatics, rock art, lithics and Byzantine art. The paper begins by outlining the technical principles involved. It then brings together the extant work in the field. Through examples developed by the University of Southampton in partnership with a range of UK and international bodies it demonstrates the benefits of the technology in the areas of archaeological analysis, conservation and representation. Finally it considers the future possibilities of this technology and ongoing developments.