Current Realities,Idealised Pasts: Archaeology,Values and Indigenous Heritage Management in Central Australia

This paper addresses the inter‐cultural meanings and assumptions which have arisen in the interpretation of heritage and its conservation in central Australia. Conflicting views of heritage conservation are grounded in particular constructions of the past which are adapted and redefined in relation to the present. In central Australia, Indigenous notions of time and property have stressed the symbolic value of objects in terms of the Dreaming and their active role in exchange. The definition of objects as personal effects and their enhancement of social values through exchange have been at odds with archaeological understandings of the same objects as artefacts and attempts to conserve them as items of heritage significance. Specific examples discussed include the use of artefacts in economic exchanges, interpretation of archaeological sequences, and the application of concepts of significance through land rights and heritage legislation.     

When Communities Collide: Competing Claims for Archaeological Objects in the Market Place

Rather than recount a specific archaeological project and its community relationships, in the following, I consider the competing claims for archaeological objects by the various groups associated with the illegal and legal trade in antiquities. For nearly a decade I have examined the efficacy of cultural heritage laws in the protection of eastern Mediterranean archaeological landscapes. More specifically, I am interested in the contentious issues surrounding legalized antiquities markets as a means of protecting the archaeological past. In order to assess the value of various legal instruments I attempt to engage with the communities who claim an interest in the buying, selling, protection or appreciation of antiquities. The list of communities is long, varied and often at odds with each other. Reconciling these competing claims is a Herculean task, but one worthy of investigation as questions of inclusion, responsibilities and ownership of cultural heritage are at the forefront of an engaged archaeology.     

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.     

Aspects of Archaeological Heritage in the Cultural Landscapes of Western Anatolia

Throughout the course of time, environments built within landscapes have been transformed into conserved archaeological heritage sites through natural, but mostly anthropogenic, forces. Today, cultural heritage is the product of visual and spatial features of architectural material and landscapes created through conservation, but also through social and economical needs and interests. In Western Anatolia, archaeological heritage sites with ecologically rich areas, countryside, coastlines and seascapes are the most essential visual, spatial and structural features of cultural (historical) landscapes. Moreover, western Anatolian landscapes have retained their authentic character regarding intangible cultural diversity, ecology, rural traditional systems and agricultural practices. However, rapid changes and developments due to urbanisation and mass tourism have made their impacts on cultural historical landscapes in recent years. In this paper, an attempt is made to explore the cultural heritage within the evolution of cultural archaeological landscapes in Western Anatolia and to propose a sustainable approach for development and conservation options for cultural heritage and their landscapes.     

Looting and vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland

Abstract

In 2012 the ancient city of Petra celebrated the 200th anniversary of its Western re-identification. The Brown University Petra Archaeological Project (BUPAP) has sought to document the northern hinterland of Petra through a multi-component methodology that includes intensive field survey, feature documentation, and limited test excavations. The iconic site of Petra has a long and storied history, and it is a site that presents many challenges to archaeologists and cultural heritage managers. During a series of test excavations, meant to ground truth locations earmarked by the overlapping intensive field survey and feature documentation, several patterns of looting were identified. These instances of looting were often paralleled by observed vandalism that defaced archaeological heritage, within and outside the Petra Archaeological Park, with archaeological artifacts being sold to tourists at nearby shops. This study provides crucial documentation of these processes of vandalism and looting recorded over the last three years. We propose that only through continued monitoring can local authorities be provided with ample evidence calling for additional cultural heritage protection.     

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.     

The Illegal Excavation and Trade of Syrian Cultural Objects: A View from the Ground

The illegal excavation and trade of cultural objects from Syrian archaeological sites worsened markedly after the outbreak of civil disturbance and conflict in 2011. Since then, the damage to archaeological heritage has been well documented, and the issue of terrorist funding explored, but hardly any research has been conducted into the organization and operation of theft and trafficking of cultural objects inside Syria. As a first step in that direction, this paper presents texts of interviews with seven people resident in Syria who have first-hand knowledge of the trade, and uses information they provided to suggest a model of socioeconomic organization of the Syrian war economy regarding the trafficking of cultural objects. It highlights the importance of coins and other small objects for trade, and concludes by considering what lessons might be drawn from this model to improve presently established public policy.     

The Knowledge-Centred Approach to the Somali Cultural Emergency and Heritage Development Assistance in Somaliland

Somalia has suffered a civil war since early 1991. Systematic looting, destruction and illicit excavation of sites continue without the international community (including academics, government organisations, heritage workers and humanitarian aid organisations) acknowledging this problem, let alone addressing it. The pre-war approaches to Somali cultural heritage lacked awareness-raising initiatives and basic dialogue with local communities, and hence remained uninformed about local views and methodologies regarding heritage. This has resulted in a lack of interest in building a local foundation and infrastructure for heritage management and archaeological research in the country. Today, it is clear that no measures were taken to protect cultural heritage during two decades of armed conflict in Somalia. Recently, archaeological material has become the target of ideologically motivated destruction. However, in post-conflict Somaliland, a self-declared, de facto country where there is peace and stability, possibilities for protection and management of cultural heritage exist. In order to carry out such work, an understanding of local practices is necessary. Hence, this paper presents unique research into local heritage management strategies and unveils indigenous heritage management methods, which the author refers to as the knowledge-centred approach. This approach emphasises knowledge and skill rather than objects, helping cultures such as the Somali, with strong oral transmission of knowledge, preserve their cultural heritage even in times of armed conflict. Also, this paper presents a critical assessment of the Somali cultural emergency as a whole and suggests ways of assisting different stakeholders in the protection of Somali heritage in the conflict and post-conflict eras.     

South Italian Pottery in the Museum of Fine Arts,Boston Acquired Since 1983

Abstract

The 2006 deaccessioning of antiquities from the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA), Boston, for return to Italy drew attention to the networks allowing objects to be sold on the market. This case study analyzes 13 South Italian pots (Apulian and Paestan) acquired by the MFA since its revised accessions policy of 1983. Only three appear to have documentation showing that they were known prior to 1970, and another three were part of the 2006 return. The remaining pots are associated with restorers and dealers who have been linked to the trade in recently surfaced antiquities. This suggests that museums need to adopt more rigorous policies to ensure that they do not acquire antiquities that may have been removed illegally from archaeological sites.     

饱水木质文物的细菌病害及其诊断技术的进展

为了促进微生物学理论与技术在我国文物保护领域中的应用,使我国的文物保护与国际先进水平接轨,本文通过对国内外有关文物保护微生物学研究进展的综述,阐述了饱水木质文物细菌性病害的成因和机理.侵蚀细菌、钻管细菌和空化细菌是饱水木质文物细菌性病害的病原体,但它们的作用方式有一定的区别.在饱水木质文物细菌性病害诊断上,国外已较为普遍地使用了光镜技术、电镜技术、细菌培养技术以及多种分子生物学技术.根据众多样本分析的结果,国外学者已建立评价饱水木质文物腐蚀状态的定性指标体系.文中还结合目前我国有关饱水木质文物保护的现状,阐述了文物保护微生物学在我国饱水木质文物保护中的应用前景,并建议尽快开展相关的研究工作.     

2007 Cultural Heritage Legal Summary

Abstract

During the past year there has been continuing progress in the ratification and implementation of the two most important international conventions that deal with tangible cultural heritage. This progress is, to some extent, surprising as it involves some of the more significant market countries, such as Germany and Switzerland. At the same time, Italy's efforts to recover its stolen cultural objects continued to meet with success as the Getty and Princeton museums agreed to return significant numbers of antiquities from their collections. Finally, two cases decided in British courts have recently taken center stage in the ongoing efforts of nations to protect their archaeological heritage through the legal system.     

Looking With Both Eyes

Private metal detecting is frequently suggested as a favourable recipe for saving objects that would otherwise perish in agricultural fields in Norway. Metal detector communities portray themselves as heritage rescuers. For this they receive considerable praise from sympathetic archaeologists and museum staff. By contrast, finders who keep objects for themselves are portrayed as so-called nighthawks. However, accounts from informants who collect, trade or search for archaeological objects reflect more ambivalent attitudes than the idealized image of heritage rescuers and the hostile image of nighthawks indicate. In this article, the issue of private metal detecting is approached through recorded interviews, official correspondence in public archives and informal accounts in online forums.

Norwegian cultural heritage law forms a background to the analysis, while certain legal concepts are employed more actively. The relation between museums and detectorists is deconstructed and explored through the legal provisions on receiving and laundering the proceeds of criminal acts in Norway’s General Civil Penal Code. It is argued here that, while it might seem practical from the point-of-view of museums to assume that finds that are handed in according to law also have been legally procured, such acceptance might also be understood as unlawful legitimation.     

The role of the Italian Central Institute of Restoration in the field of underwater archaeology

In 1987, given the importance and complexity of the correct recovery and conservation procedures for underwater archaeological finds, an Underwater Archaeological Operations Unit was set up within the Italian Central Institute for Restoration. This Unit is made up of archaeologists, conservators, biologists and chemists, all of whom are underwater experts. It provides consultancy services and scientific and technical assistance for problems relating to the recovery, conservation, protection, and restoration of underwater archaeological heritage at the request of the Archaeological Superintendents. Great attention is paid to the professional training of underwater conservators. Specialized courses in the conservation of materials of underwater provenance are organized as part of its programme. This paper illustrates some of the main initiatives both in the restoration of archaeological objects and in training, in which the Institute has been involved, since the Underwater Unit was created.     

Floating culture: the unrecorded antiquities of England and Wales

In England and Wales there exists a corpus of unprovenanced and unrecorded antiquities; a corpus adrift from archaeological context and now ebbing and flowing across the antiquities market and which could be described as ‘floating culture’. This corpus includes illicit antiquities and also antiquities found legitimately but not recorded and subsequently sold with or without the landowner’s knowledge. The definition of floating culture as ‘traces of the human past not fixed on one position, place or level’ presents a way of conceptualising what is, in essence, a transnational issue. This paper explores floating culture and suggests that the impact of non-reporting of antiquities remains a significant ethical and legal challenge both for heritage protection policy and the antiquities market in the U.K. and beyond. Attention is given to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, and to the landowner-finder search agreement as potential ways of mitigating the flow of unrecorded antiquities of uncertain legal status. While neither document is enforceable, both have potential to improve the protection of the archaeological record. Many of the themes conceptualised by ‘floating culture’ are relevant to the wider discussion on heritage protection and the global trade in illicit antiquities.     

Implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to Preserve Cultural Heritage — Pilot Motte Montferland

The shallow subsurface in historic cities often contains extensive archaeological remains, also known as cultural deposits. Preservation conditions for naturally degradable archaeological remains are strongly dependent on the presence or absence of groundwater. One of the main goals at such heritage sites is to establish a stable hydrological environment. Green infrastructural solutions such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) can support preservation of cultural deposits. Several cases show that implementation of SUDS can be cost effective at preservation of cultural deposits. These include Motte of Montferland, City mound of Vlaardingen, Weiwerd in Delfzijl, and the Leidse Rijn area. In all cases, the amount of underground infrastructure is minimised to prevent damaging cultural layers. SUDS have been implemented to preserve cultural heritage. The first monitoring results and evaluation of the processes give valuable lessons learned, transnational knowledge exchange is an important element to bring the experiences across boundaries.     

Linking Heritage Preservation and Community Development: An Assessment of Grassroots Heritage Based Projects as Vehicles for Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Heritage Preservation in Zimbabwe

This paper engages the practical aspects of linking heritage, in particular, archaeological heritage, with both individual and community economic development. In recent years, there has been growing realisation that culture, inclusive of cultural heritage, can be both a driver and an enabler of economic development, especially in developing countries. However, few documented examples demonstrate the validity of such arguments. The paper explores some practical examples of how, at the grassroots level, individuals and communities are attempting to exploit archaeological heritage sites as well as other cultural and natural heritage resources for income generation in Zimbabwe. The major thrust of the paper is to assess the manner of use and the viability of such ventures. Since the ability of archaeological heritage to generate revenue and support people around the sites has a direct effect on long-term survival of such heritage, ultimately, the paper contributes to the discourse on linking heritage and economic development as well as the theme of sustainable heritage preservation.     

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。