Reflections on Collaborative Archaeology and Large-Scale Online Research Infrastructures

ABSTRACT

The Archaeology Data Service (ADS) is an archive working at a national level in the UK, ensuring that archaeologists have access to high quality and dependable digital resources, including openly licensed legacy data for reuse. The ADS acts as a metadata aggregator for archaeological data held by larger heritage agencies and smaller regional organizations and participates in international aggregation infrastructure projects such as ARIADNE, which allows users to access archaeological resources held in many countries from a single interface. Large-scale infrastructures can facilitate the building of long-term, complex relationships and active collaborations, not just technical solutions. This paper reflects on the roles of stewardship and equity within ARIADNE and the ADS, two large-scale online research infrastructures, and how these types of infrastructures may help to create a more collaborative archaeology, including lessons learned, challenges and opportunities, and thoughts for the future.     

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.     

Political Crisis and Palestine's Cultural Heritage: A Case Study from the Khirbet el-Lauz Site in Area C

Abstract

The protection of Palestine's archaeological heritage faces several serious obstacles: unenforced laws, lack of public awareness, deterioration of Palestine's economic status, unregulated urban development, and the protracted political conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. As a result, a significant number of archaeological features and sites have been vandalized, looted, or intentionally destroyed without compunction over the past several decades. The Palestinian-Israeli political conflict has negatively affected the archaeological heritage in “Area C,” which remains under complete Israeli civil and military control. This area includes nearly 60% of the archaeological heritage located within the Palestinian Occupied Territories, but the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage lacks the authority to monitor and protect these sites. Furthermore, the Israeli civil and military authorities in the West Bank do not provide the necessary protection of cultural heritage resources in Area C. The devastation of these resources throughout the Palestinian Territories provides the impetus for this research. The main aim is to identify the results of the political conflict on Palestinian archaeological and cultural heritage sites, using a case study at the site of Khirbet el-Lauz.     

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.     

Heritage Management and Interpretation: Challenges to Heritage Site-Based Values,Reflections from the Heritage Site of Umm Qais,Jordan

The management of archaeological heritage is complex and problematic for site identity and local culture. Inattention to the array of values of heritage sites leads to the supremacy of a number of them and provides a controversy story of the archaeological site in question. Any heritage management and interpretation effort should correctly identify the different values of the site. Indeed, there is a need to manage and interpret the sites in a way to address the connection between the sites-based values and the associated and surrounding features. In current heritage management practice, values and values-based management are considered to be one of the most important approaches for the management of archaeological heritage. This study aims to understand how the values of the archaeological site of Umm Qais in northern Jordan can be adequately managed as both a natural and cultural landscape. At issue are conflicting views over the different values, their meaning and their uses by the different stakeholders. This research focuses on the ways in which these values are managed and interpreted to the public and whether it is done properly and in a fair manner. The fieldwork study led to a more complex understanding of how conflicting perceptions of values of Umm Qais as a national heritage site by the different stakeholders have affected implementation of management and interpretation projects. The results presented here indicate that the heritage management approach from the case study of Umm Qais focuses specifically on values associated with the physical archaeological aspect of the site, while those associated with the historic neighborhood of the site are neglected. The interpretation of the site has frequently focused on certain aspects of values at the expense of others. Information and insights gained from this study and specific suggestions for changing approaches are considered with regard to potential impacts on the management of the archaeological site and with regard to the public in general.     

Assessing Umm el-Jimal’s Potential for Heritage Tourism

The quality of Jordan’s archaeological heritage resource for tourism is widely acknowledged, but heritage authorities have hardly begun to explore and develop their tourism potential. Nonetheless, the tourism industry in Jordan is a leading activity for the economy countrywide. Jordan’s tourism and heritage management have undergone quiet and basic improvement in recent years. This paper seeks to assess the heritage tourism potential of the archaeological site of Umm el-Jimal. It addresses the question of what potentials and values the site possesses, and what obstacles heritage and tourism management need to tackle to enable its development. To achieve this, current heritage practice in the management of the archaeological site of Umm el-Jimal is investigated. The methodology employed by the researchers comprised an assortment of research techniques including meetings, consultations, interviews, surveys, observation, alongside a literature review on various related topics and heritage management studies. The analysis of the study revealed that Umm el-Jimal has substantial heritage tourism potential and diversified values that have not yet been utilized due to the presence of a variety of hindering factors. Primarily, these are lack of tourist facilities, a backlog of heritage conservation and insufficient methods of interpretation and presentation. Combined, these factors hold back heritage tourism development of the site. Finally, it is recommended that the collaboration between the different interested parties at both public and private levels with the diverse stakeholders such as local people, private sector is imperative to make use of the heritage tourism potential of the site and alleviate the obstacles to successful development.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

International Heritage Tourism in Rwanda: Paving Over the Past at the Musanze Caves

Through a case study of the Musanze Caves, this paper describes the impact of Rwanda’s heritage tourism industry on archaeological resources. The paper outlines Rwanda’s tourism industry and describes how it privileges ‘natural heritage’ above ‘cultural heritage’, a situation which is negatively impacting upon archaeological sites such as the Musanze Caves. To create the Musanze Caves tourism experience there has been significant non-archaeological excavation and construction in the caves, which has damaged regionally significant archaeological remains that date from 1000 CE to the present. Furthermore, the Musanze Caves tourism experience does not incorporate extant archaeological information into the presented narrative, which is instead based on ‘natural heritage’ and adventure tourism. This situation is damaging rare resources that might help construct new historical narratives to replace untenable colonial and pre-genocide ones, and is generally unhelpful in communicating the knowledge that we do have about the region’s history.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

Advisory Commissions for Archaeology — Sense or Nonsense? The Case of Belgium

Abstract

Belgium has a long tradition of consultative commissions, responsible for the preservation of heritage. In the 1940s and 1950s, Belgian archaeologists expressed a need for such an institute, specifically competent for archaeology and the supervision of excavations. Only in 1965, the first members of a National Commission for Excavations were appointed. They had modest powers, but were able to advocate the value of archaeological heritage and, to a limited extent, supervise fieldwork performed by amateurs. The Commission was also asked to prepare a legal text that would protect archaeological heritage. However, ratified laws were not accomplished and, despite much regret of Belgian archaeologists, the Commission was abolished in 1979.

During the 1980s, Belgium underwent several state reforms which ultimately resulted in the complete regionalization of archaeology (1988–89). Throughout this period, a shift in opinion occurred between Walloon (French-speaking) and Flemish (Dutch-speaking) archaeologists. This resulted in different arrangements of governmental agencies responsible for immovable heritage and archaeology. Nonetheless, as UNESCO had recommended in 1968, all three Belgian regions (including the Brussels-Capital Region) installed advisory commissions that were involved in the preservation in situ of archaeological remains. However, these consultative bodies had little influence on politics and policy. Especially in Flanders, the Archaeological Council achieved very little. Probably, the lack of continuity retained the Council from building up a reputation and authority. Nevertheless, advisory commissions for archaeology do make sense in Belgium. They provide a necessary ‘forum’ to discuss problems and to express undivided opinions; they form a ‘channel’ to communicate with policy makers; and they present an ‘instrument’ for advocating the preservation of archaeological heritage.     

The Challenges and Potentials of Archaeological Heritage in Africa—Cape Verdean Reflections

This paper considers three different ways that heritage can be considered fragile—as a reference to the conservation status of the physical heritage, as a concern for the meaning of the heritage, and in terms of threats to the knowledge potentials. It also briefly considers any special conditions that may characterise the threats to heritage in Africa and the consequential challenges to its heritage managers and politicians. On this basis, the experiences of working on one of the first systematic archaeological projects in Cape Verde are used to think about how these challenges are encountered within a specific place but from the viewpoint of foreigners and archaeologists.     

Heritage Formulation in Overtly Politicized Environments: A Commentary

Archaeology undertaken in overtly politicized environments creates situations and data that archaeologists are not positioned to control either in the moment or in perpetuity. This commentary examines the five diverse, revealing case studies that appear Archaeologies 2.2 and 3.1 and identifies the underlying dynamics that can create both an ethical burden for archaeologists and potentially charged, even dangerous, situations for others. These include archaeological heritage management demands and failures; contrary heritage valuation; restriction of associations with potential heritage resources; balancing archaeological research goals against local economic, political and social aspirations; and the complex trans-border reality of archaeologically identified societies that complicates heritage deployment in modern contexts. Whether or not activist engagement or outcomes are part of our practice or intention, there is no such thing as a value-free archaeological outcome.