Call for proposals - EEA 2017 session #55, #136 and #163
Archaeologists from NIKU are receiving proposals for papers for two sessions at the 23rd EAA Annual Meeting in Maastricht.
Twenty-five Years after Maastricht: Archaeology and Europe's future
Discussion session: As we are planning to write a discussion article based on the session we would like a mix between a keynote and a round table: A 15 min introduction/keynote, 5-10 min contributions from a handful of discussants and then open discussion. Feel free to put us in the category you see fit.
Archaeology and the European far-right: attitudes and responses from heritage bureaucracies
Heritage bureaucracies represent a combination of technologies, texts and communities of practice that have been given a mandate
to manage the remains of the past and transform political directives into action; whether it is through funding programmes,
guidelines for archaeological archives and museums, or by setting priorities for Cultural Resource Management.
Thus, they form part of the political fabric that makes up contemporary Europe at local, regional, national and international levels. As this fabric is increasingly torn in conflicting directions, the ideas about what heritage and archaeology should “do” for society changes. Marking the 25th anniversary of Maastricht, the politics of the past are as relevant as ever. In this session, we examine heritage bureaucracies’ attitudes and responses to the rise of the European far-right.
More specifically, we want to explore the following: What characterises far-right heritage policy? How do the often slow-moving structures of heritage bureaucracies impact the implementation of far-right policies? How are policies pushed forward or stalled through governing tools such as laws, planning regulations, white papers, budgets and management plans? In what way have the conditions introduced by New Public Management since the 1980s affected the possibility for far-right policies to take hold?
Finally, we want to address how the rise of the far-right in different parts of Europe may force forth a situation where heritage bureaucracies have to address the fine line between limits of political compliance and academic ideals of democratizing heritage.
Heritage Politics, Compliance, Far-right, Democratization
Elisabeth Niklasson (United States) 1
Herdis Hølleland (Norway) 2
1. Stanford University
2. Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research
Trans- and Metadisciplinary Approaches in Archaeology
Discussion session: Session (ideally half-day) with a number of presented papers and subsequent time for a broader discussion.
Title & Content
Bridging Theoretical and Practical Divides in Public Archaeology
Arguably ever since Merriman’s 'Public Archaeology', the concept of public archaeology has been divided and subdivided into various types and categories, often reflecting more theoretical or more practical oriented approaches. Such an expansion of subdivisions has broadened our understanding of the field, but to what end? Have we ended up in a practical and ideological straightjacket? And what is the relationship between how we categorise and think about public archaeology and how we implement it? Hence, taking inspiration from the motto of this conference, this discussion session aims to ‘build bridges’ between the theoretical and the practical, between the educational and the critical, between pluralism and public relations, and the rest of the subdivisions that have been created. Is an integrated approach possible or even desirable; should public archaeology projects aim to bridge the gap? How do we harmonise public archaeology as both a state of mind and a programme of work? This session will comprise of both presented papers and an open discussion.
Public archaeology, theory, practice, engagement
Mark Oldham (Norway) 1
Akira Matsuda (Japan) 2
- Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research 2. University of Tokyo
The Valletta Convention: the next 25 years
Session, made up of a combination of papers, max. 15 minutes each
Title & Content
in situ preservation at a time of changing climate
Twenty-five years after the agreement on the Valletta Convention, an evaluation of archaeological and heritage management
practice relating to in situ preservation seems relevant, particularly in the light of predicted climate change and its effects
on heritage sites. In situ preservation strategies place a large responsibility on present and future generations. Recent
research indicates that in situ preservation in some cases may be more an illusion than reality.
If archaeological sites are chosen for in situ preservation, the whole wording of the treaty should be followed. Sites should be monitored to evaluate their current state, safeguarded with physical protection measures or mitigation actions and communicated to both the scientific community and a wider audience. In this way one implements both the Valletta and Faro Conventions.
Climate research has documented changes that have already happened. A global temperature rise of 1°C above average of the pre-industrial world was reached in 2015, leading to potential threats to heritage sites. Projections indicate that associated problems will increase in the future. As sites are threatened, heritage managers must develop new strategies. These can range from techniques to mitigate the effects, to tools that help decide when in situ preservation is no longer a viable option to save a site.
This session invites papers and posters that present views on preservation in situ in relation to the impacts of climate change. Topics include possibilities and limitations, sustainable mitigation strategies, and systems for site evaluation to help decide between in situ or ex situ preservation.
climate change; heritage management strategies
Session affiliated with MERC:
Vibeke Vandrup Martens (Norway) 1
Thomas McGovern (United States) 2
Tom Dawson (United Kingdom) 3
1. NIKU - Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research
2. Hunter College CUNY
3. University of St Andrews