articles and reports - european association of … · · 2016-09-06articles and reports european...

1

No 20 Winter 2004

CONTENTSArticles and Reports

European Archaeological Heritage Prize…………….. 1

EAA Strategic Plan……………………………………… 3

Rescue Archaeology under the loupe………………… 4

Black Light……………………………………………….. 4

President’s Corner………………………………………. 7

EAA News

ABM Minutes……………………………………………. 8Information from the EAA Secretariat…………………. 11Letter from the President……………………………….. 12

Reports from the EAA Working Parties

EAA and the digital age……………………………….. 12Medieval and Post-Medieval Potter Production…….. 14Virtual Museums……………………………………….. 15ARENA………………………………………………….. 16European Reference Collection………………………. 19HM, Business and Ethical Archaeologists…………… 20Archaeological Legislation and Organization……….. 21Professional Associations in Archaeology…………… 22Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe…………… 22Training and Education…………………………………. 24EAA Conferences 2003 – 2005……………………….. 25

Notes and Announcements

EAA Heritage Prize 2004……………………………… 26AFOB…………………………………………………….. 27Debates in World Archaeology……………………….. 27Conferences……………………………………………. 28EAA Schedule of Activities……………………………. 31Diary……………………………………………………… 32Published by the European Association of Archaeologists,c/o Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Väst, Box 10259, 434 23Kungsbacka, Sweden. Telephone: + 46 300 33907.Fax: + 46 300 33901. E-mail: [email protected] Dr Karen Waugh E-mail: [email protected] Editor Petra Nordin

Editorial contents © Named authors and the EAA

The views expressed are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent official EAA policy.

ISSN 1022-0135

Articles and ReportsEuropean Archaeological HeritagePrize in 2003

The European Archaeological Heritage Prizewas instituted by the European Association ofArchaeologists in 1999. The prize is awardedannually by an independent committee to anindividual, institution or government for anoutstanding contribution to the protection andpresentation of the European archaeologicalheritage.

The first Prize was awarded at theBournemouth Conference in 1999 to M.Carrilho of Portugal, for his work in saving therock carvings in the Côa Valley. At the LisbonConference in 2000, Margareta Biörnstad, theformer state antiquarian of Sweden, receivedthe Prize for her international work on theprotection of the cultural heritage. At theEsslingen Conference in 2001, Otto Braaschwas awarded the Prize for the transcending ofnational boundaries in Europe with his work onaerial archaeology. During the openingCeremony of the Thessaloniki Conference in2002, Professor Henry Cleere was awardedthe European Archaeological Heritage Prize forhis outstanding contribution to archaeologicalheritage management in Europe.

The European Archaeological Heritage Prizefor 2003 has been awarded to Dr. ViktorTrifonov for his outstanding contribution to therestoration, protection and presentation of aunique group of prehistoric megalithic tombs ina recreated cultural landscape in the ZhaneValley in Western Caucasus, Russia.

Winner of the Prize in2003, Dr. Victor Trifonov

The European Archaeologist, No 20, Winter 2003/20042

The committee presents the followingmotivations for awarding the prize to ViktorTrifonov:

The project: “Prehistoric Megaliths in theWestern Caucasus” integrates in an ideal waybasic research with restoration and publicpresentation – not only of individual megalithsbut of their original landscape and settlement.This is achieved by integrating a programme ofbasic research, including landscape historyand settlement studies, with excavation andrestoration. In this way the megaliths aresituated in their original contexts. In addition,restoration principles are based upon anintegration of carefully planned excavation andreconstruction, with the aim of understandingthe original building methods of the megaliths.In this way restoration can be carried out in anauthentic way based upon archaeologicaldocumentation and with no use of modernmaterials. Finally, the project includes aprogramme for establishing an archaeologicalpark of 200 hectares around the megalithswhere, based upon environmental research,the original vegetation will be recreated. Whencompleted, it will be possible to experience afully reconstructed prehistoric environment andits burial monuments based upon modernarchaeological principles of research andrestoration.

These results have been reached within thelast seven years, and the project is stillrunning. Before starting Viktor Trifonov carriedout a study of principles of megalithicrestoration and landscape reconstruction inEurope and participated in a similar aprogramme in Denmark. His project tookcurrent concepts and methods one step furtherby creating a fully integrated project within alocal region, based upon internationalcooperation and participation. It also includes adatabase of 3000 megaliths in the WesternCaucasus and a recording of their conditionand construction according to currentEuropean inventory standards. In Russia theproject stands as a landmark for good heritagepractice in a period of rapid social and

economic changes that often destroy pre-historic monuments. The reconstructedmegaliths have already attracted much localand public attention as well as visitors, therebyincreasing the awareness of protection andrestoration of archaeological monuments in theregion.

By awarding the prize to Victor Trifonov thecommittee wishes to support an innovating,ongoing project and the institutions supportingit: first and foremost the Russian Academy ofSciences, St. Petersburg, the Russian Ministryof Culture, and the State Committee forProtection of Cultural Heritage (Krasnodararea, Russia) and several researchfoundations. We hope in this way to ensure that the projectcan fulfil its goal of establishing an officialarchaeological park, and we wish to stimulatesimilar projects in Russia and elsewhere inEurope that integrate basic research,protection, heritage management and publicpresentation within the framework of anarchaeological park. In this way the prehistoricmonuments can be recontextualised withintheir original environment and thus becomemore meaningful to the visitor.

With the support of the above mentionedRussian State Institutions Viktor Trifonov hasdeveloped a project that the EAA committeefor the European Archaeological Heritage Prizeconsiders an outstanding example of inte-grated heritage management. With this in mindwe award the European ArchaeologicalHeritage Prize for 2003 to Viktor Trifonov andwish him success in completing the project.

The EAA Committee for the European ArchaeologicalHeritage Prize,consisting of:David Breeze, Scotland,Jurgen Kunow, Germany,Sebastiano Tusa, Italy,Katalin Wollak, HungaryKristian Kristiansen, Sweden (Chairperson)

_______________

The European Archaeologist, No 20, Winter 2003/2004 3

EAA Strategic Plan 2004-2008

Elin Dalen, vice-President EAA

This plan presents the strategies for the EAA.This is intended to be a dynamic documentand has a four-year perspective.The plan is a result of a process of discussionwhich started with a joint meeting of theExecutive and Editorial Boards in Budapest inFebruary 2002. At the ThessalonikiConference in 2002 a Round Table was held todiscuss the future of the EAA. During thediscussion several challenges were identified.The Round Table results were presented to themembers at the ABM. During the last year allmembers were invited to take part in the workto finalise the plan through the EAA web siteand newsletter (TEA).The final document was put forward to theABM in St. Petersburg 2003 (see below) andadopted by the membership.

PrinciplesPrinciples such as sustainable development,whereby different sectors having responsibilityfor the environment and cultural heritage, the'polluter pays' principle, prevention andparticipatory democracy, are all important forthe protection of the archaeological heritage. Itis a challenge to strengthen consciousness ofthe meaning and significance of culturalheritage in both a European and a localperspective.

The world is constantly changing. This has animpact on archaeological heritage. Someimportant trends in this perspective are:

• Globalisation• Unified Europe• Democratic control of cultural heritage

management• Privatisation where private companies are

taking over tasks and authority from thestate

• Urbanisation and mobility changes theexploitation of resources and area

• Technological developments incommunication

EAA has to meet such challenges:• By expanding the organization the EAA

will serve professional needs

• Through increased knowledge andfriendship the EAA can develop uniquepossibilities for co-operation

• By stimulating the work of archaeologistsand by contributing to a diverse andpeaceful Europe.

Key rolesEAA has several important roles, such as:• Consultative status for the Council of

Europe and cooperation with otherorganizations with similar aims

• Influencing the EU policies on archaeology• The development of archaeological

research and the exchange ofarchaeological information

• Encouraging the management andinterpretation of the Europeanarchaeological heritage

• Promoting the training and education ofarchaeologists and students

• Promoting the setting of proper ethical andscientific standards for archaeological work

• Monitoring the situation for professionalarchaeologists.

VisionBy 2010:• The Malta convention to be implemented

in all European countries• Most professional archaeologists in

Europe to be members of the EAA

Goals• The EAA shall work actively to influence

and develop relations with the Council ofEurope, the EU and other major Europeanorganizations

• The EAA shall create and support arenasfor relations between:• different regions in Europe,• between theory and practice and• between different disciplines and

professions of archaeology• The EAA shall promote access to high

quality life-long training and education forall students and professionals

• The EAA shall host interesting andattractive conferences

• EAA shall make the Journal, Newsletterand website appealing to members

• The EAA shall be a stable and dynamicorganization with an expandingmembership

Strategies• Influence political developments in cultural

heritage, research and teaching in Europe

• Establish a strategy for non-professionalsin order to change attitudes from exclusionto inclusion

• To be an umbrella for EU-financed projects• Provide meeting places, build bridges and

create networks• Secure a broad representation of

archaeologists within the membership• Secure the financial situation of the EAA


• Provide a permanent and professionalsecretariat

• Make the EAA fun• Arrange more round tables and workshops

in order to promote more activediscussions

• Focus on new knowledge and promote thedissemination of results from relevant andinteresting research

• More discussion in the Journal• Improve the multilingual abilities of the

members• Provide active working parties

Activities• Focus on new knowledge and disseminate

results from relevant and interestingresearch

• Further develop the website, journal andnewsletter

• Excavations as educational laboratories• Recruitment campaigns directed at

students, classical archaeologists,museum archaeologists and to attractmembers from less-represented countries

• Obtain funding to support diversity inlanguages at conferences and in writtenmaterial

• Promote gender diversity at conferences• Promote a complete student session -

organized and run by the students

For more information or comments, pleasecontact the vice-President at: [email protected]

_______________

Rescue Archaeology under theLoupePetra Nordin, SWEDEN

This article follows on from the developmentsfirst reported in the last issue of TEA (nr.19)

A new investigation has been recommendedby the Swedish Governmental Committee ofCulture. The goal is to set up a neworganization, wherein the Utgrävningsverksam-heten (UV), the Department of ArchaeologicalExcavations, is to be separated from theRiksantikvarieämbetet (RAÄ), the SwedishNational Heritage Board.

In November 2002, the Auditors of theSwedish Parliament issued a report (2002/03:RR11) on Swedish Rescue Archaeology aspart of a wider research project focusing on“State Institutions on the market”.

In May 2003, the parties involved were calledto a hearing of the governmental Committee of

Culture. Last September this committeeissued a short report on “Rescue Archaeology”(kulturutskottets betänkande 2003/4:KrU2,published 30th September, 2003).

The Committee of Culture recommended thatthe Parliament approve parts of the proposalssuggested by the Auditors and the bills sent in,and that an investigation should be carried outinto the state of rescue archaeology inSweden.

The investigation is to focus on the activities ofthe UV within the framework of the RAÄ. Theaim of this investigation is to put forward aproposal for a future organization in which UVand RAÄ are separated from each other. Thecuratorial and commissioning duties of RAÄand the relationship between production,competence and methodology should beinvestigated, as well as questions about thestate as a player on the market undertakingrescue archaeology.

Access to scientific competence of highstandard within the organization will beinvestigated, as will the relationship betweenresearch, society and the standard andusefulness of excavation results from rescuearchaeology.

The calculation of costs within rescuearchaeology should be analysed. TheCommittee have proposed that a system ofregistration for archaeologists could act as aquality control for individual competence andscientific results.

Other proposals suggested by the Auditorsand bills were rejected by the Committee.

_______________

Black Light

Felipe Criado, SPAIN

‘In war the dark is on nobody's side,in love the dark confirms that we are together.’John Berger

The arguments that form the backbone of thisarticle arose some time ago as a result of asimple question: the search for an answer hasonly shown us that the question is not at allstraightforward, and goes far beyond the areaof Heritage Management. It is an importantquestion that has been with us for a long time,whose difficulty increases as the all-embracingprocess that started with modernity completesthe globalisation of the fragments of ashattered reality.

At the end of the 1990’s, the situation in Galicia(NW Spain) was one of relative stability in the


discipline, a situation of tense calm. Thedivision between academic archaeology(investigation) and professional archaeology(management) was well defined, and the long-standing conflict between both sectorsthoroughly sealed off. This conflict has its rootsin the situation resulting from the dictatorshipof Franco (1939-1975), when the academicscentralised all activities related to Archaeologyand Heritage. With the consolidation ofdemocracy in the 1980’s, the State took overthe running of Heritage, and as a result, allarchaeological activity (although this wouldmainly remain in the hands of the universities.)

When the ‘archaeological market’ opened itsdoors to professionals in the 1990’s, under thesupervision of an inexperienced HeritageAdministration, the conflict worsened. Theacademics yearned for the privileges they hadenjoyed in the past, now lost in the whirlwind ofmodernisation. Throughout this whole period,the Laboratory of Archaeology and CulturalForms of the University of Santiago deCompostela attempted to reconcile both fields,developing a basic line of investigation focusedon the study of archaeological landscapes,documenting new types of sites and working toprotect those that were already known(including hillforts, tumuli and rock art stations).At the same time it was fully involved in lendingtechnical support to large-scale constructionprojects that were changing the face of theregion (motorways, gas and oil pipelines),bringing a more advanced capitalist structureas opposed to the traditional Galician socio-economic system, mainly based on theexploitation of raw materials – a process thathad disappeared in most western countriessome time ago, but not in marginal areas likeGalicia.

Thanks to ‘applied investigation’, a contributionwas made to creating methodological models,instruments, concepts and procedures of usein archaeology conceived as technicalassistance. What we refer to in this paper as‘applied archaeology’ is, essentially, theconsideration of the technical and scientificconcept of ‘application’ in an area that rightlyforms part of the field of Humanities, and itsphilosophical and axiological bases form thenucleus of our proposal.

We consider that the progress we have madein consolidating the market has been fruitful,although it is precisely in the field of appliedarchaeology where the question ‘what shouldwe do?’ arises. We do not wish for appliedinvestigation in Humanities, as has been thetendency that has governed other fields ofscience for several decades, We doe not want

to resign ourself to merely play the role of areproducer of the system. We aim to avoid ourscientific activity being limited to comply withsimply another economic function, although itmay be inevitable that it also does so.

For this reason we should take an initial stepforward in order to suppress two prejudices,one of which shields the other, and theiropposites, that are equally dangerous. The first(theory is of no use whatsoever) is verywidespread at present, almost certainly as aresult of the pragmatism that impregnatessocial life; however, theory is not a prison: it isan intellectual construction that is necessary toorganize our perception of reality, and to guideour decisions (even chaos has its own theory),and those who deny its necessity do sounconsciously, because it is their way ofperceiving the world: Pragmatism,unfortunately for the pragmatists of this world,is also a theory. The first opposite: theory isthe only path towards pure knowledge; in ouropinion, it is the distinction between theory andpractice that has created false disjunctivesthroughout history.

The second prejudice (archaeology is atechnique) has taken a firm hold amongstprofessionals, alongside the transformation ofarchaeology into a discipline empowered todeal with the problems the present offers us.However, archaeology should not be limited tobeing a procedure for solving contingencies.We may dedicate our activity to investigation ororganizational issues. Archaeologists alsowork with values and interpretations. Our basicinstrument is intelligence, the comprehensionof past societies and the way in which theirremains interact with our society. Secondopposite: techniques are not science: at best,they are applied science. To affirm this is toadmit that a technique would be somethingsimilar to a type of inferior knowledge (as inClassical Greece). Our proposal defends theposition that archaeology is a technique, if atechnique is more than a group ofsystematised procedures through whichhumanity influences reality.

Applied Archaeology has to overcome thesetwo prejudices and their opposites, or it will becompletely worthless. A series of questionsarise from this idea, which should be dealt withfrom a profoundly critical perspective. In thefirst place, there is the problem ofmercantilism, or, how a) archaeology hasbecome a profession, b) the archaeologist hasbecome either a businessman or proletarian,or both simultaneously, which offers us our firstoxymoron, and c) the archaeological recordhas turned into Archaeological Heritage. From


academic sectors that are most closely linkedto a traditional concept of the discipline, this isseen as a perversion, as if the principles ofarchaeology were being abandoned in favourof the system. However, reality deals a severeblow to these well-meaning consciences,which believe that archaeology will remain safefrom this process as long as it continues toreceive grants and funding.

The truth is that the concept of the State, ofwhatever type, is in itself a political formationthat has arisen as a result of the revolution ofthe bourgeoisie, and which therefore respondsto the needs and interests of the capitalistsystem. These sectors, which on the surfaceappear to be against the appearance ofmercantilism, are also actors within this systemand will continue to be so, much to theirchagrin. Like ourselves, they are at onceproletarians in terms of knowledge andbourgeois intellectuals (a second oxymoron),and as much prisoners of the ‘commodity form’as any other.

And so when we accept this appearance ofmercantilism in archaeology, we are actuallysaying that the discipline should exist not onlyto generate knowledge about our forbears andourselves (a traditional critical concept fromany historical science that we should not, andindeed cannot, abandon), but also to solve theproblems that a previously-existing entity –archaeological remains – creates on enteringinto conflict with a real process such ascapitalist expansion. As it may only protect thatwhich is known, there is a need to invest funds(either public or private) in this knowledge,meaning that remains, firstly converted intoarchaeological objects, acquire a value thatautomatically transforms them into apatrimonial element (i.e. a state-ownedcommodity). The alternative to this processwould therefore be to maintain archaeologicalremains in their pristine condition as a pre-capitalist element, at the cost of leaving it to itsfate. We prefer to sacrifice our consciences inexchange for transforming these remains intoheritage.

Knowing that we remain on the sidelines of areal problem like the management of culturalheritage does not free us from blame, andknowing that neither are we absolved of allguilt for things being the way they are, weshould therefore seek out the most suitablecontext so that the development of our workdoes not imply abandoning a critical horizon oftransformation that is currently extremelydiffuse.

But neither are we ignorant of the fact that thissystem, the most totalitarian of human history,has its weak points, its cracks and itscontradictions, where it is still possible that theautonomy of the subject may blossom. And so,the struggle that grows in the heart ofcontradictions – even if it remains in thesystem and is limited to a simple demand forgenuine compliance with the discourse: humanrights, democracy, sustainable development –it finally leads to a desire to resolve thiscontradiction: ‘Together we have to reclaim ourhijacked words’ (Berger, 2003).

We therefore request that the management ofCultural Heritage be a further instrumentinvolved in this struggle, by way of a criticalpragmatism (another oxymoron?). Even if wefollow in the footsteps of a liberal pragmatistlike Rorty, who said that we must stopassuming that the function of intellectuality isthe radical criticism of existing institutions, acriticism that attempts to penetrate as far asthe realities that are found beneathappearances (Rorty 1998), then we will arriveat the same conclusion: the problem is not theacceptance or denial of existing institutions,but instead that by accepting them, wediscover that power lies both in what they sayas well as what they do (or do not do, or allowto be done, issues that are basically one andthe same). And so it may be true that there isno appearance that hides reality, but insteadthat there is a discursive practice (Foucaultexcels Marx) that is contradictory in itself(Foucault does not excel Marx).

As an inseparable part of this discursivepractice, it is also possible to see the profoundcontradictions within the concept of sustainabledevelopment. If we accept the oxymoron asthe post-modern form of dialectic contradiction,in which two opposing terms coexist within thesame concept, ‘sustainable capitalism’ (as thisis the real concept) is its final and most perfectform. As Robert Kurz indicated, “it is an illusionto believe that industrial economy will deny itsown principles. The wolf will never bevegetarian, and capitalism will never turn intoan association for the protection of nature andphilanthropy” (Kurz 2002).

However, arriving at this conclusion, eventhough it may be true, would paralyse us in oursearch for types of positive action. We have toknow what our framework is, retreat in ourcritical advance, and pragmatically respect therules of play, although we will not open up oldwounds, and not belittle any of thecontradictions. Because we are talking aboutcarrying out applied archaeology, sustainabledevelopment, about behaving from within the


discursive practice of the system, of workingwith the instruments that the system offers us.

On one hand, we have the possibility ofmaking archaeology into a type of technology.This means that we are going to introducethese objects from the past into our present-day lives, and transform archaeologists intotheir managers. And we do it becausetechnological development is also one of thepremises of sustainable development. Despitethe fact that technology may have offered us anew form of exploitation (of mankind, by man-made machines) and that this supposedliberty, conquered thanks to technology, hasbeen administered in equal measure by thetechnologically-equipped society as well as theconsumer society and the society of thespectacle. We opt to recognise our limits now:we have to move within them, and we believethat the struggle lays in the openings offeredby these limits.

On the other hand, carrying out appliedarchaeology means transforming thearchaeological record into Heritage. It impliesconverting the record into an economicresource, to which it is possible to apply astrategy of local development. It is possible tolevel criticism at this situation, emphasising theirreversible process of transforming thisheritage into a spectacle, in a direction thatpoints towards the underlying falsehood,towards the fabrication that lies hidden behindthe concept of ‘enhancement’. However,criticism of this type should not lead us toforget that there is no alternative for heritage,that it is a terminal option: that it may only be aquestion of becoming fossilised ordisappearing. And we would like to think thatthrough our humble work as archaeologists it isalso possible to influence people and theirpersonal expectations. It is obvious thatcommunity development does not annul theprocess of inequality (it only diminishes itthrough integration), although we would askthat by only announcing the imminence of aradical change, and by leaving the possibilitiesthe present offers us in the hands of anuncertain future, is this being fair with thosewho are most in need of this change?

For this reason, we have placed our bets ondeveloping the potentials that the discursivepractice of knowledge/power puts within ourreach, as we will find ourselves immersed in it,without the possibility of creating a criticaldistance that has been abolished by capitalistglobalisation, something that is not onlyexternal (as an advanced phase ofimperialism) but also internal (as the actualphase of reification: One-Dimensional Man.) It

is this impossibility of establishing a criticaldistance that both conditions daily life andmakes it bearable for us, as living in a societyin which reality and spectacle becomeinterwoven allows us to exist with the formeron a daily basis, and we are continuously livingan oxymoron.

And even though this is the case, we seek outthese chinks in its armour, and which thesystem itself offers to us, having transformedthem into part of its spectacular discourse, andbecause we ourselves are part of thisdiscourse, and our beliefs and behaviour areshattered. It is only by seeking out thesecracks that we may widen them, make newopenings, discover more people on the otherside of the wall that isolates us from thecommunity, and touch our fingers together.

For this reason, we need to believe in a type ofarchaeology that works towards sustainabledevelopment, an applied archaeology thatwould be an application of archaeology.We need to believe in the oxymoron; in blacklight.

Abridged BibliographyBerger, John. 2003. Written in the night: The pain of livingin the present world. Le Monde Diplomatique (Englishedition) February 2003.http://MondeDiplo.com/2003/02/15painKurz, Robert. 2002. El desarrollo insostenible de lanaturaleza. Pimienta Negra, 19 de octubre de 2002.http://usuarios.lycos.es/pimientanegra/kurz_desarrollo_insostenible.htmRorty, Richard. 1998. Pragmatismo y política. Barcelona:Ediciones Paidós Ibérica, S. A. E Instituto de Ciencias dela Educación de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.(Ed. or. 1992. The Intellectuals at the End of Socialism.The Yale Review, vol. 80, april 1992).

A version of this article with completebibliographic references can be requested fromthe author

Contact Felipe at: [email protected]

The President’s CornerAnthony Harding

As I travelled home from St Petersburg inSeptember, carrying our departmentaloverhead projector, I was able to look back ona week in which the EAA fulfilled one of itscherished aims: to hold an Annual Meeting inRussia. We have a sizeable contingent ofRussian members who had invited the EAAmore than once previously, and of courseRussia is much the largest European state inboth area and population. Because of various


practical difficulties, the invitation had not beenaccepted earlier, and even now, there weredoubters who felt that the whole enterprise wastoo much of a risk.

Happily, the doubters were proved wrong, andwe were able to enjoy a packed three days ofdebate and discussion. Of course there werea few hiccups, as there usually are(sympathies go to Oxbow Books, whose entireconsignment of books to sell at the Meetingwas held up in Customs warehouses andnever reached the venue; and to thoseRussian would-be participants whose grantsmaterialized too late for them to attend). But ingeneral things ran smoothly. I personallyattended a number of excellent sessions, andgiven how often conferences fail to live up toexpectations, how could one wish for more?Our heartfelt thanks go to all who worked sohard to make the conference happen, and tomake it a success – especially Nick Petrov inSt Petersburg, and our own Petra Nordin, whothis year had to carry so much of the work ofregistering participants, arranging banktransfers and many other tasks. The longhours she put in, well beyond the call of duty,and the dedication which allowed theconference to happen at all, are deeplyappreciated.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At the Conference, the reins of power(responsibility would actually be a better word)were handed over to me by Willem Willems.Willem has served the EAA first as Secretary,and then for two terms as President, so that formany people the Association is Willem. Hisgenial presence, dynamic leadership, capacityfor hard work, and infallible sense of what willbe both right and successful, has brought theEAA through some hard times to its presentelevated position. As he spoke at the AnnualBusiness Meeting on handing over thePresidency, he likened the growth of the EAAto that shown by an infant (when he took over)on its way to becoming a teenager (as hehanded it on to me). It is an apt analogy.

Few people have any idea of the difficulty thatsurrounds the promoting of an independentinternational organization such as ours, andeven fewer appreciate the amount of work thatis involved in running it. We have able officersand Board members but even so, there ismuch to be done to coordinate their work, toensure that things happen, that initiatives aredeveloped, the working parties work, and thatgenerally the Association is the lively andeffective organization it was set up to be.Willem has done so many things in all these

areas, the majority of them unknown except toa tiny few. In an address of thanks to Willemat the Closing Dinner in St Petersburg, hiscolleague, friend and fellow-countryman TomBloemers recalled some of the salient points inWillem’s career. The EAA can only be gratefulthat it has been able to benefit from thedevotion and hard work that Willem hasdedicated to it, and wish him well in resumingthe threads of his more normal archaeologicallife. Willem has travelled throughout Europe inthe service of the EAA, and Tom urged us allto keep him on the move by inviting him to ourplaces of work, as a colleague and friendrather than as our President.

The ABM saw fit to elect Willem to HonoraryMembership in recognition of his years ofdevoted service to its cause. We were glad todo it. The irony is that Willem is already apaid-up life member of the Association. As Isaid at the time, we wish to accord him thehonour while at the same time we know hewould not want us to refund his subscription.That way, we both win.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I was fascinated to read a new analysis ofIndo-European languages which suggests thatthey began to spread and split about 9000years ago, and that it was farming communitiesemanating from Anatolia who led themovement (R.D. Gray and Q.D. Atkinson,“Language-tree divergence times support theAnatolian theory of Indo-European origin”,Nature 426, 435-9). The analysis depends oncomparison of 200 words for commonconcepts or objects (the examples giveninclude “I”, “hunt”, and “sky”), which, accordingto these authors, are a better guide tolanguage history than grammar or sentencestructure. A spread from Anatolia 9000 yearsago would of course fit well with the spread offarming across Europe, and archaeologistsmay regard this as too temptingly neat ahypothesis to resist. At the same time it seemsstrangely familiar. Of course it does. Not onlydoes it go back to the ex oriente lux ideas ofearlier decades; it is very similar to what ColinRenfrew suggested in Archaeology andLanguage in 1987. That work has beenpersuasive to many archaeologists, less so tophilologists; so it will be interesting to seereaction to the new analysis.

Mention of Colin Renfrew prompts me to referto the recent award to him of the EuropeanScience Foundation’s Latsis Prize, this yeardesignated for archaeology, in recognition ofhis inspiring and fundamental work on a greatvariety of topics over many years. It would be


hard to think of another Europeanarchaeologist who has worked so influentiallyin so many different fields, and I am sure thatmembers of the EAA will join me incongratulating him on this achievement. It isespecially fitting as Colin Renfrew (ProfessorLord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, to be precise) isdue to retire in 2004, and his successor in theDisney Chair at Cambridge will shortly beannounced. It will be a hard act to follow.

EAA NewsAnnual Business Meeting

13th Sept 2003Saint Petersburg, Russia

1. Opening (WW)Willem Willems, the President of the EAA,welcomed all members to the annual businessmeeting (ABM). He thanked the ConferenceSecretariat and the EAA Secretariat for theirhard work in order to organize the 9th AnnualMeeting in St Petersburg. 660 delegates hadregistered for the Annual Meeting. The numberof participants is high, especially since almost480 had to apply first for a visa in order to beable to enter Russia.

2. EAA Progress Report (AM, PN)Statistics showing the situation within theAssociation were produced by ArkadiuszMarciniak, the EAA Secretary, and PetraNordin, the EAA Secretariat.As of 13th September the EAA had 1050members. The Secretariat has handled 920membership payments in 2003 – the highestfigure in the history of the EAA. This figure isover 470 more than had been handled byearlier secretariats. The number of renewingmembers is also steadily growing.

An additional 480 conference delegates paidtheir conference fees through the EAASecretariat. In all, 680 payments have beenprocessed for the St Petersburg meeting.

The websiteAndrzej Lewczewicz continues to work as theEAA webmaster and the Secretary thankedhim for all his hard work.During both the EAA Conferences in 2002 and2003, Arek Marciniak has arranged round tablediscussions about the EAA Web page. TheAltamira website is an attempt to gatherinformation about archaeological institutions(universities, research programmes, heritagemanagement institutions, museums etc) fromcountries within Europe. The Secretary urged

the membership to contribute relevantinformation and links for this site.

3. EAA FinancesCecilia Åqvist, the EAA Treasurer, reported onthe financial situation. The Audit Report of2002 is not yet complete. In 2002, the contractwith SAGE was renegotiated. As a result eachvolume of the European Journal ofArchaeology (EJA) will be cheaper (25 Europer book). The EAA also sold its share of theownership of the EJA to SAGE. The sale hasbrought a short term improvement to thefinancial situation. The Treasurer alsoemphasised the urgent need for a fundraisingcommittee, to raise money for the EAA in thefuture, and asked for members interested inbecoming involved to get in touch with the EAABoard.

4. Student Award 2003Willem Willems informed the members thatAnita Synnestvedt, from Gothenburg Universityin Sweden, had been awarded the StudentAward for 2003. Kristian Kristiansen, Professorat Gothenburg University, received the prize onher behalf, as Anita was unable to attend theABM.

5. Results of the 2003 ElectionsThere were four vacant positions on EAAboards in 2003.

Anthony Harding was elected as the incomingPresident in 2002, and will start his term inoffice after the ABM

The results of the election were as follows:Executive Board member position no. 1Fanette Laubenheimer 33Marinella Pasquinucci 39Joao Zilhao 72Abstentions 2Total 146

João Zilhão (Portugal), will serve on the EAAExecutive Board 2003-2006.

Executive Board member position no. 2Eszther Banffy 50Dagmar Dreslerova 91Abstentions 5 Total 146

Dagmar Dreslerova (Czech Republic), will serveher second term on the EAA Executive Board 2003-2006.

Editorial Board member position no. 1Håkan Karlsson 76Vinnie Norskov 33Nancy Wicker 31Abstentions 6Total 146

Håkan Karlsson (Sweden), will serve his secondterm on the EAA Editorial Board 2003-2006.


Editorial Board member position no. 2Theodore Antikas 8Mihail Budja 23Philippe Della Casa 64Christina Marangou 45Abstentions 6Total 146

Philippe Della Casa (Switzerland), will serve onthe EAA Editorial Board 2003-2006.

6. Nomination Committee MemberPilar Lopez (Spain) will step down from thenomination committee in 2003. Willem Willemsthanked her for her work. Alain Schnapp(France) was proposed as the new member ofthe nomination committee. This proposal wasapproved by the members at the ABM.

7. Transfer of PresidencyWillem Willems formally handed over thePresidency of the EAA to Anthony Harding.Willem admitted his mixed feelings in handingover the presidency; some sadness but alsorelief. Willem thanked all the Executive Boardmembers and the Secretariat for their hardwork over the years. Special thanks also wentto all the local conference organizers withwhom he had worked over the years, as wellas the Editorial Board members and the EAAwebmaster.

Willem Willems, stepping down as President duringthe ABM at St. Petersburg. He received standingapplause from all the members for all his work for theEAA during his term of office.

On assuming the Presidency, Anthony Hardingstated that he would do his utmost to fulfil theduties of the President, and is looking forwardto working with the Boards and the Secretariat.Anthony also welcomed all the newly-electedmembers to the Boards.

The new President thanked Willem for his workfor the EAA and announced that the Boardwould like to propose that Willem Willemsshould become an honorary member of theEAA. This was approved unanimously by theABM.

Anthony Harding, incoming President of the EAA

8. The EAA Strategic Plan 2004-2008The vice-President, Elin Dalen, presented thePlan to the ABM (see elsewhere in this TEA).

9. European Journal of Archaeology:General Editor’s Report

Mark Pearce (General Editor) discussed thedelay in production of the Journal, which isunfortunately a result of the suspension ofproduction by Sage during negotiations lastyear. The whole production team is workinghard to catch up. He reported that issue 6(1)was ready for distribution.

The Editorial Board has conducted a review ofits functions and, in particular, how these arecovered by the statutes of the Association. Inthe interests of transparency for members andall those who submit manuscripts, therefereeing procedure is now described on boththe Sage and EAA websites alongside the'Notes for contributors', which have beenupdated:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105535http://www.e-a-a.org/journal.htm

Mark also reported that in response to asuggestion from a member, the words 'arefereed journal' have been added to the insidefront cover.

Questions were asked from the floor about therejection of manuscripts, and Mark confirmedthat 4 manuscripts had been rejected over thelast 6-month period. This figure does not coverthose, which are withdrawn after'presubmission' enquiries, or those which areaccepted subject to major modification, someof which do not reach publication.

10. The European Archaeologist NewsletterKaren Waugh (editor of the TEA) gave a shortreport on the work with the newsletter. She


encouraged the members to send in articles.She also welcomed comments and discussionon the content of the TEA so far. Thenewsletter is a forum for the EAA membersand therefore contributions from themembership are important.

11. Report of the working partiesA number of working parties reported theresults of their meetings to the ABM. These areproduced in full elsewhere in this issue.

_______________

Information from the EAA Secretariat

Petra Nordin

GeneralFirst of all, the secretariat would like toapologise if you feel that the EAA’smembership service has been suffering in2003. This was caused by an increased (buttemporary) involvement in the St. PetersburgConference. Everything is hopefully now backto normal.May I also once more remind you that thedelivery of the second and third issues of theJournal are unfortunately delayed, but shouldbe with you by the beginning of January 2004.

MembersEAA now has 1050 individual members, the 2nd

highest figure in the history of the EAA (seetable below).

The EAA Secretariat has handled 920membership payments this year, the highestfigure in the history of the EAA. In the tablebelow you can study the figures from 1993onwards.

Number of members per year 1993-2003

Year Indivi-dualMem.

Inst.Sub-scr.

Corp.Mem.

Total

1993 283 23 3251994 435 37 4951995 396 36 4641996 360 44 4481997 427 47 5051998 938 150 10921999 1021 109 2 11342000 984 144 5 11332001 826 145 7 9712002 1140 144 8 12842003 1050 144 8 1194

Number of Individual Members 1997-2003

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1997

1999

2001

2003

Number of Members per year

The number of individual members has increasedfrom 427 (1997) to 1050 (2003).

The following pie chart shows the membershipcategories divided up into Full (includingfamily), Student, Retired (including life andhonorary members), Associate and Institutionalmembers.

71%

11% 16% 1%1%

Full (+FAM) InstitutionsStudents R+LIFE+HON

Assoc+ Corp

Dear EAA Members,

To be able to channel out information in yourfield of interest or specialisation, I would begrateful if you could send the following detailsto the Secretariat as soon as possible:

- Name:- e-mail:- Field of Interest: (HM for heritage

management, UNIV for teachersemployed at Universities, STUD if you area student, CUR for curators)

- Archaeological Period/Periods: (specify)- Other specialisation:

This information will be helpful so that theSecretariat can update the database accordingly.


Chairpersons of EAA WorkingParties and Committees

Please send in the names and e-mailaddresses of the members of your workingparty or committee to the EAA Secretariat

THANKS IN ADVANCE!

_______________

The following letter has already been on theEAA website since November 2003

From: Professor Anthony HardingPresident, European Association ofArchaeologistsDepartment of ArchaeologySouth RoadDurham DH1 [email protected]

The EAA Secretariat

I am writing to you about the future of the EAASecretariat, which may in the next 18 monthshave to move from Sweden to anotherlocation. If that turns out to be the case, wewould reluctantly have to bid farewell to PetraNordin, who has worked so devotedly on theAssociation’s behalf since 1999.

With the present workload and the existingnumber of EAA members, we would expect toemploy no more than one full-time person (orpart-time equivalents) as administrator, withsome extra secretarial or clerical help at peaktimes. The person or persons employed needto be proficient, preferably fluent, in English,and to work for a line manager andorganization sympathetic to the aims of theEAA. The administrator also needs to workclosely with the Treasurer.

A number of factors will influence the Board’seventual decision on the matter. Theseinclude:- Cost (employment cost plus overheads)- Perceived reliability- Banking system (a modern system which

is not over-priced, can handle internationalpayments and offers internet access isessential)

- Postal and customs service (efficient andnot excessively expensive)

- Ease of access to international transportnetworks

- Availability of workspace with up-to-datecomputing and other office facilities

I hereby invite you to consider the matter and,if you are interested, to initiate the process ofmaking an offer to host the EAA Secretariat. Afull list of requirements will be sent to thosewho respond.

Please indicate your interest to Petra Nordin atthe EAA Secretariat, by email or post as soonas possible. The Board wishes to receive fullbids, with all necessary details, by 31stJanuary 2004.

The address is:

EAA SECRETARIATC/o Riksantikvarieämbetet UV VästBox 10259434 23 KungsbackaSweden

E-mail address:[email protected]

Yours sincerely,

Anthony HardingPresident EAA

_______________

EAA Handbook

An updated version of the Handbook can nowbe found on the website

Reports from Working Partiesand Round Tables

Report from the Round Table on ‘theEAA in the Digital Age’

Peter Biehl (EJA Reviews Editor) GERMANY,Arkadiusz Marciniak (EAA Secretary) POLAND

This is a report on two Round Tables - oneheld in Thessaloniki in 2002 and one held inSt. Petersburg in 2003 - which focused on theexpansion and development of the EuropeanAssociation of Archaeologists’ website. Theneed for such a discussion is acute. Electronicmedia provides an efficient means tocommunicate with EAA members and we mustseize the available technology to help easewhat is otherwise a terribly time-consuming


task. In particular, three major issues/questionsemerged at the round tables:1. What services do the EAA members want

from the website?;2. How can the EAA website can become an

internationally recognised portal fordiscussion about the impact of informationtechnology on our discipline?;

3. How can the EAA website establish andset standards (a code of E-Archaeology)for archaeological research, publicationand communication in Europe?

The topic is central to the EAA and itsmembers. With its speed and simplicity ofexplanation, the “new media” (includingmultimedia and hypermedia) can - and hasbegun to - revolutionize the way archaeology isviewed and practiced. New media bothchanges and challenges archaeology andcreates new perspectives for it. We havediscussed these perspectives at the roundtables.

In terms of archaeology, new media offerstools that influence how we communicate,publish and document research and finds.They offer us a way to collect, process, storeand disseminate archaeological data withnever-before-achieved speed, facility andaccuracy. In the presentations1 at the roundtables an emphasis was placed on improvingarchaeological communication via new media.

By communication, we mean all possiblestages/levels/pedagogical tools employed tocreate and disseminate information aboutarchaeology, including those used byuniversities, museums, archives, exhibits andhistoric preservation as well as ones on theInternet and in learning software. In otherwords, everything that influences how expertsand the public view and/or learn aboutarchaeology. We have also examined thegrowing commercial interest in archaeologyand its influence on our science and areexcited about the possibilities such interestopens.That said, we must be careful. Clearly, newmedia has great potential. But new media doesnot necessarily mean ‘new archaeology’. Howwe implement it matters. We believe newmedia will enhance, and in some cases“automatically” force us, to implement a 1 We want to thank all the participants of theseround tables who have discussed and commentedon the EAA website. Our special thank goes to RuthTringham and Michael Ashley-Lopez from theUniversity of California Berkeley for their rich reporton general tendencies in the development of webpages.

diversity of approaches and stimulate amultivocality of interpretations. This would helpproduce more heterogeneity and complexity inscholarship, museum exhibitions etc.

Electronic tools could further be used to handlethe flood of information such approachesengender. New media also serves to soften thebarriers between archaeologists and thepublic. The interested public will depend onguidance by the specialist, but will also be ableto navigate according to his/her interest. Thedemocratic nature of the World Wide Web andthe huge amount of information it makesaccessible demands a new consciousnessregarding data and its interpretation.Archaeological data on the Internet is still notprotected by copyright laws. Intellectualproperty is in danger and the EAA in the digitalage has a prime responsibility to fill this gap.

Discussions at these round tables have madeit clear that the EAA website – which servesboth EAA members and Europeanarchaeology in general – must continue. Ourchief focus should be on the improvement andexpansion of communication – that is, onmaking archaeological information accessibleand archaeological data easily available.These aims can be realized in two ways:1. By expanding the amount of information on

our website, and2. By steadily pushing to transform our list

from a passive list-server state, as it isnow, to an interactive portal.

A recent change in the server makes itpossible to host web pages of EAA membersand their institutions. This can be done inspecial cases and when posting the pageselsewhere prove to be impossible. A need forsuch a service was expressed recently bysome members and we are happy to now beable to accommodate them. Further steps,however, involve setting up clear criteria andstandards to be filled when a member requestsspace on the EAA server. We suggest that anInternet Committee be set up to formulate suchguidelines. This committee would be a forumof discussion and evaluation that wouldregularly offer ideas for projects and activitiesto the Executive Board as well as report onnew-media related issues and/or problems.

One issue sure to come up is the limitedavailability of space on such a “hosting-service” and how many web pages can beaccepted.

Other important possible expansions involvethe archiving of documents, the creation of anorganized Europe-wide job listing and the


publication of all upcoming conferences andfield schools.

It is our goal to make the EAA web page moreuseful and a more productive forum ofcommunication. We can achieve this byexpanding the already-existing register ofarchaeological resources across Europe.Currently, there is a passive register of webpages from European universities, museums,institutions and projects. We want to make itmore interactive by allowing members to addnew links. Another step would be to implementa search engine, which would allow speedieraccess to information. Of course, all suchfreedom requires monitoring. The EAA InternetCommittee would have to write and post aquality statement outlining what is expected ofusers and those who add links.

We believe these changes can transform theEAA web site into an active portal wheremembers regularly contribute. Such changesdepend upon our ability to secure appropriateIT support as they are both expensive andlabour intensive.

Still, we have already taken a first step towardsinteractivity in the ‘E-Reviews Section’ of theEuropean Journal of Archaeology (EJA). Theonline version will start in Spring 2004 and willcomplement the print version. It will allowdiscussions that begin in the printed journal tocontinue without concern over page length,publishing costs, or time delays. There will bea ‘letters to the editors’ section which willfeature comments on the reviews section,suggestions for books to be reviewed as wellas comments or statements in regard tospecific reviews printed. We hope thisinteractivity will trigger debate among bookauthors and their reviewers as well as otherspecialists and interested archaeologists. Wewill formulate guidelines and policy for the useof the E-Reviews Section and we will postthem on the website. In this document we willclearly indicate the objectives of the site andexplain how we will monitor and editcontributions posted online. We hope you willsupport this first effort and send ideas,comments and reviews and review ideas to thereviews editor.

To conclude, the Round Tables came up withthe following suggestions, which are beingrecommended to the Executive Board.The EAA-Website should be transformedinto a forum for communication: It wouldserve us - with our multiple and disparateinterests - much better than a list-server.Threads for job listings, upcomingconferences, field schools, research

opportunities, ethics etc. can be established tospark discussion. Once threads are set up, itwould be easy for members to add forums andthreads, building a dynamic and vibrant virtualcommunity.

The EAA-Website should be dynamic:Keeping websites up to date and interesting isa difficult chore and labour intensive. Apossible alternative would be to set up adatabase for content that would then bepushed to the website through a conduit, suchas MYSQL and PHP (a free and open source)or MYSQL and COLD FUSION (commercial,but not very expensive and very easy to use).

The EAA website’s members sectionshould be a significant source forcommunication and service: Promotion ofthe organization can be enhanced by offeringcontent that is only available to members (e.g.the E-Reviews Section). There can bemembers-only forum threads and dynamiccontent plus the secure uploading of papers forconferences.

The EAA website should be a portal:Establishing a site as a portal, a nexus ofinformation for interested members worldwideis a worthy goal. The power of a portal is thatpeople internationally will be able to add theirown content to the site by simply typing in aweb form or uploading photos and othermaterials to the EAA site. This creates a trulyEuropean, multi-national, democratic project.

_______________

Round Table on Perspectives ofMedieval and Post-medieval PotteryProduction Centre Researches inEurope

Following the Round Table discussion onmedieval ceramics at the St PetersburgConference it has been decided to takeforward the idea of setting up a Working Groupon Medieval and Post-Medieval CeramicProduction Centres in Europe. The main aim ofthis group will be the creation of a database ofthese centres in Europe. As a first step thegroup will carry out a pilot study of selectedareas.

The Working Group would like to ask EAAsupport for this project. The group hasdesigned a pro-forma record sheet to aid withdata collection. This will be sent to differentinstitutions and colleagues and the groupwould like to ask members to ensure that thisform is passed on to the relevant people.


The second step will be to start organising aResearch Co-operation on Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramic Production Centres inEurope and to prepare an Annual Workshopfor the next EAA conference in Lyon.

We are looking for all possible partners toparticipate in our project.

For further information please contactMaureen Mellor: [email protected] Hall: [email protected] Vágner: [email protected]

_______________

Virtual Museums - EuropeanHeritage – Access for All

Liliana Janik, UK

The Round Table Virtual Museums - EuropeanHeritage – Access for All took place at the EAAConference in St Petersburg and attracted asignificant attendance from different countriesand interest groups. The abstract for the roundtable (attached below) suggested the creationof a virtual museum, which would provideunrestricted access to European heritage. Theidea itself of providing such access wasoverwhelmingly supported by all attending. Thediscussion, however, concentrated on a fewpoints which, in the eyes of participants,needed further clarification:

1. who is going to decide what is going to bepresented?

2. who is this museum for - in other wordswho are we targeting with the informationand why would we like to do it?

3. on which basis are the ‘exhibits’ going tobe put forward for consideration?

It is understood and accepted that aconsiderable amount of literature now exists onthe topic of virtual museums generally. In thisshort piece, however, I wish to revisit some ofthe specific themes which emerged from the StPetersburg round table.

EAA provides a forum for meetings, exchangesof thought and ideas between archaeologistsfrom a variety of countries. The umbrella ofEAA reaches much further than mostEuropean organizations and associations. Itencourages membership from countries allover the world, from all archaeologistsinterested in issues concerning theassociation. EAA has become a truly globalorganization with its roots in Europe. Thediversity and richness of the Europeanarchaeological heritage has yet to be madefully visible.

By whom and why?

In recent years the medium of theweb/computer has been used by variousbodies interested in promoting the past,including government agencies fundingnational heritage, tourist organizations andprivate individuals. None of these bodies,however, present the views of professionalarchaeology. There has until now been novenue for European archaeologists to presentwhat we think are the most importantrepresentatives of national and internationalEuropean heritage.

It is now well accepted that archaeologistswork within our societies, reflecting andcontributing to the concerns, worries andaspirations of the societies of which we are apart. The existence of pan-European structuresand historical experience make us look atEurope as a clearly defined unit. Europe isnot, however, a static entity. Despite itsgeographical borders, it is rapidly changing itspolitical, social and cultural face. In ourlifetimes we have witnessed developments thescale of which were previously only broughtabout by war. Most of us are aware how easilythe past has been used for nationalisticpursuits. I suggest that the EAA provides theperfect forum for trying to overcome theseissues by creating a Virtual Museum. Such aMuseum would be without boundaries, andwould create a venue where the EAAmembership can set out how, from aprofessional perspective, European Heritagecan be represented.

At the same time, recognising the importanceof distinct national identities within Europe,EAA members would also be invited topropose what and how to present the heritageof the country they represent.

The EAA could provide a platform for a VirtualMuseum of Europe, ensuring the highestprofessional standards and providing a voiceand platform for archaeologists to shape theunderstanding of the heritage for the citizens ofEurope. The Virtual Museum could give apicture of Europe as comprising dynamic andvibrant communities, which have for thousandsof years shaped the continent.

The creation of the Virtual Museum representsan exciting and timely challenge at this stage inthe development of both the EAA and theEuropean Union. Its content will depend onthe membership of EAA, and it will beassessed by visitors to the Virtual Museum.

Thus, in short answer to the question “bywhom?” is by us, members of the EAA.


For whom?One of the most pressing questions during ourdiscussion was for whom is this Museum goingto be created? Although my original intentionwas that it should be for all users of the web, ifpressed I would propose now that weconcentrate on young people of primary andsecondary school age. Since these are thepeople who use the web as a learning toolmuch more than their parents’ age group. Thisis also the age group which, if exposed toprofessional understanding (does not need tobe boring) of heritage, might think twice aboutits use for nationalistic ends and build theirfuture on the rich and diverse heritage ofEurope.

What?The third question during the round tablediscussion was the issue of what is going to beput into the museum? I suggest that the‘exhibits’ (item, monument, landscape) wouldbe that representative ‘something’ that wewere asked by visitor to our particular countryto see or visit as the most important orspectacular part of heritage. These ‘exhibits’would reflect different prehistoric periods andmirror the richness of the heritage of anyparticular country, e.g. I would suggest that inBritain people might visit Sutton Hoo andStonehenge. The choices would preferably notjust follow our own interest, so that ideally amegalith specialist would not only advisevisitors to see megaliths, an archaeobotanistwould not restrict their recommendations toplant specimens. In terms of a widerunderstanding of European heritage, EAAmembers would propose ‘exhibits’ from otherEuropean countries using the same criteria asin the previous case. The number of ‘exhibits’from any one country in the first instanceshould perhaps not exceed five: this wouldgive a total of 225 exhibits from the 45countries of Europe which would be a goodnumber for a first stage.

If you have thoughts on this matter pleasesend them to me or post them on the EAA webpage. I hope that a round table on the sametopic will be accepted by the EAA OrganisingCommittee in Lyon, so that we can discussfurther the issues around such a VirtualMuseum, in particular how to present ‘exhibits’.

AbstractVirtual Museums - European Heritage –Access for All

Working in various counties and crossingvarious continents resulted in the idea todevelop a virtual museum based on theheritage of Europe, to present an accessibleplatform for the knowledge and appropriation

of the European past from various corners ofthe World. The choice of what is going to bedisplayed will be based on the selections andpreferences of archaeologists discovering,interpreting and shaping the understanding ofthe European past. The virtual museum willcomprise various collections andenvironmental settings (in different countries,of different places, and with different artefacts)e.g. a virtual tour of rock art, with links toaccounts of archaeologists' interpretations andthe position of the rock art within the history ofthe local communities and indigenous groups.The museum will further multi-vocality withinprehistoric heritage interpretation, whilst thefour layers outlined below will provide the firmstructure for moving around each virtual site:1. Art (e.g. contribution of prehistoric artists

to World heritage, relationship between theart in question and other artistic objects inEuropean and World museums, artisticskills involved in the production ofparticular images)

2. Science (techniques involved in dating ofthe objects, conservation methods used,physical properties of the material used inthe creative process)

3. Education (audience: general public,educational and research bodies fromschools to universities)

4. Place in the contemporary world(archaeological interpretation role rock artplay in the history and contemporary livesof the local communities and indigenousgroups)

For more information or comments contact:Dr. Liliana Janik at: [email protected]

_______________

Deploying digital data: Making themost of digital archives forarchaeologyJonathan Kenny UK, William Kilbride UK,Oscar Aldred ICELAND, and Claus DamDENMARK

This paper reports on the ARENA Round Tableheld at the annual EAA conference in StPetersburg. The ARENA project,(Archaeological Records of Europe: NetworkedAccess) is financially supported by theEuropean Community through the Culture2000 programme. It is a partnership of sixorganizations representing six nations, you cansee more about ARENA on the website athttp://ads.ahds.ac.uk/arena/


ARENA is undertaking research into theformation of an interoperable network for digitalarchaeological archives, work that is of benefitto both academic and wider communities. Theresearch involves the creation of a web-basedportal making sites and monuments dataavailable and searchable from the partnerorganizations as well as archives fromexcavations and projects of internationalimportance. These archives are a considerableresource, but how do researchers, studentsand the general public go about using them?

The aim of the Round Table was to discussaccess to archaeological data. The real valuein digital archaeological data is its reuse.Digital data can be made available in a numberof ways, CD-Rom for example, but by far themost flexible is through the Internet. Bydemonstrating the use of digital archaeologicaldata as a research tool the round table aimedto provide guidance to participants in a varietyof areas; user evaluation, reaching differentaudiences, the meaning of the term ‘data’,research culture and managing expectation.The round table was structured intopresentations and discussion, and was led byfour members of the ARENA team, WilliamKilbride and Jon Kenny from the ADS,University of York UK, Oscar Aldred from theInstitute for Archaeology in Iceland and ClausDam from the Danish Agency for CulturalHeritage. The presentations were split betweentheoretical issues and practical examplesdrawn from Iceland and Denmark.

The Round Table went very well with a varietyof people participating and making usefulcontributions. Discussion of users and how wecan know them was extensive. Electronic dataon the Internet opens access to someunexpected audiences, making resources thatmay have been under-used or little known intobestsellers. This is an obvious bonus, but itcomes with three potential dangers: that theoriginal reason for gathering the data isforgotten in order to meet the demand formore; or that users misunderstand theresource and thus misuse it; or that suppliersbecome inundated with unwelcome enquiries.

IcelandIn Iceland the online heritage presentations, asin other places, did not attempt to characteriseusers or be particularly proactive about users'needs. The initial thrust of the ARENA projectwas to preserve and make available fordownload basic digital archives. Laterexperience through the ARENA project, withinvestigation of web statistics and small peerreview polls, has demonstrated that users areunder-utilising the resources we present inIceland. The depth to which users go into the

Hofstaðir archive resources, for example, stopsshort of downloading the data files.Furthermore, identification of the hostaddresses that visit the ARENA archive inIceland suggests a combination of Englishspeaking nations (primarily American andBritish) as well as Icelanders. This identifies aneed for bilingual pages. The ARENAexperience tells us in particular that furtheranalysis of the web statistics should help us topresent better archives that suit the needs of anumber of different users. As both managersand users of online heritage resources theIcelandic partners expressed a desire tonarrow the gap between expectations and thepresentation of archives. Identifying specificpackages tailored to user profiles and aligningpresentation with actual use, such as thepresentation of an evolving and dynamicarchive like Hostaðir, may do this.

DenmarkThe Danish experience highlighted two issues;a need to actively promote archive resourcesand the importance of using web site statisticsas a tool for tailoring the resource to users’needs. Monitoring the statistics in Denmark ona monthly basis has proven that peaks in thenumber of users occur following the mention ofthe resource at seminars, conferences and innewsletters (Fig. 1).

Fig.1: Usage statistics for the Danish onlineexcavation archives 2003. February: Launch. May:Presentation at Danish seminar on GIS applications inarchaeology. September: Mention in Danish HeritageAgency newsletter. November: Conferencepresentation.

The experience of the ADS in the UK identifiesthe same effect, increased usage of resourcesin the wake of newsletters and seminars. TheADS provides seminars for studentsdemonstrating the potential of onlinearchaeological resources in the UK. The webstatistics reflect surges in use that follow theprogress of the seminars across UKuniversities. The effect was observed inDenmark where hits from users increased from


39% at the launch of ARENA archives inFebruary 2003, to 69% following the mention inthe Danish Heritage Agency’s Newsletter.

Looking at the search strings used in searchengines resulting in access to the Danishonline excavation archives reveals that about athird of the search strings are too broadlydefined, and thus not directing the user to theright resource (“database download”, “zip”,“free MapInfo data”). Another third are of amore general nature (for example, “medieval”,“counterfeit coins”, “Iron Age settlement”),these probably give the user some usefulinformation. The last third of the search stringsrepresent users who are looking for veryspecific data (for example, “Hjelmfortifications”, “Viking age settlementVorbasse”). The primary target audience forthe archives was originally the last group, butas a result of monitoring the web site statisticsmore background information has beensupplied on the web pages to satisfy the needsof the second group as well.

As was the case in Iceland, results fromDanish usage statistics also showed theimportance of monitoring user nationality. Thenumber of non-Danish users has been more orless constant since the launch of the resource(although the percentage of Danish users hasincreased), but this has proven that a briefEnglish summary of each resource is clearlynot sufficient, so a full English translation isplanned in the near future.

The case studies showed that we rely toomuch on ‘gut feeling’ about who uses ourresources and that there is considerable scopefor research in the profiling of users and theunderstanding of their behaviour. Althoughsome research has been carried out at theADS in the UK and in Iceland and Denmark,there has been little focussed and publishedresearch activity studying users. The problemof generating hits on an archive is only part ofthe work however. As demonstrated in Iceland,users do not necessarily download material. Ofcourse, the actual material may only be of useif the user has specific data needs. The ADSexperience with presenting archives forARENA such as Tarraconensis, Danebury andCottam suggested that some enhancement ofthe archive site demonstrates to users theutility of the data available. Packages thatdemonstrate the possibilities for working withdigital archives are available, aimed at studentusers. The PATOIS project has generated foursuch packages available through the ADS webpages.

Considering the meaning of data could, ofcourse, have taken up the whole session.

“Data” can be an emotive concept inarchaeology, with intricate theoreticaldiscussions. As often as not, data aredescribed as being the fundamental, primaryrecord of scientific techniques. In terms ofdigital archives, however, data is seen asbeing digital resources – files and theircontents irrespective of the role they play inarchaeological practice. Consequently, datawithin a digital archive may in fact representanything from the highly synthetic andinterpretative discussions right the way throughto unprocessed geophysical files. This subtledifference in meaning was explored since itraises the question about what we shouldactually put into our digital archives, andwhether users are aware of the various levelsof interpretation that may be assumed.

The discussion of the nature of data wasillustrated by the case studies and raised theissue of interpreting data. The archiving andpreservation of digital data leads onto thequestion of what do we do with it. In anacademic context we can reuse andreinterpret. But this also raises the question ofhow to represent the original interpretation,how to link digital archive with the interpretivestatement originally made about these data.The ARENA project is investigating the use ofDublin Core metadata standards to createlayers of inference. This issue is also the coreof work being carried out by Jean-ClaudeGardin at the CNRS in Paris and we may yethear more on the nature and interpretation ofdata. For the heritage managers at the roundtable the presentation of data andinterpretation was a key issue for public as wellas academic uses. The way in which data ispresented can of course be varied, whilstmaintaining the underlying archive in apreserved state, this flexibility is a particularadvantage for digitally stored and presentedarchives.

Discussion of research culture was introducedby ADS work using focus groups of students inthe UK to reveal that the Internet is their firstchoice of research data, whereas mostpractitioners in professional and academicarchaeology learned their research skillsbefore the Internet existed. This has threerelated consequences: that researchers andteachers may not have the skills necessary toexploit digital archives; that there may beresistance to the use of digital archives byteachers or researchers; and students may notbe taught how to evaluate the spectrumcontent available to them on the Internet. Theround table discussed research culture ingeneral, to establish an appropriate role fordigital archives within that culture.


Having established that we have a partlyunderstood user community with varieddemands from our data, how then do wemanage expectations? The ARENA projecthas raised great expectations within thepartner organizations; it has certainly beensuccessful in dealing with preservation andarchiving issues. But it seems that successfuldata archiving is only the start, the Icelandicand Danish case studies suggested that wemust return to our research into users tomanage and respond to expectations.

Experience suggests that there is a directrelationship between the amount of work doneto make an archive interactive, and the amountof use it gets. Indeed, such is the proliferationof multimedia interactive web presentationsthat users often come to expect sophisticatedand eye-catching interactions with data. Yet,the logic of archives suggests that the morestable the format and less dependencies thereare, the more resilient the archive will be.Therefore, there is a tension between whatusers may want now and what is practical inthe long term. The roundtable highlighted thisdilemma and discussed precisely where thebalance of work should lie. The answers werenot, perhaps understandably, precise.Discussion at the roundtable was usefulhowever, because it brought togetherarchivists and heritage managers whorepresented the sides of the dilemma. It seemsthat the nature of digital data will allow forflexibility so long as the archive itself ispreserved and the presentation layers sit ontop of it giving access to different usercommunities.

So what were the results of the ARENA roundtable? We opened up an important issue, theunderstanding of our user communities.Without them, just like archaeology in general,our work has no social value. This is animportant issue learned from the round tableand the ARENA path finding activity, we needto invest in research to understand the userbetter. In terms of the nature of data itself weraised the potential to go beyond simplestorage and reuse in the normal hypothesistesting deductive loop to showing the linkbetween data and interpretation. This leadsonto the academic and research use of ourdata, we all need to understand better howdigital data can be used in stages of theresearch process other than analysis andreanalysis.

The ARENA project is heading towards its thirdyear of operation. It is currently immersed inthe technical process of creating a portal toallow searching of index level records for sites

and monuments in the UK, Denmark, Iceland,Norway, Poland and Romania. When this workis complete however, the partners will seek toresearch the ARENA portal users and the usesto which our data is put. The results of theseuser surveys will help add to the debates thatthis round table sparked off.

Contact: [email protected]_______________

Report on the Round Table on theEuropean Reference Collection atEAA

Guus Lange, THE NETHERLANDS, JonathanKenny, UK

The Round Table´s main theme was adiscussion of the draft proposal for a newCulture 2000 project (call 2004) from JonathanKenny (ADS). Guus Lange first gave anoverview of the history of the EuropeanReference Collection project (eRC) up to theConference.

Looking back, the developments have gonefast. Only one year has passed since the eRC-initiative was first presented at the EAA inThessaloniki in 2002. At the CAA this springfurther discussions took place, in which manyARENA-partners and others from outsideARENA were involved. From these a more orless stable constellation of serious participantsof, and contributors to, the eRC-initiativeemerged.The continuous discussions between ADS andROB have especially resulted in a firmpartnership. The ADS offered to becomeleading partner in a Culture 2000 bid. This wasgladly accepted, as the ADS has muchexpertise to offer, not only for the content entechnological developments, but also for themanagement of the project and the processesinvolved with preparing and carrying out anEU-funded project, being the leading partnersin ARENA.

Jonathan Kenny explained that he had troublewriting the outline for a proposal, because timeand again the Culture 2000 call waspostponed. When it finally appeared, the callstressed the role of Cultural Heritage for thecitizen. Since the eRC is thought of as beingprimarily a tool for archaeologists and thewider discipline, this posed an immediatechallenge to our original plans. The emphasisthat is laid upon the project from outside doesnot seem to match our immediate purpose.Most participants (two refrained, not being partof the coalition) were very positive about thepossibilities to serve the cause of both thescientific and the general public. We agreed to


continue with preparing a bid for the Culture2000 call. The final decision for coalitionmembers to join will be made later, when afinal proposal is presented by Jonathan Kenny.

A further decision was made that an eRC-website should be built as soon as possible, inorder to enlarge the momentum and tofacilitate communication among ourselves andwith the outside world. Jonathan Kenny wouldinvestigate the possibilities back at ADS at theUniversity of York, as would Guus Lange atROB, where such a web site could be part ofthe proposed National Reference Collectionweb site (as yet depending on uncertainexternal funding).

Contact: [email protected]

_______________

Heritage Management, Businessand the Ethical Archaeologist

Gerald Wait, UK

The increasing role of private sectorcompanies engaged in heritage or culturalresource management has given rise toconcerns regarding professional and ethicalbehaviour. These were debated at this RoundTable at St Petersburg.

There is a perception that, whenarchaeologists work in the private sector ratherthan for a governmental or semi-governmentalagency, financial greed or other concerns willoverwhelm their allegiance to an ethical codeof practice. These are real problems, orrecognise potentially real issues, and cannotbe dismissed a priori. However, we noted thatthese problems may be more potential thanreal. How many real instances of unethicalbehaviour do we know about – as opposed todisputes between various parties, where we donot have full information upon which to basejudgement?

The question that dominated discussion was: ifan unscrupulous client is willing to pay enough,will a commercial archaeologist behaveunethically? This is arguably the fundamentalconflict, between an (academic) avocationalobligation to ‘protect the heritage’ and aprofessional obligation or duty to the Client.However, the piper does not call the tune – atleast where knowledge workers are involved.Architects, engineers, surveyors, lawyers – alloffer highly educated and skilled services topaying clients. None do precisely what theirclients want – all offer objective advice andservice – and all do so on the basis of aprofessional code of ethical practice.

Professional archaeological (or allied)organizations with codes of conduct andstandards were mentioned, including:

• Institute of Field Archaeologists (UK)• Register Of Professional

Archaeologists (USA)• EAA• Archaeological Institute of America• Society for American Archaeology• ACRA – American Consulting

Resources Association

A means of regulation is clearly essential – itmust be open and transparent and so can beseen to work effectively – a system with ‘teeth’.

Do financial pressures exist only in the privatesector work? No, they may apply to anyarchaeologist, whether in private practice or inthe employ of a governmental or non-governmental agency. Does a profit motivemilitate against quality of product? No, in boththe USA and in the UK this has been shown tobe not the case – standards have improvedconsistently. Do private sector archaeologistsneed ‘regulating’ or ‘policing’? Yes, insofar asany and all archaeologists (or otherprofessions) sometimes have need of aregulatory authority. It is essential that theprofession has a published Code of ConductAND be prepared to examine the situation ofalleged breach of conduct, and take actionagainst the unscrupulous. But we must alsoask (in the words of Juvenal): - quis custodietipsos custodies?

Other, non-monetary pressures were identified– racism, nationalism, religious prejudice etc –that may lead to unethical action. Arguably,these affect governmental archaeologists morethan those in commercial employ.

The ethical considerations of the excavation,analysis and treatment (e.g. display) of humanskeletal remains was also identified as anethical issue of great importance. Australia andAmerica are in the forefront of this debate – Inthe USA the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act 1990(NAGPRA) has been taken to confer wide-ranging powers to native Americancommunities (rather more than would appearto have been intended) where the need toassign skeletal remains to an ethnic group hasled physical anthropologists to rely on dubioustechniques of cranial morphology in order toaddress questions of ethnicity.

NAGPRA is also the instrument used to decidewhether archaeologists and anthropologistsshould have access to sites and artefacts – ifthe site can be attributed to the ancestors of a


surviving tribe, then the tribe controls all rightsof access. In addition, recent legislation meansthat a Native American Tribe can claim land asa sacred site and thus control access – andthere is no need to present evidence of use asa sacred site, the claim is sufficient. If the tribecan not afford to manage the site, The USgovernment will grant them funding for thispurpose.

The debate was lively without ever becomingpersonalised, and several participants wereconfident enough to talk about projects andsituations which had become widely discussed,and in which some ethical considerations hadarisen. However, we were also aware that aparallel, concurrent session had a very similartheme, and many potential participants werelocated in the ‘other session’. Both sessionsdiscussions were the poorer for this conflict inscheduling.

Contact: [email protected]: [email protected]

_______________

Report of Working Group andRound Table on ArchaeologicalLegislation and Organization

Christopher Young, UK

BackgroundThe Working Group chaired jointly byChristopher Young, UK and Jean-PaulDemoule, France, was established at theLisbon Conference in 2000 with a life of threeyears, ending at this session. Round Tableswere held at Lisbon, Esslingen, Thessalonikiand now St Petersburg. Last year’s RoundTable set up a work programme – some of this,but not all, has been achieved.

St Petersburg Round Table ProgrammeProgress since last year was reviewed:• EAA has been present at some Council of

Europe meetings.• Comments have been made on the

Framework Convention.• EAA was represented at CEMAT seminar

in Sofia.

Further, the preliminary results of the EACsurvey on the results of implementation ofValletta Convention were reported as wererecent ‘crisis’ developments in specificcountries, particularly in France and Sweden.Papers were delivered on how aspects ofconservation systems actually work in Greeceand in Scotland. A paper was also given on theneed for better statistical information on the

impact of change and development onarchaeological resources and the nature andscale of responses to these pressures.

Round Table ConclusionsThe Round Table recognised the continuedneed to monitor and track developments in thelegislative/ organizational fields in Europe, andto facilitate communication of thesedevelopments among archaeologists inEurope.Particular trends and issues include:• Free market pressure on organization of

archaeology• Importance of quality control and

professionalism both nationally and atEuropean level, whatever system isoperating

• Need to influence international agendas ofbodies such the EU, Council of Europe,UNESCO

• Need for good information on whatinternational bodies are doing withpotential impact on historic environment,particularly with regard to EU.

• Need for more statistical information onimpact of change on archaeology and howthis is dealt with.

The Round Table also recognised that theseconcerns/ opportunities spread across severalexisting EAA Working Groups/ EAA StandingCommittees (eg Standing Committee onProfessional Associations), and that there is aneed to work together between and at annualEAA sessions.

Round Table RecommendationThe Working Group should be reconstituted asa Standing Committee on ArchaeologicalLegislation and Organization in Europe,working closely with other relevant StandingCommittees and Working Groups to:

• Monitor developments in archaeologicallegislation and organization in Europe

• Inform and influence international agendasand organizations (eg the European Union,Council of Europe, UNESCO)

• Identify activities of internationalorganizations which will have an impact onthe management of the historicenvironment through the development ofspecific projects, and the identification ofappropriate funding for them, quantify theimpact of development and change on thehistoric environment in Europe, and theresponses to these changes byarchaeologists and other managers of thehistoric environment

• Advise and assist the EAA Board on theseissues


• Hold a Round Table annually• Brief the EAA membership on matters

discussed at the Round Tables and alsoon other relevant matters

E-mail contact:[email protected]

_______________

The EAA Committee on ProfessionalAssociations in Archaeology

Kenneth Aitchison, UK

The Committee assembled for an inter-conference meeting in Bangor, UK, in April2003. At this meeting Gerhard Ermischer waselected as Chair of the Committee andKenneth Aitchison to the position of Secretary.The Committee heard news from the UK,Germany, Greece and Flanders, anddiscussed the situation in France whereINRAP, the newly created quasi-autonomousstate-related archaeological service, was beingseverely hampered in their work by a financialcrisis. This crisis had been externally politicallyprovoked. News from Scandinavia was alsodiscussed, where the situation in each countryis very different; some Norwegianarchaeologists are members of thearchitectural professional association,Denmark was considered to be movingtowards a market-driven system, but theprivatised Swedish system was dangerouslynear the verge of collapse.

In the course of holding inter-conferencemeetings and its other work, the Committeehas been fully self-financing.

The Committee jointly organized a RoundTable with the Committee on Education andTraining at the St Petersburg Conference onthe topic of “Skills for ProfessionalArchaeologists”. Chaired by GerhardErmischer, this well-attended meeting heardpresentations from members of the Committeeon the theme of the ‘graduation gap’ – theperceived difference between the skills of newgraduates and the requirements of theprofessional world – as it was seen in differentcountries. From the viewpoints of thecontributors from Ireland and the Netherlands,there was seen to be a real problem, asgraduates appear to have left university with abroad range of transferable skills, but not thetechnical skills required for enteringemployment. This feeling was echoed by othersession participants from north and westernEuropean countries. By contrast, the Greekperspective was of a different situation, where

underpinning academic knowledge was seenas key, as opposed to vocational skills,particularly for employment within the principalemployer, the Ministry of Culture.

Benefiting greatly from the attendance ofmembers of the Education and TrainingCommittee, discussion then led into a widerdiscussion of the application of the Bolognaframework for academic qualifications acrossEurope. The implementation of this system, ofa Bachelor’s degree followed by Master’s,delivered over a common timescale, has nottaken place universally across Europe.

As has been discussed at previous meetings,the Committee has been working towards theestablishment of common European standardsfor archaeological practice. The Committeeprepared a ‘Draft European Standard forArchaeological Excavation’ which had beenavailable for online consultation and commentover the previous 18 months. No feedbackhad been received by that mechanism, but themeeting broadly welcomed the existence of thedraft Standard, but considered that it should betested against pre-existing internationalstandards (such as those published byICOMOS) before a revised draft is presentedto the Board of the EAA. This document, andany subsequent related Standards, will not bebinding upon EAA members; the Standardsare intended to be used by the Association aspolicy documents which will encouragemembers and national associations to adoptthe use of in order to ensure shared highstandards across the continent.

The committee currently has representationfrom Belgium, Germany, Greece, Ireland, theNetherlands and the UK. A further inter-conference meeting is planned to be held inLeuven, Belgium in the spring of 2004 beforethe Committee will reconvene at Lyon inSeptember 2004.


_______________

Discovering the Archaeologists ofEurope

Peter Hinton, UK

IntroductionFollowing the successful Round Table meetingin St Petersburg, the attached preliminaryproject outline has been drawn up with helpfrom members of the Committee onProfessional Associations. France, Ireland, theNetherlands and the UK (where, to varyingdegrees, some of these data are alreadyknown) have stepped forward in the forms of


Michiel Gazenbeek, Margaret Gowen, KarenWaugh and Peter Hinton/Kenneth Aitchison todevelop the proposal, but other partners arewelcomed. The project outline has now beenpresented to the EAA Board for discussion.

The proposal has also been considered by theBoard of the EAC (Europae ArchaeologiaeConsilium), who in principle support the projectand have offered to help develop the proposalby commenting on a draft project design. TheEAC Board will now circulate the projectoutline to the wider EAC membership askingfor expressions of interest to be sent to us. Theassistance of the EAC in identifying nationalpartners will be particularly useful.

We would very much like to hear from EAAmembers who have any suggestions or ideasor who would like to help, or give advice onhow to take the project forward. Summary of the project aimsThe round table agreed the need for the EAAand others to be able influence governmentsand the development of the archaeologicalprofession. To do that we need to understandwho we are – we need to identify, collect anddisseminate information on archaeologistsacross Europe. In this way we can:

• demonstrate the economic value ofarchaeology

• provide information in support ofapplications for funding under Leonardoand other relevant frameworks

• compare states, so that archaeologists canargue the case for improvements in theirown country

Collectively, EAA committees, working partiesand round tables could survey:

• archaeologists• the state structure for archaeology• the rate at which archaeological sites,

monuments and landscapes are beingdestroyed

• the amount of archaeological work beingundertaken

This round table proposes the development ofa project, funded under the EU ‘EQUAL’programme, that would undertake a simplepilot survey of archaeologists by country:

• how many archaeologists?• how old are they?• how many men; how many women?• what role do they carry out?• what skills do they have?• what are they paid?

This survey should be linked to a measure, foreach state, of the total amount ofarchaeological work.

A group of representatives from four countries(France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK)have agreed to investigate putting a proposal,ideally with the support/involvement of the EAABoard and the Europae ArchaeologiaeConsilium (EAC) and its members, to the EUfunding agencies.

If it appears that the project might be fundedwe will then contact the whole EAAmembership to seek project partners.

Project methodsData gathering would be undertaken via anelectronic and postal questionnaire ofemployers across Europe. Data gathered willinclude:• the numbers of archaeologists working in

each state• their age and gender• whether or not the sector is growing, static

or shrinking• the range of jobs• numbers working in each job type• the range of salaries applying to each job

type• potential skills shortages• qualifications required by employers• employers’ commitment to training• how training needs are identified• differences in employment patterns across

European states

Ideally the information will be collected from allstates (EU, accession and beyond), butsuccess will depend on identifying partnersand the availability of information. It may besensible to compare the results withinformation from the USA.

At this stage of the project we propose a pilotstudy on a few states, and gathering onlyreadily obtained data.

Project outputsThe results of the analysis of these data will bedisseminated electronically to respondingemployers, with the full report also beingposted on the EAA website and hopefullypublished in the European Journal ofArchaeology.

Project fundingThe EU EQUAL programme is funded byEuropean Social Fund, and tests new ways oftackling discrimination and inequalityexperienced by those in work and thoselooking for a job. Although it may not appeardirectly related to our project and the


employment of archaeologists, surveys ofemployment sectors (‘trans-national labourmarket observatories’ in the jargon) are acommon starting point, there are clearlyrestrictions on the employment ofarchaeologists in European states other thantheir own (at least), and professionalarchaeologists can be argued to be adisadvantaged community, whereemployability is an important issue.

EQUAL’s key principles are:• transnational cooperation• innovation• empowerment• thematic and partnership approach• dissemination and mainstreaming to

ensure that EQUAL informs policies andpractice

EQUAL’s activities structured on the four pillarsof the European Employment Strategy:• employability• entrepreneurship• adaptability• equal opportunities for women and men

Project developmentThe second call for EQUAL proposals is duemid 2004. It will be a two-stage process, thefirst being submissions of an outline strategy.

The intention is that we work up this documentinto a European archaeologists’ sectoralDevelopment Partnership outlining the:• common strategy• detailed work programme• budget, showing complementary funding• responsibilities and contributions of

partners• commitment to

o networkingo disseminating good practiceo making an impact on national

policy

This will initially involve consultation with theEU funding agencies, the EAA Board and theEAC.

Project rolesThis is potentially a project with an EAA badge,perhaps working with IFA and the EAC. It willrequire a ‘principal partner’ as banker. The IFA(Institute of Field Archaeologists, UK) is willingto participate and help administer the processon behalf of the principal partner (and equallywilling to share this role with the EAA, or allowothers to take it on).

It also requires national partners responsiblefor circulating questionnaires, chasing replies,and undertaking the collation, analysis and

report for their state. The partners wouldjointly prepare an overall report, andrecommendations for further work.

The funding would be used to cover some ofthe staff time involved in circulating, chasingand analysing questionnaires, and some of theadministrative costs of the IFA, EAA orwhoever in coordinating the project.Contributions in kind (which we would need tobe eligible for Equal funds) could take the formof additional administration, and the time takenby archaeologists to complete and return thequestionnaires.

As stated above, any advice, suggestions,ideas or improvements to the project outlineare warmly welcomed.Contact: [email protected]

_______________

EAA committee on Training andEducation via the e-mail

John Collis, UK

The Committee now has an e-mailing list toenable easy communication and discussionabout various subjects of interest and debatebetween conferences. If you would like yourname to be placed on the list (or taken off it, ifyou do not want to get our information), pleaselet me know. No one is excluded. We areespecially interested in the impact of theBologna agreement, university teaching andprofessional training; we do not deal withteaching of archaeology in schools or to thewider public.

The 'Committee' primarily exists to gatherinformation about training and education, andto share it around the world; you are notcommitted to do anything unless you volunteer!You will initially be flooded with information,because I try to send round all the previousdocuments, but usually I have about 2-3mailings a year, so do not get too frightened.In future we may start taking some initiatives(e.g. grant applications), but these will dependvery much on private activities and requests byour members.

Our structure is rather peculiar for the EAA. Itconsists of:• A Chairman who represents us on the EAA

Board: François Bertemes,• A Secretary who does all the work (or

much of it!): John Collis,• An Executive Committee who may have to

do some work, but are there for quickconsultation if necessary: Eduard Krekoviè(Bratislava University, Slovakia) and


Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (ComplutenseUniversity, Madrid, Spain), but we arelooking for a couple more.

• Country representatives: who will havequite a lot of work to do in the future,disseminating information and collecting it.

• Members: anyone on my mailing list whois also a member of the EAA, which givesyou voting rights.

• Corresponding members: Anyone on mymailing list who is not a paid-up member ofthe EAA.

• Working Committees, looking at specificproblems often in specific countries: wehave none at the moment.

Otherwise, our main activity is organising anannual Round Table discussing topics ofgeneral interest, often in conjunction with theEAA Forum for Professional Associations inArchaeology, as well as our Annual GeneralMeeting, and our report to the EAA at itsannual meeting.


EAA ConferencesThe EAA 9th Annual Meetingin Saint Petersburg 10th-14th September 2003

The Winter Palace St. Petersburg

The EAA 2003 Conference was held in theconference facilities of the Saint PetersburgState University and the Hermitage, in Russia,10th-14th September 2003. 660 delegatesfrom 42 countries attended the Meeting.

The Conference was sponsored by fiveorganizations including the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research andthe Fund for Cultural Exchange. Wenner-Grenprovided a grant fund, which enabled 19members from Eastern Europe to attend themeeting. In total 60 delegates from EasternEurope (outside the Russian Federation)attended the Saint Petersburg Conference.

At the opening ceremony, speeches weremade by Prof. Mikhail Piotrovsky (Director ofthe State Hermitage), Prof. Ludmila

Verbitzkaya (Rector of St PetersburgUniversity), Prof. Andrey Dvornichenko (Deanat the Historical Faculty of St Petersburg StateUniversity) and Prof. Willem Willems (tEAAPresident). The opening lecture on“Archaeology in St. Petersburg and St.Petersburg in Archaeology” was held by Prof.Leo Klejn.

At the opening ceremony Dr. Victor Trifonovfrom Russia, received the EuropeanArchaeological Heritage Prize for hisoutstanding contribution to the restoration,protection and presentation of a unique groupof prehistoric megalithic tombs in a recreatedcultural landscape in the Zhane Valley ofWestern Caucasus, Russia (see page 1).

During the Conference 48 academic sessionswere held, containing more than 530 individualpapers. 18 round table discussions took place.The poster exhibition displayed 59 posters.The exhibition space contained displays from 2institutions. Among them the 10th AnnualMeeting Organizer, gave a glimpse on what wecan expect of the next year’s meeting in Lyon,France.

The academic sessions, poster exhibitions andround table discussions were, as usual,complemented by a varied programme ofsocial events including the wine receptiondirectly after the opening ceremony, the partyheld on Thursday evening and finally theclosing dinner on Saturday evening. All theseevents continue to be important opportunitiesto establish and re-establish contacts withcolleagues working throughout Europe. OnFriday evening, several “cultural events” wereheld – a chance for attendants to exploredifferent aspects of the cultural life of SaintPetersburg.

187 attendants came from Russia and CIS (28%), 63 % originated from Europe (UK andSweden well represented) and 9 % came fromthe rest of the world.

_______________

Welcome to the EAA 10th AnnualMeeting in Lyon, France8th-12th September 2004


The 10th Annual Conference is beingorganized by Jacques Lasfargues of theMuseum of Gallo-Roman Civilisation in Lyonand Françoise Audouze (former EAA executiveboard member) of the University of Paris 10 -Nanterre. For further information on Lyonplease go to the websites:

http://www.lyon.fr/en_index.htmlhttp://www.ec-lyon.fr/tourisme/Lyon/

For further information and registration, pleasecontact the EAA 2004 Secretariat. Sessionproposals and queries about the 10th AnnualMeeting are welcome! The address is:

EAA 2004 SecretariatMusée Gallo-Romain17, rue Cléber69005 LyonFranceTel: + 33 4 72 384937Fax: + 33 4 72 387742E-mail: [email protected]: www.e-a-a.org

Pre-registration for the Lyon ConferenceThe pre-registration form is now available onthe EAA website: www.e-a-a.org

Deadline for submission of pre-registrationform is 31st January, 2004.

The on-line pre-registrations will be sentdirectly to the EAA Secretariat, and will then beforwarded to the Conference Secretariat inLyon. Postal pre-registrations should be sentdirectly to the Lyon Address.

_______________

Cork, IrelandSeptember 2005

The 11th Annual Conference in 2005 isplanned to take place in Cork, Ireland.

_______________

Krakow, PolandSeptember 2006

The 12th annual Conference will be held inKrakow, Poland.

Notes and Announcements

TTHHEE EEUURROOPPEEAANN

AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL HHEERRIITTAAGGEE

PPRRIIZZEE

2004

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

The European Archaeological Heritage Prizewas instituted by the European Association ofArchaeologists in 1999. The prize is awardedannually by an independent committee to anindividual, institution or (local or regional)government for an outstanding contribution tothe protection and presentation of theEuropean archaeological heritage. In principle,this can be any contribution that is outstandingand of European scope or importance, it doesnot have to be a scientific contribution. Theprize for 2004 will be awarded during theAnnual Meeting of the EAA in Lyon, on the11th September.

The EAA Committee for the EuropeanArchaeological Heritage Prize, consists of:David Breeze, Scotland, Jürgen Kunow,Germany, Katalin Wollak, Hungary, SebastianoTusa, Italy, and Kristian Kristiansen, Sweden(chairperson).

The Committee will discuss all seriousproposals for the award. Nominations may bemade by any of the following:

• Members of the Association (all grades ofmembership)

• Professors and heads of departments ofarchaeology in European universities andinstitutes

• Directors of governmental heritagemanagement organizations and agenciesin European countries (members of theCouncil of Europe)

• Non-governmental archaeological, heritage,and professional organizations inEuropean countries.


You are invited to use the form to nominate aperson, institution, or a (local or regional)government. The form will be sent to you bythe secretariat via e-mail on request and willalso be available on the EAA website: www.e-a-a.org).Nominations, with full citations, should besent to:EAA SECRETARIATC/O RIKSANTIKVARIEÄMBETET UV VÄSTBOX 10259434 23 KUNGSBACKASWEDENOR BY EMAIL TO:[email protected].

THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OFPROPOSALS IS 31ST OF JANUARY 2004

_______________

Archaelogical FieldworkOpportunities Bulletin (AFOB)

Each year, the Archaeological Institute ofAmerica publishes Archaeological FieldworkOpportunities Bulletin (AFOB). AFOB listsarchaeological projects all over the globe andis one of the primary resources for studentsand volunteers looking to participate. AFOB isalso available online year-round. I wouldencourage you to post your fieldworkopportunities listing in our online fieldworkdatabase. The listings are viewed hundreds oftimes each week. The ArchaeologicalFieldwork Opportunities Bulletin (AFOB) is anestablished print resource and is now one ofthe foremost online resources for individualslooking for fieldwork.

AFOB Online now has several new features.You can update your listing at any time online.If you only have preliminary information onyour project, we encourage you to list it nowand update it at a later date. Preliminarylistings will be flagged in the print edition ofAFOB, with instructions to check online for thelatest information.

We have also changed the format of AFOBOnline. A "project profile" now appears in theright column with icons to give users a quickoverview of important project features. Eachlisting may have an image as well. Pleasecheck the AFOB submission form for imagerequirements.

We encourage you to submit your project atAFOB Online on the AIA website at:www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=1015

There is no charge to post your listing withAFOB.

Archaeological Institute of AmericaPublications and New [email protected]

AFOB 2004 can be ordered through DavidBrown Books in North America(800-791-9354) or Oxbow Books outside NorthAmerica (+44 [0] 1865 241249)www.oxbowbooks.com

*AIA reserves the right to review all submissionsand to publish only those it deems appropriate.

_______________

Debates in World Archaeology

World Archaeology will be published quarterlyfrom 2004. The fourth issue will be calledDebates in World Archaeology, and willappear in December each year. The first threeissues of the year will continue in the existingsuccessful format.

Debates in World Archaeology will beexactly what the title says: a forum for debate,discussion and comment on topics of interestin the archaeology of the world. Papers maybe of a variety of sizes and types, and may besubmitted in topical groups, or individually (seebelow).

Each issue of Debates will have an editor, justas the other issues of World Archaeology. Theeditor of the first issue of Debates is PeterRowley-Conwy). Contributions should reachhim early in 2004 for publication in December2004.E-mail: [email protected]

ContentsThe aim is flexibility, to accommodate asdiverse a range of debate and comment aspossible. Some suggestions follow, but theyare not meant to be prescriptive. The bestguideline for potential contributors is: if indoubt, submit! All contributions will berefereed:

- a) Groups of two to five papers (1500 to5000 words in length) debating a particulartopic or area. If desired, such groupscould have an independent topic editor,who would be identified as such in thecontents page, and who might write anintroduction to the group. The editor ofDebates will arrange for them to berefereed – referees would consider boththe individual papers and the group as awhole.

- b) Individual papers (1500 to 5000 words).These could be statements to generatedebate, or might discuss issues of topical


interest or new research results. Theycould be responses to papers previouslypublished in Debates or regular issues ofWorld Archaeology, or elsewhere. Theymight be topical overviews or historicalreviews, or consider the impact ofimportant ideas or texts.

- c) Smaller contributions (up to 1500words), submitted individually or in groups.These could be statements for debate,responses to items previously published,or comments on items of interest.

SubmissionThe editor welcomes all submissions andsuggestions. Please check a recent issue ofWorld Archaeology for authors’ guidelines, orfind them at our website:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/00438243.html

ConferencesObject Excavation - Intervention: Dialoguesbetween Sculpture and Archaeology

4th-5th June 2004Leeds, UK

This two-day international and interdisciplinaryconference aims to bring together archaeologistsand art historians to discuss the links betweensculpture and archaeology. We invite papers, forexample, that look at:- The history of archaeological thought and

archaeological discovery in relation to thehistory of sculpture

- Archaeology as a metaphor in modernity andpsychoanalysis

- Issues of depth/surface and the role ofdiscovery and revelation

- Myths of origins and the ways in which thearchaeological dig, the cave and the quarryhave been variously appropriated

- The philosophy of place and the ways in whichquestions of site-specificity are significant toboth sculpture and archaeology (in urban, ruraland industrial environments)

- How notions of 'archaism' and 'classicism' etc.have been constructed through archaeologyand have been taken up politically

- by sculptors, archaeologists and writers atdifferent times

We are very interested in papers that trace thosehistorical moments when there seems to have beena 'symbiosis' between sculpture and archaeologicaldiscovery, from c. 1700 to the present.We are also particularly interested in readingproposals from archaeologists who are interested insculpture and who are interested in sharing newapproaches to archaeology with sculpturehistorians.E-mail contact: [email protected]: http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk

________________

International Workshop‘Multiple Landscapes, Merging Past andPresent in Landscape Planning’

7th-9th June 2004Wageningen, The Netherlands

Landscape history is a topic of current research anddebate in Europe and the United States.Archaeologists, historical geographers, ecologistsand historians have made tremendous progress inproducing data on the genesis of man-madelandscapes. Politicians and planners take a publicinterest in the results of archaeological andhistorical research. Nevertheless, many questionsremain about the role of historical data in strategicpolicy documents and, particularly, in operationaldecision-making in land use planning and landscapedesign.

AFI

INSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTSTel: 0118 3786446 Fax: 0118 3786448

Email: [email protected]

Annual Conference forArchaeologists

at the University of Liverpool

6 - 8 April 2004in association with the Department of Archaeology

Sessions include: Archaeology & the media, Improving our skills The historic environment: future perfect? Interpreting archaeology to the public Professionals, institutes & the historic environment Palaeolithic & mesolithic archaeology, Urban design The World in one region, Maritime archaeology Archaeological science & site management Wessex archaeology coastal & marine section Battlefield archaeology

Events: Conference dinner; wine reception; party;excursions

Sponsored by:


Action research, joint learning, interdisciplinaryresearch, prospection and stakeholder participationpose challenges for researchers and others active inthe field of archaeology, historical geography,landscape ecology and environmental planning anddesign.

To facilitate this debate and make it moreaccessible the international workshop ‘Multiplelandscape, merging past and present in landscapeplanning’ is being organized. This workshop will beheld in Wageningen, The Netherlands, from 7th-9th

June, 2004.

Attending the workshop will give you the opportunityto exchange knowledge with colleagues in the fieldsof environmental planning, landscape architecture,archaeology, historical geography and landscapepolicy.

The primary aim of the workshop is to discuss thecontribution of scientific knowledge to thearchaeological-historical landscape in landscapeplanning and design. A further aim of the workshopis to identify future research questions. The three-day workshop will include keynote speeches, paperpresentations and a field trip. The workshop isorganized under the auspices of the NWO(Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research -programme Protecting and Developing the DutchArchaeological-Historical Landscape), ISOMUL (theInternational Study Group On Multiple Use of Land)and the Land Use Planning Group (WageningenUniversity).

More detailed information:http://www.wau.nl/rpv/isomul/workshop2004

_______________

Histories of archaeologyArchives, Ancestors, Practices

A Major International Conference on theHistory of Archaeology

17th-19th June, 2004Göteborg University, Sweden

Organized by the EC funded AREA network(Archives of European Archaeology www.area-archives.org) this conference will promote the latestdirections and advances in the field. The histories ofarchaeology explored here will move beyond moretraditional regional or chronological frameworks, andencourage thematic and problem-oriented historicalapproaches, which will shed new light on thescientific, cultural and ideological contexts ofarchaeology.Themes include:- Sources and methods for the history of

archaeology- Archaeological practices- Questions of identity- Visualising archaeology

Five successive sessions are planned, each lastinghalf a day and including some 5-7 speakers,including both established scholars and emergent

researchers. English is the recommended languageof communication.

Information on venues, accommodation, fees, isavailable as is an online registration form forspeakers and attendants.

For more information and expression of interest, seethe website: www.hum.gu.se/arkE-mail:[email protected]

_______________

22nd Nordic Archaeology Conference

18th-23rd August, 2004Oulu, Finland,

Archaeology in the North of Finland has a chance topresent itself to the international researchcommunity in August 2004, when archaeologists atthe University of Oulu host the 22nd NordicConference on Archaeology. The Giellagas Instituteat the University of Oulu as well as Kierikki StoneAge Centre and Kierikki Registered Association areour partners in this conference.

The Nordic Archaeology Conference, the mostimportant regular gathering in the field, is the largesthumanities event ever to take place in Oulu. Thetime-honoured conference has convened at three tofour year intervals in Finland, Sweden, Norway,Denmark and Iceland during the past 80 years. Theprevious meeting was in Akureyri, Iceland, in 2001.The conference has not been arranged in Finlandsince 1986 when Turku acted as host.

Information about the submission of abstracts, theprogramme, excursions and registration are to befound on the website:

http://www.oulu.fi/nak22/english.html

_______________

The Significance of Portages

30th September - 3rd October, 2004.Rosfjord Strandhotell, Lyngdal, Vest-Agder,Norway.

Monuments in the landscapeTransit points in transport zonesNodes of power and control of transportationCatalysts of the adaptation of transport vesseltypes and techniques

Watersheds in the cognitive worlds of“mobile Man.”

The portages constitute a particularly characteristicfeature of the Norwegian coast. This was pointedout by the historian, Yngvar Nielsen, in 1904. Hisstatement has been substantiated recently by therecently deceased pioneering archaeologist, Povl


Simonsen, Prof. of Archaeology of the University ofTromsø and has been resuscitated in later years bythe maritime archaeologist Pål Nymoen of theNorwegian Maritime Museum of Oslo.

The portages are certainly characteristic of Norway,but this statement requires qualification. They havea significant place not only on the coast, but alsoinland. And even if the dramatic topography ofNorway as a whole adds to their significance in thisarea, their role is indeed international.

By a portage is meant the shortest stretch of land inany area between two waters, at the sea, orbetween lakes and rivers. To a certain extent anyportage is to be defined as a watershed. Since thetransition between these concepts is rather fluid thecultural importance of watersheds in general are ofcurrent interest as well. By using portages at thecoast a dangerously exposed area of open watermay have been avoided. A sizeable number ofthese portages have been used in the past to haulor to carry boats across the land, but in each casethis has to be proven by archaeological or historicalsources. Their basic significance is only an overlandpassage. The portages are a salient feature of afundamentally amphibious way of transport inprehistoric and partly also historical times. Inaddition they have accordingly been as typical of theinland as of the coast and the archipelagos.

Research on portages is only in its inception. Itcomprises many differing aspects. The importanceof their everyday economic significance should beheeded. Too much has been made of dramatic orexceptional historical events. Too many have beenassigned more than local significance.

It has been deemed necessary to attain ascientifically viable understanding of the many-sidedaspects of portages. In order to do so theinternational perspective is vital. But also the localand regional interest must be encouraged byresearch in different fields.

The subject of portages has never been treated in aconcentrated way, neither in literature nor as aconference project. The County Municipality of Vest-Agder will therefore arrange the first internationalconference of this kind and publish the proceedings.

The conference is divided into two sessions, one 3-day session in the English language and another 2-day session in the Nordic languages, both includingan excursion day. The lecturers represent Norway,Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Great Britain, Germany,Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey, but also otherareas are implied by the contents of the plannedlectures.

The keynote speaker for the first English session isProf. Andrew Sherratt, Institute of Archaeology,Oxford University.

E-mail contact: [email protected]

_______________

International Congress on Beer inPrehistory and Antiquity

4th-6th October 2004Barcelona, Spain

The International Congress on Beer in Prehistoryand Antiquity will bring together international expertsin archaeology and history of beer and fermentedbeverages from all over the world. The Congresswill take place in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)between 4th-6th October 2004. This event isorganized by the Project of Archaeology of Food atthe University of Barcelona and the SpanishCommission of the International Committee ofAnthropology of Food. The Congress is supportedby the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, ofthe Spanish Government.

The programme includes invited papers by experts,as well as contributed oral presentations andposters, covering established and developing areasin the field of beer in prehistory and antiquity andrelated subjects in all the world. The registrationfees will be 160 Euro.

Themes include:- Beer and Cereal Fermented Beverages in

Archaeological, Archaeobotanical andEthnobotanical Research in the World

- The Origins and Ancient History of Beer andCereal Fermented Beverages (Ancient Near-East civilisations, Egyptians, Greeks,Phoenicians, Punics, Greeks, Romans).

- Beer in Late Roman and Early Medieval times- Maize "Chichas" in the American Archaeology- Anthropological studies on beer applied to

archaeology and the history of beer

Abstract GuidelinesAuthors may list a preference for a poster or oralpresentation of their paper. However, the organizersreserve the right to place the contribution in eithercategory.1. The abstract must be in Spanish and/or English2. The maximum length of the abstract is 400

words3. A title must be included at the top of the

abstract4. Add author names or affiliations to the abstract

text. Please, provide the following information:· last name· first name· title of abstract· affiliation· mailing address· telephone number· e-mail address· oral or poster presentation preference

The deadline for receipt of abstracts is 30th April,2004.Abstracts can either be submitted via e-mail(preferred) or via regular mail.

Abstracts should be mailed to:[email protected]

______________


International Aerial ArchaeologyConference, Munich, Germany,

‘Aerial Archaeology – European Advances’

A decade on from Kleinmachnow

Sunday 5th to Wednesday 8th September 2004

To be held at:Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege,München, Deutschland -Bavarian State Department for HistoricalMonuments, Munich, Germany

~ CALL FOR PAPERS ~

The Aerial Archaeology Research group is proud towelcome you to its 2004 Annual Meeting in Munich,Germany. In September 1994 the historicSymposium zur Luftbildarchaology inOstmitteleuropa, ‘Aerial Archaeology in Central andEastern Europe’, was held at Kleinmachnow,Brandenburg, drawing together aerial archaeologyand remote sensing practitioners from acrossEurope following the fall of the Iron Curtain. Tenyears on, the Munich conference will celebrate andinvestigate the progress of aerial and ground remotesensing in Europe and surrounding countries,addressing a number of key academic, technical,management, survey and archive issues over threemain conference days. The conference will feature aspecial one-day session Revealing NeolithicEurope, to be followed on the third day by AerialArchaeology and Remote Sensing – EuropeanAdvances.

Email: [email protected]

See full details on the AARG websitehttp://aarg.univie.ac.at/

EAA Schedule of Activities in2004 (January-June)

JanuaryIssue 6:2 of the Journal (2003) will be sent out.Membership is due to renewal.

31st January:Deadline for pre-registration forms for theLyon Conference.

31st January

Deadline for proposals for candidates for theEuropean Archaeological Heritage Prize

FebruarySecond Mailing from the ConferenceOrganizers

20th-22nd FebruaryEditorial and executive board meeting

MarchNomination Committee Meeting

25th MarchRegistration deadline to receive the first issueof the EJA on time

1st AprilList of members sent to SAGE

MayCandidate letter and form sent out to theMembers, also available as pdf-files on thewebsite

15th MayDeadline for sending session proposals andpapers to the Conference Organizers

30th MayDeadline for articles and announcements forTEA Nr. 21

30th JuneDeadline for membership registration toreceive the first two issues of the EJA inAugustTEA nr 21 will be put on the web

DIARY

20th – 22nd February 2004Symposium on Mediterranean ArchaeologySchool of Classics, Trinity College in Dublin, IrelandContact:THE SOMA 2004 COMMITTEE, c/o The School ofClassics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Republic ofIrelandE-mail: [email protected]:http://www.tcd.ie/Classics/soma/somahome.html

22nd – 24th March, 2004Making the Means Transparent: research -methodologies in archaeological heritagemanagementUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKContact: Dr John Carman, Affiliated Lecturer,Department of Archaeology, University of


Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ,tel 01223 333323, fax 01223 333503.E-mail: [email protected]

31st March – 4th April, 2004Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting2004Montreal, Québec, Canada.Website: www.saa.org/meetings/index.html

6th – 8th April, 2004IFA Annual ConferenceUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKSession proposals and/or paper titles can be besent to Conference Committee, Institute of FieldArchaeologists, University of Reading, 2 EarleyGate, PO Box 239, Reading, RG6 6AU, fax 0118378 6448.E-mail [email protected]

3rd – 7th May, 200434th International Symposium on ArchaeometryZaragoza, SpainWebsite: www.archaeometry2004.info

17th-19th June, 2004Histories of archaeologyArchives, Ancestors, Practices - A majorinternational conference on the history ofarchaeologyGöteborg University, SwedenOrganized by the EC funded AREA network(Archives of European Archaeology www.area-archives.org)E-mail:[email protected]

11th – 15th August, 200415th European meeting of the PaleopathologyAssociationDept. of Arch., University of Durham, UKContact: Dr Charlotte Roberts, Department ofArchaeology, University of Durham, Durham DH13LE tel: (+44) 0191 3341154, fax 0191 33441101.E-mail: [email protected]: www.dur.ac.uk/ppa2004.conference

18th-23rd August, 200422nd Nordic Archaeology ConferenceOulu, FinlandWebsite: http://www.oulu.fi/nak22/english.html

29th August – 2nd September, 2004MESO 2005Belfast, Ireland, UKThe 7th International Conference on the Mesolithicin EuropeWebsite:www.ulstermuseum.org.uk/meso2005.html

Archaeological Dialogues- New to Cambridge in

2003 -

Managing EditorsMichael Dietler, Univ. of Chicago, USAPeter van Dommelen, Univ. of Glasgow, UKFokke Gerritsen, Vrije Universiteit,Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Archaeological Dialogues has becomeone of the leading journals fordebating innovative issues inEuropean archaeology. It includesdiscussion articles, review essays andin-depth interviews, which encouragedebate and critical analysis

SubscriptionsVolume 10 in 2003: June and DecemberPrint ISSN 1380-2038Electronic ISSN 1478-2294Institutions print and electronic: £60/$90Institutions electronic only: £54/$81Individuals print only: £30/$45Students: £20/$30

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building,Cambridge CB2 2RU, UKPhone +44 (0) 1223 326070Email [email protected]

articles and reports - european association of … · · 2016-09-06articles and reports european...

Documents