Convened By
\nFrank McManamon (USA) and Gamini Wijesuriya (New Zealand)<\/p>\n
Theme Details
\nFrom its inception, the World Archaeological Congress has focused on the management of archaeological resources (Cleere 1989; McManamon and Hatton 2000), or how archaeological resources are cared for. WAC-5 continues this focus and tradition. Management issues relating to a wide range of archaeological resources (sites, including some with substantial structures or structural features, collections, and records) all are considered within this management theme.<\/p>\n
Management topics are categorized under three general headings: research, planning, and stewardship.<\/p>\n
Research includes investigations to locate, examine, and evaluate sites, investigations of collections and records to explore new research topics, and activities exploring improvements for the preservation or protection of archaeological resources.<\/p>\n
Planning involves the incorporating considerations about archaeological resources as part of plans for general economic development or land use systems, as well as for specific facility or infrastructure developments, such as dams, highways, and water treatment plants.<\/p>\n
Stewardship includes a wide range of activities related to the specific treatment of archaeological resources, such as in situ conservation, public interpretation, preservation, and protection schemes.<\/p>\n
Crosscutting subthemes are welcomed. Several can be suggested:<\/p>\n
(1) The description and analysis of regulatory frameworks\/public policy for archaeological resource management: To be effective, archaeological management must be supported by a national, state, provincial or local system of statutes, regulations and policies, as well as some level of public financing. Effective management of archaeological resources requires decisions about how the resources can be best protected, preserved, utilized, and interpreted.<\/p>\n
(2) Archaeological management and local communities: Effective archaeological management also must recognize, understand, and address local situations, including the needs and controlling conditions for local human populations. Communities residing near or among the locations of archaeological resources have important, sometimes critical, influences on the protection and preservation of these resources. Community members protect and maintain these resources when they regard them as their own, and the actions of local officials and local communities increasingly are of importance in cultural resource preservation, protection, and interpretation.<\/p>\n
(3) New approaches and developments of methods, techniques, and concepts related to archaeological resource management: Improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of archaeological management can reduce costs and provide better outcomes. Many archaeological management activities are part of the “cost of business” for governments, so improvements in efficiency and reductions in cost are especially important and regularly contribute to more effective and efficient work.<\/p>\n
(4) Public education and outreach: To justify and promote archaeological management, education and outreach activities are often needed to ensure that present and future generations realize the importance of archaeology for understanding our heritage, history and selves. Stewardship of resources includes, and frequently requires, these activities. Interpretation, education, exhibition, must be planned as part of the overall strategy for its conservation, not simply bolted on as an afterthought, or as a weak justification for de facto decisions taken, driven by our professional concerns, and from within our professional, relatively closed, circles.<\/p>\n
Public policy for archaeological resource management is an essential matter if a modern nations are to successfully preserve their histories and heritage in the face of modern pressures. A nation that does not preserve its past is unlikely to have much of a future, either figuratively or literally. At the beginning of the twenty?first century the kinds of archaeological resources our civilization considers important have a much wider range than those that were regarded as monuments at the beginning of the twentieth century. Having a wider scope and distribution, archaeological resources also are more widely claimed and disputed. To be effective advocates in this new century, those of us working in archaeological management need to form alliances across cultural frontiers. As we do so, we need to remember what we have learned and what we can share with each other in international meetings such as WAC 5.<\/p>\n
Contact:<\/p>\n
Francis P. McManamon
\nNPS Dept of the Interior
\n1849 C Street, NW (2275);
\nWashington, DC 20240-0001
\nphone: (+1) 202-354-2123
\nfax: (+1) 202 343-5260
\nemail: FP_McManamon@nps.gov<\/p>\n
Gamini Wijesuriya
\nPrincipal Regional Scientist
\nDepartment of Conservation
\nHamilton, New Zealand
\nFax: 0064-7-859 0001
\nTel: 0064-7-858 0020
\nemail: gwijesuriya@doc.govt.nz<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nMary S. Carroll (USA), Arleyn Simon (USA) and Andrzej Prinke (Poland)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nMary S. Carroll
\nArcheology & Ethnography Program
\nNational Park Service
\nmary_carroll@nps.gov<\/p>\n
Arleyn Simon
\nArchaeological Research Institute
\nArizona State University
\narleyn.simon@asu.edu<\/p>\n
Andrzej Prinke
\nPoznan Archaeological Museum
\nPoland
\naprinke@man.poznan.pl<\/p>\n
Format
\nPapers of 15 \u2013 17 minutes followed by an informal panel discussion by the participants
\nNew digital technologies present exciting opportunities to distribute archaeological information quickly and widely. There is enormous potential for expanding what we know about ourselves and the past \u2013 and for reaching the general public with that knowledge. However, the rapid changes in electronic technology present many challenges for data management and information dissemination, especially maintaining data access. Digital data are often archived as printouts, or as digital files in the software format and medium current when the project was completed. As software and hardware rapidly change, serious long-term maintenance and access problems are inevitable and will result in tragic loss of data. Little progress on preserving electronic records can be made without heightened awareness of the issues and dissemination of appropriate archival practices to the archaeological community. The archival and library communities have made contributions to the preservation of electronic records and some of these preservation principles may be applied to archaeological data with modifications for the unique needs of the collections. In this session, individuals in the archaeological community who have worked to clarify these issues and identify methods present recent advances in electronic record preservation. The presentations will highlight the unique challenges of digital archiving and explore efforts to meet those challenges that are of benefit to the larger archaeological community.<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nFrom Data To Knowledge: Creating And Maintaining A Foundation For The Future
\nMary S. Carroll (National Park Service, USA) The Archaeology Data Service: Strategies for Online Preservation and Access<\/p>\n
Julian Richards (Archaeology Data Service, UK)
\nThe Archaeological Data Archive Project
\nHarrison Eiteljorg, II (Center for the Study of Architecture\/Archaeology, USA) ARENA: Archaeological Records of Europe – Network Access (Extending Online Access and Digital Preservation of European Archaeological Archives)
\nAndrzej Prinke (Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poland)
\nArchaeological Research Databases: Current And Future Preservation Strategies At ARI
\nArleyn Simon, Destiny Crider, and Alanna Ossa (Arizona State University, USA) Managing and Maintaining Access to Archaeological Records – Library and Archival Implications
\nJeremy Rowe (Arizona State University, USA)
\nI-Sites: An On-Line Database And Geographic Information System For Archaeology In Iowa, USA
\nJoe Alan Artz and Colleen R. Eck Information Data Archives: Management, Research and Information Distribution in a Secure, Controlled Environment
\nE.S. Lohse (Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University), C. Schou (Technology Innovation Center, Idaho State University), A. Strickland, D. Sammons (College of Education Idaho State University) and R. Schlader (Technology Information Center, Idaho State University)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 109<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nJohn P. McCarthy (USA) and Peter Howard (UK)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nCultural\/heritage resources management is an established area of professional practice in many parts of the world. While largely driven by legislative mandate in its infancy, the professional practice of heritage resources management has matured over time and the term \u201cstewardship\u201d is now widely used with reference to the management of cultural as well as natural resources. This session will examine how the professional practice of managing heritage resources has developed in recent years, considering what, if anything, has changed, and what \u201cstewardship\u201d means to contemporary practioners, the public and private agencies for whom they work, and the public at large. The papers present the diverse experiences, attitudes, and values of those who undertake this work day-to-day and represents a unique opportunity to share with and learn from each other.<\/p>\n
Organized\/Chaired by:
\nJohn P. McCarthy, RPA
\nHistoric Preservation Specialist – Archaeologist
\nPennsylvania Department of Transportation
\nAllentown, PA 19473 USA
\n(610) 798-4263 (voice)
\n(610) 798-4116 (fax)
\njohmccarth@state.pa.us<\/p>\n
Dr. Peter Howard
\nEditor, International Journal of Heritage Studies
\nKerswell House
\nBroadclyst
\nExeter EX5 3AF UK
\n00-44-1392-461390 (voice)
\n00-44-1392-475012 (fax)
\nhowards@eurobell.co.uk<\/p>\n
Organization of the Session
\nThis session is proposed for a three-hour time slot. The session will consist of eight presentations of 15 minutes length followed by Dr. Howard\u2019s comments and a discussion lead by Dr. Howard. The suggested order of the presentations is as follows:<\/p>\n
McCarthy: What is \u201cCompliance?\u201d \u2013 What is \u201cStewardship?\u201d An Introduction
\nRobblee and Berkin: Strategies for Cultural Resources Management on Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in the United States
\nHunter: Stewardship and Scale: the New Regionalism of Cultural Resource Management.
\nGlidden: \u201cFrom California to the New York Island\u201d: A Look at Exemplary Preservation Efforts at the Federal Highway Administration
\nLassell and Karbula: Stewardship \u2013 of What, and by Whom?
\nSwidler and Zimmerman: Equity in Heritage Resource Management
\nHolm: Legislation and Argumentation – Changing Practices in Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management
\nKing: Compliance” and “Stewardship.” A False Dichotomy
\nHoward: Comments<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nWhat Is \u201cCompliance\u201d? \u2013 What Is \u201cStewardship\u201d? An Introduction
\nJohn P. McCarthy (Historic Preservation Specialist – Archaeologist, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Allentown, USA) Strategies for Cultural Resources Management on Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in the United States
\nPatrick P. Robblee and Jon Berkin (Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, USA)
\n\u201cFrom California To The New York Island\u201d: A Look At Exemplary Preservation Efforts At The Federal Highway Administration
\nCatherine Glidden (Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA) Stewardship \u2013 of What, and by Whom?
\nSusan E. Lassell and James Karbula (Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas, USA)
\nEquity In Heritage Resource Management
\nNina Swidler and David Zimmerman (The Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, Window Rock, Arizona, USA) Legislation and Argumentation – Changing Practices in Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management
\nIngunn Holm (Research Fellow, University of Bergen, Norway)
\n\u201cCompliance\u201d And \u201cStewardship\u201d: A False Dichotomy
\nThomas F. King (Historic Preservation Consultant, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA) Building Heritage Management Capacity Through International Collaboration: The USDA Forest Service and Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities
\nAmalia Faustoferri (Superintendency of the Abruzzo, Italy), Anna Maria Sestieri (Chief, Superintendency of the Abruzzo, Italy), Mike Kaczor (USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA) and Kent Schneider (USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA, USA)
\nThe Impacts Of Forestry On Archaeology In Ireland With A Case Study Of Heritage Resource Management At Modoc National Forest, California
\nConor Dinneen Balancing registers thematically and the resultant conflicts between levels of significance: Some insights derived from a gaps analysis of the heritage of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania
\nJames C. Pritchard
\nProblems And Solutions In Archaeological Stewardship: Experiences From A State Archaeological Repository
\nElizabeth Pauls (presenter), Stephen Lensink, John Cordell and Melinda Ash (University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, Iowa)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nMarshall Faintich (USA) & Garth Lawrence (Canada)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThe focus of this session is to use remote sensing for Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization (EASC). This is the use of aerial and satellite imagery with or without ground based sensors to characterize the archaeological landscape and locate underground structures. Given limited time, people, and dollar resources, looking in the right or most probable places first is a good way to optimise limited resources before the sites are damaged by modern construction and\/or environmental pollutants.<\/p>\n
The session would try to limit papers that deal with remote sensing of known sites unless remote sensing enhances existing knowledge by expanding the archaeological boundaries or putting the site into a larger landscape structure. The use of remote sensing and close range photogrammetry of known structures for measurement and documentation is more appropriate in a theme of archaeological site preservation.<\/p>\n
A three hour session is proposed that would include six or seven papers and a panel discussion, on Remote Sensing Combined with Invasive Techniques for EASC<\/p>\n
Contact information:<\/p>\n
Dr. Marshall Faintich, Sensor Systems Inc. (US)
\nEmail: marshall.faintich@sensor.com<\/p>\n
Mr. Garth Lawrence, InterMap (Canada)
\nEmail: GLawrence@intermaptechnologies.com<\/p>\n
FORMAT:
\nRemote Sensing for Archaeology I, 11:30 \u2013 13:00<\/p>\n
11:30 \u2013 11:40 Introduction
\nMarshall Faintich<\/p>\n
11:40 \u2013 12:00 Remote Sensing at Angkor
\nRoland Fletcher and Damian Evans<\/p>\n
12:00 \u2013 12:20 The archaeological evaluation of integrated high and medium scale satellite imagery in Syria
\nAnthony Beck, Graham Philip, Daniel Donoghue, and Nikolaos Galiatsatos<\/p>\n
12:20 \u2013 12:40 Mapping the Ancient Maya Landscape from Space
\nThomas L. Sever and Daniel E. Irwin<\/p>\n
12:40 \u2013 13:00 Enhancing Survey Productivity: Remote Sensing Analysis of High Resolution Satellite Imagery to Locate Substantial Architectural Sites in a Mediterranean Environment (Rough Cilicia, Southern Turkey)
\nNicholas Rauh, Christopher Dore, and LuAnn Wandsnider<\/p>\n
Remote Sensing for Archaeology II, 16:00 \u2013 18:00<\/p>\n
16:00 – 16:20 NEXTMap Britain
\nGarth R. Lawrence<\/p>\n
16:20 \u2013 16:40 Understanding the Past \u2013 aerial survey, remote sensing, interpretation and management
\nRobert Bewley<\/p>\n
16:40 \u2013 17:00 Using Remotely Sensed Imagery for Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization
\nMarshall Faintich<\/p>\n
17:00 – 17:20 Using Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery and Reflectance Spectroscopy to Study Ceramic Production Areas at Ancestral Puebloan Sites in New Mexico
\nThomas Carr<\/p>\n
17:20 \u2013 17:40 Application of remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) for the mitigation of natural and archaeological landscapes of the Garrangu River Basin, Northern Iran
\nKamal Aldin Niknami<\/p>\n
17:40 \u2013 18:00 Q&A and Panel Discussion
\nAll Speakers<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nRemote Sensing At Angkor
\nRoland Fletcher and Damian Evans (Dept of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Australia) Using Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery and Reflectance Spectroscopy to Study Ceramic Production Areas at Ancestral Puebloan Sites in New Mexico.
\nThomas Carr (Staff Archaeologist, Colorado Historical Society-State Historical Fund, Denver, CO, USA)
\nUsing Remotely Sensed Imagery For Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization
\nMarshall Faintich (Vice President for Strategic Products, Sensor Systems, Inc., Sterling, VA, USA) Mapping the Ancient Maya Landscape from Space
\nThomas L. Sever, William Saturno and Daniel E. Irwin (NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA)
\nUnderstanding The Past \u2013 Aerial Survey, Remote Sensing, Interpretation And Management.
\nRobert Bewley (Head, Aerial Survey Section, English Heritage, London, UK) Enhancing Survey Productivity: Remote Sensing Analysis of High Resolution Satellite Imagery to Locate Substantial Architectural Sites in a Mediterranean Environment (Rough Cilicia, Southern Turkey)
\nNicholas Rauh (Associate Professor of History, Purdue University), Christopher Dore (Department of Anthropology, University of California-Berkeley) and LuAnn Wandsnider (Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Nebraska at Lincoln)
\nNEXTMap Britain
\nGarth R. Lawrence (Vice President Marketing, Intermap Technologies, Englewood, CO, USA) The archaeological evaluation of integrated high and medium scale satellite imagery in Syria
\nAnthony Beck, Graham Philip (Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, UK), Daniel Donoghue and Nikolaos Galiatsatos (Department of Geography, University of Durham, UK)
\nApplication Of Remote Sensing And Geographical Information Systems (GIS) For The Mitigation Of Natural And Archaeological Landscapes Of The Garrangu River Basin, Northern Iran
\nKamal Aldin Niknami (Department of Archaeology, University of Tehran)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 109<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nCarol McDavid (USA), Joe Watkins (USA) and Anna Agbe-Davies (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis panel discussion will attempt to critically examine the concepts we use in the “everyday” practice of public archaeology \u2013 consultation, collaboration, constituencies, descendants, community, empowerment, and politics, for example. We will attempt to cross over (or at least set aside) the boundaries between different types of archaeology (historical and prehistoric, as well as between different national and legislative systems) to explore deeper commonalities (and differences) between archaeological work in different contexts. We hope to discover connections and affinities outside of the arenas in which we normally work – to learn from colleagues whom we would not customarily encounter without explicitly trying to do so. To illustrate what is meant by “to critically examine certain concepts and words”, following is one detailed example:<\/p>\n
What effect does “consultation” have on both archaeologists and their constituent communities? How does this vary depending on political and social context? How is the word defined differently within different archaeological contexts? In the US, as a result of NAGPRA, the term has come to mean (for some archaeologists) a specific process mandated by legislation and codified in regulation. For other archaeologists, it operates on a more voluntary level and is not mandated or required, unless individual archaeologists choose to do it, and\/or individual constituent groups demand it. What can individual archaeologists do to enact “consultative” relationships when the descendant groups they work with are not empowered by legislation to be “consulted with”? How can they demand that non-mandated governmental agencies consult meaningfully with certain groups? How can descendant groups become empowered to demand an active role in determining how their ancestors’ pasts are researched and publicly interpreted? How can all stakeholders deploy historically situated political and social forces to create consultations that are seen to be meaningful and useful to other stakeholders? How does the idea of “consultation” play out in Europe, the Middle East, Central\/South America, Africa and other geographic regions? How do different legislative systems affect how this concept can, or cannot be, applied? What can archaeologists working in different contexts learn from each other about what consultation means – how does it change our discipline, and, more important, how does it (or can it) change society?<\/p>\n
Following are questions which might be used to examine two other “problematic” words archaeologists generally use: “collaboration” and “descendant community”.<\/p>\n
Is “collaboration” always seen as a “good thing”, or in some contexts – such as perhaps in Western European archaeology – does it come laden with different meanings related to specific historical context? Do some members of the public – and some archaeologists – define it differently than others?<\/p>\n
Should “descendant communities” necessarily be related by traceable lines of family connection? Or is it more properly conceived of as a larger, more amorphous concept, created by affiliations of common interest and, perhaps, the historical oppression of specific cultural groups? Either way – who is empowered to define what a “descendant community” is? The members of the community who claim membership? Governmental and quasi-governmental agencies who seek to work with “descendants”? Individual archaeologists who seek local support for their work? How does this vary by geographical, governmental, historical and disciplinary context?<\/p>\n
In sum, we hope that this symposium will allow us to look, critically and reflexively, at what it is that commonly taken-for-granted words and concepts do, in terms of the discipline and in society more generally. The final organization of the symposium will depend on the interests expressed by individual participants.<\/p>\n
Contact information:
\nCarol McDavid — University of Cambridge
\nDepartment of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
\n1638 Branard, Houston, Texas, 77006, USA
\n(713) 523-2649
\ncarol@publicarchaeology.org<\/p>\n
Joe Watkins — University of New Mexico and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
\nDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
\nand Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
\njwatkins@telepath.com<\/p>\n
Anna Agbe-Davies — University of Pennsylvania
\nDepartment of Archaeological Research (BHS)
\nThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
\nP O Box 1776
\nWilliamsburg, VA 23187-1776
\nPhone: (757) 565 8623
\nFax (757) 220 7990
\nAAgbe-Davies@CWF.ORG<\/p>\n
FORMAT:
\nRather than the standard set of papers followed by a discussant, each presenter will give a very short presentation (about five minutes) followed by up to three minutes of discussion\/Q&A on the specifics of that presentation. Once all presentations are completed, there will be a 40 minute moderated discussion between presenters and the audience on the ideas presented in the individual short presentations. Presenters will be expected to submit a paper or detailed outline for pre-circulation prior to the conference .
\nPresentations
\nWhose ‘significance’ Is ‘significant’?
\nJoe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) A Consideration of Power and “Partnerships”
\nJohn McCarthy (Historic Preservation Specialist – Archaeologist, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Allentown, USA)
\nMultiple Patrimonies In An Ancient Maya Landscape: Problematic Practices Of Archaeological Collaboration
\nTimoteo Rodriguez (University of California, Berkeley, USA) Thinking Beyond the Salt Pork: Archaeology and the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
\nDixie Henry (Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, USA)
\nArchaeology For All? The Ownership Of The Past In Quseir, Egypt
\nDarren Glazier (Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK) The death of a community archaeology project? Ensuring “consultation” in a non-mandated bureaucratic environment
\nCarol McDavid (Houston, Texas, USA)
\nCommunity Service
\nAnna S. Agbe-Davies (University of Pennsylvania, Department of Archaeological Research (BHS) & The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA) Examining School Outreach:
\nPatrice L. Jeppson (Philadelphia, USA)
\nDealing With A Plural Past: Archaeologists And Indigenous Communities In Argentina
\nMar\u00eda Luz Endere<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 106<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nLaurajane Smith (Australia) and Kevin Walsh (UK)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nOrganised by:
\nLaurajane Smith
\nDepartment of Archaeology,
\nUniversity of York,
\nThe King’s Manor,
\nYork, YO61 3QA, UK.
\nFax: +44 1904 433902
\nemail: ls18@york.ac.uk<\/p>\n
Kevin Walsh,
\nDepartment of Archaeology,
\nUniversity of York,
\nThe King’s Manor,
\nYork, YO61 3QA, UK.
\nFax: +44 1904 433902
\nemail: kjw7@york.ac.uk<\/p>\n
The association of ‘identity’ (either cultural, historical, social etc) with cultural heritage is well established in the heritage literature. However, to what extent does public policy, heritage law and practice, and museum display and curation policies and practices incorporate measures to facilitate the development and\/or maintenance of identity and to what extent do these provide room for any challenges to received ideas of identity and community? This session aims to examine the extent to which regional and local identity is defined and promoted in contrast to perceptions of national identity. These issues have particular resonance as the European Union moves to promote a sense of common European identity: To what extent are individual states promoting non-national identities? These issues also have importance in federated states and any country with ethnic\/cultural minorities.
\nPresentations
\n\u2018The Flowering Of The Cultures\u2019: The European Union And Regional Identity
\nDr Penny English (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, UK) Putting folk back into the nation – heritage strategies in Wales
\nDavid Thompson (Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, Wales, UK)
\nGlobalization And Iranian Identity
\nSaeid Golkar (Department of political science, University of Tehran) The Border Crossed Them: Archaeology and Identity in Hispanic Colorado
\nBonnie Clark (University of California, Berkeley, USA)
\nArchaeology: From Prehistory To History
\nMaria Beltr\u00e3o, Rhoneds Perez, Beatriz C. Penna and Gilson Koatz Archaeological Park for Caucasian Dolmens: Bridging the Gap between Academic Archaeology and the Public
\nViktor Trifonov
\nArcheology Of The Great Kanawha Navigation
\nRobert F. Maslowski (Archeologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 502 8th Street, Huntington, West Virginia, USA) Voices and Memories of a Cultural Landscape. Ezemvelo Nature Reserve, South Africa – a Cultural Environmental Approach
\nAnna C. Steyn (National Cultural History Museum, Northern Flagship Institution, Pretoria, South Africa, USA) and Duncan Macfadyen (Department of Research and Conservation, E. Oppenheimer and Son (Pty) Ltd, Marshalltown 2107 South Africa), Petri Viljoen (Environmental and Wildlife Consultant, PO Box 3124, White River 1240, South Africa)
\nCRM Planning And The Chad Export Project, 1999 – 2003
\nPierre Kinyock, Bienvenu Gouemgouem, Olivier Nkokonda, Philippe Lavachery (COTCO EMP Programme, Douala), Tchago Bouimon (FLSH, Universit\u00e9 de N\u2019Djam\u00e9na) and Scott MacEachern An Innovative Approach to the Management of Archaeological Sites: A case Study of Tham Lod Cave in Northern Thailand
\nKannika Suteerattanapirom (Department of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nCara Lee Blume (USA), Leonard Forsman (USA), Andrew Stout (USA) and Martha Flanigan (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nOrganised By
\nCara Lee Blume and Leonard Forsman
\nwith the assistance of Andrew Stout and Martha Flanigan<\/p>\n
Moderator
\nCara Lee Blume<\/p>\n
Discussant
\nLeonard Forsman<\/p>\n
In the past, decisions about the disposition and management of archaeological and other cultural resources have been made by members of dominant societies that are perceived (by those societies) as having specific academic or political qualifications to make these decisions. Increasingly, however, indigenous, descendant and local communities are insisting that they have a right to participate in the process. Many archaeologists have included the indigenous communities in their work, remembering their anthropological roots. Other archaeologists and researchers are recognizing the moral imperative to develop cooperative relationships with these communities. As tribal governments become more involved in cultural resource management, many questions arise, including:How is significance defined?What qualifications should Indian cultural resource managers possess?What is meaningful consultation?What is the political tolerance level for preservation of archaeological sites and traditional cultural places?<\/p>\n
This session focuses on the efforts of indigenous communities to bring their own perspectives to the management of cultural resources, but includes the efforts of non-indigenous archaeologists to include indigenous perspectives in their own management activities. The presenters that have been recruited are all from the United States, primarily because the laws and regulations that govern archaeological resource management at the national level encourage–or at least allow–the participation of indigenous communities. However, we believe that the variety of issues discussed in this session will have application wherever indigenous populations must interact with dominant societies to preserve their archaeological heritage.<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nWorking With The Keepers Of The Land: Creating Partnerships For Preservation And Management
\nCara Lee Blume (Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation, Dover, DE, USA) Developing a Holistic Program for Resource Management: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota
\nKade M. Ferris (Tribal Archaeologist\/Historic Preservation Officer\/Director of Natural Resources, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians)
\nSharing Power: Frameworks For Developing Partnerships With Native American Communities
\nMartin Gallivan (Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA USA) and Danielle Moretti-Langholtz (American Indian Resource Center, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA) The Battle at Black Creek
\nEarl Evans (Consultant, 8335 Garfield Ct., Springfield, VA, USA)
\nIntegrating Traditional Cultural Resources With Archaeological Resources In American Compliance Studies
\nAdeline Fredin (History\/Archaeology Department, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, WA , USA) Indigenizing Cultural Resource Management at the Academy
\nAndrea Hunter (Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ , USA)
\nTribal Landscape Values And Historic Preservation Project Review: An Example From Wisconsin, U.S.A
\nThomas F. King (PO Box 14515, Silver Spring MD, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla Center C<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nTomas Mendizabal and Alvaro Brizuela Casimir (Panama), Gerald A. Wait (UK) and Thomas R. Wheaton (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session will not be a traditional paper-reading session, but will instead present ideas and experiences in an attempt to spark a wide discussion among the panel and with the audience. The panelists will provide information from different perspectives to address the problems of running a private sector business in various countries, and also will address the question of whether the private sector can provide a partial or alternative solution to the managment of cultural heritage in different parts of the world, and especially in countries with limited monetary and governmental resources. The panel will represent the range of private companies conducting archaeology, including consulting companies, engineering companies, oil companies, etc. and will briefly discuss how the private sector works in their country, how their specific business operates, the regulatory climate under which projects are conducted, how quality and business ethics are maintained, the kinds of problems they have run into with government agencies, academia and the public, and how they have overcome those problems. This will be followed by a general discussion with the audience on the place of the private sector in international cultural heritage management, and whether it is a viable alternative for countries attempting to comply with the ever increasing demands of international lending institutions, national governments, and the public to take cultural resouces into consideration during development. A proposal to publish information and to continue the networking begun at WAC5 on the status of the private sector internationally will also be discussed.<\/p>\n
Alvaro Brizuela Casimir\/Tomas Mendizabal, Arqueolog\u00eda S.A., Panam\u00e1
\nGerald A. Wait, Gifford and Partners, Ltd., UK
\nJeffrey Altschul, Statistical Research, Inc. USA
\nMatthew Kelly, Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Australia
\nMargaret Gowne, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd., Ireland
\nMiguel Lago, Era-Arqueologia, Portugal
\nThomas R. Wheaton, American Cultural Resources Association, Inc. USA
\nCharles Niquette, Register of Professional Archaeologists, Inc. USA
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Pryzbyla 323<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nCheryl L. Huckerby (USA) and Vincent Gaffney (UK)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nRational:
\nIn many countries, the respective Departments of Defense control thousands if not millions of acres of land for military training, development of military related equipment and weaponry, and to support the military organization in general such as supply depots. Many acres of these lands contain archaeological resources that are important to the heritage of the local people as well as the nation. Based on the local and national heritage concerns, defense organizations have developed policies to manage these resources to preserve and conserve those archaeological resources considered most important. In addition, many countries host other nation’s forces and as such agreements are developed to help educate visiting forces on the local preservation and conservation procedures as they relate to the forces activities.<\/p>\n
The landscape is the major connection between military activities and archaeological resources. The resources were created over a period time through various depositional actions. In some cases they are stable and other they are not. Military activities use the landscape to maneuver using a variety of wheeled and tracked equipment. Other activities such as demolitions and general weapon usage cause damage to the landscape. The result is the possibility of damaging or completely destroying archaeological resources.<\/p>\n
The aim of this session is to examine the types of impacts suffered by archaeological resources during training and possibly wartime activities to identify ways of avoiding or reducing such damage. Also important are identifying effective awareness programs and management techniques.<\/p>\n
Proposed Format:
\nAbbreviated positions or arguments briefly presented by participants at the beginning of the session (summarizing their web-posted papers), followed by discussion among participants and\/or with the audience. It is anticipated that the number of papers and speakers will involve two 2-hour segments.<\/p>\n
Session Topics:
\nIntegration of Archaeological protection with Training Planning
\nProtection and Conservation Policy Development
\nTechniques and Tools for In situ Protection
\nSoldier Awareness programs
\nWartime Protection and Awareness Policies
\nHost Nation Policies and Integration in Visiting Nation training Planning
\nPresentations
\nTime Has No Boundaries: Archaeological Sites Along California\u2019s U.S.-Mexican Border
\nTherese Muranaka (Associate State Archaeologist, San Diego Coast District, California Department of Parks and Recreation, USA) and Cynthia Hernandez (Research Associate, Anthropology Program, University of San Diego)<\/p>\n
Cultural Resource Management: A comparison of the United States and British military practices
\nAllan Morton (Archaeologist, Defence Estates, Salisbury Plain Training Area, Tilshead, Wiltshire, UK)<\/p>\n
Improving Military Stewardship: Awareness And Integration Is The Key
\nCheryl L. Huckerby (Cultural Resource Program Manager, Environmental Division, Department of Public Works, III CORPS and Fort Hood, Texas, USA)<\/p>\n
Management of Archaeological Sites on the British Army\u2019s Training Areas in the United Kingdom
\nIan Barnes (Senior Environmental Advisor (Archaeology), Defence Estates, Land Warfare Centre Warminster, Wiltshire, UK) and Niall Hammond (Environmental Advisor (Archaeology), Defence Estates, Gough Road, Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire, UK)<\/p>\n
Clearing Up The Mess
\nJ. R Hunter (Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK)<\/p>\n
The Use of Remotely-Sensed Imagery in Cultural Landscape Characterisation at Fort Hood, Texas
\nGlynn Barratt<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nAndrew Stout (USA), Gamini Wjesuriya (NZ) and Frank McManamon (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nPublic policy concerning the protection and appropriate uses of archaeological resources is essential if modern nations are to preserve their histories and heritage. National systems and policies for the management of archaeological resources exist in a variety of different forms throughout the world. Effective systems must be supported by national statutes, regulations, and policies. But, these national systems must recognize, understand, and address local situations and concerns, as well. How effectively national management strategies operate at the local level often determines the success of such efforts.<\/p>\n
The proposed session provides an opportunity to describe and examine national and local strategies for managing archaeological resources with particular attention to implementation at the local level and the articulation of goals, policies, and methods. Effective advocacy in this new century requires those of us working in archaeological management to form alliances across cultural and political boundaries. Through an international, cross-cultural comparison of national and local archaeological resource management strategies it is our hope to reflect upon the variety of methodologies and approaches used by nation-states in managing resources and the operative phase of these policies and strategies at the local community level.
\nPresentations
\nPalaeolithic Heritage Management In The Bight Of Benin Region: The Case Of Asokrochona Site, S. E., Ghana
\nObar\u00e8 Bagodo (D\u00e9partement d’Histoire et d’Arch\u00e9ologie, Universit\u00e9 d’Abomey-Calavi, R\u00e9publique du B\u00e9nin) and Bolanle J. Tubosun (Department of Archaeology And Anthropology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria) Archaeological Resources and their managing by Scientific Institutes and Private Foundations in Bulgaria
\nAlexander Fol (Institute of Thracology-BAS, 13 Moscova Street, BG-1000, Sofia, Bulgaria), Dimitar Ivanov (Private Foundation \u201cArete\u201d, 13 Moscova Street, BG-1000, Sofia, Bulgaria), Valeria Fol, Maya Avramova and Irina Shopova (Institute of Thracology-BAS, 13 Moscova Street, BG-1000, Sofia, Bulgaria)
\nManaging A Legacy Of Politics, Elephants, Trees And Archaeological Sites
\nWC Nienaber (Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria) and J Verhoef (South African National Parks, PO Box 787, Pretoria) Neglect as policy and the challenges in the preservation of the cultural property of la Republique du Cameroun
\nPatrick Mbunwe Samba (P.O.Box 510 Bamenda, NW Province, Cameroon)
\nManaging The Cultural Landscape Of The Vale Of York, UK: The Impact Of The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund
\nAndy J. Howard (School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK) and Mark Whyman (York Archaeological Trust, York, UK) Environment preservation of archaeological monuments and sustainable development in India-Saving the Taj-Taj trapezium zone
\nS. K. Pachauri (Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi, India)
\nCollaborative Attitudes In The Context Of Archaeological Conservation In Brazil
\nMaria Isabel Kanan, Rossano Lopes Bastos (IPHAN – Instituto do Patrimonio Historico e Artistico Nacional), Jose Luiz de Morais (MAE – \/ USP – Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo) and Pedro Paulo Funari (UNICAMPI – Universidade de Campinas\/SP) Seeds of Hope for a New Era of Mexico\u00b4s Archaeological Conservation
\nLilia Lizama de Rogers, William Rogers, America Leal, Jesus Guillen and Carlos Macedonio
\nThe Postmodern Contest Of Values And Interests In Archaeological Management: Examples From New Zealand And Hawaii
\nIan Barber (Department of Anthropology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) The South Carolina Heritage Trust Program: Fifteen Years of Archaeological Site Acquisition
\nChristopher Judge (SCDNR, Columbia, SC, USA)
\n\u2018Speaking To Rubble Makes The Earth Rumble\u2019: Struggling Over A Crumbling Monument In Pangani, Tanzania
\nJonathan R. Walz (Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA) Archaeological Heritage Management in Countries of Transition: case study Slovenia
\nMarko L. Stokin (Senior conservator, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Slovenia, Vice-president ICOMOS\/SI), Matjaz Novsak (Arhej d.o.o, archaeological research firm) and Ana Plestenjak (Conservator, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage)
\nThe Private Sense Of Public Archaeology: An American Example
\nLynn M. Alex (Public Archaeology Coordinator, University of Iowa-Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, Iowa) Reintroducing People to their Pasts: the role of the Royal Commission in Wales
\nDavid M. Browne (Head of Publications and Outreach, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, UK)
\nGoing Local- Three Case Studies From Asia
\nGamini Wijesuriya Wetland Taphonomy: The Consequences of Environmental Degradation at Wetland Archaeology Sites
\nHeather Gill-Robinson (Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V5, Canada)
\nHeritage On Target Sanction: Archaeology And Donor Aid In The Third World Countries: The Case Of Zimbabwe\u2019s World Heritage Sites
\nMcEdward Murimbika (Archaeology, School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa) and Bhekinkosi Moyo (Department of Political Science, School of Social Sciences, The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 9AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 106<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nArlene K. Fleming (USA) and Steven Brandt (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nOrganised by:
\nArlene K. Fleming
\nCultural Resource Specialist
\nQuality Assurance and Compliance Unit,
\nWorld Bank
\n1818 H Street, N.W.,
\nWashington, D.C.<\/p>\n
Steven Brandt,
\nProfessor of Archaeology and Anthropology
\nUniversity of Florida<\/p>\n
The World Bank is in the final stage of converting its Operational Policy Note 11.03: Management of Cultural Property in Bank-financed Projects (dating from 1986) to Operational Policy and Bank Procedures 4.11: Physical Cultural Resources. This policy provides guidance concerning evaluation of potential impacts to physical cultural resources for projects financed by the World Bank, and will be implemented through the environmental assessment process. Application of the policy will require a broad awareness of its existence, terms and implications, among a variety of individuals and organizations. These include: cultural, environmental and construction officials, environmental assessment consultants, archaeologists, and other cultural heritage specialists. Implementation of the policy also may stimulate stock-taking and documentation of culturally significant sites and artifacts, and knowledge of the legal and administrative responsibility and procedures for management of physical cultural resources in client countries of the World Bank. A number of other lending and grant-making institutions concerned with investments for economic and social development share an interest in establishing effective methods for considering physical cultural resources in the process of identifying, preparing and implementing projects.<\/p>\n
Proposal and Participants<\/p>\n
The proposal is for three complementary activities to be organized by the Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit of the World Bank in coordination with WAC officials and organizers:<\/p>\n
A symposium bringing together representatives of multilateral development banks, with experts in environmental assessment, and archaeologists from client countries of the banks.
\nPresenters: A panel with a maximum of seven specialists, as follows:
\nMultilateral Development Banks
\nAsian Development Bank
\nInter-American Development Bank
\nWorld Bank
\nTwo Environmental Assessment Specialists
\nTwo Representatives of Archaeological Authorities from Client Countries
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 109<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Convened By Frank McManamon (USA) and Gamini Wijesuriya (New Zealand) Theme Details From its inception, the World Archaeological Congress has focused on the management of archaeological resources (Cleere 1989; McManamon and Hatton 2000), or how archaeological resources are cared for. WAC-5 continues this focus and tradition. Management issues relating to a wide range of archaeological … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":2159,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2194","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2194"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2194\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2784,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2194\/revisions\/2784"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}