Frank McManamon (USA) and Gamini Wijesuriya (New Zealand)
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 resources (sites, including some with substantial structures or structural features, collections, and records) all are considered within this management theme.
Management topics are categorized under three general headings: research, planning, and stewardship.
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.
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.
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.
Crosscutting subthemes are welcomed. Several can be suggested:
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
Francis P. McManamon
NPS Dept of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW (2275);
Washington, DC 20240-0001
phone: (+1) 202-354-2123
fax: (+1) 202 343-5260
Principal Regional Scientist
Department of Conservation
Hamilton, New Zealand
Fax: 0064-7-859 0001
Tel: 0064-7-858 0020
Advancing Access To Digital Data: Strategies For Preserving Archaeological Digital Records
Mary S. Carroll (USA), Arleyn Simon (USA) and Andrzej Prinke (Poland)
Mary S. Carroll
Archeology & Ethnography Program
National Park Service
Archaeological Research Institute
Arizona State University
Poznan Archaeological Museum
Papers of 15 – 17 minutes followed by an informal panel discussion by the participants
New 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 – 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.
From Data To Knowledge: Creating And Maintaining A Foundation For The Future
Mary S. Carroll (National Park Service, USA) The Archaeology Data Service: Strategies for Online Preservation and Access
Julian Richards (Archaeology Data Service, UK)
The Archaeological Data Archive Project
Harrison 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)
Andrzej Prinke (Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poland)
Archaeological Research Databases: Current And Future Preservation Strategies At ARI
Arleyn Simon, Destiny Crider, and Alanna Ossa (Arizona State University, USA) Managing and Maintaining Access to Archaeological Records – Library and Archival Implications
Jeremy Rowe (Arizona State University, USA)
I-Sites: An On-Line Database And Geographic Information System For Archaeology In Iowa, USA
Joe Alan Artz and Colleen R. Eck Information Data Archives: Management, Research and Information Distribution in a Secure, Controlled Environment
E.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)
Day Monday Date 23rd June
Time 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 109
From Compliance Toward Stewardship? International Perspectives On The Maturation Of Cultural/Heritage Resources Management
John P. McCarthy (USA) and Peter Howard (UK)
Cultural/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 “stewardship” 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 “stewardship” 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.
John P. McCarthy, RPA
Historic Preservation Specialist – Archaeologist
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Allentown, PA 19473 USA
(610) 798-4263 (voice)
(610) 798-4116 (fax)
Dr. Peter Howard
Editor, International Journal of Heritage Studies
Exeter EX5 3AF UK
Organization of the Session
This session is proposed for a three-hour time slot. The session will consist of eight presentations of 15 minutes length followed by Dr. Howard’s comments and a discussion lead by Dr. Howard. The suggested order of the presentations is as follows:
McCarthy: What is “Compliance?” – What is “Stewardship?” An Introduction
Robblee and Berkin: Strategies for Cultural Resources Management on Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in the United States
Hunter: Stewardship and Scale: the New Regionalism of Cultural Resource Management.
Glidden: “From California to the New York Island”: A Look at Exemplary Preservation Efforts at the Federal Highway Administration
Lassell and Karbula: Stewardship – of What, and by Whom?
Swidler and Zimmerman: Equity in Heritage Resource Management
Holm: Legislation and Argumentation – Changing Practices in Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management
King: Compliance” and “Stewardship.” A False Dichotomy
What Is “Compliance”? – What Is “Stewardship”? An Introduction
John 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
Patrick P. Robblee and Jon Berkin (Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, USA)
“From California To The New York Island”: A Look At Exemplary Preservation Efforts At The Federal Highway Administration
Catherine Glidden (Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA) Stewardship – of What, and by Whom?
Susan E. Lassell and James Karbula (Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas, USA)
Equity In Heritage Resource Management
Nina Swidler and David Zimmerman (The Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, Window Rock, Arizona, USA) Legislation and Argumentation – Changing Practices in Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management
Ingunn Holm (Research Fellow, University of Bergen, Norway)
“Compliance” And “Stewardship”: A False Dichotomy
Thomas 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
Amalia 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)
The Impacts Of Forestry On Archaeology In Ireland With A Case Study Of Heritage Resource Management At Modoc National Forest, California
Conor 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
James C. Pritchard
Problems And Solutions In Archaeological Stewardship: Experiences From A State Archaeological Repository
Elizabeth Pauls (presenter), Stephen Lensink, John Cordell and Melinda Ash (University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, Iowa)
Day Thursday Date 26th June
Time 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106
Remote Sensing For Archaeology
Marshall Faintich (USA) & Garth Lawrence (Canada)
The 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.
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.
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
Dr. Marshall Faintich, Sensor Systems Inc. (US)
Mr. Garth Lawrence, InterMap (Canada)
Remote Sensing for Archaeology I, 11:30 – 13:00
11:30 – 11:40 Introduction
11:40 – 12:00 Remote Sensing at Angkor
Roland Fletcher and Damian Evans
12:00 – 12:20 The archaeological evaluation of integrated high and medium scale satellite imagery in Syria
Anthony Beck, Graham Philip, Daniel Donoghue, and Nikolaos Galiatsatos
12:20 – 12:40 Mapping the Ancient Maya Landscape from Space
Thomas L. Sever and Daniel E. Irwin
12:40 – 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)
Nicholas Rauh, Christopher Dore, and LuAnn Wandsnider
Remote Sensing for Archaeology II, 16:00 – 18:00
16:00 – 16:20 NEXTMap Britain
Garth R. Lawrence
16:20 – 16:40 Understanding the Past – aerial survey, remote sensing, interpretation and management
16:40 – 17:00 Using Remotely Sensed Imagery for Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization
17:00 – 17:20 Using Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery and Reflectance Spectroscopy to Study Ceramic Production Areas at Ancestral Puebloan Sites in New Mexico
17:20 – 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
Kamal Aldin Niknami
17:40 – 18:00 Q&A and Panel Discussion
Remote Sensing At Angkor
Roland 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.
Thomas Carr (Staff Archaeologist, Colorado Historical Society-State Historical Fund, Denver, CO, USA)
Using Remotely Sensed Imagery For Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization
Marshall Faintich (Vice President for Strategic Products, Sensor Systems, Inc., Sterling, VA, USA) Mapping the Ancient Maya Landscape from Space
Thomas L. Sever, William Saturno and Daniel E. Irwin (NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA)
Understanding The Past – Aerial Survey, Remote Sensing, Interpretation And Management.
Robert 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)
Nicholas 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)
Garth R. Lawrence (Vice President Marketing, Intermap Technologies, Englewood, CO, USA) The archaeological evaluation of integrated high and medium scale satellite imagery in Syria
Anthony Beck, Graham Philip (Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, UK), Daniel Donoghue and Nikolaos Galiatsatos (Department of Geography, University of Durham, UK)
Application Of Remote Sensing And Geographical Information Systems (GIS) For The Mitigation Of Natural And Archaeological Landscapes Of The Garrangu River Basin, Northern Iran
Kamal Aldin Niknami (Department of Archaeology, University of Tehran)
Day Wednesday Date 25th June
Time 11.30AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 109
Collaboration, Consultation, Descendants And More: Looking Reflexively At The Concepts Archaeologists Use
Carol McDavid (USA), Joe Watkins (USA) and Anna Agbe-Davies (USA)
This panel discussion will attempt to critically examine the concepts we use in the “everyday” practice of public archaeology – 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:
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?
Following are questions which might be used to examine two other “problematic” words archaeologists generally use: “collaboration” and “descendant community”.
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?
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?
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.
Carol McDavid — University of Cambridge
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
1638 Branard, Houston, Texas, 77006, USA
Joe Watkins — University of New Mexico and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Anna Agbe-Davies — University of Pennsylvania
Department of Archaeological Research (BHS)
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
P O Box 1776
Williamsburg, VA 23187-1776
Phone: (757) 565 8623
Fax (757) 220 7990
Rather 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 .
Whose ‘significance’ Is ‘significant’?
Joe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) A Consideration of Power and “Partnerships”
John McCarthy (Historic Preservation Specialist – Archaeologist, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Allentown, USA)
Multiple Patrimonies In An Ancient Maya Landscape: Problematic Practices Of Archaeological Collaboration
Timoteo Rodriguez (University of California, Berkeley, USA) Thinking Beyond the Salt Pork: Archaeology and the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Dixie Henry (Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, USA)
Archaeology For All? The Ownership Of The Past In Quseir, Egypt
Darren Glazier (Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK) The death of a community archaeology project? Ensuring “consultation” in a non-mandated bureaucratic environment
Carol McDavid (Houston, Texas, USA)
Anna S. Agbe-Davies (University of Pennsylvania, Department of Archaeological Research (BHS) & The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA) Examining School Outreach:
Patrice L. Jeppson (Philadelphia, USA)
Dealing With A Plural Past: Archaeologists And Indigenous Communities In Argentina
María Luz Endere
Day Monday Date 23rd June
Time 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 106
Regional Identities Within Supra-National And Global Contexts
Laurajane Smith (Australia) and Kevin Walsh (UK)
Department of Archaeology,
University of York,
The King’s Manor,
York, YO61 3QA, UK.
Fax: +44 1904 433902
Department of Archaeology,
University of York,
The King’s Manor,
York, YO61 3QA, UK.
Fax: +44 1904 433902
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.
‘The Flowering Of The Cultures’: The European Union And Regional Identity
Dr Penny English (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, UK) Putting folk back into the nation – heritage strategies in Wales
David Thompson (Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, Wales, UK)
Globalization And Iranian Identity
Saeid Golkar (Department of political science, University of Tehran) The Border Crossed Them: Archaeology and Identity in Hispanic Colorado
Bonnie Clark (University of California, Berkeley, USA)
Archaeology: From Prehistory To History
Maria Beltrão, Rhoneds Perez, Beatriz C. Penna and Gilson Koatz Archaeological Park for Caucasian Dolmens: Bridging the Gap between Academic Archaeology and the Public
Archeology Of The Great Kanawha Navigation
Robert 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
Anna 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)
CRM Planning And The Chad Export Project, 1999 – 2003
Pierre Kinyock, Bienvenu Gouemgouem, Olivier Nkokonda, Philippe Lavachery (COTCO EMP Programme, Douala), Tchago Bouimon (FLSH, Université de N’Djaména) and Scott MacEachern An Innovative Approach to the Management of Archaeological Sites: A case Study of Tham Lod Cave in Northern Thailand
Kannika Suteerattanapirom (Department of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand)
Day Monday Date 23rd June
Time 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106
Multiple Perspectives In Cultural Resource Management
Cara Lee Blume (USA), Leonard Forsman (USA), Andrew Stout (USA) and Martha Flanigan (USA)
Cara Lee Blume and Leonard Forsman
with the assistance of Andrew Stout and Martha Flanigan
Cara Lee Blume
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?
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.
Working With The Keepers Of The Land: Creating Partnerships For Preservation And Management
Cara 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
Kade M. Ferris (Tribal Archaeologist/Historic Preservation Officer/Director of Natural Resources, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians)
Sharing Power: Frameworks For Developing Partnerships With Native American Communities
Martin 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
Earl Evans (Consultant, 8335 Garfield Ct., Springfield, VA, USA)
Integrating Traditional Cultural Resources With Archaeological Resources In American Compliance Studies
Adeline Fredin (History/Archaeology Department, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, WA , USA) Indigenizing Cultural Resource Management at the Academy
Andrea Hunter (Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ , USA)
Tribal Landscape Values And Historic Preservation Project Review: An Example From Wisconsin, U.S.A
Thomas F. King (PO Box 14515, Silver Spring MD, USA)
Day Sunday Date 22nd June
Time 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla Center C
Is The Private Sector Part Of The Solution For International Cultural Heritage Management?
Tomas Mendizabal and Alvaro Brizuela Casimir (Panama), Gerald A. Wait (UK) and Thomas R. Wheaton (USA)
This 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.
Alvaro Brizuela Casimir/Tomas Mendizabal, Arqueología S.A., Panamá
Gerald A. Wait, Gifford and Partners, Ltd., UK
Jeffrey Altschul, Statistical Research, Inc. USA
Matthew Kelly, Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Australia
Margaret Gowne, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd., Ireland
Miguel Lago, Era-Arqueologia, Portugal
Thomas R. Wheaton, American Cultural Resources Association, Inc. USA
Charles Niquette, Register of Professional Archaeologists, Inc. USA
Day Thursday Date 26th June
Time 9-11AM Room Pryzbyla 323
Military Impacts And Stewardship Of Archaeological Resources
Cheryl L. Huckerby (USA) and Vincent Gaffney (UK)
In 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.
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.
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.
Abbreviated 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.
Integration of Archaeological protection with Training Planning
Protection and Conservation Policy Development
Techniques and Tools for In situ Protection
Soldier Awareness programs
Wartime Protection and Awareness Policies
Host Nation Policies and Integration in Visiting Nation training Planning
Time Has No Boundaries: Archaeological Sites Along California’s U.S.-Mexican Border
Therese 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)
Cultural Resource Management: A comparison of the United States and British military practices
Allan Morton (Archaeologist, Defence Estates, Salisbury Plain Training Area, Tilshead, Wiltshire, UK)
Improving Military Stewardship: Awareness And Integration Is The Key
Cheryl L. Huckerby (Cultural Resource Program Manager, Environmental Division, Department of Public Works, III CORPS and Fort Hood, Texas, USA)
Management of Archaeological Sites on the British Army’s Training Areas in the United Kingdom
Ian 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)
Clearing Up The Mess
J. R Hunter (Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK)
The Use of Remotely-Sensed Imagery in Cultural Landscape Characterisation at Fort Hood, Texas
Day Wednesday Date 25th June
Time 9AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 106
‘Think Nationally; Act Locally’: Articulations Between National & Local Archeological Programs
Andrew Stout (USA), Gamini Wjesuriya (NZ) and Frank McManamon (USA)
Public 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.
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.
Palaeolithic Heritage Management In The Bight Of Benin Region: The Case Of Asokrochona Site, S. E., Ghana
Obarè Bagodo (Département d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, République du Bénin) 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
Alexander Fol (Institute of Thracology-BAS, 13 Moscova Street, BG-1000, Sofia, Bulgaria), Dimitar Ivanov (Private Foundation “Arete”, 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)
Managing A Legacy Of Politics, Elephants, Trees And Archaeological Sites
WC 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
Patrick Mbunwe Samba (P.O.Box 510 Bamenda, NW Province, Cameroon)
Managing The Cultural Landscape Of The Vale Of York, UK: The Impact Of The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund
Andy 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
S. K. Pachauri (Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi, India)
Collaborative Attitudes In The Context Of Archaeological Conservation In Brazil
Maria 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´s Archaeological Conservation
Lilia Lizama de Rogers, William Rogers, America Leal, Jesus Guillen and Carlos Macedonio
The Postmodern Contest Of Values And Interests In Archaeological Management: Examples From New Zealand And Hawaii
Ian Barber (Department of Anthropology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) The South Carolina Heritage Trust Program: Fifteen Years of Archaeological Site Acquisition
Christopher Judge (SCDNR, Columbia, SC, USA)
‘Speaking To Rubble Makes The Earth Rumble’: Struggling Over A Crumbling Monument In Pangani, Tanzania
Jonathan R. Walz (Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA) Archaeological Heritage Management in Countries of Transition: case study Slovenia
Marko 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)
The Private Sense Of Public Archaeology: An American Example
Lynn 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
David M. Browne (Head of Publications and Outreach, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, UK)
Going Local- Three Case Studies From Asia
Gamini Wijesuriya Wetland Taphonomy: The Consequences of Environmental Degradation at Wetland Archaeology Sites
Heather Gill-Robinson (Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V5, Canada)
Heritage On Target Sanction: Archaeology And Donor Aid In The Third World Countries: The Case Of Zimbabwe’s World Heritage Sites
McEdward 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)
Day Sunday Date 22nd June
Time 9AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room O’Boyle 106
Archaeology And The Development Process
Arlene K. Fleming (USA) and Steven Brandt (USA)
Arlene K. Fleming
Cultural Resource Specialist
Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit,
1818 H Street, N.W.,
Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology
University of Florida
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.
Proposal and Participants
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:
A symposium bringing together representatives of multilateral development banks, with experts in environmental assessment, and archaeologists from client countries of the banks.
Presenters: A panel with a maximum of seven specialists, as follows:
Multilateral Development Banks
Asian Development Bank
Inter-American Development Bank
Two Environmental Assessment Specialists
Two Representatives of Archaeological Authorities from Client Countries
Day Monday Date 23rd June
Time 11.30AM-1PM Room O’Boyle 109