RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION, FRANKFURT A. M. des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (original) (raw)
Related papers
One of the most compelling and stimulating developments in current Archaeology is the consolidation of the archaeology of the contemporary era as an autonomous field within the discipline, with its own theoretical framework, methodologies and work agenda. However, its short life makes contemporary archaeology an academic field to be further constructed and developed both theoretically and thematically and thus, full of possibilities of discussion. Moreover, its regional development is still very unequal, which makes it a perfect topic for the exchange of ideas between different historiographies, tendencies and experiences. Within these range of new possibilities of development of contemporary archaeology one of the more compelling is its connection with local communities and community archaeologies. The emotional proximity of the events analysed by contemporary archaeology and its material dimension makes it an ideal arena for the construction of local identities and historical narratives which may stimulate debates and heritage concerns at the level of the local. This is specially true regarding the heritage of the traumatic and conflictive recent past which has emerged as one of the most influential topics within contemporary archaeology. How archaeology may transcend the immediacy of the materiality of the conflict towards a social and political approach? How local communities experience and engage with this type of materiality? What are the possibilities of community archaeology in contexts of conflict? This workshop aims to gather different experts and experiences in order to discuss the potentialities of contemporary archaeology and, in particular, its capacity to interact with local communities. Through different cases studies, we will consider the potentialities and setbacks of the relationship between contemporary archaeology and community archaeology as a way to foster new agendas and solutions for current problems and concerns.
Stories We Tell: Myths at the Heart of ‘Community Archaeology’
Archaeologies, 2011
This paper forms part of a project to attempt to understand what we are really doing when we engage in the practices of public archaeology and heritage. It starts from the premise that there is no necessary correlation between intention and outcome, nor that practice follows belief. Instead, we construct our ideas about the world, about ourselves, our values and associations from what we do. The stories told here raise issues about the ability of archaeology to change the world and the distinction that we can too easily blur between professional expertise and citizenship.
Archaeology and the Construction of Community Identities
Archaeology for All. Community Archaeology in the Early 21st Century: Participation, Practice and Impact, edited by M. Nevell and N. Redhead, 2015
The concept of ‘community archaeology’ has now become commonplace, and its practice is increasingly widespread, even though there is much ambiguity and debate about what it involves. This article examines why the idea of community has become such an important aspect of policy and practice in relation to the historic environment. It also asks ‘what is the link between archaeology and community?’, ‘how are community identities and senses of place formed?’, and ‘how do archaeological remains and archaeological research figure in these processes?’
Gabe Moshenska, Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, 2017
ISBN: 978-1-911576-44-0 (Hbk.) ISBN: 978-1-911576-43-3 (Pbk.) ISBN: 978-1-911576-41-9 (PDF) ISBN: 978-1-911576-40-2 (epub) ISBN: 978-1-911576-42-6 (mobi) ISBN: 978-1-787350-78-6 (html) ISBN: 978-1-911307-71-6 (Apple app) ISBN: 978-1-911307-72-3 (Android app) This publication was made possible by funding from Jisc as part of the 'Institution as e-textbook publisher' project: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/institution-as-e-textbook-publisher.
Introduction: "Community-Oriented Archaeology"
Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 2014
D efining the relationship b e tw e e n a rc h a e o lo g y a n d th e people it studies has always been an elu sive undertaking. T he people o f the past are long gone by the time archaeologists arrive to tell th eir stories. W hat exactly we can and cannot say about them o r on th eir b eh a lf from th e im perfectly p re served an d n o n -rep resentative sam ple o f th e ir m aterial g estures is not, a n d never has been, very clear. Many archae ologists have, we think, underestim ated the complexity o f this problem . Archae ologists seem to expect the relationships between things and culture, culture and individuals, the past an d the present to be straightforw ard, w hen all evidence from the anthropology of o u r own expe riences suggests otherw ise. In the p re sent th ere is some correlation between m aterial things an d th eir roles in p eo p le's lives, b u t the reality, as anyone who has had a favourite coffee m ug or a dis like for specific places knows, is com plex and varied. T he distance between what we th in k ourselves to be capable o f as cu ltu ral beings a n d w hat we define as the subject o f o th er peoples' history is a m easure o f these limitations. Despite o ur hopes th at the past is understandable in o u r own terms, it seems likely th at this is as m uch an ethnocentric aspiration as a scholarly truth. M artindale and Nicholas (this volume) argue that such bias serves us well when the archaeologists are part o f the descent com m unity o f the people being studied, b u t generates ethnocen tric barriers to o u r perception when the arch aeo lo g ical-su b ject re la tio n sh ip is m ore distant. T here has always existed a double standard in archaeology on this front, one that reflects a wider asymme try in which som e ways of knowing the past are valued while others are not. T he im balance favours the dom inant cultural community, which in the cu rren t politi cal context Atalay 2007:253) defines as "western". H ere we refer n o t ju st to the declarative value o f considering m ulti ple points of view (which has increased lately), b u t to th e dem onstrable effort to do so, which as many papers in this special issue argue, requires disciplinary concessions o f privilege and forthright scrutiny about ethnocentrism . As with any subaltern dynam ic, th e asym m etry is m o re visible to th o se w ho occupy m arginalized p o in ts o f view, which in N orth Am erican archaeology at least, is prim arily Indigenous (although similar relatio n sh ip s exist in th e archaeology o f A frican-A m erican, L atino, C hinese a n d o th e r c o m m u n itie s). T h o se w ho are n o t m arginalized by the structural asym m etries o f pow er do n o t perceive
The archaeologists within: Uniting different interests in heritage within a contentious setting
Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 2022
In this article, I argue for the value of community inclusion, transparency, and engagement in efforts to change attitudes towards archaeology, using a case from Åland, an autonomous archipelago in the Baltic Sea. With its own legislation concerning the protection of archaeological sites, archaeology on Åland has been a contentious subject for decades. This culminated in 2013 with the controversial trial and conviction of a family for severely and knowingly damaging one of the Stone Age sites on Åland. Against this backdrop, I initiated a project concerning an Iron Age settlement site. I discuss my experience of setting up an independent research project with a focus on publicly engaged archaeology and storytelling within an initially hostile framework, and in a region where archaeology is highly professionalized. The article also illustrates how friction around a community-oriented project can arise between stakeholders as a result of the social dynamics of archaeology itself.
Public Archaeology: Theoretical Approaches & Current Practices, Introduction
Public Archaeology: Theoretical Approaches & Current Practices , 2019
This volume explores the relationship between archaeology and contemporary society, especially as it concerns local communities living day-today alongside archaeological heritage. The contributors come from a range of disciplines and offer inspiring views emerging from the marriage of archaeology with a number of other fields, such as economics, social anthropology, ethnography, public policy, oral history and tourism studies, to form the discipline of 'public archaeology'. There is growing interest in investigating the meanings of archaeological assets and archaeological landscapes, and this volume targets these issues with case studies from Greece, Italy, Turkey and elsewhere. The book addresses both general readers and scholars with an interest in how archaeological assets affect and are affected by people's understanding of landscape and identity. It also touches upon the roles played in these interactions by public policy, international conventions, market economies and the theoretical frameworks of public archaeology. Front cover: Döşemeboğazı-ancient road, Kovanlık, Antalya (photo Ekin Kazan) Back cover: Ariassos arch-gateway to the city, Akkoç, Antalya (photo Ekin Kazan) ISBN 978 1 912090 80 8
Heritage and the New Immigrant Minorities: A Catalyst of Relevance for Contemporary Archaeology?
Biehl & Prescott: Heritage in the context of globalization, 2013
In Europe, the development of archaeology and cultural heritage is often bound up with projects associated with the consolidation of nation states, and national and regional identities. This symbiotic relationship has a 150-year-long success rate. From the 1960s to 1970s the use of this recipe has been expanded to political projects related to indigenous groups. The concept of identity is still used to ground legislation and award financial support. Ironically, simplistic ascription of contemporary ethnic or national identities to the prehistoric record is widely regarded as theoretically dubious within the professional archaeological community. Furthermore, the identity narrative is conceivably rendered increasingly irrelevant in western and northern Europe due to the large immigrant groups from outside the continent—immigration that is also changing perceptions of relevance among younger members of the European population. Questions concerning archaeology and identity, and the narratives we tell the public, are thus becoming more acute. Based on the case study of contemporary Norway, the article sketches the conceptual basis for heritage work and the resulting archaeological narratives in a dramatically changed, globalized Europe and discusses implications for academic, public outreach, political and ethical practices.