EAC HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR 2013
In situ preservation: management and presentation
THURSDAY, MARCH 21st 2013
Hotel Butrinti in Saranda, Albania
Programme
13.30-13:45: Set-up, ideas and background by Roland Olli and Hans Mestdagh
Introduction by Roland Olli (Ministria e Turizmit, Kultures, Rinise dhe Sporteve; Agjencia e
Sherbimit Arkeologjik, ALBANIA)
13:45-14:45: SESSION 1: Concept and design
Chairman of session: Hans Mestdagh (Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed; BELGIUM)
Gjergj Frasheri (Stadt- und Landschaftsarchäologie, GERMANY–ALBANIA).
The positive experiences and limited opportunities in the present application of rescue
archaeology under the Malta Convention in Albania
The Albanian state was established a relatively short time ago and consequently it has a limited
experience in state protection of the archaeological heritage, including rescue work. Albanian
archaeology was founded in the Republic of Albania after the World War II in the period 1944 to
1960. The Albanian Classical Archaeological School was established during the period of the
dictatorship (1960-1990), with the contribution mainly of local archaeologists. Despite the political,
ideological and socio-cultural isolation of Albania in relation to Western Europe, the results obtained
in the protection and rescue of the archaeological heritage up to the end of the 80s fulfilled
satisfactorily the goals of the standards of the London Convention of 1969.
At the time of the approval of the Valletta Convention in Malta on 16th January 1992, essential
political, economic and social changes were taking place in Albania. The state lost the political
centralism of the dictatorship. The country embarked on the path of a pluralistic society with private
property. However, in Albania, the replacement of state property with private property (Law no. 7501,
dated 19.07.1991) was not preceded by legal provision and was not accompanied by governmental
reforms aimed at the protection of cultural heritage and archaeological property. The Albanian state
ratified the Valletta Convention (1992) in February 2008, i.e. 16 years later. This delay caused the
greatest damage to archaeological heritage in Albanian history.
During the period 1992-2008 on, despite the values set out in the Valletta Convention, there were in
Albania a number of negative developments in protection of archaeological heritage. A number of
negative consequences are listed below:
a) Since 1992, state control was lost over the looting of works of art and archaeological objects
(Epitafi i Gllavinices example), a phenomenon that has reached epidemic proportions today.
b) The archaeological heritage received the greatest shock after the enactment of the law 7501 in 1991,
which caused a Construction Boom in historical city centres and archaeological sites without
permission and without the presence of an archaeologist (the Durrës example).
c) Another shock was received by archaeology in Albania in the last two decades from the lack of
documentation of objects and archaeological substance during excavations, before its disappearance or
its being damaged. This has happened not only to the material damaged or stolen by the treasure
hunters, looters and traffickers. Scientific documentation of excavations and processing of their results
is often not carried out in accordance with the rules, not even by archaeologists in the country’s
institutions. Proper documentation is sometimes not even done by foreign institutions or
archaeologists operating in Albania with their own funding. Such archaeologists, in the absence of
state control, are often satisfied with exploration alone and do not provide for documentation of the
results.
With the establishment of the Archaeological Service Agency (ASA) in May 2008 at the Ministry of
Culture (MTCYS) in Tirana, under the guidelines of the Valletta Convention, the management of
rescue archaeology in Albania changed for the better in terms of technical, organizational and legal
aspects. This was especially so in regard to the work of raising the awareness of Albanian investors
regarding their legal obligation to finance rescue archaeology. Particular achievements are:
(a)
The successful rescue excavations carried out by private firms which demonstrate an up to
date professional level and capacity to cope with huge excavations;
(b)
The equipping of ASA's organisation with the capacity to determine archaeological potential
through surveys, drillings, soundings, etc., in different regions of the country. As well, the gaining of
positive experience of ASA in the coordination, harmonization of, and control over, excavations by
private entities and the legal and organizational efforts;
c) The engaging of ASA to extend the effectiveness of the Valletta Convention in limiting the
countless so-called "scientific" excavations carried out by universities, local and foreign expeditions,
which after the excavation abandon the archaeological material on the site without care, maintenance
and conservation of any kind leading to its degradation;
(d)
The taking of responsibility by ASA for documenting the damage currently caused in Albania
by illegal and clandestine archaeological work for trafficking purposes;
(e)
Finding a theoretical concept and practical solution for rescuing archaeological finds in the
piles of "Archaeological Garbage" thrown away in the last two decades.
After two decades the standards of the Malta Convention have not yet given rise in Albania to
necessary reforms to the structures for the protection of archaeological heritage and cultural
monuments. The first priority must be a reform of state institutions in these fields, institutions which
have lost the legal and social basis they had during the period of the dictatorship and which since 1991
have not been efficient in protecting the archaeological heritage. We seek realistic reform, in line with
the current political and economic conditions and above all with the current mentality and social
problems of the citizens and investors of this country.
14:45–15:45: SESSION 2: Monitoring of archaeological remains in situ
Chairman of session: Sean Kirwan (National Monuments Service, IRELAND)
Hans Huisman (Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, NETHERLANDS)
Development and future of archaeological monitoring
The 1980’s and 1990’s saw the emergence of a new field of study in archaeology: development and
implementation of the Valletta treaty made conservation of archaeological sites in situ a main issue.
The execution of preservation in situ projects needed a scientific basis. This sparked a series of
research projects and pilot projects. Some aimed at elucidating degradation processes of specific
materials, and the effects of burial conditions. Others developed methods and techniques to assess and
monitor the burial environment. In a series of pilot projects this knowledge was applied and techniques
tested during assessments, monitoring and - in some cases – physical protection of archaeological
sites. In the last decade, the focus has shifted more towards dissemination of information and towards
standardization of techniques and decision making processes.
After this development of several decades, we are now at a stage that we can look back to evaluate the
results of these efforts: it is clear that a large step forward has been made. There is a good overview of
degradation processes and their relation to the burial environment. There is a range of techniques for
assessing and monitoring the burial environment. And guidelines, best practices and reports from pilot
projects help in the design and execution of assessment and monitoring projects on archaeological
sites. For the future, new opportunities lie in the growing general availability of useful data that is
collected for other purposes like groundwater levels and satellite images.
Several problems can also be identified, however: (1) We have very little notion of the speed of decay
processes. This makes it difficult to distinguish between acute degradation which would destroy
archaeological remains within a generation and processes that are so slow that they should be regarded
as part of the normal (taphonomical) development of an archaeological site. (2) The published
assessment and monitoring techniques rely (too?) heavily on complex and costly specialist technology.
Wider implementation would be greatly simplified by replacing “technology heavy” analyses with
“low-tech” observations wherever possible. (3) Monitoring of archaeological sites is difficult to
finance. (4) The focus on knowledge and technology obscures the actual goal. As a result, it is often
unclear what the purpose is of monitoring projects, under what circumstances a site is considered to be
in danger and who is responsible for mitigation if this is the case.
For the future of in situ preservation of archaeological sites, the focus needs to be put on these
problems. In the Netherlands, new initiatives are taken to address these issues. The goal is to develop
an approach that couples low-tech observations, best estimates of decay rates and archaeological site
information to make a good and efficient prediction of the effects of decay on the archaeological
record. Decisions on protection and mitigation will be taken on the basis of this prediction. Monitoring
for preservation purposes is only considered appropriate if (1) decay processes occur on a relevant and
measurable time scale and (2) if the results from the monitoring are adverse, mitigating measures can
be taken or a rescue excavation can be done to preserve the archaeological remains ex situ.
Ebru Torun - Jeroen Poblome (University of Leuven, Sagalassos Archaeological Research
Project, TURKEY)
Managing the Change: From Conservation to Heritage Management at Sagalassos
This paper presents the evolution of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project from a purely
academic practice in interdisciplinary archaeological research into a complex heritage management
case. The project is a large-scale undertaking involving urban excavation and territorial survey in
Southwest Turkey, exposing the ancient city of Sagalassos over the last 23 years. The same two
decades have also been a remarkable period for the disciplines of archaeology and conservation,
bringing about fundamental changes both in theory and practice, paving the way towards an integrated
heritage management. The process was instigated by several international charters and European
conventions among which the Valletta and the more recent Florence Conventions can be cited as the
most significant (Willems 2007; Antrop 2012). Even if just for this overlap, the Sagalassos Project is
an appropriate case study to observe the reaction of archaeological practice to theoretical, legislative,
social and economic change. The paper evaluates briefly the past 20 years of scientific work at
Sagalassos discussing its interdisciplinary structure and relation to conservation. We then consider the
challenges faced by the project today, in particular the need to adapt to change, the initial steps being
taken to put in place a management framework and the reforms which will follow from this with the
aim of adopting a heritage management vision.
15:45–16:15: coffee break
16:15–17:15: SESSION 3: (Archaeo)tourism
Chairwoman of session: Cynthia Dunning (Archaeoconcept, SWITZERLAND)
George Cassar (Institute for Tourism, Travel & Culture, MALTA)
Heritage sites and tourism: two sides of the same coin?
In recent years a debate has been unfolding on the relationship between heritage sites and tourism.
While it is generally accepted that archaeological and other cultural sites need to be preserved and
protected, it is also stressed that these need to be sustainably managed and to do this substantial
funding is necessary. While the discussion continues, cultural and touristic activities cannot be
sidelined as both are realities of strategic importance, especially in modern and advanced societies. In
this context countries with much to offer, and many sites to conserve, have embarked on studies and
management projects with the objective of striking a balance between preserving national and world
heritage sites for future generations while concurrently offering them for the cultural enjoyment and
education of the present-day visitor, obtaining much needed funds in the process. Malta, an island
wealthy in archaeological and other heritage sites, has done no less. With a population of about
410,000, Malta has a yearly tourist rate which in 2012 reached 1.5 million with another 500,000 day
visitors coming on cruise liners. The challenge is therefore huge and the management and conservation
aspects are thus on the daily agenda of both Heritage Malta and the Malta Tourism Authority. While
Malta is alert to learn from the experience of other countries, it too has its own good practices to
contribute.
Thomas Pauli (Schloss Wildegg, SWITZERLAND)
Legionary Trail: Archaeology on original setting is becoming an adventure!
Six thousand legionaries once prepared themselves for their mission in the camp of Vindonissa. They
introduced not only Roman warfare, but also Mediterranean savoir-vivre and cultural achievements.
The great legacy they left in situ is testified to by over a thousand archaeological excavations. But this
cultural heritage was very little known to the public: just a few years ago, the museum educational
service was no more than some weathered signboards. Only a handful of visitors came to this very
important archaeological site.
Today, everything has changed: the Roman soldiers are brought back to life. One can see and
understand their cultural impact on the camp ground of Vindonissa. Thirty-two thousand visitors in
2012 prove that the history and the life of those soldiers is an interesting topic to explore. Since its
opening in 2009 the Legionary Trail offers a unique possibility to experience Roman life and culture
in many ways. Audio-guided tours and game tours are highly recommended by families and schoolclasses. Adults prefer the more sophisticated special themed tours like the 'research-expedition'.
Groups like to enjoy good food at the Roman tavern, or in the officer's house. The real adventurer
dives into Roman military life in a tangible way at the accurately reconstructed Roman military
barracks from the 1st century AD, the CONTUBERNIA. There, he learns to make his dinner the
Roman military way on an open fire. At the end of the day, he sleeps in the fully equipped and
furnished rooms for the ordinary soldiers. On family-Sunday everybody is invited to the FABRICA
where one can bake one’s own bread in the Roman oven like the soldiers used to 2000 years ago.
This presentation shows the basic conditions and strategies which were needed to realise the
archaeological park. Further on, it will illustrate how the Legionary Trail can be developed and
marketed successfully to improve the public awareness of this heritage and the protection of the
archaeological records of Vindonissa.
17:15–17:35: Presentation of the recent EAC publications
EAC 7 – Heritage Reinvents Europe
EAC 8 – Who cares? Perspectives on Public Awareness, Participation and Protection in
Archaeological Heritage Management