EAC HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR 2013
In situ preservation: management and presentation
THURSDAY, MARCH 21st 2013
Antique Theatre in Butrint, 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 has a relatively short longevity and consequently limited experience in
state protection and rescue of its archaeological heritage. The Albanian Archaeology was
founded in the Republic of Albania after the World War II (1944-1960). In the period of the
dictatorship state-run system (1960-1990), the Albanian Classic Archaeological School was
established with the overall contribution of the local archeologists. The results obtained in the
protection and rescue of the archaeological heritage until the end of the 80s satisfactorily
fulfilled the goals of the London Convention guidelines (1969), despite the political,
ideological and socio-cultural isolation of Albania to the Western Europe.
When on 16 January 1992 the “Valletta Convention” in Malta was approved, major political,
economic and social changes were taking place in Albania. The state lost the dictatorship's
political centralism. The country embarked on the path of the pluralistic society and private
property. However, in Albania, the replacement of state property with the private one (Law
no. 7501, dated 19.07.1991), was not accompanied by legal paragraphs and governmental
reforms for the protection of the cultural heritage and the archaeological property. The
Albanian state ratified the Valletta Convention (1992) in February 2008, i.e. 16 years later.
This delay caused the greatest damage of archaeological heritage in Albanian history.
The incalculable damage that occurred in the period 1992-2008, in the case of Albania, proves
in the best way the values of the Valletta Convention for the rescue of archeology. A number
of negative consequences are listed below:
a) Since 1992, state control was lost over the looting of cultural heritage and archaeological
works, a phenomenon that today has reached epidemic proportions.
b) The archaeological wealth received the greatest shock since the enactment of the law 7501
by the Construction Boom in-depth of the archaeological underground without permission and
without the presence of an archaeologist (the Durres example).
c) also due to the absence of the documentation of archaeological substance before its
disappearance or damage. This has not happened only to the works damaged or ripped off by
the treasure hunters, looters and traffickers. Often the scientific documentation of the
excavation and processing of its results is not prepared according to the rules by the
archaeologists of the country’s institutions. Nonetheless, sometimes not even done by foreign
institutions or archaeologists operating in Albania on their own investments, who in the
absence of state control are often satisfied only with the exploration and do not take care of its
documentation.
With the establishment of the Archaeological Service Agency (ASHA, May 2008), at
Ministry of Culture (MTCYS) in Tirana, under the guidelines of the Valletta Convention, the
management of rescue archeology in Albania changed positively in terms of the technical,
organizational, legal aspect and especially of the work to raise the awareness of the Albanian
investors regarding their legal obligation to finance the rescue archeology: a) such are the
examples from the successful rescue excavations carried out by private firms, as well as their
contemporary professional level and capacity to cope with the huge excavations; b) a positive
step is the training of ASA's structures in determining the archaeological potentials through
surveys, drillings, soundings, etc., in different regions of the country. Also, ASA’s gathering
of positive experience in the coordination, harmonization and control over excavations by
private entities; c) legal and organizational efforts that ASA is doing to extend the activity of
the Valletta Convention in limiting the countless so-called "scientific" excavations performed
by the university, local and foreign expeditions, which after the excavations abandon the
archaeological substance on the site without any care, maintenance and conservation
whatsoever to their degradation; d) in raising the awareness as ASA’s task in taking
responsibility, documenting the damage currently caused in Albania by the illegal clandestine
(illegal) archeology for trafficking purposes; e) finding the theoretical concept and practical
solution for the rescue of the archaeological finds in the piles of "Archaeological Garbage"
thrown away in the last two decades.
Still after two decades, the Malta Convention guidelines in Albania have not yet been
actualized in necessary reforming the structures for the protection of archaeological heritage
and cultural monuments. Primarily it is expected a reform of state institutions of these two
realms, that have lost their legal and social basis on which they were created at the time of the
dictatorship and since 1991 have run out of efficiency for the protection and rescue of the
archaeological heritage. We are looking for developing a realistic reform, in line with the
current political, economic conditions and above with all the current mentality and social
problems of the citizens and investors of this country.
Oliver Gilkes (UNITED KINGDOM)
Troy in miniature’- the challenges of 20 years in management and training at Butrint. A
foreigner’s perspective.
The challenges of cultural heritage management in Albania in the1990s were a microcosm of
the issues that beset ex-communist Eastern Europe. In Albania these matters were amplified
by the existence of a strong nationalist paradigm of interpretation and management devised to
serve and support a very particular series of socio political systems.
Butrint was used as a laboratory of what might be achieved with the creation of a unitary
management authority to preserve and develop the site as an economic resource. The
archaeological park was the venue for a whole series of experiments in management and
technical training to help build networks for existing institutions, propose new structures and
provide an arena for future staff for all of these.
This programme was the result of close collaboration between Albanian institutions and a
number of NGOs, in particular, The Butrint Foundation. The shared experience and steep
learning curve on both sides was on occasion traumatic, and the outcome of the programme
was a compromise between local aspirations and external theory and practice. The lessons
learnt underscored, above all, the need for flexibility when applying potentially dogmatic
approaches in the context of an isolated and developing nation.
This paper will briefly discuss the detail of this experience, and my own personal perspective,
taking as examples of the tension between national and local management imperatives, and
the use of Butrint as a venue for the practical training of cadres of archaeological students.
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 present the challenge of change the project faces today, the preliminary
steps taken towards management, and the resulting reformation foreseen to convert its targets
and mechanism to adopt the heritage management vision.
15:45–16:15: coffee break
16:15–16:30: Prize for the most remarkable poster by the EAC President
16:30–17:30: 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 school-classes. 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.