3RD ANNOUNCEMENT

3RD ANNOUNCEMENT

FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT & PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME

Organized by

The 8th EAA Annual Meeting is organized jointly by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and by the Hellenic

Ministry of Culture. The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki is the largest and most complex institution of higher education in the country. The Hellenic Ministry of Culture, through its administrational division of the Archaeological

Service, is the leading governmental body in cultural and archaeological activity. The Archaeological Service is responsible for the location, preservation, conservation and restoration of all kinds of antiquities, as well as the establishment and running of the Museums and archaeological sites.

Committees

For the purpose of having the best possible organizational result, a number of committees have been formed to assist with the preparation of the meeting.

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT Dr. Chaido Koukouli-Chrysanthaki

Honorary Ephor of Antiquities

VICE-PRESIDENT,

EAA COORDINATOR

MEMBERS

Kostas Kotsakis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

SECRETARY

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

STELIOS ANDREOU

Angeliki Pilali-Papasteriou


Stelios Andreou


Chryssoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli


Dimitrios Grammenos

Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki

Maria Pappa

16th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Thessaloniki


JOHN CHAPMAN University of Durham, UK

DIMITRIOS GRAMMENOS Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki

ELIZABETH JEREM

KOSTAS KOTSAKIS

CHAIDO KOUKOULI-

CHRYSANTHAKI

Vice President of EAA, Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences



MARIA PAPPA 16th Ephorate of Prehistoric and

Classical Antiquities, Thessaloniki

ANGELIKI PILALI-

PAPASTERIOU


CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

PALIADELI

ANASTASIA TOURTA

WILLEM WILLEMS

Museum of Byzantine Culture of Thessaloniki

President of the EAA, The Netherlands

NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC PANEL

CH. BAKIRTZIS 9th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, Thessaloniki

D. BLACKMAN British School at Athens

M. CHATZOPOULOS National Hellenic Research Foundation

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki G. CHOURMOUZIADIS

A. DELIVORIAS

A. DIMAKOPOULOU

S. DROUGOU

N. EFSTRATIOU

M. FOTIADIS

K. GALLIS

Benaki Museum, Athens




University of Ioannina

Demokritos University of Komotini

G. GOUNARIS

E. GRECO

E. KAKAVOYIANNIS

I. KAKOURIS

TH. KALPAXIS

N. KALTSAS

V. KARAGEORGIS

L. KOLONAS

D. KONSTANTIOS

G. KORRES

E. KOURKOUTIDOU-

NIKOLAIDOU

I. LOLOS


Italian Archaeological School at Athens


Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments, Athens

University of Crete

National Museum of Athens

Leventis Foundation, Cyprus

General Directorate of Antiquities, Athens

Byzantine Museum of Athens

National & Kapodistrian University of Athens



I. MANIATIS

L. MARANGOU

Demokritos, National Centre for Scientific Research, Athens


M. MARTHARI

A. MOUSTAKA

21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Athens

V. MITSOPOULOU-LEON Austrian Archaeological School at Athens


American School of Classical Studies at Athens J. MUHLY

D. MULLIEZ

W.-D. NIEMEIER

French Archaeological School at Athens

German Archaeological Institute at Athens

D. PANTERMALIS

P. PANTOS

A. PAPADOPOULOS

A. PAPANTHIMOU

I. PAPAPOSTOLOU


Directorate of the Archive of Monuments and Publications, Athens



National & Kapodistrian University of Athens

L. PARLAMA

CH. PENNAS

A. ROMIOPOULOU

P. THEMELIS

3rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

2nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, Athens


N. STAMPOLIDIS University of Crete

TH. STEFANIDOU-TIVERIOU Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

University of Crete

Honorary Ephor of Antiquities I. TOURATSOGLOU

N. VALAKOU

G. VELENIS

K. ZACHOS

Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Athens


12th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Ioannina

E. ZERVOUDAKI Honorary Ephor of Antiquities

ESSENTIAL INFORMATION

Meeting Website

The Meeting website (www.symvoli.com.gr/EAA8.html) is updated frequently. Please visit the site in order to find the latest information.

Location & Time

The Meeting will be held at the Philosophy School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, located in the center of the city of Thessaloniki, in a walking distance from the vivid city-center. The Meeting will run from Tuesday 24th –

Saturday 28th of September, while Sunday the 29th will be devoted to excursions to archaeological sites and museums.

Associated Meetings

During the six days over which the 2002 EAA Meeting will be held, numerous meetings and events will take place.

Tuesday the 24th will be devoted to meetings of various committees of the EAA. The main Annual meeting will commence on Wednesday the 25th. The academic programme will take place over the three following days while the

EAA Annual Business Meeting will take place on Saturday afternoon.

Exhibitions & Stands

Concurrently with the Meeting’s sessions, an exhibition of more than 20 participating institutions, publishers and bookshops will contribute to a presentation of archaeological research and activity status and the update on the latest developments and ideas in archaeology across Europe.

Language

The official language of the 8th EAA Annual Meeting will be English. Papers, posters and round tables should be written and given in English, since there will be no simultaneous translation.

Sessions & Round Tables

The deadline for session proposals was 25th of May and since then the evaluation and acceptance of proposals by the

Scientific Committee has been concluded. Session organizers and paper authors have been informed on their contribution’s acceptance. Included in this booklet is a Preliminary Schedule of the Scientific Programme with abstracts of sessions and round tables.

NOTE: Session organizers and paper authors are kindly requested to inform us as soon as possible about the technical equipment required for their presentations.

Poster Presentations

For the presentation of posters there are numerous display panels available. The size of posters must not exceed a maximum height of 100cm and a maximum width of 85cm. Contributors participating with a poster are kindly requested to send as soon as possible an abstract for their poster in order to be included in the Meeting’s publications. Abstracts should be sent electronically to the following e-mail address: symvoli@symvoli.com.gr.

Posters will be displayed through the whole Meeting.

On Thursday or Friday a poster session will take place.

Registration

After the circulation of the 2nd Announcement of the 8th EAA Annual Meeting and until now around 500 participants have finalized their participation in the Meeting by submitting their FINAL REGISTRATION FORM.

Those having pre-registered by sending a PRELIMINARY REGISTRATION are kindly requested to confirm their participation by filling out the corresponding FINAL REGISTRATION FORM, with the additional requested information on hotel accommodation, participation in excursions and method of payment. Those presenting a paper should register immediately, since the given deadline has expired, while those simply attending the Meeting are encouraged to send their application by the 10th of August. Registrations can be submitted by sending the FINAL REGISTRATION FORM by ordinary post-mail or fax to the Meeting’s Secretariat or by downloading the FINAL REGISTRATION FORM from the meeting’s web-site and sending it to the Secretariat’s electronic address symvoli@symvoli.com.gr.

Secretariat will function from Tuesday, September 24th and throughout all days and hours of the Meeting. Exact location and hours will be announced and included in the final programme.

Fees

According to the EAA membership policy, delegates who are already members of the Association for the current year at the time of the final registration receive preferential rates to the Meeting. Those who are not already paid members by this time pay a higher delegate fee and automatically become members.

Member

Normal fee Student & retired feeCentral & East Europe fee

A B

75e 25e 30e 15e

Non-member 145e 65e 55e 30e

• A: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and Yugoslavia

• B: Countries of the former Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania and FY Republic of Macedonia.

This participation fee covers attendance at the Scientific Programme and entrance to the Exhibition, congress bag

(including program, abstract book and other printed material), free refreshments during the academic sessions’ programme, free admission to the Welcome Reception of the Meeting and the Annual Party.

Methods of payment

To confirm participation, applicants should pay their fees within the given deadlines. Other attendees may submit their registration by the 10th of August. The optional methods of payment are:

• bank deposit (copy of receipt must be sent to the Secretariat by fax to the following number: ++30 310 425 169, or by post mail)

•

• postal cheque at Symvoli. credit card: VISA, American Express or MasterCard

NOTE: Personal cheques are not accepted

(Detailed information about the methods of payment can be found in the corresponding part of the enclosed FINAL

REGISTRATION FORM )

Grants & Visas

Grant applications have been received and evaluated and applicants will be informed –if not already- about the acceptance or not of their applications and the given amount for their expenses. Official invitations to be used in the issue of visas have already been sent to all interested participants, and the relevant Embassies and Consulates have been informed. For further information and clarifications you are encouraged to contact the Meeting’s Secretariat.

Student Award

Terms of reference

The European Association of Archaeologists decided to institute the EAA Student Award. The prize shall be awarded annually for the best paper presented at the EAA conference by a student or archaeologist, working on a dissertation. The papers will be evaluated for their academic merit and innovative ideas by the Award Selection Committee. The

Committee consists of representatives of the EAA Executive Board and the Scientific Committee of the Thessaloniki conference.

The Award shall consist of a diploma. The winner of the award will be announced at the Annual Business Meeting on the 28th of September, 2002.

All MA and Ph.D. students as well as archaeologists working on a dissertation, who present a paper at the conference are eligible to apply, and are urged to submit their papers to the Award Selection Committee for consideration by 15th

September 2002 at the latest. The entries should be mailed to the EAA Secretariat’s address or e-mailed to Arkadiusz

Marciniak, the EAA Secretary, at arekmar@amu.edu.pl

YOUR ARRIVAL, YOUR STAY

Venue - Accommodation

Thessaloniki is the second largest city in Greece, located in the North, situated by the gulf of Thermaikos, with warm climate during the month of September. Its population exceeds one million inhabitants and the economic and cultural activities of the city have transferred Thessaloniki into a junction center of the Balkans. Life in the city of Thessaloniki is vivid but at the same time humane, calm and relaxing.

At a short distance from Thessaloniki, well known archaeological and historical sites include Vergina, Dion, Philippi,

Sesklo, Dimini and the Mount Athos Monasteries, while Mount Olympus and the beautiful Chalkidiki peninsula are popular holiday destinations. (Pre-congress excursions are organized to these sites as well as daily excursions on Sunday the 29th).

Thessaloniki is easily reached by airplane or train. The airport "Macedonia" connects Thessaloniki with many

European capitals and several other European cities by direct flights. Via Athens (35 min. flight time, 10-16 flights daily),

Thessaloniki can be easily reached from anywhere in the world. Thessaloniki also offers direct flights to other major cities of Greece and to many of the Greek islands. Balkan countries are connected to Thessaloniki by train as well, with frequent itineraries. There is also an intercity rail connection from Athens (6 h 15 min journey) and regular bus services.

Accommodation

Hotel Accommodation has been reserved for those having sent their FINAL REGISTRATION FORMS. Upon the receival of your deposit you will receive the corresponding voucher with all needed information about your reservation and your hotel. For those not having made a Hotel Reservation yet, you are kindly requested to do so as soon possible, by indicating a third preference of hotel as well, since many hotels have already been fully booked.

DEPOSIT: In order to finalize your hotel and excursion reservations a deposit of 50% of the total amount must be made (see on the next page the options of payment given). The remaining 50% of the amount is suggested to be paid by

September 15th.

CONFIRMATION: Upon the arrangement of your reservations and the receival of your deposit you will receive a confirmation of reservations with additional information about your hotel and excursions.

Cancellation: For any changes or cancellations a written notification is required.

Refunds will be made as following:

50% of deposit if notified until August 15th. No refund will be made after that date.

Transportation

Upon your arrival at Thessaloniki "Macedonia Airport" you can reach your hotel either by using the public bus service

(line number 78), which leads you directly to the center of the city, or by taxi which will cost around 8e (Further assistance and information you can seek at the INFORMATION DESK of the Meeting located at the Arrival terminal of the airpot). If you are travelling by train, the train station is located in the West end of the city’s center, where many different bus lines can be used and taxis can be found in order to reach your hotel destination.

Information about transportation to and from the Meeting’s Venue will be given to you with your voucher, according to your hotel’s location.

Social Events

In order for the participants of the Meeting to socialize and for the 8th Annual Meeting to be an enjoyable and memorable event for them, a number of social events and gatherings have been scheduled during these 5 days of the

Meeting.

Included in fee:

• Opening Ceremony will be held in the Main Amphitheatre of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and a welcome reception will follow in the AULA.

• EAA Annual Party. Efforts are made for a memorable dancing event. later than September 15th and will be obtained upon arrival from the Secretariat.

• Closing Dinner at the price of 35e including main course and live music.

Pre-paid:

• Lunches. Light lunches at the price of 5e per meal will be served during lunch breaks. Coupons must be pre-paid no

Additional culture events will be offered free of charge to attendees during Friday afternoon. These events will be announced and described at the website and the final programme. All interested must register upon arrival and no later than Thursday afternoon.

Excursions

Numerous excursions and holiday arrangements have been organized for all interested participants before and after the

Meeting. Detailed information about prices and schedule of excursions can be found in the 2nd Announcement and in the

Meeting’s website (please note there is a separate excursion & tour form which you are requested to fill out and forward to the Meeting’s secretariat, if you are interested to participate and haven’t done so yet).

PRE-CONGRESS

• HOLIDAYS IN SANI RESORT

Relaxing holidays in Sani Resort, located on the beautiful beaches of Chalkidiki peninsula, an hour away from the city of Thessaloniki.

• ATHENS-DELPHI-METEORA

Monuments of Athens and National Museum. Visit to the Acropolis. Ancient sanctuary and oracle of Apollo in Delphi.

Orthodox monasteries on the rocks of Meteora.

• KASTORIA-VERGINA-EANI

The Macedonian Tombs of Vergina. Byzantine and post-Byzantine monuments of Kastoria. Neolithic lakeside settlement of Dispilio and open-air museum. City of Eanis with continuous settlement from the prehistoric years and on.

• SESKLO-DIMINI-PILIO

The well-known Neolithic sites and the Museum of Volos. Traditional mountain villages of Pilio.

• PHILIPPOI – KAVALA – THASSOS

Classical town of Amphipols, well-known from Thucydides’s description. The Roman and Byzantine city of Philippoi and the famous battleground. Classical Thassos.

• CITY TOUR OF THESSALONIKI

A tour through the centuries of Thessaloniki’s history.

POST-CONGRESS / Sunday September 29th

1. Half Day TOURS

• CITY TOUR OF THESSALONIKI

A tour to the decades of the city’s history & archaeology.

• VERGINA – PELLA

Macedonian Tombs of Vergina. Classical city of Pella.

• DION – OLYMPUS

The sacred mountain of Olympus and Dion, the Macedonian center of worshipping the Olympian gods.

• SESKLO – DIMINI – VOLOS

The well-known Neolithic sites and the Museum of Volos.

• AMPHIPOLIS – PHILIPPOI

Classical town of Amphipols, well-known from Thucydides’s description. The Roman and Byzantine city of Philippoi

• MOUNT ATHOS CRUISE

A cruise around the Mount Athos peninsula, with a view over the isolated monasteries.

2. HOLIDAYS IN SANI RESORT (After September 28th, or 29th)

[See above]

Contact Addresses

All the above information concerning the 8th EAA Annual Meeting, as well as the requested FORMS to be filled out, can be found on the congress website http://www.symvoli.com.gr/EAA8.html. This website is frequently updated with any new piece of information that can keep you posted about the upcoming Meeting.

For any further information you are more than welcome to contact the Meeting’s Secretariat:

Congress Secretariat: SYMVOLI – Congress Organizers Ltd.

Mailing Address: 8, Patmou Str., GR-55133 Thessaloniki

Tel. ++30 310 425159 / Fax. ++30 310 425169

E-mail: symvoli@symvoli.com.gr

If you want to become a member of the European Association of Archaeologists, you must fill out the relevant included RENEWAL FORM or if you have questions about the EAA, you may contact:

EAA Secretariat

Petra Ottosson Nordin

C/o Riksantikvarieämbetet

Box 10259 434 23

Kungsbacka / Sweden

Tel: ++46 300 33907

Fax: ++46 300 33901

E-mail: petra.nordin@raa.se

THEMATIC BLOCK I:

Theory and Interpretation of Material Culture

‘IMPORT’ AND ‘IMITATION’: METHODOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS

WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL KEY CONCEPT

Organisers: Yuri Rassamakin, Ukraine / Taras Tkachuk, Ukraine rasyuri@yahoo.com, rassamakin@atlasua.net, rassamakin@rambler.ru

Discussant: Peter Biehl, Germany

In this session, we would like to discuss the significance as well as the problems of the theoretical concepts of ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ in the context of the social and cultural development of prehistoric societies during the Neolithic,

Eneolithic and Bronze Age in Europe in general and around the Black Sea in particular. Studies on pottery as well as copper and bronze artifacts, and objects made of stone, bone and shell can be included. The main focus of the session, however, will be the interpretation of imports and their imitation/replication in the context of contact and communication between populations with different social and economic systems (e.g. agriculturalists, pastoralists etc.). In order to structure the session and your contributions, we propose the following key points:

1. The concept of ‘import’ in the development of archaeological cultures: theoretical approaches and case studies.

2. The concept of ‘import’ in the analysis of social systems in archaeology

3. The concept of ‘import’ in the use of relative chronology

4. The concept of ‘import’ in studying migrations, trade and exchange

5. The concept of ‘import’ in the study of communication systems

6. The concept of ‘import’ and its role in cognitive archaeology (spiritual sphere of life, ritual practice, sacred places etc.)

••••

COSTUME AND ITS ACCESSORIES: SYMBOLISM, FASHION, AND TRADITION

Organisers: Irina Arzhantseva, Russia / Veronika Murasheva, Russia iaa@gol.ru

Clothes and their accessories have never been merely utilitarian articles. Any artefact involved in human relations and ideology acquires additional symbolic overtones within a given semiotic system, e.g. ritual, etiquette, etc. This is particularly true of costume that is bound to convey aesthetic, ritual and social ideas, not to mention its role as an ethnic marker.

Excavations rarely provide a clear picture of a given costume, yet certain indestructible details enable one to make reconstructions of clothes, with due reserve. In this respect the study of excavated textiles, ornamented belts, fibulae and other accessories is of particular interest. What factors determined the outlook of clothes? Was it climate or fashion, traditions or imagination, religious ideas or practical needs? The section discussions are intended to bring up those and other issues pertaining to the history of excavated clothes from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages.

••••

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON 'GLOBALIZATION, MULTI-CULTURALISM

AND THE PRISM OF THE LOCAL'

Organisers: Stephanie Koerner, England / Ulf Ickerodt, Germany

Stephanie.Koerner@man.ac.uk

The last decades have seen a virtual explosion of cross-disciplinary interest in the dynamics of 'globalization and multiculturalism,' and the roles played in these processes by material culture. Current discussion of relationships between the contents and socio-historical contexts of archaeological research alert us to the impacts this interest has had on an extraordinary range of areas of archaeological specialization, which are seeing the emergence of new areas of research structured around such themes as:

(a) 'cultural' and or 'ethnic identity,'

(b) human agency and transformations of relations of power and knowledge, and

(c) the roles played by material culture in perceptions of time and space, and the historicity of social agency and human communities,

(d) the socio-political and ethical impacts of archaeology's contributions to how the past is remembered.

Yet the relation of these developments within various fields of archaeological inquiry to the issues posed in a crossdisciplinary discussion of processes of 'globalization and multi-culturalism,' and especially to recent arguments for investing these processes through the 'prism of the local' remains all too frequently implicit. In consequence, very few archaeologists have:

(a) assessed critically and constructively available frameworks for investigating the dynamics of multi-culturalism and globalization,

(b) challenged wholesale applications of highly generalized received models,

(c) considered archaeology's special relevance to issues posed by cross-disciplinary discussion of these models.

This, despite (a) growing awareness of the socio-political and ethical impacts of archaeology's contributions to how the past is represented, and (b) archaeology's relevance to cross-disciplinary interest in the diversity of historically contingent forms - not just processes of globalization and multi-culturalism - but also human agency and communities have and can take.

This session seeks to explore - both critically and contructively -these issues from a diversity of perspectives, with regards to areas of specialization, philosophical orientations and intellectual traditions, and socio-political and ethical motivations. In so doing it hopes to provide a context for carrying forward discussions of these issues initiated in a remarkable number of EAA 2001 sessions representing very different fields of specialized inquiry, and academic backgrounds.

••••

PLANT REMAINS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SPATIAL ORGANISATION: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL

AND ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Organiser: Soultana Maria Valamoti, Greece

Nebo@compulink.gr

Plants in traditional societies are involved in all levels of human activity. As providers of food, medicines, fuel, building materials etc., they satisfy material needs but at the same time they are elements of social interaction, loaded with symbolic meaning. As part of the landscape, representing fields, pastures, scrubland, forests, marshes etc. plants signify the ‘domesticated’, modified and ‘wild’, unmodified part of the landscape. From raw ingredients harvested from the wild or from fields, plants are transformed into houses, hearths, cooked food, healing potions, daily meals, ceremonial feasts.

They are ultimately disposed of as part of, or as the remains of such activities. Space, at the household, settlement and regional level, acts as a meaningful container for such activities, defining and being defined by them. Archaeobotanical remains can provide information on several aspects of daily activities such as plant processing, storage, food preparation, consumption and ‘refuse’ discard and thus contribute towards the investigation of spatial organisation at the household and settlement level: storage within individual households, communal storerooms, short- and long-term storage, discarded plants within or outside houses. Remains of the wild vegetation, occurring either as field weeds, grazed pasture plants and harvests from the wild, provide glimpses of landscapes around sites; they provide the general setting for different types of settlements, for example sites with closely spaced houses and distant fields, sites with fields intervening among houses, with grazing land limited to fields or extending to distant pastures.

The aim of this session is to explore the potential of archaeobotanical and ethnoarchaeological studies in the investigation of the organisation of space at the household, settlement and regional level. As seven of the eight papers of this session demonstrate, archaeobotanical remains are closely linked to and especially informative about the space with which they are associated. Different activities within individual households are investigated through pollen analysis in a

Pueblo I Anasazi pithouse in southwestern Colorado during AD 700-900 by Dr Linda Scott-Cummings, and through charred plant remains in neolithic houses in Bulgaria by Drs Elena Marinova and Vassil Nikolov. The organisation of storage at the household and settlement level at Agios Mamas during the Middle Bronze Age is investigated by Dr

Helmut Kroll. The spatial distribution of plant remains among nomad burial of the Eurasian steppes provides information on funerary ritual during the Bronze Age. Dr Simone Riehl’s examination of Early Bronze Age Hirbet ez-Zeraqon in

Jordan, demonstrates differences and similarities among different parts of the site, reflecting differential use of settlement space perhaps by different members of society. Moving from site specific to more regional approaches, Dr Soultana

Valamoti uses site differences in archaeobotanical sample composition in order to investigate settlement pattern and socioeconomic organisation in neolithic northern Greece. Amy Bogaard reconsiders the use of Linearbandkeramik settlement pattern as the only basis for approaching early agricultural practice in western-central Europe, and proposes the combined use of archaeobotanical remains, modern weed floras, weed ecology and settlement pattern. Moving to present day Transsylvania in Romania, Dr Maria Hajnalova presents the results of her ethnographic work in the region, providing an insight into the organisation of space in relation to the agricultural/plant related activities of settlements in that area.

••••

CERAMIC STUDIES IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Organisers: Dragos Gheorghiu, Romania / Ralph Rowlett, USA / Kevin Andrews, England dgheorghiu@digi.ro & rowlettr@missouri.edu & kandrews@bournemouth.ac.uk

Discussant: Alex Gibson, England

M.Gibson1@Bradford.ac.uk

We should aim to encourage contributions which address the social and experiential aspects of ceramic production through a multi-disciplinary approach to study materials science, experiential archaeology and socio-cultural theory.

The development of a synthesis between science and material culture studies will mark, in our opinion, a new phase of ceramic studies in the new millennium.

We see a trajectory which takes us beyond study of materials within positivist networks and through interpretative models of social organization as reflected throughout the production sequences to those which allow us to address the experiential nature of pyrotechnologies – the sweat, tears, boredom, excitement, smells and tastes of the process which turned clay into useful things.

••••

THINGS THAT MOVE AND THINGS THAT DON’T: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

IN EUROPEAN PORTABLE AND STATIC ART

Organiser: George Nash, England georgejayne@lineone.net

Within Europe, there is a high material culture that transcends both time and space. Rock-art and portable art [or mobile art] assemblages extend from the Palaeolithic to the present and are found throughout Europe. These two assemblages include representative (e.g. anthropomorphic and zoomorphic imagery), as well as stylistic and abstract art forms which have been placed within a broad European chronology. In the past, the archaeological record has tended to ignore this rich cultural heritage. More importantly, mechanisms that potentially control and manipulate the art are rarely discussed. However, a number of thought provoking theoretical and philosophical studies recently undertaken by Choyke

& Bartosiewicz (2001), Fischer 1995, Nash & Chippindale (2001) and Price (2001) has attempted to draw together this high material culture and integrate it within a broader social, political and economic framework. In some cases, these approaches have animated a period such as the Mesolithic which has, in the past, been considered to be rather functional and devoid of any symbolic meaning or activity.

This interdisciplinary session will draw on theoretical perspectives from a wide range of art-based studies, focusing on the underlying structures that control and manipulate society which in turn determine the style and form of the art. An emphasis will be placed on studies that draw on anthropology, structural and post-structural approaches.

••••

SOIL, STONES AND SYMBOLS: THEORIZING THE MINERAL WORLD

Organisers: Mary Ann Owoc, USA / Nicky Boivin, England mowoc@mercyhurst

While archaeologists are increasingly viewing plants and animals as components of wider social and cultural processes that see them incorporated into cosmologies, symbolic systems, and social interplay, most of the

"mineral" world is still perceived largely in terms of models of "resource use" and "environment". Indeed, while both archaeobotany and zooarchaeology have witnessed an increasing interest in social and cultural aspects of plants and animals in recent years, geoarchaeology, with some exceptions, has generally remained beyond the influence of wider developments in interpretative archaeology.

This session therefore aims to address the issue of theory and the ‘mineral’ world. Its intention is to bring together researchers with an interest in the human interaction with the mineral world in order to explore a variety of issues. It hopes to examine archaeological and anthropological examples of how minerals like soils, stones and ores may be transformed into symbols and signs, and how their use as ‘resources’ in a variety of social engagements and power relations is linked to the ways in which they are perceived and classified. In addition, it also aims to examine and deconstruct traditional Western scientific distinctions both between animal, vegetable, and mineral, and, within the mineral world itself. Like ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, these categories may, in many contexts, have little to do with the way the surrounding world is conceptualized. While our own academic and cultural conventions draw boundaries between these categories, it may, in both the past and present, prove more useful to think of them as fluid and interpenetrating, and/or subject to deconstruction and manipulation.

Of course, minerals are not only ideas in people’s heads. Aside from their conceptual attributes, they also have physical and sensual qualities that affect how they are perceived as well as how they become incorporated into cultural practices.

Thus the session also aims to explore how the physical characteristics and phenomenological experience of particular minerals, like soils and stones, mediate our experience of the world because of the opportunities they afford and the constraints they impose.

••••

SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF FUNERARY AREAS

Organisers: Ladislav Smejda, Czech Republic / Jan Turek, Czech Republic smejda@kar.zcu.cz

Funerary areas and burial monuments represent an important source for archaeological reconstruction of social relations and cultural norms of past societies, as well as their chronological framework. The burial data of particular periods were usually analysed in isolation from their spatial circumstances and relations to other components of settlement areas (residential, ritual, etc.). The growing interest in landscape archaeology also induced application of new methods of spatial analysis. The introduction of advanced databases and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in archaeology created a new dimension in analysis of various human activities in the past. Currently, new methods are also being implemented into the inter and intra-site spatial analysis of funerary areas concerning a large number of related topics:

• Age, gender and social ranking within cemeteries

• Chronological and spatial development of funerary areas

• Continuity and discontinuity of cemeteries, temporal and spatial

• Reuse of burial monuments, secondary burials, their meaning and significance

• Spatial distribution of artefacts within cemeteries its possible social meaning and/or symbolic significance

• Spatial order of biological variables, its importance for archaeology

The session aims to introduce new methods and approaches to spatial studies of funerary areas and establish a discussion on new trends and topics in this field of archaeological research.

••••

MATERIAL CULTURE, SOCIAL THEORY AND GENDER

Organiser: Tove Hjo/rungdal, Sweden tove.hjorungdal@archaeology.gu.se

Discussant: Marie Louise Stig So/rensen, England

A current topic of great interest and challenge to archaeology, is represented by the development of theories and frameworks of material culture, social theory, and gender. The agency approach to gender and material culture has come to inspire the subject in many aspects. So is also the case with approaches to engendered life cycle studies and material culture in general.

2. Case studies using the theoretical approaches in some way or any other context, any time and geographical place is welcome.

The session welcomes papers within the following two fields of material culture, social theory and gender:

1. General approaches to the problem of material culture, social theory, and gender

••••

ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER: PROBLEMS, RESULTS, PROSPECTS

Organisers: Victor V. Lebedinski, Russia / Sergiy Zelenko, Ukraine/ Kristin M. Romey, USA. v_lebedinsky@mail.ru

Our knowledge of not only ancient but also modern history could be incomplete unless one takes into account underwater artefacts. Because of the sinking of the earth's crust, increasing water levels, the changing of rivers beds some parts of buildings and even whole settlements were submerged under water. While navigation was developing sea disasters became permanent phenomenon. As a result of these disasters a lot of ships, and their cargoes appear at the sea bottom. Underwater artefacts are an important source of our knowledge for creating a more complete historical view.

Today underwater explorations are being held almost in all European countries and good results have been achieved.

During these explorations new methods and technical means are used. Most of them are unique. The conditions of

deposition of different underwater artefacts are very specific. Exchange of professional experience and innovations among specialists in this field is necessary for the improvement of methods and practices of underwater explorations. In our opinion, it is reasonable to classify all artefacts of underwater archaeology according to their functional purpose and deposition in the following way: a) littoral settlements and/or adjacent port buildings covered by the sea (for different reasons); b) sunken ships, anchorages that are obviously seen with the help of archaeological materials; c) different hydrotechnical constructions – dams, barrages, artificial reservoirs, wells; d) votive artefacts appeared under water during rituals that had taken place on the coastline.

Studying sea trade routes, places of historical battles on the sea or, for example, on the ice, places of intensive fishing, and different kinds of temporary bridges are of interest too. Closer connections with the natural sciences such as oceanology, palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology, geo- and hydrology, etc., do not allow one to study underwater archaeology beyond the complex of sciences about the Earth. That is why discussion of the questions about the use of different technical means and data of these fields of science appears to be rather actual.The development of every branch of science is a complicated process. Furthermore if we talk about underwater archaeology which is situated at the edge of science and the humanities, it is reasonable to stress the following problems:

- choosing the essential directions in theory and methodology as well as achievements in underwater techniques;

- studying the history of development, modern conditions and future prospects of underwater explorations;

- the systematisation and generalisation of data for underwater explorations;

- using data of adjacent disciplines and the natural sciences in underwater archaeology;

- the determination of basic directions for further development in underwater archaeology.

The practical value of the organisation of the Session of underwater archaeology in the European Association of

Archaeologists is in gathering, analysing and summarising the whole experience that has been accumulated for one hundred years. Scientific value of the results that could be reached during discussions increases because of the lack of special courses in history and methods of underwater archaeological explorations. Wide discussion of the problems connected with underwater archaeological research suggests a new approach to this field of archaeology in the world.

••••

LIFE AND DEATH OF THINGS

Organisers: Barbara Ottaway, England/ Caroline Jackson, England c.m.jackson@sheffield.ac.uk

We strongly feel that material objects, things, carry specific connotation and meanings, which often have been associated with social activities or specific events (Gosden and Marshall 1999). There are some areas and materials were these issues have been addressed but all too often they are ignored or not fully explored. Here is an opportunity to redress the balance.

••••

THE GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF RIVER VALLEYS

Organisers: Halina Dobrzanska, Poland / Elisabeth Jerem, Hungary / Tomasz Kalicki, Poland jerem@archeo.mta.hu

Access to water, the substance of life, determined human activities at all times. Knowing that rivers were an important source of fresh water and, also a means of communication, proximity to inland surface water resources - streams, rivers, lakes - was an important factor in choosing the site of settlement in the past. River plays a significant role in the natural environment in the process of culture and social patterns formation from the Palaeolithic to the recent times.

The following issues are particular relevant to the theme of this session:

1. Interrelationship between man and his natural environment contributed to various changes especially in settlement network system and economy.

2. River valley in context of climatic and cultural changes.

3. River as means of communication.

4. River - a border between communities?

5. Impact of natural and anthropogenic factors on the Late Glacial-Holocene evolution of river valleys.

••••

AD ASTRA PER ASPERA ET PER LUDUM, EUROPEAN ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

AND THE ORIENTATION OF MONUMENTS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN

Organiser: Amanda–Alice Maravelia, Greece nut_ntrt@otenet.gr

Archaeoastronomy is a relatively modern interdisciplinary science, using both Archaeology and Astronomy as complementary means of synthetic research. It first appeared during the beginning of the 20th century, and since then it continued to present both interesting and intriguing results. It is more appropriate to view it as a reasonable synthesis of both its sub-disciplines, than a virtual fight between them, or even a tendentious pyramid(iot)ologic or fantastic

Stonehenge–type approach. Both sciences have common points and use reason as their main way of deducing results and present viable theories. The interpretation of archaeological sites in the context of astronomical observations is the most evident point of contact, while another one is the contribution of the archaeological record to the study of either minor or major past changes in the cosmic scenery that are either rare or slow (i.e.: eclipses, comets, meteorites, bolides, supernovae, the Earth’s rate of rotation, etc.) During the last decades an interdisciplinary basis has been put towards a fruitful synthesis in Archaeoastronomy, after the important works by Michael Hoskin, Edwin Krupp, Clive Ruggles,

Anthony Aveni, Owen Gingerich, and others.

The orientation of monuments all over the Mediterranean is a most fascinating topic, that presents prominent correlations with certain phenomena and/or stars of the firmament, helping to understand the forma mentis of ancient people archaeologically as well as astronomically. In Egypt, North Africa, Hellas, the Balkan Peninsula, Iberia and the whole of Europe, there are many examples of astronomically oriented monuments that respect past customs and ways of thought, pointing to the possible astronomical (stellar, solar or lunar) origins of ancient religions. They also echo the archetypal impact that celestial phenomena had on the lives of ancient people and their indirect incorporation into their social system.

In connection with the former guidelines and concepts, a special session is being organized (the third after the EAA 5th

Conference in Bournemouth, presented by Emilia P΄asztor; and the EAA 7th Conference in Esslingen, presented by

Stanislav Iwaniszewski), and endeavors to discuss the following topics:

1. Archaeoastronomy today and its impacts on Archaeology. The golden section between the two disciplines, in opposition to the hiatus between pure science and biased or uncritical fantasies.

2. Studies of orientations of monuments (temples, tombs, etc.), all over the Mediterranean, with emphasis in Egypt,

Hellas, the Balkan and the Iberian Peninsulas, as well as the whole of Europe. Mesoamerican cases are also welcome.

3. Archaeoastronomical studies concerning astronomical objects (instruments, calendars, zodiacs, etc.), and ancient

Egyptian constellations.

4. Archetypal impacts of celestial symbols in the texts and in the folklore of ancient people, viewed through the

Jungian psychology of the collective unconscious.

••••

ROCK ART ENVIRONS AND ENVIRONMENT

Organisers: Felipe Criado-Boado, Spain/ Manuel Santos-Estévez, Spain fcriado@usc.es

Chair: Kristian Kristiansen, Sweden

Discussant: Thomas Larsson, Sweden

European rock art, because of its immobile and static conditions, is not related to a pure physical archaeological context. Rock Art context is reconstructed through inferences based on depicted motifs and cultural relations. In a sense, it is an ideal context. However, rock art panels are located in particular positions and very much related to the surrounding space in which it should be expected that different sorts of human activities (either ritual or practical) took place. So, panels were ‘places’ not only as particular points of topography but also as localities where things occured.

These activities should have produced material record and therefore be reflected in archaeological record. In recent years different scholars throughout Europe started doing detailed studies on the surrounding space of rock art panels.

These studies involve pit and extensive excavations so much as intensive surveyings and paleoenvironmental surveyings.

Different kinds of methodologies and techniques are being applied, usually adapted to different conditions of environment and rock art traditions.

The session tries to approach this theme within a European scale. It will be possible to discuss common aspects and consider the different uses of rock art environs and environment from a European perspective which allows the recognizition of general patterns (if any exist) or local prominence.

••••

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF FIND ASSEMBLAGES

Organiser: Astrid Lindenlauf, Greece astridlindenlauf@hotmail.com

Archaeologists excavate many material remains of past cultures and societies, including bones, seeds, tools, pottery, architectural structures and sculpture. Depending on the framework employed to understand and interpret these traces of ancient material culture, different methods of recording and documentation are used. Archaeologists who conceptualise archaeology as art-history, for example, tend to focus solely on artefacts, disregarding spatial and depositional information. Contextual archaeologist, by contrast, not only consider the finds, but also on their findspot and their find situation. They believe that a thorough analysis of deposits (better known to classical archaeologists as bothroi or favissae) will increase our knowledge of past societies and cultures, as long as the composition and localisation of find assemblages and the degree of care involved in the depositional process are taken into account.

This session will provide a platform for theoretical and methodological frameworks to set out how they allow us to understand and interpret find assemblages. Issues addressed may include, for example,ways of determining the nature of deposits (e.g. special deposition versus rubbish) or the reconstruction of the nature of attitudes towards artefacts and ecofacts in past societies and their classification systems (e.g. high versus low esteem; sacrificial remains versus slaughter waste). Some aspects of depositions have already received some attention. Thus, the question as to the significance of potsherds and animal bones found in pits, post holes and ditches of prehistoric settlements, for example, has been critically discussed among English prehistorians under the heading "Is it ritual or rubbish?" Yet, whilst the possibility of ritual depositions in settlements was thus hotly debated, there has never been a systematical discussion of whether there is any archaeological evidence from sanctuaries for a practise of discarding remains from rituals such as sacrificial ash and sacred objects that had lost their social value and were subsequently thrown away. Contributions to this session could deal with this ritual-or rubbish debate, but they could also tackle other aspects, such as possible explanations of, for example, off-site scatter, the classification of votives on the basis of the content of votive deposits (varying from mixed deposits to deposits exclusively consisting of helmets) or the average time objects belonging to different kinds of material culture categories were used before they ended up in depositions (by way of comparing the date of manufacture with the date of the deposition).

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS AND THE USE OF SPACE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Organiser: Demetra Papaconstantinou, Greece papacon@hol.gr

Context is probably one of the oldest and most fundamental concepts of archaeological practice. In the earliest years, stratigraphic context provided the first ‘scientific’ methodological tool for the discipline and the matrix in which chronological charts could be built. More recently, however, theoretical archaeology has reintroduced the term, adding new dimensions to its meaning and making it the focal point of future research. Post-processual archaeology was initially introduced in the 1980s as ‘contextual archaeology’, emphasizing the importance of interrelationships in material culture.

As a result, contextual analysis has come to be regarded as playing a very significant role in the interpretation of material culture and has led to a variety of new perspectives and fields of interest.

The use of space belongs to one of those fields and has benefited immensely from the latest developments. The variety of theoretical and methodological issues involved in its study, its impact on interpretative models and its dependence on contextual information, indicate its relevance to current theoretical debate and are the main reasons for its discussion in relation to contextual analysis in this session.

An additional reason is that, despite the increasing interest in the study of the use of space (evident also in the increasing number of conferences devoted to the particular subject), little discussion has been generated about the process of contextual analysis itself and what it actually involves.

Theoretical archaeology has recently shown a special interest in redefining the nature of the archaeological record

(Hodder 1997, Barrett 2001) and in reexamining the concept of time in relation to archaeology (Murray 1999). In this respect, therefore, it seems appropriate to initiate a debate that would concentrate not so much on the outcome of contextual analysis but on the process itself.

In the present session contributors from different specialties and backgrounds, but with a common interest in contextual analysis and the use of space, will be asked to address a variety of questions, regarding both theoretical and methodological issues:

• What does contextual analysis involve as a practice?

• What do we mean by contextual information? How do we define it? evaluate it? record it? present it? make it accessible?

• What is the contribution of contextual analysis to the interpretation of material culture?

• How does it affect our understanding of the archaeological record and the questions we ask?

• What is the role of the excavator, the project manager, the field director and the specialist in the acquisition and presentation of contextual information?

Contextual analysis and the use of space ideally demonstrate the impossibility of "dichotomous thinking" in relation to theory and practice. The above questions should stimulate a productive debate concerning both theoretical and methodological issues.

••••

VISUAL CULTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: Robin Skeates, England robin.skeates@durham.ac.uk

The main aim of this session is to promote archaeological interest in the study and approach of ‘visual culture’, with its emphasis on the social dynamics of visual communication. This is an area closely related to the study of ‘art’, which can be broadly defined as those made objects that are intended to be visually expressive and stimulating. The term ‘visual culture’, which has recently gained widespread (although not total) interdisciplinary acceptance, usefully complements and broadens this definition with the belief that such objects also comprise an integral part of the mental and cultural processes through which people construct themselves (see, for example: Alpers et al. 1996; Walker & Chaplin 1997;

Rogoff 1998; Mirzoeff 1999). In doing so, ‘visual culture’ highlights not only the manufactured (‘artefactual’) nature of art, but also its embeddedness in dynamic human processes.

This approach deserves to be better-known by archaeologists. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance traditional archaeological approaches in the history of art, including the study of prehistoric art in terms of its technical production, style, iconography, siting, spatial distribution, relative age, archaeological culture, and evolution. On the other hand, it is clear that visual culture studies share much in common with contemporary ‘contextual’ and ‘interpretative’ archaeological approaches to the symbolic and structural meanings of material culture (eg, Hodder 1982; Thomas 1993;

Tilley 1998). The almost unbounded range of manufactured material studied by these contemporary approaches is comparable. Together, they emphasise the centrality and embeddedness of the material and the visual in cultural processes, within which art objects are seen to participate actively in the production, reproduction and transformation of social values, meanings and relations. They share a tendency to apply a model of production, distribution and consumption to the study of material and visual culture, at the same time as trying to pin down the unstable meanings of signs with reference to their historical, spatial and social contexts. They share a contemporary interest in phenomenology, and in the structured and structuring role of material culture and art in the practical and routine experiences of daily life.

They both recognise the importance of individual perception, and are interested in the politics of spectatorship. They share a self-critical and politicised interest in deconstructing the history of scientific thought and its particular ways of seeing. They also share a concern over our limitations to appreciate fully those images produced by cultural groups to which we do not belong. In this way, visual culture studies offer a useful interdisciplinary arena within which different archaeologies of art can be consolidated (Skeates 2001).

That is not to say that visual culture studies do not carry their own share of problems. In particular, by focussing attention on ways of seeing, visual culture studies have been accused of excluding the other human senses (touch, smell and hearing), which also contribute to the way that art works. But, for archaeologists at least, these senses are perhaps less accessible than that of sight. Also, the very term ‘visual culture’ is rejected by some scholars, who feel that a re-definition of the traditional term ‘art’ will suffice in signalling its cultural embeddedness. From an archaeological perspective, however, ‘art’ has often proved a problematic term (being ill-defined and consequently confined to inverted commas), whereas ‘visual culture’ should work well as a term that complements the well-established term ‘material culture’.

Two key questions will therefore be addressed in this session: 1) What does the approach of ‘visual culture’ have to offer archaeology? 2) What do contemporary archaeological studies of material culture and art have to offer visual culture studies?

••••

FROM EXCAVATION IMPRESSIONS TO RECONSTRUCTED ENTITIES

Organisers: George Chourmouziadis, Greece / Kosmas Touloumis, Greece dispigr@yahoo.com

Working for ten years on the prehistoric lakeside settlement at Dispilio, Greece, we aimed to approach the archaeological activity as a holistic procedure which starts from the revealing of the archaeological material (the excavational impressions), passes through the study, the conservation, the restoration and the interpretation and, finally, targets to the presentation of our conclusions, ideas and questions (the reconstructed entities) to the public.

This schematic description does not, by any means, suggests that we have to do with a linear series of successive actions clearly distinguished from one another. On the contrary, our experience has shown that we are confronted with a system of components with complex relationships and characteristics such as:

• The specific challenges and requirements of an archaeological project as far as the excavation method, the treatment of the archaeological material are concerned in the prospect of accepting visitors (either they are regarded as

"intruders" or as "potential interpreters")

• The co-existence of "pure scientific" and "public-oriented" approaches in an integrated archaeological project

(despite our good intentions they usually cause "internal" conflicts)

• The overcoming of the "impressive", "unique" find in order to approach a past community as a whole. Here we have in mind not only the "ignorant" visitor but the deeply involved scientist as well (e.g. in our case the abundance of well preserved wooden posts –a rare and vulnerable find- easily attracts the attention at the expense of the other elements)

•

The relation (either warm and friendly or, as in our case, cold and sometimes hostile. Furthermore, at Dispilio, while the locals mistrust the archaeologists, they extremely enjoy the reconstructed part of the neolithic village) that is developing between the scientific team and the local community (that "owns" the past we are trying to reconstruct and the land we are destroying), through the archaeological project. The multiple ways in which the wider public receives our

"messages", the distance between the "message" we are transmitting and the one the public receives, the recording of the public’s reactions and the feedback that should result and, consequently, affect the whole archaeological activity

• The need to keep the relationship between "the excavational impressions" and "the reconstructed entities" (e.g. a computer-aided simulation, a full-scale model, a restored artefact, a publication etc) active, preventing the latter to function as an independent "reality".

••••

THE AGENDA FOR INTER-DISCIPLINARY ARCHAEOLOGY

IN EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Organisers: John Chapman, England / Ruediger Krause, Germany j.c.chapman@dur.ac.uk & r_krause@t-online.de

Even a cursory study of the history of archaeology as a discipline reveals that, contra Leo Klejn, there is no such thing as a pure systematics of archaeology. Rather, the impact of geology, geomorphology, climate and other natural sciences were vital to the nascent discipline in the AD 19th century and remain so today. One of the most striking trends in the AD

20th century was the massive diversification of subject fields into increasingly specialised clusters of knowledge production. The generation of increasingly complex vocabularies led not only to the British author C. P. Snow’s problem concerning "Two Cultures" (mutually-incomprehensible scientific and humanistic cultures) but also huge problems in inter-disciplinary communication and the massive growth in the sheer numbers of cognate specialists whose fields of expertise are relevant to archaeologists. We are faced with a problem analogous to that of pyramid sales – the number of new techniques increases logarithmically and no archaeologist we know can find the time to keep up with the literature in their own field, let alone follow debates about relevant research in one or more cognate areas of interest. Since this trend is hardly likely to be reversed in the AD 21st century, the EAA 8th Annual Meeting seems an appropriate place to take stock of the situation and assess how archaeologists in the future can deal with the fragmentation of specialised knowledge, techniques and interpretations, many of which may well be relevant to specific research problems.

The proposed session seeks to approach the question of the future agenda of inter-disciplinary archaeology in two ways: (1) the commissioning of futurological papers from senior colleagues – on how things are likely to develop on the inter-disciplinary front and answering questions such as "how can archaeologists cope with the rapid differentiation of scientific specialisms ?", "how to improve communication between humanistic and scientific archaeologists ?", "how to assess the relevance of the contributions on offer ?"; and (2) requests for papers presenting the successful results of interdisciplinary research in which the research projects have been kick-started by the non-archaeological component of the research (e.g., palynology, metallurgy, isotopic studies).

••••

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: Yiannis Maniatis, Greece maniatis@ims.demokritos.gr

Abstract to follow.

••••

CONTACTS, CONTINUITIES & DISCONTINUITIES

Organiser: Scientific Committee

symvoli@symvoli.com.gr

The session includes a variety of papers touching upon the issues of continuity and discontinuity, as well as of contacts between communities and cultures.

THEMATIC BLOCK II:

Cultural Heritage and the Management of the Archaeological Record

ARCHAEOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY III: PATTERNS OF LOSS,

INDICATORS AND MONITORING

Organisers: Kate Clark, England / Tom Bloemers, The Netherlands kate.clark@english-heritage.org.uk & j.h.f.bloemers@wanadoo.nl

We often say that archaeological sites are under threat, but we very rarely have accurate data to demonstrate this. This makes it difficult for archaeologists to participate in wider debates about the environment.

This session will continue from two previous EAA sessions on sustainability and the role of archaeology in sustainability. The last sessions looked at theoretical ideas on the role of archaeology in sustainability and current projects.

This year we will look at a number of projects around Europe where we are beginning to monitor what is happening to archaeology. Indicators for the historic environment have been developed in Australia, in Canada, in Germany and in

Scotland. Some ideas are now emerging in the UK through the Monuments at Risk strategy and buildings at risk.The aim is to exchange information and best practice, and to discuss how a better understanding of the state of the historic environment can contribute to sustainability. In particular we will look at what indicators for the heritage are emerging and how effective they are.

••••

A QUESTION ABOUT ATTITUDES: CULTURAL HERITAGE AS SOCIETAL

AND INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE

Organisers: Anders Gustafsson, Sweden / Ha° kan Karlsson, England / Bozena Werbart, Sweden/ Cecilia

A° qvist, Sweden bricoleur@swipnet.se

This session departures in some of the contemporary attitudes towards cultural heritage and the public interested in it, as held by many (most) archaeologists/cultural-heritage managers, and it is structured around two main themes:

1) The national/international aspects of cultural heritage.

2) The relationship between archaeology/heritage management and the public.

Concerning the first of these themes, it can be stressed that throughout history cultural heritage has been used over and over again for various chauvinistic and nationalistic purposes. One of the main conditions for such an abuse is the view of cultural heritage as a phenomena associated to specific nations. Even if – in most cases – lacking the chauvinistic approach, the past and its remains are today most often narrowed down, constituted and presented as a heritage restricted to a specific nation. This means that for the moment there are limited space for an approach of cultural heritage as a bound- and borderless phenomena that can foster international connections and dialogue. In line with this, it can be further stressed that there is, for instance, no reason to separate the – previously different – scientific traditions of

"classical" or Mediterranean and "prehistoric" archaeology. By equalizing differences between these two fields of research and between "Oriental" and "West", the positive role of the past will be emphasised. Thus there is a responsibility of archaeology heritage management to increase united actions on an international level concerning cultural heritage, since this leads in the direction of pluralism and open dialogue, and since the interactive cooperation with non-

European countries, together with the large scale perspectives, is an important issue within contemporary archaeology.

Concerning the second theme, it can be said that for the moment archaeo-logy/heritage management have sincere problems to handle, canalise, or to give priority to the profound and growing public interest that are directed towards the past and its remains. This, situation is – at least partly – a direct reflection of the professional development that took place within the subject during the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as of the epistemological and ontological views dominating archaeology during this period, and the attitudes that follows from these views. These attitudes have created a profound gap between experts-amateurs (i.e. archaeologists-interested public) where the former knows all the answers of the past and therefore dominates the interpretations and knowledge of it, at the same time as the later have become a passive receiver of the information contained in the monologue of the former. Undoubtedly, this is a serious situation that touches upon topics concerning politics, ethics and democracy, but it can be changed via a transformation of monologue to dialogue.

If bringing these two themes together it can be concluded that the session revolves around some aspects of the contemporary attitudes to heritage as held by present archaeology/heritage management. The purpose with the session is to discuss these attitudes as well as alternatives that can deconstruct them.

••••

INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY – OUR COMMON EUROPEAN HERITAGE

Organisers: Robina McNeil, Marilyn Palmer, Roger White / England robina.mcneil@man.ac.uk & mai@leicester.ac.uk & whiterh@artsadtl.bham.ac.uk

The industrial revolution produced the modern world with monuments and sites of the industrial period being a lasting legacy to the transformation of society. This session takes a European perspective and looks at the progress that has been made in industrial archaeology over the last thirty years. Key themes, identified by ICOMOS for the protection of World

Heritage Sites, include:-

• Identification

• Protection

•

Conservation

• Presentation

• Education

The session will use these five ICOMOS themes as the basis for a debate on whether effective measures are in place across Europe to safeguard Our Common European Inheritance. The intention will be to agree on common approaches to industrial monuments and landscapes in order to ensure that their value is recognized within broader policies of regeneration and renewal.

••••

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES IN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Organiser: Scientific Committee symvoli@symvoli.com.gr

This session describes the application of techniques and methods in cultural heritage management. The papers discuss approaches based on digital management, aerial photography, internet applications and archaeomagnetism.

••••

Round Table: TOWARDS EUROPEAN INFORMATION ARCHITECTURES

FOR ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: Jonathan Kenny, England jk18@york.ac.uk

This round table session is organised by the ARENA (Archaeological Records of Europe: Networked Access) project, one of a number of European projects working on different aspects of European Information Architecture for

Archaeology.

A European wide data architecture or network, making archaeological archives searchable across national boundaries, has considerable advantages both in terms of the preservation of this fragile resource and for access to data for a number of user groups. Issues and boundaries impinging upon archiving, preservation and access to digital archaeological data are magnified when dealt with on a European scale. Archaeological data is regularly collected in digital format and is currently conserved and presented on the World Wide Web on a very localised basis by individual projects or through organisations such as the Archaeology Data Service in the UK. Expertise in digital archiving and data presentation is wide spread in many national and regional heritage bodies but this knowledge remains penned within national boundaries. The projects taking part in this roundtable all seek to achieve interoperability for knowledge sharing in different ways, circumventing national boundaries.

The following European projects will take part in this roundtable:

•

•

•

•

•

ARENA (Archaeological Resources of Europe: Networked Access): Julian Richards and Jon Kenny

AREA (Archives of European Archaeology): Nathan Schlanger and Alexandra Alexandri

ERPANET (Electronic Resource Preservation and Access Network): Niklaus Buetikofer

HEREIN and HEREIN2 (European HERitagE Network) Irina Oberländer-Tarnoveanu

ArchTerra (Extending the European Archaeology Web over Bulgaria, Romania and Poland): Martin van Leusen and Andrzej Prinke

•

•

•

CHIOS (the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model planned standard): Martin Doerr

Pathways to Cultural Landscapes: Gerhard Ermischer

TECHNE (European Cultural Communication Network) Franco Niccolucci

The above projects will be presented at the roundtable. Each project is or has been involved in European digital archive preservation and/or access activity. One of the big questions facing them all is "How do we move from disparate projects towards a European Information Architecture for Archaeology that achieves interoperability for knowledge sharing?" Each contributor has been invited to introduce his or her particular projects and to consider the question posed above.

More details regarding the activity of the ARENA project can be found at: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/arena/index.html

••••

Round Table: THE CREATION OF RESEARCH STRATEGIES

FOR THE EUROPEAN FRONTIERS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Organisers: David Breeze, Scotland / Sonja Jilek, Austria / Andreas Thiel, Germany

David.Breeze@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

This proposal is for those scholars undertaking research on the frontiers of the Roman empire (Limes studies) to meet to formulate research strategies for the study of these frontiers. Specific scholars would be invited to attend, though the discussions would be open to others.

Hadrian’s Wall is a World Heritage Site. Work is in progress on assessing the German limes with a view for its nomination as a World Heritage Site. If successful, other frontiers will follow, leading perhaps to the creation of a single

World Heritage Site for all Roman frontiers in Europe from the Antonine Wall in Scotland to the Black Sea.

Each World Heritage Site nomination must include a Management Plan which in turn must include reference to the formulation of a research strategy for the site. There are distinct advantages in developing an over-arching strategy for all the European frontiers of the Roman empire. Such a strategy would flow from the combined experience of the relevant archaeologists of each country through which the frontier passes, and benefit from discussions between them. However, it is not intended that any policy be prescriptive. The aim would be to create an over-view within which the research strategies of the individual countries would sit and be developed.

••••

Round Table: ARCHAEOLOGICAL LEGISLATION AND ORGANISATION IN EUROPE

Organisers: Jean-Paul Demoule, France / Christopher Young, England chris.young@english-heritage.org.uk

The Annual Business Meeting established the Working Party on Archaeological Legislation and Organisation in

September 2000 with a life of three years. Its work has been carried forward by Round Tables at Lisbon and Esslingen.

The objectives of the Working Party, agreed by the EAA Board, are:

1. With respect to the organisation of Archaeological Heritage Management in Europe to examine to what degree overviews can be made and what information is already available through other sources

2. With respect to archaeological legislation in Europe to identify areas that are specifically relevant to the practice of archaeology and to assemble more detailed information about the legislation and the way it works in practice (EAA-

Regulation No.3.C.2, last updated August 2001)

At Lisbon, the Round Table reviewed issues of legislation across Europe. At Esslingen, this work was carried forward and the Round Table recommended to the Annual Business Meeting that there should be two principal approaches:

1. Improving understanding among members of EAA of legislation and regulation of archaeological work and conservation in Europe

2. Influencing approaches to legislation and regulation at the European level

It also proposed that the Thessaloniki Round Table should focus on the application of Article Three of the Valletta

Convention on the regulation and quality of archaeological work. A small working party was delegated to carry this and other issues forward.

The Round Table at Thessaloniki will therefore consider the following issues:

1. the application across Europe of Article Three of the Valletta Convention on the regulation and quality of archaeological work

2. ways in which archaeologists can influence the development of the European Heritage Net (http://www.europeanheritage.net/en/index.html)

3. the extent to which the remit of the Working Party has been met and what more needs to be done

••••

Round Table: THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION

OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS

Organiser: Cecilia A° qvist, Sweden cecilia.aqvist@raa.se

At this Round Table we shall discuss the future of the EAA.

Our organisation has now been in existence for eight years and during this time most of our goals have been achieved.

We are now at the beginning of the second millennium, which presents new challenges for the EAA.

Where are we going? What do we want to achieve? What are the great opportunities for the future, and what are the obstacles?

We shall discuss different aspects of the development of the Association and ask the candidates for President to present their visions and goals.

••••

Round Table: PLUNDERING THE PAST: THE NATURE AND SCALE OF THE TRADE

IN ILLICITLY-ACQUIRED ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Organisers: Neil Brodie, England / Paula Kay Lazrus, USA njb1012@hermes.cam.ac.uk & pklazrus@erols.com

It is now well established that artifacts looted from archaeological sites can be bought and sold on the open market. In recent years Internet auctions have expanded the already existing market, and urban and agricultural developments as well as civil and international conflicts have continued to exacerbate the situation. The associated problems (social as much as archaeological) in countries whose heritage is under threat from this market remain poorly described, and there is still no agreement over possible solutions. Indeed, it is probably the case that effective solutions will depend very much upon scientific circumstances. This session will examine these issues and consider what, if any, counter-measures have been successful, and may be suitable for broader application.

This round table will constitute a meeting of the Working Party which was set up after a session held on the subject at the 5th Annual Meeting in Bournemouth (1999) and which first convened at the 6th Annual Meeting in Lisbon (2000).

The organizers would particularly welcome participants from eastern and southern Europe.

••••

Round Table: NEW, INTEGRATED APPROACHES TO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMUNICATION:

THE TECHNE EUROPEAN RESEARCH NETWORK

Organisers: Franco Niccolucci, Italy / Dirk Callebaut, Belgium niccolucci@unifi.it & dirkcallebaut@enamecenter.org

What is the proper relationship between scientific data and "popularized" interpretations? How should the public be informed of the boundary between verifiable scientific facts and imaginative historical reconstructions? What makes some public historical narratives gripping and others deadly dull? Which new technologies are most effective in educational settings? Which types of heritage presentations convey serious and enlightening cultural information, and which types serve primarily as recreational venues?

These are some of the many questions that must be studied seriously if the public presentation of archaeological and historical sites is to become an intellectually sound and economically sustainable pursuit for European research institutes, governments, and local communities. Regrettably, the allure of technological innovation and multimedia applications

(with such elements as interactivity, Virtual Reality, and internet portals) has often overshadowed the basic work to be done in developing standards of scientifically valid, effective "communication".

This will require the co-operation of researchers in a wide range of disciplines from visitor psychology, to literary and dramatic studies, to interactive interfaces, to community development working together to create tighter links between research institutions in Europe on the emerging field of cultural heritage communication.

The Sixth European Research Framework offers a unique opportunity to create a European research network on these themes. The organizers of this proposed round table have prepared a draft international charter on heritage communication, a project framework (named TECHNE-- www.techne-net.org) and a workplan that may serve as a basis for practical discussions among EAA members interested in this theme. The EAA 2002 conference will be an appropriate venue to develop such a discussion, since related issues will be presented at other proposed sessions. And we hope that colleagues eager to move from the realm of analysis of the problem to participation in an experimental network and pilot project may be interested in participating in the round table discussion and in verifying with us the feasibility of substantial European support to research.

Round Table: COOPERATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLOITATION

OF NATIONAL REFERENCE COLLECTIONS

Organiser: Guus Lange, The Netherlands g.lange@archis.nl

••••

One of the effects of the implementation in the Netherlands of the Treaty of Valetta (Malta) is the growing number of participants and also the larger number of participating institutions and private companies in the archaeological field. Where formerly only a few universities and one governmental institution harboured all relevant archaeological knowledge, nowadays this knowledge is scattered across quite a number of larger organisations and small one- or two-member private companies. Therefore not every practicing archaeologist has direct access to information (reference collections and literature) for the evaluation of finds and sites they are investigating. Also it is not economically feasible any longer to do time unlimited research on objects. Clearly the quality of our modern archaeology is at stake. Without trustworthy and profound analysis of the basic units of information, i.e. material culture, archaeology does not even exist.

What is needed is a fast access to a, both physical and digital, complete and correctly named reference collection.

Archaeologist do not only want to know "what is it that I have found?", but also "how do I treat this?": information is also needed on "best practices" in the field and in the laboratory or atelier.

There are more simultaneous, and partly perhaps dependant, mechanisms that ask for immediate action:

Due to political choices in the past the old academic centres have not been able to develop into sound and well

(wo)manned knowledge centres. Rejuvenation of personnel did take place on a too limited scale. As a consequence knowledge transfer in a professional setting has had no wide practice. The danger today is that vast realms of knowledge, accumulated in the last 30 - 40 years, will just vanish with the scholars that are at the end of their career. It is the responsibility of the current generation of active archaeologists to secure this knowledge before it has gone for good. We have only some 10 years to get this done. The development of digital knowledge systems on material culture is badly needed.

A third trend shows that on an educational level material culture and its study has not been very popular in the curriculae the last thirty years or so. Practical training on identification and study of the archaeological material has been cut down to the bare essentials or cut all together from the curriculum. The limited course length precludes any deeper reconnaissance with archaeological material. Reference collections became disintegrated, dusty or were literally stowed or even thrown away. For students there is hardly a way to acquire the knowledge needed in the emerging archaeological market.

A number of initiatives has been taken to try and counteract these negative trends. The developments in the

Netherlands are no means unique in Europe, nor are these developments new: In Great Britain more or less the same mechanisms took place at an earlier date. Material culture, moreover, tends not to be restricted by the national boundaries of modern states. It would be wise, now that developments in this direction are fresh to try and develop standard procedures so that later linking and information exchange and retrieval can be dealt with in a straight forward manner.

••••

Round Table: WHAT FUTURE FOR EAA PUBLICATIONS?

Organisers: Karen Waugh, The Netherlands / Mark Pearce, England

Mark.Pearce@nottingham.ac.uk

As part of a broad reevaluation of the role of the EAA and the vision of its members for the future at this 8th Annual

Meeting (see also the round table organised by C. A° qvist & E.Dalen The Future of the European Association of

Archaeologists) an important subject for discussion and debate is the future role and content of publications issued by the

EAA.

Over the last decade much of the EAA’s resources have been concentrated in producing the European Journal of

Archaeology, a journal that has, over the years, continued to increase in academic reputation amongst the members and wider readership. With the need for the continuing success of the journal in mind, after assessing the impact and content of the journal to date, an important objective of the round table is to evaluate and redefine plans for the future of this publication, based on the opportunities and limitations that are a result of the current situation within the EAA organisation.

On a broader level, the round table will discuss the need for other forms of publications in the future. The European

Archaeologist, for instance, aims to keep the membership up to date with internal EAA affairs on a twice-yearly basis. But are there alternative ways in which the EAA should aim to keep members and associated lobby groups better informed on important European developments and events in the future?

In order to ensure a good structure to the discussion during the round table, the organisers would appreciate being contacted before the meeting by any members who already have specific points they would like to raise.

••••

THEMATIC BLOCK III:

Archaeology in the Modern World

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: Nathan Schlanger, France area@inha.fr, www.area-archives.org

The purpose of this session is to shed light on archaeology and its history from a fresh angle - the material culture of archaeology. Together with various strands of textual evidence (publications, reports, correspondence), the practice of archaeology needs also to be understood through the diverse tangible activities and remains which accompanies it, such as casts, models, dioramas, reconstructions, systems of display and classification, not to mention the equipment used in archaeological excavation and analysis. These diverse tangible remains deserve to be studied in very much the same way that we study the material culture of the remote past, that is, calling on perspectives from material culture studies, anthropology and history of science. Drawing on illuminating historical case-studies, the contributors to this session will address the material conditions surrounding the construction and presentation of archaeological knowledge, and thus contribute to our better understanding of the discipline.

••••

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: John Carman, England rjc16@cam.ac.uk

Having originated in the United States of America, the term ‘Public Archaeology’ is increasingly being taken up across the world to describe those areas where the academic discipline of archaeology encounters the outside world – whether in the form of non-archaeologists, official regulation, law, tourism, or the media. The term is kept deliberately vague, and this is useful for a field that covers a wide area indeed. Recent international debates have considered the definition of

‘public archaeology’ and whether it can take a legitimate place as a specialisation – alongside methodological, period and geographical specialisations - in its own right. Such discussion has been mostly limited to the English-speaking world however, and it is time to involve others.

This session seeks to address two key questions in relation to the notion of ‘public archaeology’. The first is the different styles of public archaeology evident in different territories, deriving from varying historical, political, intellectual, ideological and economic contexts. Accordingly, in the half-day session proposed, the first group of papers will consider how a particular concept of public archaeology evident in a particular place reflects its environment. The second question – closely related to the first, to some extent representing its antithesis and thus broadening the session’s frame of reference – concerns the different definitions of public archaeology currently applied. Accordingly, the second group of papers will address particular definitions of public archaeology. Discussion will also be a central part of the session, and so time has been specifically set aside to promote discussion of the issues raised by participants.

••••

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF ARCHAEOLOGY: MANAGEMENT OF A RECORD

OR RECORD OF A MANAGEMENT?

Organisers: Ana Cristina Martins, Maria Teresa Marques / Portugal amartins@ippar.pt, acnm@sapo.pt & mmarques@ippar.pt

Abstract to follow.

••••

CREATIVE HERESIES

Organisers: Douglas Bailey, England / Michael Shanks, USA

Mshanks@stanford.edu

Many archaeologists are interested in moving beyond epistemology. Doing so requires a gathering of existing efforts and a looking towards new dimensions of archaeological expression. How is knowledge projected? In our discipline? In

others? Let’s talk around things. Let’s meet in the margins and consider how we encounter, consume and engage the

‘stuff’ of our research, our excavations, our lectures, our discipline.

This session is a forum for building connections that enrich understanding without proclaiming in-depth explanation. It is an experiment in the rhetorics of archaeology. It finds specificity in the details. Its ethos is experiment. Issues are not described through boredoms of intellectual genealogies; issues are circled. The goal is not to talk about doing. The goal is to do, to evoke, to engage, to achieve insight.

••••

ARCHAEOLOGY IN EDUCATION

Organiser: Caroline Pathy – Barker, Japan pathyb@gol.com

Educators and their students know that archaeology is an exciting subject and a good platform for teaching a wide ranch of other subjects. Many countries are at similar levels, hoping to or intergrating archaeology within the formal structure of their education systems / curriculums with various degrees of success . In many countries specialised newsletters and websites are available focusing on the teaching of archaeology and anthropoly in elementary and secondary schools.

Within this session we will be continuing our exchange on what is currently the situation in schools, museums and archaeological centres at national and prefectural levels examining their successful programs in order to set – up a more international forum in the hope aiding fellow colleagues.

It is our highest priority to continue our exchanges and formatting new policies towards tailoring programs for the needs of schools to better insure the future of our heritage.

••••

TEACHING ARCHAEOLOGY AS A GLOBAL RESOURCE:

INTERPRETING THE PAST, CREATING THE PRESENT

Organiser: Anne K. Pyburn, USA apyburn@indiana.edu

The future of archaeology as a discipline as well as the future of the archaeological record itself are in the hands of educators who will shape the perspective of the next generation of archaeologists. The increasing globalization of information systems means that teaching can no longer be a parochial endeavor. News releases, government programs and funding agencies are increasingly sensitive to multinational sources and pressures. Interpretations of the past now have the daunting potential to rapidly impact not only discussions internal to nation states but international politics and global markets. In this session a group of educators and students consider the ethical responsibilities, political opportunities, and social context of archaeology in the 21st century.

••••

TELLING CHILDREN ABOUT THE PAST

Organisers: Nena Galanidou, Irini Gavrilaki / Greece ngalanidou@phl.uoc.gr & sdanellis@parliament.gr

In communicating our archaeological findings to members of the public, it is important that we should recognize that children are a special case. Children have different cognitive abilities from adults and go through a period of apprenticeship during which they are not fully capable of processing critically the information that is presented to them.

Children are shown images and told stories about the past in various contexts that range from the formal and educational to the informal (for example, the genre of popular books about antiquity). These images and stories, whether their source be a professional archaeologist or a person whose interest in the subject is personal, all share one common factor: they need to be fairly simple and easily available to the understanding of the age group at which they are aimed. Such representations tend to ignore recent archaeological debate, continuing to purvey images of the past that either reinforce or are at least immediately recognizable from a modern perspective. This sort of representation is intimately connected with contemporary power strategies.

In recent years many systematic attempts have been made to deal with the questions of the ‘archaeology of childhood’ and the ‘relation of archaeology to the public’. This session is intended to contribute to these discussions not by attempting to identify children in the archaeological record, but by dealing with ‘childhood and archaeology’ as an experience of the present. It is our plan to bring together archaeologists, psychologists and educationalists in an

interdisciplinary dialogue that will illuminate a number of aspects of the representation of archaeology to younger audiences. We shall be inviting these professionals to examine critically the media (narrative, visual and sensual) through which archaeological information is presented to children and the contexts within which they are used: formal/professional (the educational programmes and publications used by museums, for example) and informal/nonprofessional (as, for example, books written for children about the past) in order that an attempt may be made to challenge the form, the content and the impact of these narratives.

Amongst the topics we would like to see discussed are:

• The role of narratives about the past designed for children in shaping modern ethnic, social and gender identities.

• The cognitive/learning capacities of children at each stage of their development.

• New ways of making the past and its material culture interesting to children.

Although the nature of formal educational programmes must of course be an important element of this discussion, please note that we shall be examining the ideological and methodological dimensions of such programmes rather than focusing more narrowly upon their themes and structures.

••••

Round Table: THE BUSINESS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: Gerald A Wait, England archaeology.soton@gifford-consulting.co.uk & www.gifford-consulting.co.uk

A continuing theme of sessions at the recent European Association of Archaeologists Annual Meetings in

Bournemouth, Lisbon and Esslingen is an interest in the need for professionalism in the way we do archaeology. This is certainly a good thing.

The issue is not whether we are academics, work for a governmental heritage organisation or a for-profit company. We all offer services to other organisations or to ‘the public’ that pays for those services, and are thus offering our services for payment – that is business. Probably a majority of archaeologists in Europe are also business people. There are many potential benefits from improving our business skills – from simple things like improving pay and working conditions, to less directly related issues such as better resources and facilities. Ultimately, our ability to continue producing high quality archaeological results will depend on our business skills just as much as our academic knowledge and expertise.

This Round-Table Session intends to continue the debate on these issues in the most open and provocative way possible. The preliminary topics include:

• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: the real consequences of competition.

• What are the key business skills archaeologists need?

• How do business skills link to high quality archaeological results – and who judges?

••••

Round Table: COMMITTTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Organisers: Corien Bakker, England / Sue Davies, England / Gerhard Ermischer, Germany / Boudewijn

Goudswaard / Peter Hinton, England / Sean Kirwan, Ireland pete.hinton@virgin.net

Abstract to follow.

••••

Round Table: TEACHING AND TRAINING IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Organiser: John Collis, England j.r.collis@sheffield.ac.uk

Under the commmittee's constitution, the membership of the committee consists of any EAA member who attends the

Round Table, but the session is open to all interested parties. The Round Table will start by electing its Chair and the members of the Executive Committee for the coming year. There will also be reports on activities during the year by the

Chair, and by the two working parties set up at Esslingen, on teaching of Archaeology in Spain (Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero) and on east-west exchanges (Ludmila Koryakova and Olena Smyntyna). Special themes have yet to be decided on by the

Executive Committee.

••••

Round Table: THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS WEB PAGE

Organisers: Arkadiusz Marciniak, Poland / Peter Biehl, Germany arekmar@amu.edu.pl

The round table will focus on all matters concerning the expansion and development of the European Association of

Archaeologists’ web page. The need for such a discussion is acute. Electronic media provides an efficient means to communicate with EAA members and we must seize all the available technology to help ease this otherwise time demanding task. In particular, three major issues will be discussed: (1) how the web page will be structured and how resources relevant to EAA members will be listed, (2) how the directory of European archaeological web pages can be maintained and elaborated, (3) how the content and structure of the European Journal of Archaeology web page will differ from that of the EAA page.

••••

GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY: ITS CURRENT POSITION & FUTURE


Abstract to follow.

THEMATIC BLOCK IV:

Paths to Diversity- Regional Perspectives

THE EUROPEAN STEPPE IN THE BRONZE AGE: ECONOMY AND MATERIAL CULTURE

Organisers: Pavel Kouznetsov, Russia / Oleg Motchalov, Russia mochal@hippo.ru

Discussant: David Anthony, USA

This session was organized for the first time last year in Germany, and it attracted the attention of scholars from the whole of Europe and America.

According to the wishes of many specialists, we want to propose the continuation of this session in 2002. The focus of presentations will consentrated on the questions of economy and particularities of material culture. Questions concerning the economy of steppe tribes in the Bronze Age are some of the interesting problems we wish to discuss. At present,

Eastern European and Western specialists are collecting important new data about these problems. Not just archaeologists are concerned with these issues, but also paleobotanists, osteologists, soil specialists considered the themes of climate, type of stock, etc. Thus, currently, this topic of economy in the European Steppe during the Bronze Age has been complexly approached not only through the method of archaeology, but through other scientific methods mentioned previously, resulting in a more intricate and full consideration of this issue.

One of the main interests of this session will be the Late Bronze Age of the Volga-Ural region, which geographically includes all southeastern European regions and its border with Asia. Recently, a joint Russian and American team conducted a project investigating the economy and social structure of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Samara valley.

Samara was the focus of this project, because the river Samara was the natural transitional zone between the classic steppe and forest-steppe and the natural northeastern border of the steppe in Eastern Europe. In this territory, the history of many archaeological cultures of stockbreeders and their intensive interaction with those around them is reflected in the archaeological record. Some presentations will be devoted to the results of these studies such as the particularities of pastoralism in this region, metallurgy, settlement features, archaeological cultures, and burial rituals. Colleagues who research similar issues in other projects are invited to take part in this session. Already, scholars from Russia, the U.S.A., the Ukraine, Northern Ireland and Spain are expected to participate in this session.

We hope to also attract to this session comparisons with other territories, such as the Caucasus, Central Europe, and the

Ural Mountains. These comparisons are vital for understanding the cultural and economic connections with other famous cultures, such as Maikop, Novosvobodnoe, Sintashta, Alakul to name a few. Some results of presented papers were conducted by the support of NSF (USA) SBR # 9818527 and RHSF (Russia) # 00-01-00093a.

••••

PATHWAYS INTO MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL GREECE

Organisers: Thanasis Vionis, Lefteris Sigalos / The Netherlands e.sigalos@ruple.leidenuniv.nl

The neglect of Medieval and Post-Medieval Greek Archaeology is currently being replaced by concern for the problematics of settlement distribution, life-styles and methodologies. We all recognise the need for further collaboration and exchange of ideas in the field of Medieval and Post-Medieval archaeology in Greece. We are hoping that various keypoints of this still developing part of Greek archaeology will be addressed.

••••

EUROPE, HELLAS AND EGYPT: COMPLEMENTARY ANTIPODES

DURING THE LATE ANTIQUITY

Organisers: Amanda–Alice Maravelia, Greece / Galina A. Belova, Russia / Eleni Kladaki– Manoli, Greece nut_ntrt@otenet.gr

When an Egyptological session was oficially incorporated for the first time in the agenda of the European Association of Archaeologists, during the EAA 7th Conference in Esslingen, we were not expecting such a warm welcome, even by non Egyptologists. This session is intended as the second part of last year’s project, and is focused to explore and discuss some of the themes which would be mutually interesting both for Egyptologists and for specialists in European

Archaeology. Emphasis will be stressed on the Late Antiquity (after c. 660 BCE, including the Roman and the Coptic

Period, until the Arab Conquest c. 640 CE), although studies concerned with earlier eras are also welcome.

Ancient Egypt was a cradle of European civilization. From the beginning of historic times Egypt was closely linked to the Mediterranean area, and Egyptian culture had a great influence upon the growth of European civilization. The country of pyramids always attracted Europeans not only because of its marvels and sages but also because of the fertility of its soil. During Helleno–Roman and Byzantine times Egypt has been a granary for Europe, which moreover was strategically situated in the Middle East. That is why historical destinies of Europe and Egypt were interlaced very closely, and at times portions of the European continent and Egypt were parts of one and the same empire. Especially during the Saitic renaissance, when Hellenic mercenaries were abiding in Egypt; when Amasis II and Polykrates of Samos were temporary allies; when Naukratis was the Hellenic emporium centre: at these times, the interactions of both nations were fruitful and deserve particular attention. With the advent of Alexander the Great, greeted by the priesthood of Amun, and the reign of

Ptolemies, Egypt enjoyed her last centuries of relative freedom and flourished. Then again, during the Roman occupation, the enchorial label was deliberately put on the autochtones, and the decline of purely Egyptian customs was completed, until they were nearly obsolete or highly transformed with the advent of Christianity during the Coptic era.

We are sure that results of recent held investigations in Egypt would be very interesting to specialists in the field of

European Archaeology and would give them an opportunity to identify themes of a mutual interest. In connection with the former guidelines and concepts, we organize a special egyptological session to discuss the following topics:

1. The history of European Egyptology and European Museums holding Egyptian Antiquities today, together with the presentation of some (master) pieces of their collections.

2. The political, economic and cultural contacts between Europe, Hellas and Egypt especially during the NK, TIP, LP,

Helleno–Roman and Early Christian Periods.

3. The impacts of the advent of Alexander the Great, and the current excavations in Alexandria.

4. The links between populations of Egypt and Europe (especially Hellas) in ancient times using anthropological or other data.

••••

THE EMERGENCE OF METALLURGY IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

Organisers: Y. Bassiakos, Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki / Greece ckoukouli@yahoo.gr , bassiakos@ims.demokritos.gr

Recent years have seen an increasing body of evidence indicating that several centres in South-eastern Europe had cultures in which metal-working was practised at dates compared with the earliest corresponding cultures of the Near

East. Even since the early seventies, regions like the Balkans and the Aegean have been included in the 4,500/3,500 BC. isochrons of the origin and development of copper metallurgy (Renfrew, 1971). However, the socio-economic dimension of ancient metal production and use, as well as the theoretical aspects of ancient metallurgy in the above region comprise issues, which demand much better understanding.

Among the main objectives of the session is the investigation of the archaeometallurgy and the relevant technologies in

South-eastern Europe and the mechanisms of its diffusion. Also, the study, through the impact of metals, of possible links and interactions between the Balkans and the adjacent regions (Near East, Aegean, Central and Western Europe) is of paramount importance (Begeman et al., 1994). Associated to the latter is the question of what has actually travelled: the ideas, the people, the objects or the raw materials.

Contributions dealing with both mining and metallurgical techniques as well as multi-disciplinary approaches and analytical studies referring to the afore-mentioned objectives are welcome in the session.

••••

HOUSEHOLDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY: MEANING, FORM AND FUNCTION

IN PREHISTORIC AND HISTORICAL PERIODS

Organiser: Angeliki Pilali-Papasteriou, Greece pilali@hist.auth.gr

Household is one of the basic units of the social framework, which has a dialectical relation with the social and cultural context of each period.

However the notional definition of household has been the object of many discussions and theoretical speculations not only for archaeology but also for all social sciences.

The various methodological and scientific approaches emphasize each time some aspects of household or even some problems, which have to do with the form and its functions. E.g. the connection of household to family or to clan, the

relations of the members who live together, the relation of genders, the social and economic role of household in the community and its symbolic dimension are some of the issues of such speculations.

Archaeology can do very little in order to reconstruct the form of the household concerning its social and ideological character. On the contrary archaeology can recognize its spatial organization as far as its functions, namely the various activities of its members who live in this specific place. These aspects are usually more or less imprinted on the material remnants. We believe that an analysis of household, during the prehistoric and historical periods, related to the various social, cultural and historical contexts will contribute to the debate in order to understand not only its function but also its form.

We invite our colleagues to present certain archaeological examples and to state their relevant views.

••••

CONCEPTUALISING THE SEA IN PREHISTORY: CASE FOR THE BLACK

AND THE MEDITERRANEAN SEAS

Organiser: Olena Smyntyna, Ukraine / Nikolay Russev, Moldova smyntyna@paco.net

During the last decades significant contributions have been made to the problem of the interaction between society and nature. In most cases the main attention is paid to the issue of the development of continental cultures in connection with their adaptation to the natural environment.

The current session focuses on another aspect of this issue.The problem of prehistoric cultural development in marine basins is the subject of our interdisciplinary and diachronic study.

Several topics are proposed for discussion. One of them concerns the reconstruction of the prehistoric natural habitat’s specific features (climatic regime, vegetation, fauna, relief etc.) in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea regions.

One plans to examine different aspects of daily life (hunting and gathering, growing plants, raising animals, artifacts manufacturing), dwelling and the ritual activity of the population which inhabited these regions at prehistory in connection with peculiarities of the marine coastal environment.

The subject of special attention is the development of seashore lines and the problem of the dispersion of human groups within the framework of the changes in these lines. The evolution of rivers andestuaries beds, which connected the

Black and Mediterranean Seas also needs to be examined in this context.

Information flow in the Black and Mediterranean Sea region in connection with marine basin changes is another issue, which needs to be discussed.

••••

INITIAL NEOLITHIC OCCUPATION OF SMALL ISLAND GROUPS

IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Organiser: Nellie Phoca-Cosmetatou, England nellie.phoca-cosmetatou@wolfson.ox.ac.uk

Islands have for a long time exerted much fascination among archaeologists; the reason for this fascination, however, has changed over the years. Islands have been thought of as (Evans 1973) ‘laboratories’ for the study of cultural developments, being self contained regions. It was acknowledged (Renfrew and Cherry 1986), though, that islands are not actually self contained units and that the sea is not a boundary separating the islands but rather the medium which brought the inhabitants in relatively easy contact. Another ‘traditional’ concern among archaeologists relates to demographic issues, such as the chronology of the first occupation of the islands and the region of the mainland from which the first inhabitants came (Cherry 1981, see Broodbank 2000 for recent discussion). Although these are interesting and important issues to explore, it is argued here that there has been a lack of interest in the people themselves, in the livelihoods of the first inhabitants of the islands, in the ways they managed to survive in those environments.

This session proposes to explore precisely the means through which humans managed to survive in such areas. Three aspects of island habitation are particularly relevant to the considerations of this session.

1. The initial, first, and permanent, successful, habitation of a particular island or island group.

2. Habitation of small individual islands, for they provide a restricted set of resources and thus constitute demanding environments for permanent human habitation, due to their low productivity, increased risks of famine coupled with isolation from other human groups. Large islands, in contrast, do not place such demands on human survival strategies.

3. Habitation of such islands within the context of a Neolithic society and economy. For such a context implies individual and separate human groups exploring new regions, without any support and directives from a state society.

Comparisons on the demands set on humans in a Neolithic and hunter-gatherer context may also be explored.

Papers are sought which tackle the above aspects of island habitation, exploring the reasons and ways in which humans first occupied and survived in these demanding environments. Papers may be on theoretical issues, such as the concept of the ‘island’ and what this term implies, on modelling island inhabitation, as well as presenting particular case studies.

Variables affecting the successful initial occupation of an island may include environmental changes, developments in subsistence and economic techniques, changes in social structures or any combination of the above. A classic example to explore the above issues are the Aegean islands; but other such small-island clusters include the Aeolian islands as well as the Hebrides.

••••

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF BELIEFS AND RITUAL PRACTICES

Organisers: Valeriu Sirbu, Christian Schuster / Romania mzbr-ist@flex.ro & cristianschuster@yahoo.com.

Abstract to follow.

••••

THE PROSPECTS OF PALAEOLITHIC RESEARCH

IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE AT THE ONSET OF THE 21 ST CENTURY

Organiser: Dimitra Papagianni, England

D.Papagianni@soton.ac.uk

As the post-communist turmoil of the 1990s seems to be settling down, political and economic realities in southeastern

Europe are changing rapidly. Archaeology in this area is also opening up to western theoretical influences and increased field research and funding opportunities and moving away from the narrative or quasi-Marxist approaches of the past.

The aim of this session is to examine the prospects for Palaeolithic research in southeastern Europe amidst these changing conditions: what are the research priorities, who sets the agenda and what is the role of the local archaeologists in funnelling these new research opportunities. Because the emphasis will be on hearing from the local archaeologists, the session contributors will be researchers and/or academics based in southeastern Europe, and wherever possible of the younger generation. The session discussant will be a western-European prehistoric archaeologist research active in southeastern Europe. That the EAA 2002 is taking place in southeastern Europe provides a unique opportunity for such a session for both logistical and symbolic reasons.

This is not to imply that southeastern Europe is a uniform entity or should be treated as such. Southeastern Europe (or the Balkans) is an artificially delineated region – often more readily defined by outsiders, the western world, rather than by insiders –, defined as much by post-war 20th century political history as by topography or earlier history. In the context of the present discussion, the similarities stem primarily from the fact that all but one of the southeast European countries are in a transitional phase from communist isolative regimes to integrating with western political and economic structures. But the process of this transition, in many cases traumatic, has been by no means uniform across the countries of southeastern Europe. Equally, the post-war communist regimes in the region varied significantly and, in the context of academics, imposed various degrees of isolation from the outside world. In terms of theoretical perspectives in archaeology, Marxist theory was uneasily superimposed on pre-existing culture-historical approaches, themselves modelled after central and western European research traditions.

All these parameters have resulted in a fragmentation of theoretical and methodological paradigms in Palaeolithic archaeology across southeastern Europe. Although there is no reason why research paradigms should be uniform across this region, the current fragmentation creates challenges for a discipline like Palaeolithic archaeology in which presentday geopolitical boundaries have little relevance. If Palaeolithic evidence from southeastern Europe is to be fully incorporated into the current picture of the European Palaeolithic, research questions and priorities will have to be set in accordance with the major research themes of Palaeolithic research in Europe. Palaeolithic archaeology is also characterised by inter-disciplinary projects, frequently undertaken and funded in conjunction with natural sciences research – e.g., climate change –. Whether southeastern Europe is ready, in terms of institutional structures, research paradigms and availability of trained specialists, to realise the potential of these new opportunities is the main topic of the session.

The main issues addressed in the session, and on which each participant will be asked to make a presentation will be:

• the structure of research and academic institutions and whether and how they encourage Palaeolithic research and training of Palaeolithic specialists,

•

• the state of Palaeolithic archaeology compared to the archaeology of later periods, the main research priorities for Palaeolithic archaeology in southeastern Europe,

• local research traditions within southeastern Europe and theoretical and methodological influences from outside research traditions,

• the prospects for inter-national research projects within southeastern Europe.

Each presentation will be 15 min long. The remaining time will be dedicated to discussion.

The conference proceedings will be published on the website of the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins,

Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.

••••

TRANSPORT AND HORSEBREEDING IN EUROPE IN THE ENEOLITHIC,

BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGES

Organiser: Elena Kuzmina, Russia riku@dol.ru

The diffusion of wheeled transport was one of the most important innovations of European Prehistory. The cart was used in agriculture, especially for stockbreeding, hence the emer-gence of the pastoral economy in the steppes. This kind of transport stimulated exchange and cultural connections.

According to numerous paleozoologists, Europe was the centre of horse domestication. The invention of the horsedrawn chariot changed battle tactics in Bronze Age Europe. Dis-tinguishing an elite group of charioteer warriors led to heightened social stratification in Europe. Due to the development of transport and the use of the horse, riders have appeared. The crucial role of the horse in European culture has variously been reflected in rituals and mythology among

Indo-Europeans.

This session aims to analyze and discuss critically new paleozoological, archaeological and mythological data on horse domestication and development of the transport.

1. The diffusion of wheeled transport in prehistoric Europe.

2. Transport, trade and cultural connections.

3. Domestication of the horse: its time, place and early use.

4. The invention of horse-drawn chariots.

5. The formation of elite group of charioteer-warriors and social stratification in Europe.

6. The horse and the horseman.

7. The horse in the rituals and mythology of Indo-Europeans.

••••

NORTHERN PONTIC AREA IN THE GRAECO – ROMAN PERIOD:

BETWEEN BARBARIANS AND GREEKS

Organiser: Denis Zhuravlev, Russia denzhuravlev@mail.ru

The Session is devoted to the relations of two worlds co-existing on the edge of the oikoumena in the North Pontic

Area - the world of the Greek and Roman civilisations and the world of Barbarians represented by the nomads of the

Pontic steppes: Skythians, Sarmatians, Maeotians etc.

Having moved from Asia Minor during the Great Colonisation, the Greeks founded new polis upon the models of their metropolis’ on this land which became the new Motherland for them. In the 5th- 3rd centuries BC the North Pontic Area and the Bosporan Kingdom first of all was one of the main grain exporters in the Mediterranean. Such trade enriched both Bosporan landowners and tribal nobility. Tremendous wealth caused an unprecedented demand for luxuries both coming from overseas and of local production. Marvellous jewellery, toreutic, vases by the best painters that could very seldom be found even in metropolis’ came to the North Pontic Area to be exchanged for grain having become the stratical product.

The North Pontic Area was the unique part of the Greek world. This originality was determined by interaction of two worlds - the Greek and the Barbarian ones. Greeks brought their culture, arts and religion. The local tribes apprehended many features of this culture. The most Hellenised were tribes living not far from the coast and having the closest contact with the Greeks. In their turn the Greeks were also influenced by Barbarian cultures. On the one hand, the

Barbarians perceived several cultural achievements of the Greeks and on the other, the Greeks of the North Pontic polis were becoming more and more barbarian adopting habits and customs of the local people. Dion Chrisostomus noted that

North Pontic Greeks "did not speak Greek very clearly as they lived among Barbarians but almost all of them knew "The

Iliad by heart". This influence of the non-Greek surroundings on Greeks of the North Pontic Area began from the appearance of the first colonists and reached its apogee in the first centuries AD.

The North Pontic Area was not only the remote region of the Greek oikoumena but it was one of the component parts of the Greek mythological world. The island Leuka (Zmeinyi) in the North-West Pontic Area was connected with

Achilles since ancient times whose sanctuary was situated on the island for many centuries. Agamemnon’s daughter,

Iphigeneia, who was to be sacrificed, was replaced by Artemis with a doe and carried Iphigeneia to Tauris where she was made a priestess of Artemis’ temple. The widely famous myth about the Argonauts and the Golden Fleece lured seekers of treasures and adventures to Kolchida. The greatest Greek hero - Hercules was also connected with Pontus and according to some legends he was an ancestor of the Skythians.

The fact that the North Pontic Area is remote from the main part of the Greek world, the absence of reliable information about Barbarian peoples inhabiting this region led to many legends and myths about griffins, arimasps,

Amazons appearing. Finds of weapons in female burials gave some archaeologists the opportunity to regard the

Amazons as practically historical personages.

At our session, we are going to discuss general problems (the Greek colonisation, religion, relations between Greeks and Barbarians during different periods, Greek and Roman imports in Barbarian burials) and some papers, devoted to different aspects of Greek and Barbarian archaeology of the 7th century BC to 4th century AD. Posters and papers with materials of recent excavations are also welcome.

••••

AEGEAN – MARMARA – BLACKSEA: PRESENT STATE

OF THE RESEARCH OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC

Organisers: Ivan Gazov, Bulgaria / Heiner Schwarzberg, Germany igatsov@yahoo.com & Schwarzberg@planet-interkom.de, hs@dainst.de

The session will be divided into parts (archaeology and sciences). The papers will present a general overview about the most current research in this region. Both parts of the session will be connected by a discussion and concluding remarks.

During the last decades there has been a remarkable intensification in the research of Neolithic sites in Anatolia. This increasing knowledge of the Anatolian Neolithic went hand in hand with new research in the whole area between the Near

East and Southeast Europe.

Despite these advances in Neolithic research, one of the most important key points for the understanding of the genesis of the early Neolithic of Southeast Europe remains almost in darkness, that is the small area which is structured by the

Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea. Due to the special geographical situation of the Thracian and the Kocaeli

Penisula this area always fuctioned as a "cultural bridge" between the Near East and Europe.

After smaller surveys and rescue excavations in the 1980s, the national and international archaeological research has increased during the last years in this area. Although we are still at the beginning, there are the first encouraging results about the role of Southeast European and Anatolian cultures, on the one hand, and on the importance of local traditions in the process of the Neolithization, on the other hand.

One objective of the session is to present, evaluate and discuss the present state of research of the early Neolithic cultures in the region of the Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea. Furthermore, the session wants to scrutinize the influence of the North Eastern Aegean islands in the context of the Neolithization of Europe. And finally, the session wants to stress the importance of interdisciplinary research by including papers on zoology, botany,and new analyses on sea level changes in this region.

••••

ORIGINS OF LBK

Organiser: Marek Zvelebil, England

M.Zvelebil@sheffield.ac.uk

The aim of the session is to summarize the recent developments in research and fieldwork taking place in the eastern part of the LBK area of distribution, and to introduce this very interesting research to a broader archaeological community at the conference in Thessaloniki. The focus will be in the area of origin of the Linear Pottery Culture, and on the surrounding regions, including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, and the Czech Republic. The research objective is to discuss the processes through which the LBK culture originated in the light of recent discoveries in this region, and consider archaeological, anthropological and sociological approaches which may be able to shed further light on the LBK origins. This should include problems of dating, relative cultural contribution made by ancestral cultural groups (earlier

Neolithic and Mesolithic), the question of the initial distribution of the LBK culture and of the defining features of such earliest cultural horizon, questions of inter-generational transmission of cultural traditions, questions of social organization, land use and economy, of demography and the subsequent dispersal into adjacent regions. Implications and

significance of these developments for the broader context of Neolithic Europe will form a focus of the concluding discussion.

••••

NEOLITHIC CONTACTS IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

Organiser: Bogdar Brukner, Yugoslavia / Florin Drasovean, Romania brukner@uns.ns.ac.yu

Abstract to follow.

••••

SOUTHEAST EUROPE INLATEANTIQUITY


Abstract to follow.

3RD ANNOUNCEMENT

Related documents

Products

Support

3RD ANNOUNCEMENT

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib