InSitu (Issue No. 2, Feb 2014)

INSITU

March/April 2014

INSITU The Team in the Trenches Editor-in-Chief Alex Westra

Design Editor Zack Higham

Contributors David Banks, Lisa Bird, Rachel Faulkner-Jones, Tom Gardner, Kristie Yorkston, Marta Lorenzon, Meg Moodie, Andrew Nicholl, Maddie O'Neill, Katie Roper, Alexander Westra, Sam Williamson, Ashleigh Wiseman

Editors

Rachel Faulkner-Jones, Meg Moodie

Illustrators

Katy O'Donnell, Zofia Guertin

1

Cover: Malta, Mnajdra

Temple in the evening. The area is now part of an archaeological park. (For more on this site see pg. 12)

Above: A llama climbs some steps to enjoy the view at the famous Incan site of Machu Picchu, Peru.

Courtesy Ross McKeown

Courtesy Ellie March

Clerical notes and corrections for Issue 1.

In our previous issue we called ourselves a “peer-reviewed� journal.

This in fact is not the case and we apologize for any confusion which we may have caused. We are a student-run archaeological magazine. Additionally, we apologize for any grammatical and formatting glitches. As a new publication, we're learning as we go, thanks for bearing with us.

N.B. All accompanying photographs courtesy of their respective article authors unless otherwise stated

Issue 2 March/April 2013 Salvete Readers, Well met and thank you for reading InSitu - Edinburgh University’s Archaeology Society’s online archaeology magazine. Like the previous issue, I foolishly opted for the theme-less approach. This may very well be my last time as Editor-in-Chief with this publication. Before you whip out your handkerchiefs and wave to me Adieu, I urge you to read on. Here is compiled a selected few works submitted mostly from students. Quite a lot of food-for-thought to digest here. Andrew Nicholl sets the tone for this edition, a cautionary tale for revisionism. Indeed, you have to consider implications and biases of your own narratives when you attempt to reconstruct, protect and disseminate knowledge and accounts of the past. This tension is clearly visible in preservation and heritage sites considered to be of world importance. An Edinburgh student on exchange in Malta, David Banks has first-hand experience and reports to us the challenges currently facing the Maltese Heritage and the public’s interactions with it. Engaging the public with Archaeology is a major concern in Scottish Archaeology as well. Closer to home, Katie Roper comments and highlights the successful stories of community archaeology from around Scotland at the Community Heritage Conference in Birnam.

Lastly, the ethical deliberation in handling, excavating and curating human remains is still a vexing matter, and Sam Williamson engages with the question adroitly. A theme surfaces, indeed. I would call you to consider these questions of authorized narrative and ownership of the past.

Enjoy.

Alex Westra, Editor-in-Chief alexanderwestra@hotmail.com insituonlinejournal@gmail.com Hello everyone!

Welcome to yet another fascinating edition of InSitu. On behalf of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity thank everyone who has submitted to the magazine and worked on the editorial team to help to make InSitu what it is. ArchSoc has grown in numbers again, and goes from strength to strength. Our events have spanned from the thought-provoking and informative lectures to insightful and practical workshops. We had a brilliant medieval themed pub-crawl to welcome back our members after the festive winter break (and to welcome some newbies to our society too!). Other fantastic events included the trip to Rome, and a pub quiz where we met members of the Glaswegian ArchSoc, – what a semester! The Fieldwork and Information Fair was the highlight of the semester for me. Professional companies from all over Lothian attended; as well as University staff and Field Schools, such as HARP, BRP and Rampart Scotland. Professor Robert Leighton opened our fair emphasising the importance of fieldwork for anyone interested in a career in archaeology. David Connolly (Uncle BAJR to some) provided some comic-relief and gave valuable in-depth information and advice to students for their future careers in professional archaeology. We also had a talk from The National Trust for Scotland on their series of volunteer projects and how you can get involved.

Everyone came away with a significant insight; and hopefully, some voluntary work, excavations or a job for upcoming graduates! With the AGM fast approaching I will be happy to welcome the new committee on board, but will be sad to let go of something I now consider a family. It has been a joy working with my fellow committee members to put on such brilliant events and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for all their hard work. But the year is not quite over yet, so look out for some fun days in the sun in May. That's all folks, Ashleigh Wiseman, Archsoc President www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

2

INSITU

Contents Articles The Dangers of an Easy Narrative ...........................................................6

by Andrew Nicholl The Childe Collective ..............................................................................9

by Rachel Faulkner-Jones Heritage Conservation and Public Interaction ................................12

by David Banks Afri-Classics ............................................................................................16

by Meg Moodie 3-D Printers in Archaeology ...................................................................19

by Kristie Yorkston Scandinavian Burial Mounds .......................................................... 21

by Madeline O’Neill Scotland’s Community Heritage Conference 2013 ...............................25

by Katie Roper Ethics and Human Remains ............................................................ 23

by Sam Williamson

Reviews Armchair Archaeology ........................................................................... 27

by Marta Lorenzon The Traveling Archaeologist ................................................................. 29

by Lisa Bird 3

Issue 2 March/April 2013

4 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

5

Issue 2 March/April 2013

The Dangers of an Easy Narrative: Human Sacrifice in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica

by Andrew Nicholl

THE RECENT ARCHSOC SPONSORED

LECTURE by Dr Elizabeth Graham provides

a wonderful jumping off point for discussion: the contention that Mesoamerican cultures, in particular the Maya and Aztec, did not practice human sacrifice as Hollywood and common sense tells us is as audacious as it is surprising.

Decades of popular portrayal as bloodthirsty savages, or perhaps bloodthirsty yet noble natives, leave the layperson (or even the nonspecialising archaeologist) with a clear and easily digestible narrative – no matter what else you may or may not know, the Aztecs cut out the still-beating hearts of their sacrifices, and the Maya mutilated and decapitated their offerings to the Maize God. An easy narrative. Dr Graham, correctly I believe, calls this into question. If you are familiar with history at all, knowledge of the Late Antique period in Europe should provide context, as the early Christian father s practiced a similar form of social character assassination: Nero did not play a fiddle while Rome burned, but this is the most common image associated with his name. History is replete with similar examples of one culture painting other peoples as barbarians – “bar bar bar”. Nor are the Aztecs and Maya alone amongst the native North American societies in their

demonization, as the sad history of race relations in the United States shows: the “noble red-man” quickly became the “noble savage,” and then the “noble” qualifier was dropped when it became evident that the Indians (pace) lived on prime real estate.

Again, an easy narrative. This is the famous “Other” in action, and so far, though academia has worked to right the injustices inherent in the system, the Mesoamerican cultures as enthusiastic practitioners of human sacrifice has remained a hitherto indelible image. Dr Graham’s contention, stated in the lecture, that these peoples did not ritually kill is quite possibly motivated by this sense of revisionist justice – and this is a worthy goal, fully at the heart of the anthropological mind-set. As students of archaeology, we are trained slightly differently: evidence is necessary, preferably of a material nature. The Sagan Standard applies most certainly in this situation: claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The argument of Other-based cultural assassination, I feel, is compelling, but it is not direct evidence. To the contrary, the prevalence of iconography regarding blood sacrifice in both the Aztec and Maya contexts, as well as the positively overwhelming number of obsidian sacrifice blades found at nearly every site, would seem to argue that blood-letting was integral to the ritual practices of the region. The Popol Vuh, a 6

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU post-conquest document recounting the creation myth of the Quiché Maya, gives the basic ritual formula upon which blood sacrifice is based: the gods created maize to feed humans of their own substance, and in return, humans must feed the gods in likewise fashion. Body for food, blood for food. It should be noted the Popol Vuh cannot be taken as ritualpractice evidence for all the Maya, or even for the Quiché Maya of the Guatemalan highlands for any length of time approaching their existence: it speaks to one moment in time, after exposure to the Spanish conquistadors and missionaries. It does bear very strong iconographic and thematic similarities to other Maya finds over the post-classical, classical, and even preclassical periods however, and though an assumption, it is likely that the story elements of the Maize God, the Hero Twins, and the bargain of shared sacrifice underlies the entire Maya region. As well, when traced back sufficiently, the core story of sacrifice for food seems to be shared by the Aztecs, the Olmec, and all the other myriad culture-groups in the area. None of these groups were States as the Spaniards (or we their heirs) would understand it, and variations were many – again, when faced with something 7

that sort of looks like something familiar, humans tend to categorise things into easily understandable lumps. Cities? This must be a nation! Pyramids? These must be tombs!

Cutting open of tongues, genitals, and hearts?

These must be…wait, what? These people are savages! Dr Graham’s contention that the MesoAmericans’ be re-examined to remove remnant ethnocentric bias is well-justified, but from a direct, archaeological standpoint it remains to be seen whether there is any physical evidence that they did not sacrifice people. And here is w h e r e anthropologicallylensed archaeology has a place to speak: aside from the pure research view of answering the question Did They/ Did They Not, perhaps the drive to rectify an ethnocentric wrong is itself misguided. If the Maya captured and decapitated opposing warriors, if the Aztec cut the hearts from children, coating the temple steps in blood…so what? If the goal of anthropology – and of archaeology – is to understand human culture, to appreciate the full flower of the human experience, is it not incumbent that we respect that these cultures felt it normal and justified to sacrifice themselves and each other for their gods? We

Issue 2 March/April 2013

Mayan deities depicted on a vase from the site of Chama, Guatamala. Courtesy University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

would certainly not allow such behaviour to exist today, but the past has already had its play – judging events of yesterday by today’s standards, while normal, has little consequence.

Ethnocentrism cuts both ways: the barbarian Other on one hand, the at-peace-with-Nature Indian on another; the terrifying Han hordes, or ancient Chinese medicine. All easy narratives.

Archaeology has a unique role in answering the question how we lived, and this is no easy task.

As students of the human experience, it is absolutely imperative that we be aware of our biases, our tendencies, and the reasons we ask the questions we do. Humans are fiendishly complex, and our social groupings even more so – hence our rigour in self-awareness is even more important. Dr Graham is absolutely correct in calling attention to the historical and even current prejudice against the MesoAmerican indigenous peoples, and in calling into question our received wisdom about their cultures. I do not think that Dr Graham has slipped too far in the other

direction – I’ve not seen her research, nor do I possess nearly enough experience in this area to pass that kind of sweeping value judgement.

I do worry at the possibility of whitewashing occurring in my own research however, because I know how easy it is to do, how easy it is to fall in love with a pet narrative, and that is the discussion I hope that you will have with each other.

The opinions and musings in this article are solely the author’s own. anicholl@gmail.com Left and facing page: images of Mayan sacrifical rituals courtesy Missouri State University Below Title: detail from Mayan stucco glyphs ath the Museum at Palenque

8 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

The Childe Collective

by Rachel Faulkner-Jones

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF

ARCHAEOLOGY

can often seem overwhelming in geographical and chronological scope and complexity, especially in a university structure which aims for breadth as well as depth in understanding.

Capitalising on the range of interests exhibited by students at every stage of their university career, as well as the natural instincts of trueborn archaeologists to gravitate towards the nearest pub, current ArchSoc Academic Liaison Alex Westra established the Childe Collective in 2012.

Named for the departmental legend V. Gordon Childe, the Collective is an informal discussion group that meets on alternate Mondays during semesters 1 and 2 in a local watering hole – currently the Southsider on Nicholson Street. Led by a volunteer, topics are chosen based on current research interests, topical news stories or recent ArchSoc guest lectures. A student volunteer leads a selected a topic for discussion, circulating some relevant reading suggestions (for a given value of relevance) around a week beforehand. On the evening, the group hears a short presentation or overview of the chosen topic by the leader, followed by a lively discussion where no question is too large or small, tangents are readily accepted (though carefully steered back towards topic), insights are profound and beer is drunk. The Collective usually chats on9

topic for around two hours, though particularly controversial items have been known to last all evening! There is often a follow-up discussion on the group page on Facebook for several days afterwards, especially if new papers or news items emerge.

Recent topics of discussion have been Food and Drink in Prehistory, which covered everything from weaning practices to the Paleo Diet fad; burnt mounds, recent excavations and interpretations; The Childe Collective is a safe space.

Specialise in Scottish Neolithic settlements and too afraid to admit you can’t remember the names of all the Bronze Age Mediterranean empires? Never used a Harris Matrix? Finding something in a course complicated or unclear?

Assuming a permanent air of good-natured perplexity? Everyone has something they don’t know, but everyone also has a wealth of intelligence and interest in a huge range of topics. We want to turn individual foibles and successes into a department-wide community of engaged, happy, inquisitive, slightlyhungover students and staff who feel able to explore and expand their own boundaries and comfort zones.

Join our Facebook group (search for Childe Collective Edinburgh), or email us at childecollective@gmail.com to receive weekly-ish updates and notifications for upcoming group events.

Issue 2 March/April 2013 BRAG 2014 British Rock Art Group Conference

In Britain, interest in rock art has grown substantially over the last 10-15 years. The frequency of research projects, archaeological excavations, and publications focusing on rock art in Britain and abroad have all increased significantly. Public awareness of British rock art has also risen, with unprecedented levels of amateur involvement and government-sponsored recording work revealing new rock art sites and developing new insights.

These changes are reflected in the BRAG conference. From the initial small, rather ad hoc, gatherings of academics over a decade ago, the conference has developed into a more ambitious event which welcomes all those who are researching, engaged with, or simply interested in rock art. It provides an exciting opportunity for professionals, amateurs and students to come together to highlight new discoveries and debate key issues in rock art research.

BRAG 2014 registration is now open!

Tormain Hill, Ratho, near Edinburgh. Photo: Tertia Barnett

Date: Saturday 3 May Location: Meadows Lecture Theatre, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG Conference fee: £10 (£5 for students/ concessions) payable in advance, to include refreshments, lunch and wine reception The British Rock Art Group (BRAG) is an informal gathering of British researchers who are interested in rock art in Britain and other parts of the world. The group was established over a decade ago and its key role is to organise an annual conference to promote the presentation and discussion of rock art research in Britain.

In previous years, the BRAG conference has been held in Cambridge, Bristol, Durham, Newcastle and Belfast. This is the first time that it has come to Scotland, and the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at Edinburgh University is delighted to host the event.

Around 3,000 engraved rock art panels are known in Scotland – around half of the total recorded panels in Britain and Ireland – including some of the most elaborate and extensive prehistoric carved rocks in Britain, with significant concentrations in Kilmartin (Argyll) and Dumfries and Galloway. The number of Scottish rock art sites is growing every year thanks to the dedicated work of amateur specialists, whose activities are changing our understanding of rock art distribution, while recent excavations of carved panels in Kilmartin and Ben Lawers have shed new light on the chronology and context of rock art production.

Recent discoveries in Scotland will be the theme of one of the conference sessions.

Subsequent sessions will focus on conservation and management of British rock art, and recent research on rock art in other parts of the world including Europe and the Mediterranean, 10

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU North Africa and South Africa, with presentations by prominent figures, specialist amateurs and students working in this field.

The conference key note talk will be given by Dr Andrew Meirion Jones from Southampton University. Dr Jones has conducted extensive research on prehistoric stonescapes and in Scotland and Britain, and his talk ‘Art beyond the rocks: rock art and the decorated artefacts of Neolithic Britain’ examines the debate surrounding the definition of art and aesthetics in the anthropology of art.

The conference also features posters on rock art from Britain and Europe, interactive sessions to explore rock art datasets and the revamped England’s Rock Art (ERA) website, and a workshop on experimental rock carving techniques.

There is an optional field trip on Sunday 4 May to visit rock art sites in Stirlingshire for which transport will be provided (a small contribution may be required). Transport will need to be booked as soon as possible, so please note your interest in the field trip by 1 April.

We look forward to seeing you at the conference!

Chatton Park, Northumberland. Photo: Tertia Barnett

For further information about the conference programme, registration, and the field trip, please visit the BRAG 2014 conference webpage, or email the conference organiser, Tertia Barnett (Tertia.Barnett@ed.ac.uk)

Dodd Law, Northumberland.

Photo: Tertia Barnett

11

Issue 2 March/April 2013

Fig.1 Mnajdra temple at the Summer Solstice

Heritage Conservation and Public Interaction: A Case Study from Malta

SINCE THE FORMATION

of the UN and UNESCO at the end of the Second World War, access to and protection of cultural heritage have become increasingly seen as a human right (Logan 2012). If this is indeed the case, this presents a series of challenges for both archaeologists and conservationists when it comes to the protection of our cultural heritage. Anyone familiar with the slow and painful destruction of Lascaux Cave (Bahn 2008) will be only too familiar with the impact that high visitor numbers and poor conservation can have on sites of great significance. The UN, however, calls on states to ‘recognise the right of everyone to take part in cultural life’ (United Nations 1966). It often falls on our discipline to strike a balance between the conflicting goals of community engagement with, and preservation of, cultural

heritage.

The challenges with which this presents us are undoubtedly complex, but we should not shirk away from them. This article does not intend to offer any solutions. Rather, the aim here is to foster a debate amongst students regarding our role in the protection and use of heritage.

The case study presented below, which focuses on acts of vandalism on Maltese temple period sites, is used as a catalyst for these debates. The issues presented, however, are by no means unique to Malta.

The ‘Expert’ Barrier When a vast variety of definitions, images and meanings can be attached to a single term, often at both a personal individual level and as wider society level, they can become blurred 12

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU beyond recognition. It has been suggested that the term ‘community’ has such issues. It has become a buzzword that has filtered into the world of heritage management in recent years (Waterton & Smith 2010, p4 – 5).

This may be a positive development in the world of heritage management, which is at times seen as serving an imperialistic society where historical knowledge is something for the privileged (Smith 2008). It is only positive, however, if the ‘community’ that these new ideas serve is an inclusive one. It must recognise each part of society, not just a single group within the wider whole. According to Waterton & Smith (2010) this has not happened. If writers seek to talk about individual communities based on arbitrary attributes such as class, gender and ethnicity, this serves only to separate such groups further from an apparent white middle class norm. In the world of heritage, this takes the form of a separation barrier between heritage experts and the large swathes of the public whom they are designed to serve.

Changing Conventions It is important, of course, to recognise the positive steps that have been taken, especially those taken in the Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Council of Europe 2005). This convention defines cultural heritage as:

perceptions of culture may alter and evolve. By recognising the rights of the individual as well as the collective, it can empower everyone to have a say in the management of their heritage.

Whilst not every country in Europe has signed up to FARO, the scope of its influence should not be underestimated. For example, the UK has not signed up to FARO but its influence can nevertheless be seen. The Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance document produced by English Heritage includes recognition that ‘the historic environment is a shared resource’ and that ‘everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment’ (English Heritage 2008). The statements presented here demonstrate that the heritage sector is beginning to dismantle the expert barriers discussed above in favour of a more inclusive management style. The following case study will hopefully demonstrate the importance of a heritage management process that involves local communities to a greater degree.

The Temple Sites of Malta The temples of Malta, the most significant constructions of which date from between 3600 – 2500 BC, are the oldest known example of such large free standing stone architecture in the world (Trump 2002). Six of these temples have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (see Figure 2). Namely, Ggantija,

a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time.

Importantly, the above recognises that our 13

Fig. 2 Map of Maltese Temple Sites

Issue 2 March/April 2013 ta’ Hagrat, Skorba, Tarxien, Hagar Qim and Mnajdra (Heritage Malta 2008).

Of these sites, those at Hagar Qim and Mnajdra are of particular pertinence to this discussion.

Located on the southern coast of the island, they offer well preserved examples of the unique and impressive architecture of the temple period. As can be seen in Figure 1, the layout consists of a front façade and a central passageway through the main body of the temple with a number of apses opening out to each side. This layout is fairly typical of the temples of Malta, although individual variations do exist (Trump 2002). The construction of a number of temples, which were built progressively from the mid fourth millennium BC through to the mid third millennium BC, which are then encompassed within a single front façade, is also not unique to Mnajdra. In addition, the temples of Mnajdra and Hagar Qim are in extremely close proximity to each other, with each temple easily visible from the other (see Figure 3). In this sense, they also constitute part of a unique landscape with undeniable value.

1991, over thirty hectares of land around the temples at Mnajdra and Hagar Qim were acquired by the state with the aim of creating “an Archaeological Park” (Heritage Malta 2008). In a country with an extremely high population density, the enclosure of such a large area of land was, unsurprisingly, a contentious issue. When deciding to enclose a larger area around the temples, the local communities were not consulted. The enclosure cut through existing pathways and cut access to an extremely popular recreational

Figure 4: Pathway leading from Hagar Qim to Mnajdra temples. The land surrounding this pathway, leading down to the coast, now has restricted access.

area, thus further alienating some local factions (See Figure 4). The perception at this time was that the temples were being turned into a commodity to be sold as a tourist attraction, rather than kept as sites that were for the enjoyment of the Maltese public (Grima & Theuma 2006).

Fig. 3 Mnajdra temple from above. The layout is typical of the temple period in Malta

Recreation & Vandalism at Mnajdra The land around Hagar Qim and Mnajdra has been enclosed in one manner or another since the mid-1970s (Grima & Theuma 2006). In

In 2001, this ill feeling manifested itself in an act of massive destruction at the temple of Mnajdra. A large number of the megaliths which form the structure of Mnajdra were toppled or broken in an act that was quickly described as “cultural terrorism” (Times of Malta, 16th April 2001). Whilst the scale of the destruction was unprecedented, acts of 14

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU vandalism at the temple sites was certainly not something new. In both 1991 and 1996, graffiti attacks on Mnajdra took place, on both occasions in the form of pro-hunting slogans (Times of Malta 2007).

living in the same landscape as these temples for many years, why were they not more involved in decisions taken regarding the site?

One week after the vandalism took place, a large protest marched through the streets of Valletta. The protest called for better protection and recognition of Maltese heritage, and demonstrated the level of attachment there is between the Maltese population and their heritage. Whilst these events lead to the implementation of a new cultural heritage act, there has been little discussion given to ensuring such vandalism does not occur again.

Future Responsibilities for the Heritage Sector

Figure 5: Damaged megaliths at the Mnajdra temples, part of a massive act of vandalism on the site.

As noted above, the enclosed area of land around Mnajdra and Hagar Qim was an extremely popular area for recreation, in particular hunting and bird trapping. The practice of traditional bird trapping in Malta is documented as having taken place since ‘at least the 17th Century, and is probably much older’ (Grima & Theuma 2006). The practice involved the construction of small buildings in the landscape surrounding Hagar Qim and Mnajdra. In the weeks leading up to the vandalism at Mnajdra, eviction notices were posted by the council and some of the structures were even dismantled completely.

This raises questions regarding the responsibility of local authorities with regards to the damage caused. The narrative that emerges from the months and years preceding this act of destruction is one of the heritage sector making decisions with little regard for local feeling, often for short-term monetary gain. If more credence had been given to the feeling of the local hunters, who could claim to have a cultural heritage of their own in this landscape, would the vandalism have been avoided? If the local communities have been 15

The above case of vandalism at Mnajdra is presented here as a means of fostering debate around our responsibilities in the protection of heritage. Do those responsibilities simply relate to the physical conservation of sites, or do we have additional ethical responsibilities?

If we are to embrace the feeling of the FARO convention, then we must give due attention to the feelings of local communities. It is surely firstly for the benefit of these communities that we protect their heritage. Whilst decisions to enclose Mnajdra and Hagar Qim temples may have been made for reasons of protection and conservation, the manner of the decisionmaking was arguably a decisive factor in the massive damage inflicted on the temple. The vandalism also serves as a reminder that we cannot be complacent when making decisions regarding the management of heritage. It is this author’s opinion that local communities should be at the heart of the decision-making process. Whether that is currently the case in Malta, or elsewhere, is open to debate.

Issue 2 March/April 2013 References Bahn, P. (2008), “Killing Lascaux”, Archaeology, 61(3), 18 – 70 Council of Europe (2005), The Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available From: http://conventions.coe.int/ Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm [Accessed: 24th November 2013] English Heritage (2008), Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, London: English Heritage Grima, R. & Theuma, N. (2006), “The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage”, in Leask, A. & Fyall, A. (eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites, London: Routledge Heritage Malta (2008), Draft Management Plan for the Megalithic Temples of Malta, Malta: Heritage Malta Logan, W. (2012), “Cultural diversity, cultural heritage and human rights: towards heritage management as human rights-based cultural practice”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(3), 231 – 244 Smith, L. (2008), “Towards a Theoretical Framework for Archaeological Heritage Management” in Fairclough, G. et al (eds.)The Heritage Reader, London & New York: Routledge, 62 - 74 Smith, L. & Waterton, E. (2009a) Heritage, communities and archaeology, London: Duckworth.

Afri-Classics: The study of antiquities in a South African context

THE

by Meg Moodie

STUDY OF ANTIQUITIES has

traditionally

been

linked

to

European

institutions with the most famous collections housed in European museums. However this field of study does not appear to be as prosperous in all places and every so often a call goes out through forums and mailing lists for assistance in keeping subjects, museums and even whole departments operational.

Recent British examples include the proposed closures of Bristol and Canterbury museums .

Trump, D. (2002), Malta: Prehistory and Temples, Malta: Midsea Books Ltd

As a South African I became interested in the

Waterton, E. & Smith, L. (2010), “The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1-2), 4 - 15

historically obvious country for studying

Figure 1:http://cdn.gozonews.com/wp-content/ uploads/2008/05/solstice-hor.jpg Last accessed 21/12/13 Figure 2: http://www.mostlyfood.co.uk/ Malta_temple_02.jpg Last Accessed 21/12/13

prospects of a less geographically and classics and antiquities. This question of the place of classics in South Africa is addressed in Michael Lambert’s The Classics and South African

identities

(2011,

London).

Here

Lambert looks at the different social contexts

Figure 3:http://www.maltavista.net/img/photo/images3/ _mnajdra.jpg Last Accessed 21/12/13)

within South Africa and their interaction with

Figure 4:http://www.topsightseeing.com/malta/malta/ images/mnajdra.jpg Last Accessed 21/12/13

South African history. While this offers a look

Figure5:http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/ view/20070707/local/vandalism-a-record-of-shame.12117 Last accessed 21/12/13)

social perspective it is also interesting to learn

the classics and the role this field played in at classics in the country from a historical and about the current state of education and preservation of classics and antiquities in South 16

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU Africa. In order to establish this I conducted an

the original languages. At school level the

interview with Dr Samantha Masters via email

languages have virtually disappeared, though

in November 2013. Dr Masters attained her

there are a few exceptions in private schools.

MA from the University of KwaZulu-Natal and

There is also more urgency than before around

her PhD from the University of Exeter and is

making

currently a lecturer in the Department of

contemporary context. This is achieved both

Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University.

through the approaches and content of

“I am currently researching iconography on Attic Greek pottery and investigating the various

social

discourses

that

such

iconography may reflect. The other project I am involved in is the reception of the various antiquities collections that we have in South African museums. Here I am looking at how these collections were acquired, what they consist of, what their current status is and what they may mean to a post-colonial, postapartheid South Africa.”

democratic South Africa of course had a huge impact on a variety of areas of life, including both educational and heritage institutions.

Subjects that are ‘eurocentric’ by nature or emphasis were threatened to varying extents and in complex ways. The subject of Classics has survived – though not at all universities – and the discipline is, in my view, flourishing. A small but active academic community exists scholars

of

international

repute

continue to contribute to scholarly debates.

17

subject

relevant

to

the

courses, for example courses on Roman North Africa, or the classical reception in South Africa.”

There are 8 universities in South Africa representing 5 of the 9 provinces which have departments of classics and ancient history (see list below). This community is supported by the classics journals Akroterion through Stellenbosch University and Acta Classica, published by the Classical Association of South Africa, an organization founded in 1956. Even

“The fall of apartheid and the shift to a

where

the

the teaching of Latin stretches as far back as 1714 with the ‘Latin School’ of Cape Town under the Rev. Lambertus Slicher. But just how well does South Africa fit into the wider global field of classics and antiquities?

“Though the impact of the history of the country on the reception of Classics is unique, I think the broader trends of relevance, an interest in diverse perspectives, and attempts to reach a broader audience is consistent with global trends.”

The teaching approaches and emphases have,

Perhaps it is this unique history that affords

of necessity, changed and there is more

South African institutions and scholars a fresh

interest,

perspective in the study of classics and

from

the

more

diverse

and

transformed student population, in culture

antiquities.

subjects and texts taught in translation, than in

relatively small the number of universities

Although

the

community

is

Issue 2 March/April 2013 offering courses in the subject is a testament to the desire for knowledge of the ancient world, a desire which hopefully remains inexhaustible.

default.asp?ipkCategoryID=540 Classical Studies at Rhodes University: http:// www.ru.ac.za/classics/ Classics at the University of South Africa: http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?

Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=144 Department of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University: http:// sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/ Departments/ancient-studies

References ‘Acta Classica’, http://www.casa-kvsa.org.za/ acta_classica.htm (accessed 07.01.2014).

‘Akroterion’, http://akroterion.journals.ac.za/ pub (accessed 07.01.2014).

South African universities that offer courses in classics and ancient history

Classics at the University of Cape Town: http://sll.uct.ac.za/languages/classics Greek, Latin and Classical Studies at the University of the Free State: http:// humanities.ufs.ac.za/content.aspx?

DCode=146 Department of Greek and Latin Studies at the University of Johannesburg: http:// www.uj.ac.za/EN/Faculties/humanities/ departments/greeklatin/Pages/default.aspx School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal: http:// srpc.ukzn.ac.za/Homepage.aspx Department of Ancient Languages at the University of Pretoria: http://web.up.ac.za/

‘Canterbury Times: Councillors vote to go ahead with museum closures, by L. Crudgington’, http:// www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Councillors-voteahead-museum-closures/story-19571338detail/story.html (accessed 08.01.2014).

‘Classical Association of South Africa’, http:// www.casa-kvsa.org.za/ (accessed 07.01.2014).

Lambert, M. (2011), The Classics and South African identities, London.

‘Museums Association: Bristol council looks to close four museums, by R. Atkinson’, http://www.museumsassociation.org/ museums-journal/news/07012014-bristolcouncil-looks-to-close-four-museums (accessed 08.01.2014).

Smuts, F. (1960), 'Classical scholarship and the teaching of classics at Cape Town and Stellenbosch', Acta Classica, 3: 7 – 31.

18

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

3D Printers in Archaeology

printing, 3D scans and photo modelling software we can preserve the appearance, dimensions and significance of these damaged objects by preserving them as data and, with 3D printing, as actual physical copies, allowing us the chance to study these features of past society safely back in the lab.

by Kristie Yorkston

If that doesn’t excite the community I don’t know what will. Perhaps the renovation in aerial photography with a 3D printed drone?

Reported on livescience.com, the college graduate founded company, Arch Aerial, have released their idea and product of a 3D printed drone with a camera attached specifically for the use of taking photographs of archaeological sites and features. This is incredibly exciting, a new toy!

Although very expensive now, it will most likely lower in price as 3D printers become more accessible for all. The company also has ideas for the future with attaching LiDAR to the equipment which will allow us to record dimensions and create maps of sites without leaving the onsite camp chair!

This sure beats standing up on a wobbly ladder at the edge of a site just for a photograph.

WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY

comes the chance to explore the minute details of the past. Originally, when the 3D printer was released, I did not associate it as being a useful archaeological tool, but after a chance to read some articles and open my lazy brain, I found a whole world of possibilities. Although the technology itself is expensive, including the required software, the archaeologists who can afford it have done wonders for our field.

Reported on wired.com, Harvard University’s Semitic Museum have given us all tears in our eyes as they have figured out a way to recreate damaged artefacts and relics. Science fiction becomes reality! With all the danger we see towards relics and ancient buildings on the news, including wars and thievery, we miss out on a lot of information about our past from these beautiful artefacts being destroyed. We now have the chance to recreate these artefacts and replace what is missing. There is also some chance to preserve the monuments using the right tech. Through the use of 3D

19

With the recent CES conference (one of the largest and most popular technological tradeshows in the world) there are signs of the 3D printing industry becoming more accessible to all. With more compact, user friendly, at-home, printers at affordable prices (also bigger and more expensive ones) make it a lot easier for archaeologists to follow in these footsteps meaning that it is not just elite, rich institutes that have access to this technology. I look forward to these innovations in the field and in the lab, and even the future presence of 3D printers in universities and colleges just imagine the possibilities!

Editors’ note – the Edinburgh Archaeology Outreach Project will have some 3D printed early hominid skulls for use in their school and community projects from this summer.

Above: Image of a 3-D Printer in action courtesy: http:// arc-team-open-research.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/thetaung-child-is-now-touchable-thanks.html

Issue 2 March/April 2013

Greek Art in Context: An International Conference at the University of Edinburgh Meadows Lecture Theatre (William Robertson Wing, Doorway 4, Old Medical School, Teviot Place)

7TH – 9TH April 2014 Registration closes on March 15th Keynote Speakers: Conference fee: £50 standard / Prof Carmen Sánchez Fernández £35 students www.shca.ed.ac.uk (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) Conference organizer: Dr Antonis Kotsonas Dr Diana Rodríguez Pérez (University of Edinburgh) Diana.rodperez@gmail.com Registration closes on March 15th Conference fee: £50 standard / £35 students Conference organizer: Dr Diana Rodríguez Pérez

Keynote Speakers: Prof Carmen Sánchez Fernández (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) Dr Antonis Kotsonas (University of Edinburgh)

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

20

INSITU

Scandinavian Burial Mounds: Hierarchy and Territoriality from the Late Neolithic to the Viking Age

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUMULUS

, translated as ‘mound’ in Latin, to bury, preserve, and protect the society’s dead was a common mortuary theme across many cultures in several continents. This method of inhumation was practised as far afield as North America and Asia though they appear more regularly in the early societies of Europe, especially in Scandinavia. In south Scandinavia alone, more than 100,000 individual burial mounds have been recorded since the late 19th century (Holst, 2001: 132). A number of that magnitude is not to be ignored and speaks volumes about their importance as a monument to these early societies.

This practise of depositing the dead in burial

21

Above and facing page: One of nine in a Neolithic burial mound cluster in Skive, Denmark.

mounds lasted for thousands of years in Scandinavia. The monument itself was constantly being recontextualised and as a result the style and size of the burial mounds changed to suit the needs of the ever-evolving societies. The late Neolithic communities of Scandinavia were semi-nomadic as farming in the Northern European conditions proved very difficult; from the herdsmen’s perspective, the burial mounds were the only fixed points within their territory (Berglund, 1991: 74). This original context for the burial mound ultimately set the stage for what it would become – a symbol of hierarchy and territoriality.

The burial mounds constructed from 3500 to 2700 BCE were communal in nature as semi-

Issue 2 March/April 2013 nomadic communities were used to cooperating to survive and would not have the luxury of time to create individual mounds. It should also be noted that a hierarchy within a group that needs to cooperate to endure is dangerous as it causes conflicts that disrupt the collaboration, therefore communal burial mounds rose out of the need to maintain the relative egalitarianism within the group. The construction of the mound alone is also a testament to the cooperative action as the large communal mounds required a sizeable work force (Earle, 2004: 113). These mounds were also designed so that they could be reopened easily in order to accommodate future generations. Interred with the bodies were few personal effects, the most common being flint axes, amber, and pottery during this time period (Earle, 2004: 116).

As semi-permanent settlements began to appear across the landscape, the construction and style of the burial mounds changed again.

The mounds built from 2700 to 2400 BCE were now being constructed specifically for individuals. Less than a metre tall, these mounds could easily be built by a few people rather than a large community (Earle, 2004: 117). The mounds were erected in clusters and used to mark out territory in the increasingly

deforested landscape. The fact that the mounds were usually erected on a high point in the landscape also backs the argument of their use as symbols of territoriality (Sahlqvist, 2001: 85). The bodies were typically placed inside an oak-log coffin along with various grave goods.

The low oxygen conditions inside the oak-log coffins were able to provide an impressive amount of preservation. Many of the excavated oak-log coffins, especially those in Denmark, yield organic materials such as textiles and even partially mummified human remains that still bear hair (Holst, 2001: 126).

From the very end of the Neolithic to the cusp of the Early Bronze Age, Scandinavian communities finally begin to build simple permanent settlements. Despite the relative security of agriculture, very few burial mounds were constructed during this period. Instead, the already existing generational mounds were used to inter the dead. The now permanent settlements also serve to perpetuate the culture of territoriality that had originally formed around the mounds themselves. The evidence of their permanent settlements becomes clearer when examining the items they were buried with. Individuals were buried with specialised bifacial flint daggers if they could afford to as these daggers were prestige goods due to the skill required to make them (Earle, 2004: 118). The disparity in grave goods also indicates the early beginnings of a more stratified society.

Social stratification and a hierarchical culture are very prevalent in Early Bronze Age Scandinavia. The Early Bronze Age could almost be considered a Renaissance in terms of burial mound construction as the mounds were constructed in various sizes. This was done in order to display power and 22

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU authority over local communities and to intimidate enemies since Scandinavian chieftains of the Early Bronze Age were in a constant struggle to maintain their power. A big mound was a show of power as it represented the size of the workforce dedicated to the chieftain. It’s also been speculated that these massive burial mounds were used as warning beacons – fires and possibly smoke signals could be sent from the top warning communities of approaching enemies (Sahlqvist, 2001: 87). During this time period, the prestige grave goods are finely crafted bronze swords as the chieftains were often able to monopolise the imports of precious metals if they were powerful enough.

From 1300 BCE onward, mound construction comes to almost a grinding halt and only makes a re-emergence during the Viking Age. The mounds constructed during the Viking Age remain just as political and hierarchical as they were in the Bronze Age. Though graverobbing was common in previous periods, it becomes a political event in the Viking Age. The famous Oseberg ship burial in Norway was looted before its excavation, but it would have been impossible to do in secret as it would have taken days to reach the ship at the centre (Bill, 2012: 818). Desecration on this scale would have been made a public event where it was crucial for eyewitnesses to internalise the insult as the very act disrupts the deceased’s passage to the dead. Scholars have also speculated that the ancestral burial mounds were used as platforms for the þula who were poets that also kept the oral tradition of Norse religion, customs, and myths alive (Andrén, 2005: 118). Those who could not manage to construct their own mound were often buried around other mounds, this was a particularly common practice in Denmark (Andrén, 2006: 351). Grave goods during this period varied widely and often contained precious metals and jewellery as well as imported goods due to the influx of trade at this time.

23

Though the burial mounds of Scandinavia were created to house the dead, it is indisputable that they served the purpose of legitimising the power of those who built them during the Bronze Age up to the Viking Age. The era of burial mounds in Scandinavia drew to a close with the spread of Christianity, but they remained compelling reminders of the Nordic people’s hierarchical origins.

References Andrén, A., Jennbert, K., Raudvere, C. (2006), Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions, Lund Andrén, A. (2005), ‘Behind “heathendom”: archaeological studies of old Norse religion’, Scottish Archaeological Journal 27, 105-138 Berglund, B.E. (1991), ‘The late bronze age landscape’, Ecological Bulletins 41, 73-77 Bill, J., Daly, A. (2012), ‘The plundering of ship graves from Oseberg and Gokstad: an example of power politics?’, Antiquity 86, 808-824 Earle, T. (2004), ‘Culture matters in the Neolithic transition and emergence of hierarchy in Thy, Denmark’, American Anthropologist 106, 111-125 Holst, M.K., Breuning-Madsen, H., Rasmussen, M. (2001), ‘The south Scandinavian barrows with well-preserved oak-log coffins’, Antiquity 75, 126-136 Sahlqvist, L. (2001), ‘Territorial behaviour and communication in a ritual landscape’, Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 83, 79-102

Issue 2 March/April 2013

24 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

Scotland's Community Heritage Conference 2013: A Reflective Review

S

by Katie Roper

ATURDAY, SEVEN IN THE MORNING, and we begin our journey to

Birnam where the Scottish Community Heritage Conference 2013 took place. With a programme organised and supported by RCAHMS, Historic Scotland, Northlight Heritage, National Trust for Scotland, Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust, ALGAO Scotland and the SCAPE Trust, we were presented with numerous projects in which communities have taken upon themselves (with a little

Eagerly waiting for the beginning of SCHC 2013 (C) PKHT

25

professional help) to explore their heritage.

Neal Ascherson, journalist and writer who is Visiting Professor at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, opened the conference with enthusiasm for the community cause as well as the future of community projects. With numerous papers presented, it would be impossible to offer a comprehensive overview here. However, I would like to mention a few of the papers - the ones I personally found the most interesting as well as encourage readers to seek out the online recordings of the proceedings Anna Welti lead the session with a discussion of the Wester Ross Wedigs project. This involved key-hole trenches being dug at roundhouse sites on Achiltibuie, Ullapool and Gairloch to answer questions about the lifestyles of those who occupied them. After hearing a summary of her work at the 2013 Highland Archaeology Conference, it was great to witness a different approach being presented here. This approach focused more on community spirit.

Anna highlighed the positive impact the WeDigs project had on volunteers, school children and the public, rather than just providing the data, which supported their ideas regarding the various roundhouses' occupation.

My personal favourite was the Dighty Connect Project, presented by Ann Lolley whose primary interest is in natural heritage, showed how such projects can be used to connect communities to nature. The Dighty is a small burn near Dundee and the project focuses on the green space around the burn, which is not great due to encroaching development.

Consequently the quality of water has decreased over the years. The walls that can be seen throughout the Dighty are associated with mills and leech works. Previously, there were up to sixty of these along the banks of the burn. This means the Tay was not the power behind the mills of Dundee, it was actually this burn.

This venture has different projects included, relating to different interests and skills. Many

Issue 2 March/April 2013 are linked to conservation- such as planting trees, wildflower meadows and establishing areas for wildlife. 'Citizen Science' is being thoroughly utilised by gathering biological data of specimens of wildflower species and recording red squirrel counts. The Dighty project also has outcomes more focused on the arts, with the aim to make natural heritage accessible.

Decorated bridges and photography projects enabled those of different backgrounds and expertise to come together to celebrate, promote and enhance the project.

The exhibition of posters gave us even more insight into the community projects of Scotland. This ranged from work by historical societies, foresters, to community engagement officers for commercial companies. What is evident is that archaeology interests a plethora of people. Young and old, amateurs and professionals, with a variety of backgrounds that can offer training and expertise. Cross-generational learning is evidently an important part in this process.

Memories which can add to our understanding should not be forgotten, and those who have such memories should be invited to share.

Children also actively engage in their surroundings and their heritage, and appreciate their place in Scotland and the world. Learning together and bridging age gaps can create experiences like no other. This was captured in the winning picture from the photo competition which showed an 8 year old and 80 year old digging side by side at the Big Cousland Dig. The projects presented at the conference have shown how community archaeology projects have quite rightly been labelled a success story within Scottish heritage. Community projects enable local knowledge, or knowledge gained through research about a place, to be accessed and utilised gaining a different perspective on archaeological sites. This knowledge accessed beforehand, and continually informing proceedings is paired perfectly with the ways in which communities can interpret and spread the knowledge gained through excavation

when the archaeologists are long gone, keeping the project and its findings in the mind of people. This is being done through a variety of means, both conventional, such as training workshops, booklets and creation of guided walks, and unconventional, such as selling tea towels and holding concerts. The involvement of local artists was also recurrent. They interpreted the archaeology and presented it to the public in an easily accessible and engaging format. Support by professional mentors, institutions and access targeted funding has enabled these projects to become more than just a vision for local enthusiasts. It is becoming a reality where both credible archaeological results are being gathered as well as the opportunity to gain new knowledge and experiences about a place in which one may have a special connection. The idea of the professional versus amateur archaeologist is being challenged and rapidly changing. A new dialogue of co-operation appears to be in play.

The knowledge supplied by the professionals are ensuring these projects are providing results which are both adding to the archaeological record and the story of Scotland's historic environment. There is a great appreciation for the hours invested by everyone, whether paid or unpaid. The conference showed that the future is incredibly bright for Scotland's community heritage.

Find online videos of the conference via Doug rocks-Macqueen's YouTube channel: http:// www.youtube.com/user/dougrocksmacqueen

Live conference sketching, thanks to Alex Hale (C) Francesca Bouaoun

26

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

Exploring the Ethics Behind Excavation and Repatriation of Human Remains

by Sam Williamson

AS A DISCIPLINE

, archaeology attempts to decipher and reconstruct the past through the analysis of what past people left behind, and to preserve those fragments in museums and in records. As a process, however, archaeological excavation is by its very action destructive. This paradox is made more complicated by the presence and role of human remains within it.

As with many ethical debates, the question of rights owed unto these human remains is a multi-faceted and complex discussion, one often intensified by the modern regional and cultural contexts in which they are found. The statement in question accuses archaeologists of being grave robbers and ultimately raises the question of who owns the past. This essay will consider why human remains are an important aspect of archaeology, highlight and discuss the ethical considerations behind the charge, determine to what extent the statement can be considered true or false, and conclude with the compromises being made to avoid this with a general summary of good practice to be maintain in spheres that deal with human remains.

Human Remains are Archaeologically Significant Human remains are a vital aspect of archaeology. Through their study, we can open a window of understanding for not only the scientific community, but also the wider public.

The human story cannot be translated through the study of mere objects alone: ‘no social reconstruction can be complete without examining the physique and health of the community’ (Brothwell 1981, i). Investigating the human remains of individuals can often determine sex, age, diet, stature, geographic origins and the area they lived in just before

27

they died, pathologies and trauma, and on a wider scale, the information can be collated to tell us about population demographics, movements, cultural practices and traditions, and the evolution of these. Therefore, the excavation, analysis, storage, and display of human remains makes up one of the most vital parts of the archaeology story.

A Question of Ethics and Who Owns the Past Archaeologists work with human remains in a professional setting and for a particular purpose: to understand the individual. This understanding in turn aids the wider understanding of the population and culture from which that individual is derived, and this is the duty of archaeology – to tell a past people’s story and save them from being silent and mysterious characters in history (Meghain 2006, 168). The archaeologist’s world view in regards to human remains can then be said to differ from most, especially from – what they might consider – the ‘romantic and unenlightened’ attitudes of laymen who do not see human remains in the same scientific light (Bienkowski 2006, 5-6), an attitude all too well shared by those involved in the early repatriation debates in North America and Australia (2006, 6). These divisions in opinion occur as a result of the difficult nature of attributing a degree of dignity to human remains. Are they human? Do they have rights?

Do the living own them, or do the living owe them? De Baets provides a good definition of how we should regard human remains, Given that the dead are former human beings, posthumous dignity is not the same as the human dignity of the living.... Human dignity is an appeal to respect the actual humanity of the

Issue 2 March/April 2013 living and the very foundation of their human rights; posthumous dignity is an appeal to respect the past humanity of the dead and the very foundation for the responsibilities of the living (De Baets 2004, 136).

The majority of concerns over archaeologists and their treatment of human remains are in regards to those of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Africa and the Americas, all of which are largely tied into colonialist and political archaeologies (Smith 2004, 405). Britain has found its own contentious issues regarding its indigenous dead, and their treatment, through the concerns of pagan groups. Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD) and the Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) are both prominent for their talks on reburial of human remains.

CoBDO stress that there is a ‘misconception amongst archaeologists that [we] wish to strip every museum and university in the land [of their human remains]... on the contrary, we... believe that reburial is a gradual process...and that certain remains are key to ongoing scientific research’ (Maughling, 2009). Whilst there are often disagreements in regards to the supposed genetic ties pagans have to ancient peoples, their interest in reburial should not be ignored, especially when the grounds for reburial are based upon those human remains that have not, and will not in the foreseeable future, be providing any additional information to what is already known in the archaeological record, and is essentially aimed at those bones stored away to be looked at ‘another day’ (HAD 2011, 11).

Setting up an ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy is not only inaccurate but also undermines constructive, respectful dialogue’ (Wallis & Blaine 2006, 12), so it is therefore shameful and contemptible to see the reactions of some archaeologists towards these groups

(Brothwell 2004, to be discussed later on).

Reasons the Statement Should Be Considered True The statement can be considered true in that archaeologists have not always been sensitive to human remains, or to the groups who have expressed concerns over this. Whilst there is now a general willingness to cooperate with groups who feel their opinions are not being heard, some archaeologists have blatantly drawn a distinction as to who is ‘allowed’ to feel connected in such a way to our ancestors, and who is not. This adds to the impersonal and insensitive image of the archaeologist that is better left in the past. Brothwell’s article (2004) is generally bitter and derisive towards British Pagans who claim ties to the ancient dead (Brothwell 2004, 416), despite the fact that a genealogical link to validate ones comments on the use of human remains is arguably a Western ethnocentricism in itself (Smith 2004, 407), and Brothwell is also completely insensitive in his addressing of human remains – ‘it isn’t important where the material is curated, and by whom, but it deserves to be treated as primary material for the investigation of our biological past’ (2004, 418).

First and foremost, and I believe most archaeologists would agree, they deserve to be treated with respect. This is the exact attitude Bienkowski (2006, 6) warns us is no longer acceptable within archaeology, and what may perpetuate a negative image to us.

Reasons the Statement Should Be Considered False In Britain, the majority of excavations are legally conducted as a result of threats to archaeological sites by planning developers, and government legislation stipulates that 28

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU such sites must be archaeologically investigated before they are destroyed forever (Roberts 2012, 22-27). The excavation of human remains cannot then, under these circumstances, be likened to grave robbing.

Archaeologists care about stratigraphy and contamination, and recording fieldwork in painstaking details in field notes and daily diaries demonstrates a commitment to understanding, not a laissez-faire attitude that hides opportunistic grave robbing.

Archaeologists also do not normally actively

sensitive excavation practices, museum displays, and storage of those remains, thereby keeping the dead in our modern memories. Ultimately, grave robbers see human remains as the means to an end (a material reward), and archaeologists see them as the means to a beginning (the reward of knowledge, the beginning of better practices).

We are aware that ‘archaeology now has to contend with competing perceptions of how the past should be told and by whom.’ (Lahuer 1996, 29), and that there is no longer room to deny the sensitivities of those who claim close associations with the human remains we excavate. As a result of archaeologies that marginalised and denied those same people their voice when they originally expressed concerns and upset over excavations and display of human remains, indigenous groups have protested and received support not just from the government, but also archaeology as well. The Native American Graves Protections and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in the USA demands that human remains be seen not just for their scientific value – only one perspective after all (Klesert and Powell 1993, 349), but also that they are deserving of respect and not an academic plaything.

Good Practice and Compromises

hunt out sites to excavate, but instead excavate out of necessity when a subsequent excavation following planning is required. While it is true that every archaeologist ‘being only human... dreams of a big or rich find’ (Bahn 1984, 135), excavation is not motivated by greed for material wealth, but rather a wealth of knowledge. We respect individuals of the past and we are aware that their remains offer us the opportunity to discover more about them and their way of life. In Scotland, all human remains are protected under the right of sepulchre act (Historic Scotland, 2006). There is very much the thought that ‘the dead are more than archaeology, they are the past, they lived in it and they were, or perhaps represent, all the people who have been.’ (Sayer 2010, 14), and it is through their remains that we can perfect 29

Many museums and archaeological organisations in the UK offer advice on the treatment of human remains (Department for Media, Culture and Sport [DMCS] 2005; Historic Scotland 2006; Ossafreelance 2007; Museum Galleries Scotland 2011). These are strict sets of guidelines and available on a public forum – the internet. They advocate respectful treatment of human remains at all times, and generally stress that we must be willing to engage openly with any concerned groups over the excavation, analysis, and curation of any human remains. The Guidelines for the Care of Human Remains in Scottish Museums, for example, discusses the sensitive ways in which they have stored human remains so as to be close to contemporary artefacts (Museum Galleries Scotland 2011, 15). In

Issue 2 March/April 2013 recent years, the repatriation of human remains has also become a focus, with Britain returning human remains to their origins (DMCS 2005, 5), and also universities – the University of Edinburgh being one such example, returning Tasmanian and Australian aboriginal human remains (Jones and Harris 1998, 253). Acts and organisations that raise awareness and help develop ethical frameworks in which to study human remains, such as NAGPRA and HAD, are also beneficial, however there needs to be fluid discourse on both sides, or else bitter stalemates will occur.

cooperate sensitively with concerned groups.

Only if we fail in these can we be said to not differentiate ourselves truly from grave robbers.

References

Considering the evidence above, the statement is an understandable one in terms of highlighting the problems still associated with archaeology, but also one that I would say is mostly out-dated, at least in Britain, and entirely unhealthy in terms of offering a solution for the accusation laid at the archaeologist’s door. Whilst some may argue to never excavate human remains at all (Klesert and Powell 1993, 351), it is in any case an unavoidable inevitability in Britain due to mounting pressure from developmental projects.

Bienkowski, P. 2006. Persons, Things and Archaeology: Contrasting World-Views of Minds, Bodies and Death. In: Manchester Museum, Respect for Ancient British Remains: Philosophy and Practice.

November 2006.

The term ‘archaeology’ justifies excavation of human remains in the same way that ‘biology’ permits dissection; it is a scientific label that legitimises an action normally seen as socially unacceptable. Archaeologists may have once been seen to ‘have the right to do almost anything in the name of scholarship’ (Bahn 1984, 127), especially in regards to New World archaeologies (Klesert and Powell 1993), but we have become increasingly aware of the fact that we do not. While the relationship between archaeologists and human remains has not always been satisfactory, there is greater pressure for the situation to be remedied, and the situation is improving. In order to dissuade those who believe we still operate under a selfish philosophy, there must be complete clarity in regards to our methodologies and codes of practice, our research intentions, the storage of excavated human remains, the future of those human remains, and above all, a continued willingness to engage and

Ossafreelance. 2007. A Basic Overview for the Recovery of Human Remains from Sites Under Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRread/BAJRGuides.asp (date accessed: 7.03.2013) Haddington: British Archaeological Jobs and Resources.

Guide 14.

Baets, A. de. 2004. A Declaration of the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards Past Generations. History and Theory, Theme Issue 43: 130-164.

Bahn, P. 1984. Do Not Disturb? Archaeology and the Rights of the Dead. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3: 127-139.

Brothwell, D.R. 1981. Digging Up Bones: the excavation, treatment and study of skeletal human remains. (3RD edition). New York: Ithaca.

Brothwell, D.R. 2004. Bring out your Dead: People, Pots and Politics. Antiquity 78: 414-41.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2005. Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Historic Scotland. 2006. The Treatment of Human Remains in Archaeology. Operational Policy Paper 5. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.

Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD). 2011. Reburial Handbook.

HAD: Shipston on Stour.

Jones, D. G. & Harris, R.T. 1998. Archaeological Human Remains: Scientific, Cultural, and Ethical Considerations. Current Anthropology 39: 253-264.

Klesert, A.L. & Powell, S. 1993. A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity 58: 348-354.

Maughling, R. 2009. Reburial Statement. Council of British Druid Orders [online] Available at: www.cobdo.org.uk/html/ reburial_statement.html [Date accessed: 01.04.2013] Meighan, C. W. 2006. Burying American Archaeology. In K.D. Vitellia & C. Colwell-Chanthaponh (eds.) Archaeological Ethics. (2nd edition) Oxford: Alta Mira Press. Chapter 17ii.

Museum Galleries Scotland. 2011. Guidelines for the Care of Human Remains in Scottish Museums. Edinburgh: Museum Galleries Scotland.

Roberts, C.A. 2012. Human Remains in Archaeology: A Handbook.

Revised edition. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Smith, L. 2004. The Repatriation of Human Remains – Problem or Opportunity? Antiquity 78: 404-413.

Sayer, D. 2010. Ethics and Burial Archaeology. Cambridge: Duckworth.

Wallis, W.J. & Blain, J. 2006. The Sanctity of Burial: Pagan Views, Ancient and Modern. In: Manchester Museum, Respect for Ancient British Remains: Philosophy and Practice. November 2006.

Photos: Human Remains from the Ancient Pronnoi necropolis on the site of poros Kefalonia, Greece courtesy Zofia Guertin.

30 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

Reviews Armchair Archaeology: Book Reviews

by Marta Lorenzon The Book: Ancient Wine: The Search

for the Origin of Viticulture

by Patrick E. McGovern The book describes the history of wine as a reflection and a possible key to explore the history of civilizations. Even if challenging, by the end of the book this analysis has revealed to be partly applicable. When we drink a glass of wine, we involuntary retrace the millennia-long process in which grapes were cultivated, harvested and prepared for the vintage. By analysing the cultures that firstly produced wine, the author actually reviews the history of the great civilizations in the Mediterranean and beyond, making this volume a useful tool to further investigate how wine is interconnected with ancient Eurasian cultures.

The author guides the readers in a journey of discovery back to the beginning of viticulture, to the first domestication and vintage, probably even to the first glass ever sipped. McGovern’s voice conveys an interesting story appropriate for those who want to approach the topic archaeologically; for those who carry out specific studies in the field; for those who love the Gilgamesh epic, and finally for those who simply love wine and are curious about the beverage, its origin and impact on 31

our culture.

The author comprehensively addresses the history and archaeology of winemaking, moving from the archaeological data to the chemistry of wine and down to what he defines as Molecular Archaeology.

Beginning with the Lower Palaeolithic this fascinating volume presents the evidence of wine domestication and usage listing all sources in our possession: archaeological, iconographic, literary, chemical and ethnological.

Why is this book so special though? The author’s background makes all the difference. Patrick McGovern is a chemist and archaeologist.

This fascinating combination creates a well-balance book where an interesting narrative supports technical analyses and iconographical

Issue 2 March/April 2013 sources are supplemented by experimental archaeology. The book focuses not only on the difference in viticulture techniques, grape typology, wine chemistry and origin, but also portrays the variety of uses that wine has had in antiquity, its geographical circulation from Egypt to the Near East, passing though China and going as far as Northern Europe. Who would not want travel with McGovern to the tomb of King Scorpion I at Abydos (Chapter 5), drink a glass with Theseus and Ariadne (Chapter 10), participate in the royal funeral feast in Gordion (Chapter 11) and share a cheer with Gilgamesh (Chapter 2)?

We learn that wine was used as a medicine, entheogen, social beverage, drug, libation, and was generally considered a highly treasured commodity. A drink of the kings, it has also been deemed sacred and has an important symbolic meaning. Thus, it was listed as the favourite drink of the gods. In Chapter 8 and 9, McGovern argues that wine was seen in many cultures as an evocative symbol, and was therefore used in temple rituals, Bacchanalia and Christian sacrament (e.g. Eucharist).

Marta Also Recommends: Interpreting Archaeological Topography: Lasers, 3D Data, Observation, Visualisation and Applications.

Edited by Rachel S. Opitz and David C. Cowley An Archaeological History of Japan, 30,000 B.C. to A.D. 700

by Koji Mizoguchi Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom.The Archaeology of Female Burials

by Wolfram Grajetzki Reconfiguring the Silk Road. New Research on East-West Exchange in Antiquity Edited by Victor H. Mair and Jane Hickman. Foreword by Colin Renfrew

The book is not perfect by any means; it can be quite analytical for a general reader (for instance, its description of techniques to determine the presence of tartaric acid in Neolithic pottery), but it is also vivid and enhanced by the author’s personal research experiences.

Finally, this remarkable volume examines wine archaeology - not only in a scientific manner, but also in a pleasing narrative tone. Additionally, the book contains an effective and rich iconography and a very useful bibliography with all the literary and epigraphic sources used in the text.

Let us raise the glass to a book well written!

Photo coutesy In Situ Travel 32

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

The Traveling Archaeologist: Thoughts, advice and feelings of an archaeologist on sites and museums abroad

by Lisa Bird Pompeii Vs. Herculaneum I went to Naples in New Year 2013 on a slightly unrelated course than looking at these two iconic UNESCO World Heritage Sites; however since I was in the neighbourhood I decided to go along to visit the infamous towns. Pompeii was a bit of a “let down” to use a colloquial phrase, whilst Herculaneum really brought the past and the 79AD eruption to life for me.

Although I acknowledge most visitors to both sites visit them during the summer holidays I strongly advise you not to do this- as the winter months have fewer tourists and the heat is much decreased.

I cannot imagine visiting either site mid-tourist season with most of Pompeii’s estimated 2.5 million visitors per year walking through its streets between May and September. Also, with the Southern Italian sun at 45°C, the winter alternative of 12°C is to be appreciated. This allowed me to wander around both sites at my leisure, without the 33

hustle and bustle of Naples based and cruise tours or manic inter-railers attempting to see the wonders of both sites in one day- and to be honest name any historian, archaeologist or classicist that can abide a gang of tourists!

Secondly, I will point out my bias in this discussion. I visited Pompeii when major conservation works were being completed and are continuing until at least 2016 as part of the restorations on the most visited areas including the House of the Fawnknown to any of you studying Alexander the Great and especially if you have the excitement of Prof Judith Barringer teaching. Therefore, my disappointment in Pompeii may stem from this let down.

Pompeii is magnificent, that cannot be understated. A small section of life preserved in one moment – a bustling, in repair metropolis. The 5euro entrance fee for 18-25 year olds means for 10 euro’s you can get an audio guide if needed, though the free map is more than adequate.

There may be more tourist facilities than

Issue 2 March/April 2013 dangerous, probably as it did to the people caught on the beach in 79AD. Found in the bottom of a hole in the middle of modern Ercole, the entrance is found in a park and has the same entry fee as its sister site. By going down into the belly of the many eruptions of Vesuvius the town is isolated and bleak and having entered over what was the beach in ancient times you gain your first look at the skeletons in the boat sheds. Straight away, you are confronted with the events of 79AD. The remains themselves are better preserved than Pompeii, whether this is due to its later excavation or to fewer yearly tourists can be debated. The paint is as vibrant and the entire area has been uncovered. It is eerie, where Pompeii is still bustling.

Herculaneum, but this means the forum is overly busy detracting attention from the sites and barring them from the majority.

Without the thousands of seasonal tourists, there is no push or line to follow so I wandered through empty streets, thinking about the people who visited the tavern or the carts who made the dangerous ruts in the road.

The magic is in the paint still vibrant and on display on many of the ruins. However, do not expect to see many of the infamous casts; these are to be found in the Naples Museum (closed on Tuesdays). Moreover the lack of artefacts in many of the notable buildings such as the House of the Surgeon makes the site more ghost like and would bring the buildings back to life and help relate how many buildings got their names and labels.

Herculaneum does no better on the artefact front; however it feels more deadly and

On reflection though I must say if you are in the

Naples vicinity for one day go and see Herculaneum, and preferably go out of season to really see and appreciate its wonders and the destruction the 79AD eruption caused in the local area Images from Pompeii and Herculaneum courtesy Zofia Guertin

34 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU

March Pre-historiscopes: What's Your Future in Archaeology?

Aries

This week, you try out your new Christmas metal-detector. You are struck by lightning, as you deserve.

Did you ever make it past the first level of Tomb Raider? I didn’t, because of the tigers. But I heard someone new is on the case and may do a bit better. You are a tiger though. Shame.

Taurus

Scorpio

By a curious series of events, you acquire the back-story and persona of Lara Croft. At least one of us has a job now.

With the water cascading down your permatrace into your vulnerable crotch, you realise that adverts for British field schools misled you dangerously.

Gemini

Horoscopes by Tom Gardner. Illustrations by Zofia Guertin

Libra

Sagittarius

Another watching brief goes by with no results. At lunch, you consider taking your own life. However, this would involve moving from your comfortable kraftser perch. Too much effort.

This week you are Sir Arthur Evans, painting over the appalling concrete at Knossos.

I don’t think anyone will notice or care for hundreds of years…

Cancer

Capricorn Microturbation actually sounds quite saucy doesn’t it? Well it isn’t.

It’s very annoying. And if you try it again in the site hut you might catch something.

The sediments in your micromorphology section plate indicate a trampling phase through lacustrine valves, and has since undergone faunal microturbation on a cataclysmic scale. Give up.

Aquarius

Leo With the skill and patience of a huntergatherer stalking prey, you manoeuvre through the trusting 1st years in the common room. The bounty of unclean coffee cups and sour milk are all yours!

You begin a British field school for unsuspecting undergrads.

Pictures of sun they will never see, artefacts they will never find, and people they will never respect, are Pisces

Virgo

Trainee JCB drivers on site get paid more than you.

35

This week you spend sixty-seven hours reading 18th century church landholding transcripts and chortling into your wasted potential. Then you wake up and realise you’re not a historian.

Thank God.

Issue 2 March/April 2013

The 17th Iron Age Research Student Symposium is being hosted jointly by the University of Edinburgh and the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and will be held at the University of Edinburgh’s Archaeology Department from the 29th May to 1st June 2014.

IARSS 2014 will provide a welcoming and friendly environment for postgraduate students to present their current research, through short talks and poster sessions. Presentations cover a wide chronology, from the Early Bronze Age to the Later/Roman Iron Age in Britain, Ireland and temperate Europe.

Discussion and debate of research are led by experts in the field, and participants will gain useful feedback for their own research, as well as better knowledge of current, broader developments in Iron Age research. The event also allows students to engage with colleagues from different academic backgrounds and with varying research interests.

Abstract Deadline: 31st March 2014

Website: conferences.hss.ed.ac.uk/iarss

Twitter: @iarss2014 Facebook: Search ‘IARSS 2014’

36 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

INSITU Online Journal is not printed on 100% not-paper. Save the rainforest, go paperless.