Rescue Archaeology: A European View

AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

ANNUAL REVIEWS

16 August 2012

14:7

Further

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:611-626. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 82.240.7.40 on 01/28/13. For personal use only.

Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including: • Other articles in this volume • Top cited articles • Top downloaded articles • Our comprehensive search

Rescue Archaeology: A European View Jean-Paul Demoule University of Paris I – Sorbonne-Panthéon, Institut Universitaire de France, Institut d’Archéologie, 75006 Paris, France; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:611–26

Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on July 9, 2012

heritage, cultural resource management, excavations, UNESCO, Malta Convention

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145854 c 2012 by Annual Reviews. Copyright All rights reserved 0084-6570/12/1021-0611$20.00

Abstract Although archaeological finds have long been unearthed during construction projects, true rescue excavations began in Europe only as recent as the nineteenth century and became systematic only after World War II. Design and operations then began to be systematized, culminating in 1992 with the signing of the Valletta Convention to protect archaeological heritage. This agreement was ratified by most European countries as part of the European Council, and it contributed to the strong development of rescue archaeology (or preventive archaeology). Excavations had long been organized by academic institutions, but from 1980 onward, there appeared, first in the United Kingdom then in other Western European countries, “commercial archaeology,” led by private businesses. A debate among European archaeologists is taking place concerning the most effective system to protect excavations and the study and publication of endangered sites.

611

AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

INTRODUCTION


Preventive archaeology is as old as archaeology itself. From the excavation by King Nabonidus in the sixth century BC at Larsa, to the discovery in 1506 of the marble Laocoon ¨ statue in Rome, supervised by Michelangelo, to the unearthing of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the eighteenth century, many of our archaeological discoveries are related to development projects (Daniel 1975, Bahn 1996, Schnapp 1997, Gran-Aymerich 1998). However, even in nineteenth-century Paris, for example, where the urban planning of Baron Haussmann affected 60% of the city’s surface area, rescue excavations remained very limited. This situation persisted into the first half of the twentieth century.

THE BIRTH OF PREVENTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY Immediately after the end of the Second World War, devastated Europe was faced with the need to rebuild its destroyed industrial base and its ruined cities. This urgency initially pushed rescue archaeology to the background. Although many discoveries were, in fact, made during this period of reconstruction and development work, systematic excavations were not always organized. Postwar reconstruction did result in strong economic growth for three decades. Numerous development projects, necessitated by rapid population growth—the baby boom—accompanied this economic boom, and these projects themselves produced systematic rescue excavations of varying magnitude depending on the European country in question. It is, in part, during this period that we can identify a shift: progressively moving from simple “rescue archaeology” to “preventive archaeology.” This distinction is not a simple change in vocabulary. The term rescue implies that the archaeologists are behind the bulldozers and trying to save what they can. With preventive archaeology, however, archaeologists are now in front of the bulldozers. Excavations 612

Demoule

are integrated within the planning of an entire development project; they are part of the project, planned in advance, and thus, they will not disrupt the pace of the planned construction. If the final result is the same—that the archaeological site is destroyed—in the case of preventive archaeology, recording of the archaeological information is, nevertheless, performed under satisfactory conditions. The term archéologie préventive was used in France from 1979 (Lasfargue 2009) and was gradually adopted throughout the rest of Europe from that point forward, whether in German, präventive archäologie, or in English, preventive archaeology (see, for example, Ernyey-Bozoki 2007). The term itself ´ draws particularly from that of “preventive medicine,” which aims to prevent the emergence and spread of disease rather than wait for disease to develop and then treat it. However, some English-language purists have argued that the verb “to prevent” usually means that one “prevents” or that we “stop” something from happening; in that case, “preventive archaeology” would actually indicate an archaeology that would not occur. Despite this inconsistency, the term has gradually established itself, in its English or French form, for all debates on scientific policy in Europe. This is likely the price of the spread of English as the international scientific language; indeed, even non-Anglophone speakers will adopt this evolving language as their own.

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS Sensitive to the destruction of archaeological heritage entailed by the rapid economic development of the postwar years, the international scientific community gradually adopted a number of recommendations and conventions. One of the first was adopted by UNESCO in 1954 at The Hague following the end of World War II: the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Then, as early as 1956, the Recommendation on International Principles Applicable


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

to Archaeological Excavations was adopted in New Delhi (UNESCO 1956). The latter is important because it reminds states—and all humanity—of our responsibility to protect archaeological sites and reaffirms the importance of knowledge of past civilizations for a better understanding among people groups. However, as only a recommendation rather than a binding treaty, it did not have a great influence on the behavior of the signatory states. Under the auspices of UNESCO, however, a certain number of decisions did retain the interest of states in our overall archaeological heritage. The Venice Charter, or officially the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, signed in 1964, led to the creation in 1965, in Warsaw, of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (ICOMOS 1965). In 1964, still within the framework of UNESCO, a great campaign was also launched to save Egypt’s Nubian temples, which were threatened by the waters of Lake Nasser after the construction of the great Aswan Dam. A number of countries participated, and it is ironic that nearly a half-century later, there have not been any international operations of archaeological rescue of this same magnitude. For example, the large dams constructed in the 1990s on the Euphrates River washed away thousands of archaeological sites without ever sparking the great dynamism shown for the Nubian temples. Similarly, the ancient Greek city of Zeugma in Turkey was subject to only sketchy and incomplete rescue excavation conducted in very difficult conditions by international teams (Early et al. 2003, Gaborit 2007, Cherry 2010). Then came the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, signed in Paris in 1970 (UNESCO 1970), and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, also signed in Paris, in 1972 (UNESCO 1972). The latter convention gave birth, exactly 40 years ago, to the World Heritage Center, which has since developed a list of nearly 1,000 archaeological

sites throughout the world that are considered to be of global importance to humanity (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list). Some of these sites are also on a shorter list, the World Heritage in Danger (http://whc.unesco.org/ en/danger). One site that was designated on both lists for many years was the archaeological site of Angkor, Cambodia, as was nearly the case recently for the cave of Lascaux, in France. However well-intentioned, the designation does not incur the financial support of UNESCO, which has few financial resources. Rather, the designation is an incentive for each country concerned to protect the listed site(s) better. It should also be noted that these 1,000 sites include only the most prestigious and visible examples. It could be argued, without much exaggeration, that nearly 1,000 archaeological sites from all periods are destroyed every day in the world as a result of development projects without preventive excavation.

DIVERSE TRAJECTORIES IN EUROPE One can distinguish three main zones in Europe concerning the organization of preventive archaeology in the decades from 1950 to 1980— as well as for scientific and intellectual traditions (Hodder 1991, Gathercole & Lowenthal 1994, Graves-Brown et al. 1996, Lozny 2011). In Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet bloc countries had, by definition, a state-controlled economy. Cultural-promotion policy, as well as a certain nationalism, was encouraged on behalf of “popular education,” especially in the Balkan countries. Many museums were built, presenting the archaeology, history, and ethnology of each region, and significant resources were given to rescue excavations, as all developers were dependent on the state. Although excavations were often organized under the auspices of a ministry of culture and managed by regional museums, each of which had its team of archaeologists, the scientific programs were decided on and carried out in each country by a national archaeological institute dependent on the Academy of Sciences. Universities had www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

613

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

fewer resources and played a more modest role. In all cases, archaeologists were public servants. Marxist approaches favored the excavation of large areas in order to study the functioning of society. Theoretical and methodological developments were often of high quality (see Klejn 1977). For example, it was Polish archaeologists, with Stanislas Tabaczinsky, who led the first excavations of medieval villages in France in the 1960s. In Czechoslovakia in the 1950s, Bohumil Soudsky was probably one of the first archaeologists in the world to use machines to strip the topsoil at the Neolithic site of Bylany, and he was one of the first in the world—already in the 1950s—to implement mechanical, then computerized processing of the excavated data (Pavlu et al. 1983–1987). In Poland, very-large-scale rescue excavations were connected with mining activity and the creation of vast industrial zones (Kobylinski ´ 1998). Meanwhile, northwestern Europe preserved its sound and long-standing scientific tradition. In Germany, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom, large-scale rescue excavations were carried out under the auspices of each national archaeological service, such as English Heritage in the United Kingdom or the Rijkskienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROB) in the Netherlands (Willems et al. 1997). In West Germany, archaeological policy was implemented in each Land. Large-scale rescue excavations linked to opencast lignite mining took place, for example, in the region of Aachen, and the finds have had a decisive influence on the study of the European Neolithic (Luning ¨ & Stehli 1994). In the Netherlands, extensive rescue excavations linked to the construction of polders took place, such as the exemplary operation at the Assendelft polder, led by the University of Amsterdam with public funding (Brandt et al. 1987, Slofstra 1994). The idea that developers themselves should pay for rescue excavations emerged gradually. This is the application of the “polluter pays principle” [in French, the principe du pollueur payeur or the casseur payeur (literally, “the breaker pays”), and in German, the


AN41CH35-Demoule

614

Demoule

verursacherprinzip]. This idea was partly imported from the United States, where, thanks to effective lobbying from archaeologists, from the 1970s onward regulations progressively required preventive excavations conducted for development projects carried out on federal and American Indian land. Notably, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 gave birth to the concept of cultural resource management (Cleere 1989, Hansen & Quine 1999, Skeates 2000, Neumann & Sanford 2001, Howard 2007, King 2008, Messenger & Smith 2010), marking a veritable explosion of preventive excavations in the United States. In London during those same years, the teams assembled by Martin Biddle gradually forged trusting relationships with developers and organized controlled management of archaeological remains beneath the British capital, a process that became a point of reference for other archaeologists in western European countries (Biddle & Hudson 1973, Hunter & Ralston 1993). With the establishment of the Rescue association (http://rescue-archaeology.org.uk), British archaeologists also constructed a vigilant lobbying group to campaign for the protection of archaeological heritage (Mytum & Waugh 1987). Economic developers gradually resigned themselves to paying for preventive excavations, and all the more easily when they could pass the cost of the excavation onto their customers, while simultaneously projecting the image of being a business concerned about the protection of heritage. In these northwest European countries, where there were no national research institutions to mirror the Academies of Sciences in the socialist countries or the National Center for Scientific Research in France (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, or CNRS), universities often initiated research programs and sometimes developed rescue excavation units within the institution. In the United Kingdom, some of these units became independent by obtaining the status of charitable organizations. Last, Mediterranean Europe, the third region, has its own specificities. In Italy and Greece, the foreign archaeological institutes


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

have significant resources but focus most of their excavation activities on research projects. In Greece, the National Archaeological Service, dependent on the ministry of culture, carries out rescue excavations (Mendoni 2003). If the legislation, as in Italy, is relatively strict, this service is nevertheless often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the tasks it must perform and by the quantity of information that has accumulated in Greece. In Italy, the regional archaeological services, or Soprintendenze per i beni archeologici, have real power when dealing with developers, although their influence has recently been decreasing. In France, academic archaeology focused on excavations in Italy, Greece, and the Near East, areas where the French elite considered France’s true cultural roots to be located; inadequate financial support was provided for excavation on French soil. Thus, basically, until the late 1970s, it was volunteer archaeologists who provided the labor for excavations, whether of research or rescue status, and there was virtually no excavation at all for most of the major development projects (highways, railways, industrial zones, etc.). Not until the late 1970s did a new generation of archaeologists—through intense lobbying—gradually obtain more resources and force the gradual application of the polluter pays principle (Normand & Richard 1974, Demoule & Landes 2009).

THE DECISIVE ROLE OF THE MALTA CONVENTION The steady growth of rescue excavations in Europe, and the application of the polluter pays principle, culminated, in 1992, with the signing by all the European countries of the Valletta Convention or the Malta Convention in Malta (Counc. Eur. 1992, Eur. Cult. Conv. 1992). This fundamental European treaty was the result of 20 years of intensive work (Gauthier 2009). It should be noted that it was prepared within the institutional framework of the Council of Europe and not within that of the current European Union. For the reader unfamiliar with the subtleties of European institutions,

the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/), founded in 1949, first brought together all countries of Western Europe, joined by those of Eastern Europe after 1990 (with the exception of Belarus and the Vatican, which were considered nondemocratic states). The Council is currently composed of 47 nations. It is particularly active in the field of law (and notably in human rights), in crime prevention, and in education and culture. One select committee deals specifically with cultural heritage issues: the Steering Committee for Cultural Heritage (CD-PAT). We must therefore make the distinction between the Council of Europe and the European Union (http://europa.eu/), which has, in 2012, 27 Member States, with bodies such as the European Council and the Council of the European Union. One must also note that, although the European Union has taken many steps to create a large economic and financial market, to establish a common currency, and to develop market competition and privatize public services of EU countries, the European Union has done very little in many other key areas, such as taxation, the pension system, social law, labor law, or education and culture. This pattern of neglect in the latter domain holds true despite the fact that the European Union annually awards the title European Capital of Culture to two European cities and despite its attempts to unify the European university systems by modeling them after the Anglo-American system, through the Bologna Process of 1999. Much of the disillusionment of the current citizens of the European Union lies in the contrast between the strong and binding trade and finance rules and the total lack of ambition in the social, political, and cultural spheres. To return to the European Council, the first European convention, On the Protection of Archaeological Heritage, signed in London in 1969 (Counc. Eur. 1969) and prepared by a report of the Italian archaeologist Massimo Pallottino, barely evoked the issue of preventive archaeology as it relates to major development projects. Rather, the convention focused on clandestine excavations and the illegal www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

615

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

trafficking of archaeological finds. Faced with the growing concerns expressed by European archaeologists, the Council did organize in Florence in October 1984 an institutional conference on “Archaeology and Development.” This was followed by another conference in Nice in November 1987, on “Archaeology and Major Public Works,” and the Swedish archaeologist Gustaf Trotzig chaired a working group. This group wrote a recommendation on the protection of archaeological heritage [called the Recommendation R (89) 5], which was adopted in April 1989 by the Council of Ministers of the European Council. The Recommendation eventually gave birth to the current Valletta Convention, adopted by the Ministers of the European Council on 16 January 1992. This text, which completely rewrote that of the London Convention of 1969, was then ratified over the years by most member countries of the Council (by France, for example, in 1995). It is from this treaty that most of the archaeological legislation in European countries subsequently evolved. Note, however, that, although the terms of the Valletta Convention bind all signatory states to organize preventive archaeology in their countries, these terms remain vague. In particular, the polluter pays principle is not stated anywhere. On certain points, the 1992 Convention even lags behind that of the Recommendation of 1989. UNESCO, for its part, then continued its policy of agreements with the signing of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted in Paris in 2001 (UNESCO 2001), and the Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003). This latter marked, moreover, a turning point, recognizing nonmaterial elements as part of a global cultural heritage. These elements include songs, dances, ceremonies, certain skills and savoirfaire, etc. In addition, following the initiative of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, the international convention UNIDROIT On Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was signed (UNIDROIT 1995). Yet, one must recognize that, since the


AN41CH35-Demoule

616

Demoule

Recommendation of New Delhi in 1956, UNESCO has produced no strong text—at the Convention level—to protect the archaeological heritage of humanity.

CITIZENS OR CLIENTS? A fundamental historical process occurred during the 1980s that profoundly changed the relationship between citizens and their respective states throughout the world. For much of the twentieth century, in fact, in the economic as in the social sphere, it was clear that the state was expected to intervene to provide citizens with a minimum of protection. This was the whole point of the doctrine of the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who died in 1946 (Keynes 1936; see also Hoover 2003, Skidelsky 2003). This was the principle underlying the success of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policy, which allowed American society to recover from the severe crisis of 1929. The importance of the role of the state was at the heart of social-democratic policies of European governments both before and after the Second World War. And the apparent successes of the Soviet Union, particularly as it relates to space exploration, also gradually lent strong credibility over time to the idea of planned economies, which were subsequently used in a number of newly decolonized nations worldwide. In the particular field of archaeology, it had long been accepted that the safeguarding of national archaeological heritage—as with the safeguarding of one’s citizens—fell within the roles expected of the state. Thus, to return to the case of the New Deal, the ambitious industrial equipment policy of the Tennessee Valley, under the auspices of Roosevelt’s Tennessee Valley Authority created in 1933, was accompanied by very-large-scale rescue excavations, which remain probably the first and only in the world at that time to be conducted at such a vast scale (Lyon 1996, Young & Sullivan 2007). One can even assume that the abundance of archaeological material and documentation was responsible for the developments of new


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

quantitative methods and techniques used in archaeology. All European countries have long had the same vision: that archaeology, because it affects national identity, is an important issue. Yet, the Keynesian view of economics and the role of the state were fundamentally challenged in the 1980s under the auspices of the Nobel Prize Winner in Economics Milton Friedman and the Chicago School (Friedman 1962). Friedman rehabilitated the old “invisible hand” of Adam Smith and proclaimed that “the state is not the solution but the problem.” He advocated the full liberalization of the economy and the dismantling of the welfare state to provide general prosperity. This doctrine was dominant for three decades and applied by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but also by Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Brian Mulroney in Canada, and, more recently, by the governments of Iceland and Estonia. It has profoundly influenced the politics and economics of much of the world. Following the trend, the European Union, from the 1980s, started moving deliberately toward the liberalization of the economy. Concerning the organization of the large European network/grid industries (telecommunications, railways, electricity, postal services, etc.), two possible pathways were indeed at the heart of this choice: Either create large, unified European public services—a large, European, public service railway, another for power, another for telecommunications, etc.—or privatize all these public services by breaking them up and pitting them in competition with each other. Without any public debate or vote held on this fundamental issue, the European Union deliberately chose the latter economic path (with Keynes representing the former path). During the 1980s and 1990s, all European countries privatized their entire public sectors, which also included banks and insurance companies, among others. It was therefore inevitable that a number of countries, initially under conservative governments, came to believe that preventive archaeology was not the responsibility of the state. It was viewed as a business like any

other, controlled solely by the free market economy, and that it had to become competitive. In Thatcherite Britain, the already gained autonomy of the universities’ archaeological units made this shift to private business all the easier. This evolution also involved the Cooperative Archeologiche in Italy, as well as similar enterprises in Spain, but was slower elsewhere. Scandinavian countries, Greece, the majority of the German states (where archaeology is managed by each state/Land ), and France long held to the belief that archaeology should remain the responsibility of the state, as did the former countries of the Warsaw Pact, where it was the official doctrine. But the growing ideological influence of economic ultraliberalism for European construction gradually won over a number of countries. Some governments decided that the free market economy should be extended to all activities of a country. In France, for example, the 2001 Act on preventive archaeology, an implementation of the Valletta Convention, created a national public institution, the National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP). This organization was made responsible for all preventive excavations, but it was also intended to forge cooperative links with other research institutions (Frier 2004). In 2003, the new conservative government, nevertheless, decided to allow and even encourage the creation of private archaeological companies to compete with INRAP, despite the protests of the entire professional milieu, which organized many demonstrations (see Coudart & Talon 2004). At the same time, a complaint filed with the European Union against the French law of 2001 concerning free, open competition was rejected by an official decision on April 2, 2003 (Demoule 2004a), which found that in cultural matters each member state of the European Union is free to organize as they wish. To be sure, the economic and financial stakes of a market for archaeology are dwarfed by those of, for example, telecommunications, electricity, or railways. In addition, the political leaders of some European countries, the Netherlands for example, were www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

617

AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

convinced that the rules of competition as laid down by the European Union automatically applied to archaeology. In fact, this was not the case, as demonstrated by the EU judgment on the French law noted above.

COMMERCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY: THE EUROPEAN DEBATE


The gradual introduction of a competitive market for preventive archaeology was initially undertaken without real debate, some countries not being immediately affected, while others considered it an inevitable fate (Oebbecke 1998). However, discussion of the issue has gradually been mobilized, especially across multiple European agencies or programs. Two conceptions compete, reflecting two visions of the state. On one hand, in the tradition of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the nation is a community of citizens, united by a common destiny, and which manages goods and services, among other elements. On the other hand, there is only a multitude of individuals: consumers, with no links one to another, who choose to buy or not buy goods and services from producers in competition. For partisans of private, commercial archaeology, developers are clients, for whom they need to be as efficient as possible. This is why preventive archaeology is often referred to as developer-led archaeology (Bradley et al. 2010) or developer-funded archaeology, as if it were the developer who decided on the excavation. This view has created a kind of archaeology that has allowed for unprecedented development of the production of archaeological data, the end result of which is sometimes viewed as a gold rush. At the same time, in an attempt to regulate the market of archaeology, it is considered appropriate that archaeologists organize themselves in professional associations, along the model of the Register of Professional Archaeologists in the United States. This is, in fact, the case in the United Kingdom with the Institute for Archaeologists (formerly the Institute of Field Archaeology; http://www.archaeologists.net). A code 618

Demoule

of ethics is supposed to define the rights and duties of these archaeologists, including respect for the basic rules of scientific research (http://www.concernedhistorians. org/content/ethicarcha.html). A public authority is also to define standards (see Willems & Brandt 2004) and exercise quality control. However, this practice is complicated by the fact that control of archaeological work a posteriori is hardly possible because the excavated site no longer exists. This overall vision thus underpins the organization of archaeology in a number of European countries, and it has been explicitly defended in various articles (e.g., Thomas 2002, Wheaton 2002, Carver 2007, Aitchison 2009, van den Dries 2011, among others). For those who oppose the development of private commercial archaeology, developers are not clients. They are companies whose projects are often designed to make money and who endanger the archaeological heritage of a nation’s citizens. This is why they must pay a tax, designed to help compensate for the destruction and to preserve part of the archaeological information. It is therefore the state—as an emanation of the community of citizens— that must organize these preventive excavations through public research institutions responsible for defining national research programs and publishing the results of the excavations. In fact, the development of preventive archaeology is due to the reinforcement of state legislation and has nothing to do with the interests of private companies to carry out the work. The codes of ethics have no binding value (and mainly concern a Protestant cultural ethos). The notion of commercial competition in archaeology is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. In fact, developers do not want to buy the best archaeology possible but seek only the company that will release their land as soon as possible and at the least cost. If competition exists in the scientific field, it is to produce not the cheapest research possible, but instead the best research possible. And if private research exists in general, the quality of its production (a drug, an aircraft, a weapon,


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

etc.) can be controlled a posteriori. Furthermore, private research tends to focus on more profitable products. This is why private pharmaceutical research, for example, focuses on the profitable diseases of rich countries—at the expense of unprofitable diseases in poor countries. Note as well that the excavations of private companies are rarely published adequately, if at all. Moreover, in the United States, for example, the private archaeologists of Cultural Resource Management, which account for perhaps more than 50% of the ∼12,000 professional archaeologists in the country, very rarely attend scientific meetings such as the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. The term professional archaeologists, which private archaeologists give themselves, is also questionable because it implies that academic archaeologists are not professionals. Furthermore, the purely economic logic of private archaeological companies makes them sensitive to economic fluctuations. As such, hundreds of British archaeologists have lost their jobs because of the global financial crisis that started in the fall of 2008, as have 80% of private Irish archaeologists and a significant number in Spain (Schlanger & Aitchison 2010). In contrast, national public institutions allow for the practice of homogeneous scientific standards for the study and publication of excavations, and they offer a guarantee of employment. This is why the model of private commercial archaeology has been criticized by a number of archaeologists (Cumberpatch & Blinkhorn 2001; Demoule 2002a,b, 2011; Chadwick 2003; Kristiansen 2009; Schlanger & Salas Rossenbach 2010). In any case, it seems impossible to separate the real practices of archaeology from their ideological backgrounds (Pluciennik 2001, Hamilakis & Duke 2007, Kolen 2010, Bernbeck & McGuire 2011). The economic crisis since 2008 has demonstrated both the weaknesses of a model based solely on the market and the need for state regulations. Moreover, some economists had already announced these weaknesses before the crisis (Stiglitz 2003), and as early as 2004, the European Union had

become aware of the limits of the market for public services of general interest (Green Pap. 2004).

TOOLS FOR EUROPEAN COORDINATION The past two decades have seen all discussions related to archaeology now taking place at a European level. The most visible manifestation of this trend has been the creation of two associations: the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA; http://www.eaa.org) and the Archaeologiae Europae Consilium (EAC; http://www.european-archaeologicalcouncil.org). The former held its founding congress in 1994, in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The EAA brings together ∼1,000 archaeologists (out of ∼25,000 professional archaeologists in Europe), has an annual meeting based on the model of the Society for American Archaeology, publishes a newsletter (The European Archaeologist), and sometimes acts as a lobby with certain European governments. Its only working language is English. Some of the symposia organized as part of the Annual Meetings regularly address the problems confronted in preventive archaeology (Willems & van den Dries 2007, Schlanger & Aitchison 2010), and the EAA has the Committee for Archaeological Legislation and Organization. The EAC brings together the heads of national archaeological services from different European countries, with the explicit goal of “managing Europe’s archaeological heritage.” It exhibits less free speech than that of the EAA because it is made up of public administrators. It is linked to the Council of Europe and its Steering Committee for Cultural Heritage. The EAC notably organized in the 2000s a survey on the implementation conditions of the Valletta Convention in different European countries. In recent years, several research programs funded by the Council of Europe and the European Union have focused on the organization of archaeology in Europe, and preventive www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

619

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

archaeology specifically. In this fashion, the European Preventive Archaeology Project (EPAC), supported by the Council of Europe and the EAA, was held in Vilnius in 2004, at the initiative of the French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research and the Hungarian National Office of Cultural Heritage as representatives of the major European countries (Ernyey-Bozoki ´ 2007). The project Planarch (http://www.planarch.org) brings together English, Belgian, and French archaeologists on the planning of preventive excavation in development works (Ghenne 2007). The project Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (http://www.discoveringarchaeologists.eu), in the framework of the European Leonardo da Vinci education project, has undertaken a survey of archaeologists and their profiles in different European countries. The project Archaeology in Contemporary Europe (ACE; http://www.ace-archaeology. eu), led by the French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, brings together participants from ∼10 countries to discuss preventive archaeology and the social function of archaeology. The Epoch project (European Network of Excellence on the Applications of Information and Communication Technology to Cultural Heritage; http://www. epoch-net.org) also contributed to preventive archaeology (D’Andrea & Guermandi 2008), as did several other recent meetings (D’Agata & Alaura 2008, Gras & Liverani 2011). This nownearly permanent European cooperation is all the more necessary because some countries are regularly tempted to reverse the gains of preventive archaeology, as was the case in France in 2003 and is currently the case in Hungary (Banffy & Raczky 2010). We must nevertheless remember that Europe no doubt represents, with the United States and Japan (Okamura & Matsuda 2010), the regions of the world where preventive archaeology is the most developed. But for entire continents (Messenger & Smith 2010), particularly Africa (Baccar et al. 2005, Ould Mohammed Nafe et al. 2008), much of Asia and South America, and in New Guinea, among


AN41CH35-Demoule

620

Demoule

others, destruction without any real political rescue is multiplying (Demoule 2007).

ASSESSMENT AND PROSPECTS For the past four decades, thanks to preventive archaeology and growing legislative protection, Europe has experienced an unprecedented explosion of knowledge about its own past. It is estimated that 90% of the excavations conducted in Europe fall within the framework of preventive archaeology. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, do not allow other forms of excavation because only the excavation of threatened sites seems to be a priority. This explosion of data has also revolutionized the very approach of archaeology: It is no longer the study of isolated sites, but the study of whole territories, something that has been enabled by excavation prior to major development projects, which sometimes involve several hundred uninterrupted acres (Brun et al. 2006, Blancquaert et al. 2011). Owing to the amount of data to be processed and the necessary rapidity of action, preventive archaeology has effectively revolutionized the methods of this science. This abundance of data has made it possible to increase public awareness, both through exhibitions (e.g., Menghin & Planck 2002) and through accessible publications that take stock of the recent discoveries in each country (e.g., Darvill & Russel 2002; Visy et al. 2003; Demoule 2004b, 2012; Raczky et al. 2004; Demoule & Stiegler 2008) or of each major preventive operation (e.g., Chlodnicki & Krzyzaniak 1998, Djuric & Peseren 2003, Lagatie & Vanmoerkerke 2005, Vanmoerkerke & Burnouf 2006, Balint & Winkler 2007). Finally, public interest is indeed what makes archaeology possible (Merriman & Swain 1999, Holtorf 2005, Jameson 2008). Nevertheless, a certain number of essential questions concerning preventive archaeology are still under debate: 1. Property and status of archaeological objects. Only Greece and Italy consider archaeological sites and objects as


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

national property. Other countries, such as England, consider objects as belonging to the surface owner of the land (Carman 2005). Others still, such as France, take an intermediate position. In the case of preventive excavations, half of the objects belong to the state, and the other half belong to the landowner, who has only one year to claim the objects (Frier 2004, Saujot 2007). Uniformity of EU legislation, if possible, seems paramount for the interests of the community and for archaeology. 2. The mode of discovery of archaeological sites. Some countries, such as France and Germany, systematically carry out machine trenching on ∼10% of the surface area of major development projects prior to construction; others simply do aerial or electrical survey and basic coring. These latter methods, which are obviously preferred by developers, have seen improvements but still lead to the discovery of smaller numbers of sites (Cowley 2011). 3. Unsupervised destruction. Only rarely do we have accurate statistics on the areas affected each year by preventive excavations. The data for France (see http://www.inrap.fr) suggest that, with ∼600 km2 of surface area developed each year, only 15% of this land is subject to archaeological surveys, of which only 20% is followed up by excavations. Such information is not available for other European countries, and this is one of the aims of the previously mentioned project Archaeology in Contemporary Europe. The wetlands are particularly threatened (Coles & Olivier 2001). More worryingly still is the destruction caused by agricultural practices (Trow et al. 2010), which turn over the soil at great depths with heavy machinery. Such destruction is not subject to any supervision, whereas we have been able to estimate that, in the Netherlands, agricultural practices constitute 60% of the destruction of sites. Finally, added to this concern is the

4.

5.

6.

7.

damage of armed conflict: Studies estimate that there are at least one million mines buried in the soil of former Yugoslavia from the wars of the 1990s. The necessary level of preventive archaeology. What, ultimately, is the right level of archaeology in a country? There has been no public debate among the scientific, political, and economic actors of any European country. The level depends on three factors: the scientific standards (increasingly demanding over the years), a country’s wealth, and finally, the cultural demand of the public (indeed it is the weakness of this demand that led to all the immediate, postwar destruction). This level should also be defined with respect to national scientific programs (see below). Looting and metal detectors. Another point of concern is the destruction caused by illegal excavations, including those due to metal detectors, for which countries such as Britain seem overly tolerant (Thomas & Stone 2009, Barford & Swift 2013; see also http://heritageaction. wordpress.com/), and more generally, all forms of looting and trafficking (Renfrew 2000, Brodie et al. 2001, Atwood 2004, Brodie & Renfrew 2005, Compagnon 2010, Flutsch & Fontannaz 2010). Preservation in situ. Some developers offer to archaeologists the possibility to conserve a site without excavating it by, for example, building from concrete pillars or by covering the site with a thick backfill. Such provisions are not very convincing but have not been properly evaluated to date (see Lucas 2001, Kars & Van Heeringen 2006, Willems 2009). Storage and archiving. The accumulation of excavated material has caused great problems for storage of the objects, as well as for archiving, especially because information technology programs and hardware are constantly changing,

www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

621

AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

making stored data quickly inaccessible (Slofstra 1994, De Grooth & Stoepker 1997, Merriman & Swain 1999, Schlanger & Nordbladh 2008).


8. The issue of scientific publications. There is a serious deficit in publishing in archaeology and certainly a much higher deficit in publishing in private commercial archaeology (Kristiansen 2009). This issue also affects research excavations, but to a much smaller degree. This deficit has been regularly reported (Ben-Tor 1996, Cunliffe 1983, Fagan 1995, Jones et al. 2001, Univ. Coll. Dublin 2006, Watkinson 2008, Cherry 2010). It concerns both the monographs of sites and regional syntheses (see, for example, Collart et al. 2005) or those of national

ones (see, for example, Gras 2002, Trier 2003, Bradley 2007). The issue of a lack of publication leads to the next point. 9. National scientific agendas and assessments. One of the disadvantages of commercial archaeology practiced by many private companies is the difficulty of establishing national scientific programs (agendas). Yet, these are essential for a comprehensive research policy, including justification of the interests of archaeology to policy makers. The ability of preventive archaeology to produce compelling and useful knowledge for our reflection on trajectories of the past, as well as on the futures of human societies, supports its existence and the efforts made for its continued practice.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. LITERATURE CITED Aitchison K. 2009. After the “gold rush”: global archaeology in 2009. World Archaeol. 41(4):659–71 Atwood R. 2004. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. New York: St. Martin’s Press Baccar M, Betrouni M, Ferroukhi M. 2005. Atelier Euro-Maghrébin Patrimoine et Aménagement du Territoire, l’Archéologie Preventive (26–30 novembre 2004, Alger). Paris: UNESCO/Inst. Natl. Rech. Archéol. Prév. Bahn P. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Balint C, Winkler F, eds. 2007. Gördul¨ ¨ o Idö. Régészeti feltarasok az M7-es autopalya Somogy megyei szakaszan Zamardi e´ s Ordacsehi között [Rolling Time. Excavations on the M7 Motorway in County Somogy between Zamardi and Ordacsehi]. Budapest: Somogy Megyei Muzeumok Igazgatosaga ` Banffy E, Raczky P. 2010. The crisis and changes in cultural heritage legislation in Hungary: cul-de-sac or solution? See Schlanger & Aitchison, pp. 79–84. http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeologyand-the-crisis.pdf Barford P, Swift N. 2013. Britain’s Portable Antiquity Heritage. Artefact Collecting and the Archaeological Record. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell. In press Ben-Tor A, Dever WG, Herzog Z, Jacobs PF, Mazar A, et al. 1996. Archaeology’s Publication Problem. Washington, DC: Biblic. Archaeol. Soc. Bernbeck R, McGuire RH, eds. 2011. Ideologies in Archaeology. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press Biddle M, Hudson DM. 1973. Future of London’s Past. London: Rescue Blancquaert G, Malrain F, Stäuble H, Vanmoerkerke J, eds. 2011. Understanding the Past: A Matter of SurfaceArea. Oxford: Archaeopress Bradley R. 2007. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Bradley R, Haselgrove C, Van der Linden M, Webley L, eds. 2010. Developer-Led Archaeology in North-Western Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books 622

Demoule


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

Brandt RW, Groenman-van-Waateringe W, van der Leeuw SE. 1987. Assendelver Polder Papers 1. Amsterdam: Univ. Amsterdam, Cingula 10 Brodie N, Doole J, Renfrew C, eds. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res. Brodie N, Renfrew C. 2005. Looting and the world’s archaeological heritage: the inadequate response. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:343–61 ´ Brun P, Marcigny C, Vanmoerkerke J, eds. 2006. Une Archéologie des Réseaux Locaux. Quelles Surfaces Etudier pour Quelle Représentativité? Paris: Les Nouvelles Archéol. 75 pp. Carman J. 2005. Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. London: Duckworth. 145 pp. Carver M. 2007. The profession and the academy: common objectives. In Archaeology in Ireland: A Vision for the Future, ed. G Cooney, pp. 115–26. Dublin: R. Irel. Acad. Chadwick A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeol. Dialogues 10:97–117 Cherry JF. 2010. Still not digging, much. Archaeol. Dialogues 18(1):10–17 Chlodnicki M, Krzyzaniak L, eds. 1998. Pipeline of Archaeological Treasures/Gazociag pelen skarbow archeologicznych. Poznan, Poland: Poznanskie Towarzystwo Prehistoryczne Cleere H, ed. 1989. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. New York: Routledge Coles B, Olivier A, eds. 2001. The Heritage Management of Wetland in Europe. Occas. Pap. n◦ 1. Exeter: Eur. Archaeol. Cons. Collard JL, Racinet P, Talon M, eds. 2005. La recherche archéologique en Picardie: Bilans & perspectives. Amiens, Fr.: Rev. Archéolog. Picardie Compagnon G, ed. 2010. Halte au pillage. Paris: Errance. 445 pp. Coudart A, Talon M. 2004. Archéologie d’une crise. Nouv. Archéol. 98:1–64. http://www.revues.msh-paris. fr/modele2/nospebook2.asp?id_nospe=105&id_perio=38 Counc. Eur. 1969. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Strausberg, Fr.: Counc. Eur. Treaty Off. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/066.htm Counc. Eur. 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Strausberg, Fr.: Counc. Eur. Treaty Off. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/143.htm Cowley D, ed. 2011. Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Budapest: Archaeolingua. 312 pp. Cumberpatch CG, Blinkhorn PW. 2001. Clients, contractors, curators and archaeology. Who owns the past? In The Responsibilities of Archaeologists, ed. M Pluciennik, pp. 39–46. Oxford: Archaeopress Cunliffe B. 1983. The publication of archaeological excavations. Rep. Joint Work. Party Counc. Br. Archaeol. Dep. Environ., London D’Agata AL, Alaura S, eds. 2008. Quale futuro per l’archeologia? Roma: Gangemi D’Andrea A, Guermandi MP, eds. 2008. Strumenti per l’archeologie preventiva, Esperienze, Normative, Tecnologie. Budapest: EPOCH/Archaeolingua. 126 pp. Daniel G. 1975. 150 Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth Darvill TC, Russell B. 2002. Archaeology after PPG16: Archaeological Investigations in England 1990–1999. Bournemouth, UK: Bournemouth Univ. De Grooth MET, Stoepker H. 1997. Archaeological finds in depots and museums. The end of the line or the beginning? See Willems et al. 1997, pp. 296–315 Demoule JP. 2002a. Answer to Roger Thomas. Public Archaeol. 2:239–40 Demoule JP. 2002b. Rescue archaeology: the French way. Public Archaeol. 2:170–77 Demoule JP. 2004a. Archéologie préventive, recherche scientifique et concurrence commerciale. See Frier 2004, pp. 199–242 ´ Hazan Demoule JP, ed. 2004b. La France archéologique, vingt ans d’aménagements et de découvertes. Paris: Ed. Inst. Natl. Rech. Archéol. Prév. Demoule JP, ed. 2007. L’archéologie préventive dans le monde. Apports de l’archéologie préventive a` la connaissance du passé. Paris: La Découverte Demoule JP. 2011. We still have to excavate, but not at any price. Archaeol. Dialogues 18(1):5–10 Demoule JP. 2012. On a retrouvé l’histoire de France. Comment l’archéologie raconte notre passé. Paris: Robert Laffont www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

623

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

´ Découverte Demoule JP, Landes C, eds. 2009. La fabrique de l’archéologie. Paris: Ed. ´ Découverte Demoule JP, Stiegler B, eds. 2008. L’avenir du passé, modernité de l’archéologie. Paris: Ed. Djuric B, Peseren D. 2003. The Earth Beneath Your Feet: Archaeology on the Motorway in Slovenia: Guide to Sites. Ljubljana: Inst. Protect. Cult. Herit. Slov. ¨ Early R, Crowther C, Nardi R, Onal M, Abadie C, et al. 2003. Zeugma. Interim Reports. J. Rom. Archaeol. Suppl. Ser. 51. Portsmouth, RI: Packard Humanit. Inst. Ernyey-Bozoki ´ K, ed. 2007. European Preventive Archeology. Papers of the EPAC Meeting 2004, Vilnius. Budapest: Cons. Eur. Eur. Cult. Conv. 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Cultural Heritage. Strausberg, Fr.: Counc. Eur. Treaty Off. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/143.htm Fagan B. 1995. Archaeology’s dirty secret. Archaeology 48(4):14–17 Flutsch L, Fontannaz D. 2010. Le pillage du patrimoine archéologique. Des razzias coloniales au marché de l’art, un désastre culturel. Lausanne: Favre. 212 pp. Friedman M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 230 pp. Frier PL, ed. 2004. Le nouveau droit de l’archéologie préventive. Paris: Harmattan. 275 pp. Gaborit J. 2007. La vallée engloutie: Zeugma et autres sites en amont des barrages de l’Euphrate. See Demoule 2007, pp. 217–28 Gathercole P, Lowenthal D, eds. 1994. The Politics of the Past. London: Routledge. 319 pp. Gauthier M. 2009. L’élaboration de la convention de Malte. See Demoule & Landes 2009, pp. 227–38 Ghenne MJ, ed. 2007. Le projet Planarch 2. Archéologie et aménagement du territoire. Les Cahiers de l’Urbanisme, Hors-Série. Wavre, Belg.: Ed. Mardaga Gran-Aymerich E. 1998. Naissance de l’archéologie moderne, 1798–1945. Paris: CNRS. 530 pp. Gras M, ed. 2002. La recherche archéologique en France: bilan 1995–1999 du Consei national de la recherche archéologique. Les Nouvelles de l’Archéologie, n◦ 88. Paris: Ed. Errance. 75 pp. Gras M, Liverani P, eds. 2011. Il patrimonio culturale tra tutela e ricerca/Cultural Heritage between Conservation and Research. Atti del convegno int. Roma, 30–31 gennaio 2006. Roma: Unione int. degli isituti archeol., storia e storia dell’arte in Roma Graves-Brown P, Jones S, Gamble C, eds. 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge. 304 pp. Green Pap. 2004. Green Paper on Services of General Interest. COM2003 270 Fin. Off. J. C 76 of 25.03.2004. Brussels: Eur. Union. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/competition/state_aid/l23013_en.htm Hamilakis Y, Duke P, eds. 2007. Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. One World Archaeol., Vol. 54. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. 296 pp. Hansen HJ, Quine G, eds. 1999. Our Fragile Heritage: Documenting the Past for the Future. Copenhagen: Natl. Denmark Hodder I, ed. 1991. Theoretical Archaeology in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 272 pp. Holtorf C. 2005. From Stonehenge To Las Vegas: Archaeology As Popular Culture. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. 176 pp. Hoover K. 2003. Economics as Ideology: Keynes, Laski, Hayek, and the Creation of Contemporary Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 336 pp. Howard P. 2007. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. New York: Continuum. 304 pp. Hunter JR, Ralston IBM, eds. 1993. Archaeological Resource Management in the UK. Stroud, UK: Alan Sutton. 320 pp. ICOMOS. 1965. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Paris: Int. Counc. Monum. Sites (ICOMOS). http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf Jameson JH Jr. 2008. The Reconstructed Past. Reconstruction in the Public Intrepretation of Archaeology and History. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 320 pp. Jones S, MacSween A, Jeffrey S, Morris R, Heyworth M. 2001. From the Ground Up. The Publication of Archaeological Reports. A User Needs Survey. York: Counc. Br. Archaeol. http://www.britarch.ac.uk/pubs/puns Kars H, Van Heeringen RM, eds. 2006. Preserving Archaeological Remains in Situ. Amsterdam: Free Univ. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/13706/2/Preserving.archaeological. remains.in.situ.pdf


AN41CH35-Demoule

624

Demoule


AN41CH35-Demoule

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

Keynes JM. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: MacMillan King TF. 2008 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 408 pp. Klejn LS. 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Curr. Anthropol. 18(1):1–42 Kobylinski Z. 1998. Archaologischer Denkmalschutz in Polen am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Archaol. ´ Nachrichtenblatt 2/3:133–44 Kolen J. 2010. A new empiricism. Excavating at the start of the 21st century. Archaeol. Dialogues 18(1):30–41 Kristiansen K. 2009. Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity. World Archaeol. 41(4):641–48 Lagatie Chr, Vanmoerkerke J, eds. 2005. Europort Vatry (Marne): Les pistes de l’archéologie. Quand la plaine n’était pas déserte. . . Langres, Fr.: Ed. Dominique Guéniot. 164 pp. Lasfargue J. 2009. Naissance de l’archéologie préventive en Rhone-Alpes. See Demoule & Landes 2009, ˆ pp. 178–87 Lozny LR, ed. 2011. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past. New York: Springer. 870 pp. Lucas G. 2001. Destruction and the rhetoric of excavation. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 34:35–46 Luning J, Stehli P, eds. 1994. Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rheinische ¨ Ausgrabungen 36. Bonn, Germ.: Habelt Lyon EA. 1996. A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press. 352 pp. Mendoni L, ed. 2003. Archaiologikés Ereunes kai Megala Dimosia Erga [Archaeological Researches and Public Works]. Thessaloniki: Ypourgeio Politismou Menghin W, Planck D, eds. 2002. Menschen, Zeiten, Räume: Arc häologie in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag Merriman N, Swain H. 1999. Archaeological archives. Serving the public interest? Eur. J. Archaeol. 2:249–67 Messenger PM, Smith GS, eds. 2010. Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective. Boca Raton, FL: Univ. Press Fla. Mytum H, Waugh K, eds. 1987. Rescue Archaeology: What’s Next? York: Univ. York, Dep. Archaeol. Neumann TW, Sanford RM. 2001. Cultural Resources Archaeology: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. 272 pp. Normand F, Richard A. 1974. L’archéologie française en crise. La Recherche 48:754–62 Oebbecke J. 1998. Private Unternehmen in der Bodendenkmalpflege. Die rechtswissenschaftliche Perspektive. Archäol. Inf. 21(2):215–23 Okamura K, Matsuda A. 2010. Archaeological heritage management in Japan. In Cultural Heritage Management: Policies, and Issues in Global Perspective, ed. GS Smith, PE Messenger, pp. 99–110. Boca Raton: Univ. Press Fla. Ould Mohammed Naffé B, Lanfranchi R, Schlanger N, eds. 2008. L’archéologie préventive en Afrique, enjeux et ´ Sépia. 254 pp. perspectives. Actes du colloque de Nouachott. Saint-Maur, Fr.: Ed. Pavlu I, Zápotocká M, Soudsky O. 1983–1987. Bylany Katalog. Výzkum 1953–1967. Praha, Czech Repub.: Archeol. Ustav. 5 vols. Pluciennik M, ed. 2001. The Responsibilities of Archaeologists. BAR Int. Ser. 981. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress Raczky P, Anders A, Kovacs T, eds. 2004. Significant Archaeological Excavations in Hungary 1975–2000. Budapest: Inst. Archaeol. Sci., Eotv ¨ os ¨ Univ. Renfrew C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. London: Duckworth. 160 pp. ´ Cujas. 382 pp. Saujot C. 2007. Le droit fran¸cais de l’archéologie. Paris: Ed. Schlanger N, Aitchison K, eds. 2010. Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis. Multiple Impacts, Possible Solutions. Bruxelles: Cult. Lab Ed. http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeology-and-the-crisis.pdf Schlanger N, Nordbladh J. 2008. Archives, Ancestors, Practices: Archaeology in the Lights of Its History. Oxford: Berghahn Books Schlanger N, Salas Rossenbach K. 2010. “Quality” advice from French preventive archaeology. Curr. Swed. Archaeol. 18:41–45 Schnapp A. 1997. The Discovery of the Past. London: Br. Mus. Press. 384 pp. Skeates R. 2000. Debating the Archaeological Heritage. London: Duckworth. 128 pp. Skidelsky R. 2003. John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946. New York: Penguin Slofstra J. 1994. Recent developments in Dutch archaeology. Archaeol. Dialogues 1:9–33 www.annualreviews.org • Rescue Archaeology: A European View

625

ARI

16 August 2012

14:7

Stiglitz J. 2003. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton Thomas R. 2002. Comment: rescue archaeology: the French way, by Jean-Paul Demoule. Public Archaeol. 2:236–38 Thomas S, Stone P. 2009. Metal Detecting and Archaeology. Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer Trier B, ed. 2003. Archäologische Denkmalpflege in Deutschland. Standort, Aufgabe, Ziel. Stuttgart: Verband der Landesarchäologen in der Bundesrepublik Dtschl. Trow S, Holyoak V, Byrnes E, eds. 2010. Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe. Budapest: Archaeolingua UNESCO. 1954. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague. Paris: UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35744&URL_DO= DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO. 1956. Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001145/114585e.pdf#page=40 UNESCO. 1970. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Paris: UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext UNESCO. 2001. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00006 UNIDROIT. 1995. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. Rome: UNIDROIT. http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/main.htm Univ. Coll. Dublin. 2006. Archaeology 2020. Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge Society. A Realistically Achievable Perspective, ed. R Reeners. Dublin: Univ. Coll. http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ archaeology_2020.pdf Van den Dries M. 2011. The good, the bad and the ugly? Evaluating three models of implementing the Valletta Convention. World Archaeol. 43(4):594–604 Vanmoerkerke J, Burnouf J, eds. 2006. Cent mille ans sous les rails. Archéologie de la Ligne a` Grande Vitesse est Européenne. Paris: Somogy & Inst. Natl. Rech. Archéol. Prév. Visy Z, Nagy M, Kiss ZB, eds. 2003. Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest: Minist. Natl. Cult. Herit. Watkinson C. 2008. To what extent do digital technologies solve “archaeology’s publication problem”? Cent. Study Archit. Newsl. 21(2): http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/fall08/nlf0801.html Wheaton TR. 2002. A yankee’s view of European heritage management. Eur. Archaeol. 17:3–7 Willems WJH. 2009. Archaeological resource management and academic archaeology in Europe. Some observations. See D’Agata & Alaura, pp. 89–99 Willems WJH, Brandt R. 2004. Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard. The Hague: Rijksinspectie voor de Archeologie. http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf Willems WJH, Kars H, Hallewas DP, eds. 1997. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands. Fifty Years State Service for Archaeological Investigations. Amersfoort: Rijkskienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Willems WJH, Van Den Dries M, eds. 2007. Quality Management in Archaeology. London: Oxbow Young BK, Sullivan LP. 2007. La Tennessee Valley Authority: de l’archéologie de sauvetage a` une politique de long terme. See Demoule 2007, pp. 271–86


AN41CH35-Demoule

626

Demoule

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Contents

Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 41, 2012


Prefatory Chapter Ancient Mesopotamian Urbanism and Blurred Disciplinary Boundaries Robert McC. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Archaeology The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect Sarah Tarlow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169 The Archaeology of Money Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235 Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269 Paleolithic Archaeology in China Ofer Bar-Yosef and Youping Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319 Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research: The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and Paleoenvironmental Archive Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371 Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean Peter van Dommelen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393 Archaeometallurgy: The Study of Preindustrial Mining and Metallurgy David Killick and Thomas Fenn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 559 Rescue Archaeology: A European View Jean-Paul Demoule p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 611 Biological Anthropology Energetics, Locomotion, and Female Reproduction: Implications for Human Evolution Cara M. Wall-Scheffler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71

vii

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the Human-Primate Interface Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101 Human Evolution and the Chimpanzee Referential Doctrine Ken Sayers, Mary Ann Raghanti, and C. Owen Lovejoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119 Chimpanzees and the Behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus Craig B. Stanford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139 Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:611-626. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 82.240.7.40 on 01/28/13. For personal use only.

Primate Feeding and Foraging: Integrating Studies of Behavior and Morphology W. Scott McGraw and David J. Daegling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203 Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened, and Will Happen Next Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495 Maternal Prenatal Nutrition and Health in Grandchildren and Subsequent Generations E. Susser, J.B. Kirkbride, B.T. Heijmans, J.K. Kresovich, L.H. Lumey, and A.D. Stein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577 Linguistics and Communicative Practices Media and Religious Diversity Patrick Eisenlohr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37 Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation Penelope Eckert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87 Documents and Bureaucracy Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251 The Semiotics of Collective Memories Brigittine M. French p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337 Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355 Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461 Music, Language, and Texts: Sound and Semiotic Ethnography Paja Faudree p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519

viii

Contents

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

International Anthropology and Regional Studies Contemporary Anthropologies of Indigenous Australia Tess Lea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187 The Politics of Perspectivism Alcida Rita Ramos p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481 Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 537


Sociocultural Anthropology Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21 The Politics of the Anthropogenic Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57 Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221 Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285 Enculturating Cells: The Anthropology, Substance, and Science of Stem Cells Aditya Bharadwaj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 303 Diabetes and Culture Steve Ferzacca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 411 Toward an Ecology of Materials Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427 Sport, Modernity, and the Body Niko Besnier and Susan Brownell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443 Theme I: Materiality Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221 The Archaeology of Money Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235 Documents and Bureaucracy Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251 Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269

Contents

ix

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355 Toward an Ecology of Materials Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427 Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461 Theme II: Climate Change


Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21 The Politics of the Anthropogenic Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57 Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the Human-Primate Interface Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101 Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151 Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285 Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research: The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and Paleoenvironmental Archive Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371 Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened, and Will Happen Next Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 32–41 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 631 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x

Contents