Editorial

This is my last issue as editor-in-chief. I took over from Nicholas Stanley-Price as editor in 2007, and I have spent a largely enjoyable decade observing the way our discipline has grown. In the early 2000s university-based teaching of archaeological heritage management (as opposed to conservation) was rare; but since then we have seen a steady increase in the range of courses offered, with heritage management master’s courses now common in Asian, Middle Eastern, European, and North American universities. Perhaps most heartening, have been the advances in the perception of heritage management as part of the archaeological discipline: with the best archaeologists across the globe now routinely considering the consequences of archaeological intervention on archaeological resources, on public and local community engagement, sustainable tourism, identities and power; and considering the efficacy of preservation in situ strategies at the outset of archaeological projects. Encouraging is the fact that heritage management is now increasingly being embedded in undergraduate archaeology courses: not simply as free-standing undergraduate conservation degrees, but rather as modules within conventional archaeology courses. Archaeological heritage management is no longer the exclusive preserve of the conservator, but is now perceived by many to be an ethical concern for any practising archaeologist. This is a necessary and fundamental shift in the broader discipline of archaeology.

Nevertheless, the integration of conservation and archaeological practice is still a major issue, and remains a point of debate amongst practitioners and educators alike. The Getty Conservation Institute, for example, sponsored a session in the Washington Fifth World Archaeology Congress (subsequently published as Agnew & Bridgland, 2006) to discuss integrating conservation and archaeological activities, and they have recently convened a workshop to discuss approaches to encouraging better integration and cooperation between students of conservation and archaeology. Site conservation, as opposed to artefact conservation, is still poorly represented across many conservation courses.

The range and scale of articles submitted to this journal, I feel, reflects the development of ideas and theories about archaeological heritage management. Many have explored issues of values, living heritage, local community participation, education, interpretation and presentation, alongside specific conservation and management strategies. These have pushed at the boundaries of what constitutes an archaeological site or landscape (for example, see Carr & Corbishley, 2015), and deliberately challenged a narrow conservation ethic regarding the use of archaeological heritage within twenty-first-century contexts (e.g. Jones, 2009; Kleinitz & Näser, 2011; (e.g. Jones, 2009; Kleinitz & Näser, 2011; Makuvaza & Burrett, 2011; Makuvaza & Makuvaza, 2013; Orbaşli, 2013; Ronayne, 2008) and the engagement of local communities (e.g. Fushiya, 2010; Lekakis, 2008; Vafadari, 2008). All of these concerns have also been reflected in some of our special issues: Education (guest editor Corbishley 2008, 10:1); Local Communities (10:4); Maritime (Flatman 2009, 11:1); Sub-Saharan Africa (Ashley & Bouakaze-Khan 2011, 13:2–3); Perspectives from the Arabian Peninsula (Golfomitsou & Rico 2014, 16:2); Managing Archaeological Sites in Greece (Alexopoulos & Fouseki 2013, 15:1). Climate change has figured strongly (e.g. Daly 2011, 2014; Durham et al. 2012; Kincey et al. 2008; Murphy et al. 2009) and I am sure that issues related to this will be on the increase in coming years, especially in the face of the denial of its existence in some quarters. It has also been heartening to see twenty-eight articles on maritime archaeological site management over this decade, a recognition of the complexity of issues facing us in managing and conserving the marine archaeological resource.

Whilst conservation approaches and issues still dominate the papers submitted to the journal, there has been an interesting movement away from an uncritical acceptance that preservation in situ is always desirable, or indeed actually achievable (e.g. Malim & Panter, 2012), and monitoring has rightly become one of the key issues (e.g. Bøe Sollund & Holm-Olsen, 2013; Corfield, 2012; Hollesen et al. 2016; Sidell, 2012; Williams, 2012). In this context, I am particularly pleased that we have helped to publish papers from the last two Preservation of Archaeological Remains In-Situ (PARIS) conferences (Gregory & Matthiesen 2012, 14:1–4; and Leuzinger, Sidell & Williams, 2016: 18:1–3).

The papers in the journal reflect the broad global perspective of the discipline (Figure 1). The preponderance of European papers (58%) is in part skewed by the two big PARIS conference proceedings, which have a very European focus. Without those conferences (Figure 2) we see European papers drop to 42% and with strong representation from the Arab States (21%), Asia and Pacific (15%) and Africa (14%). It is evident that the journal does provide an outlet for scholarly work from the Arab States, Africa and parts of Asia — perhaps a voice for those who cannot easily attend excellent conferences such as PARIS. It is also evident that the special issues have been very useful in encouraging submissions and engaging communities of professionals. However, there are many areas where we could certainly do more to attract papers: most obviously, there is little from the Americas or the Caribbean¹, and within regions, the Asian papers mainly reflect China and South-East Asia, along with four from Australia and New Zealand: this masks poor representation across most of the Pacific, and little from the Indian sub-continent. I am sure that the journal’s editorial board and the new editor will continue to fight these imbalances.

Figure 1 All the articles published in the last decade with a country/regional perspective. Regions broadly based on the UNESCO regions,⁶ although separating Europe and North America. (Papers on techniques/approaches, or global issues not included).

Figure 2 Articles in the last decade with a country/regional perspective, but not including the PARIS conferences.

Whilst there have been many encouraging signs over the last decade, there have also been many dispiriting developments. Conflicts, and the pressures that these bring to communities and their heritage, have been a long-running disaster (e.g. Gibson, 2009; Perring and van der Linde, 2009; Stone, 2009). Our approaches to documentation have developed rapidly in the last decade (satellite imagery, unmanned aerial vehicles, digital photography, photogrammetric recording, laser scanning, 3D visualisation, etc.) (not a major focus of our journal but see Stylianidis & Remondino (2016) for a recent review), all of which offer the hope of better platforms of information for decision-making in post-conflict reconstruction. However, they are often difficult to retrospectively apply to conflict zones.

There have been some useful recent developments: such as the UNESCO/CyArk initiatives for training Syrian experts in emergency documentation², under the aegis of the Emergency Safeguarding of the Syrian Cultural Heritage project, a European Union–funded project that aims to prepare post-conflict priority actions in Syria; the Universities of Oxford, Leicester, and Durham’s Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project³; or American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) Cultural Heritage Initiatives for Syria and Iraq⁴, in collaboration with the US Department of State, which aims to document damage to help planning emergency and post-war responses; and these are all to be applauded. However, as I discussed in recent editorials (Williams 2013, 2016), effective planning for heritage’s role in post-war recovery is still poor. Sultan Barakat formulated nine critical lessons for a holistic approach to post-war reconstruction, highlighting the need for a clear vision of future recovery scenarios ‘as seen by local groups as much as by external actors’ (Barakat, 2007, 26). Anyone seriously concerned with the role that archaeological heritage has to play in this process should read Barakat’s paper.

All of this can be set against increasingly poor governmental responses, in many countries, to the pressures of globalisation, development, modernity, climate change, and urban expansion on heritage⁵.The challenge for us all, in the future, must be to positively engage with the vital role that archaeological heritage and its management plays in contemporary society. Its relevance and value, and how we sustain these for future generations, demands that we build arguments of the relevance of archaeological heritage to communities and governments. We need to communicate better: interpretation at archaeological sites displayed in situ is still outstandingly poor in so many places. Narratives offered are often simplistic and fail to really engage with the nature of archaeological evidence. If we fail to communicate these complex values, then why should societies be interested in keeping these sites? Archaeologists must engage in working with stakeholders to consider what is excavated, and what we leave in situ and why. There is still a major bias towards the preservation of the monumental and elite (perhaps because it appears more robust and interpretatively intelligible), but as an archaeologist interested in the complexity of past societies, this offers a very skewed representation of the past.

I am delighted to pass on the journal’s editorship to Dr Kimberley Te Winkle and I am sure, in her safe hands, and under the auspices of Taylor & Francis, the journal will continue to develop an active voice in these debates.

Tim Williams, London, February 2017

Notes

1. More papers such as Anyon et al. (2000) and Robles et al. (2008) would be good.

2. See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/beirut/single-view/news/documentation_training_will_help_create_3d_models_of_damascu/ accessed February 2017

3. See http://eamena.arch.ox.ac.uk/ accessed February 2017

4. See http://www.asor-syrianheritage.org/ accessed February 2017.

5. In the UK, for example, the parliamentary process to ratify the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and the Protocols of 1954 and 1999 has taken some time. Indeed, it was in June 2015 that the Government finally announced, 62 years after signing the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, that they were ready to ratify it. 126 nations have already done so. The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill passed its third and last reading in the House of Commons on 20 February 2017. Royal Assent is likely to be announced soon. This is a significant step forward, but much more work is needed to implement the Bill, and the length of time taken shames us all.

6. See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/unesco-regions/ accessed February 2017