Title Participants Abstract "Environmental evidence from early urban Antwerp: New data from archaeology, micromorphology, macrofauna and insect remains" "Pam J. Crabtree, Eileen Reilly, Barbora Wouters, Yannick Devos, Tim Bellens, Anne Schryvers" "Recent excavations along the Jordaenskaai, in the medieval burg area in central Antwerp, have provided a unique opportunity to explore the archaeology, economy, and environmental context of early medieval Antwerp. This multidisciplinary project examined structures and features that are radiocarbon dated to 760-970 CE in order to gain a better understanding of the use of human and environmental resources and the use of space at the dawn of this trade town. By combining micromorphology and the analyses of both the insect and the vertebrate fauna, we explore both the local environment of early medieval Antwerp and its connections to the wider hinterland surrounding the town. Excavations in the Antwerp burg have revealed remarkably well preserved wooden trackways, houses, fences, and numerous finds, often related to artisanal activities, including bone, antler and metal working. Around 900 CE, a D-shaped earthen rampart was erected; it was subsequently fortified by a stone wall. The Antwerp burg area is considered a nucleus and catalyst for the urban development. Like many contemporary early urban sites, the macrofaunal remains are dominated by bones of domestic cattle and pigs. However, the presence of sizable numbers of wild mammals, including red deer, wild boar, and beaver, distinguishes the Antwerp burg sites from other contemporary sites such as Ipswich. A number of house structures were excavated within the D-shaped rampart area. A micromorphological analysis of micro-laminated layers of one of these structures was performed, revealing the evolution of its use within a single location. On top of the oldest ash deposit, a thick stabling horizon containing leaves, grass, wood fragments and animal dung was identified. The insect analysis from the stabling horizon confirmed that this deposit was primarily comprised of dung or stable manure, with stored hay or other plant matter also indicated. A high percentage presence of natural woodland indicators was also noted, suggesting that timber and wattle for buildings and trackways was sourced from such woodlands in close proximity to the early town. This is a virtually unique aspect for insect faunas from early towns in north and west Europe, with closest parallels coming from Novgorod, in Russia. The upper part of the sequence shows the presence of floors related to a more domestic use of space. This combined archaeological, macrofaunal, insect and micromorphological study suggests that early Antwerp already had a thriving market and artisanal quarter by the 10th century, with domestic animals stabled within the town for butchery or export, and wild resources being brought in for processing and craft working." "Archaeology of the Urban Space, in M. Boone – G. Deneckere (eds.), Ghent : city of all times, Antwerpen, 2010" "Georges Declercq, Marie-Christine Laleman" pm "Urban environmental archaeology in Brussels (Belgium): perspectives at the onset of the 21st century" "Yannick Devos, Ann Degraeve" "Over the last decades a specific research protocol aiming at optimizing the integration of environmental archaeology within the urban archaeological practice has been developed in Brussels. Its systematic application has enriched our knowledge on many aspects of urban development. Current research addresses three main topics: urban Dark Earth and the origins of Brussels, the evolution of the regional landscape and urban economy and personal life. Future research will further explore these themes, but also other themes such as the study of microlaminated house floors and the georeferencing of the environmental dataset open new perspectives in research in Brussels urban archaeology." "Brian Hope-Taylor, the Council for British Archaeology, and 'The Need for Adequate Archaeological Propaganda'" "Suzie Thomas" "Brian Hope-Taylor (1923-2001) is remembered as one of the first archaeologists in the United Kingdom to introduce the discipline to a wider audience, through presenting television programmes in the 1960s. He also oversaw numerous excavations. The Council for British Archaeology (CBA) is known for being an educational charity, with the protection of the UK's archaeological heritage and historic environment central to its activities. What is perhaps less well-known is that, in the 1940s, Hope-Taylor was behind a proposal to the CBA to introduce a campaign of 'cheerful propaganda', in order to raise awareness among the wider public about chance archaeological finds and their significance, and hence to persuade them to report these discoveries to appropriate 'experts'. This paper uses archival evidence and the existing literature to examine, within a historical context, the proposed scheme. Had it come to fruition, it would have introduced principles and mechanisms for public reporting and recording of archaeological discoveries comparable to those laid out by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which itself did not come to fruition for another five decades." "Editorial: Proceedings of the Conference on the Environmental Archaeology of European Cities (CEAEC)" "Wim Van Neer, Elena Marinova, Ann Degraeve" "Reflection on “Reverse Archaeology”" "Dries Tys" "REFLECTION ON 'REVERSE ARCHAEOLOGY' BY DRIES TYS The Treaty of la Valetta on the preservation of Archaeological heritage, also known as the Malta Convention, has changed the setting of European archaeology drastically. Since it was signed, almost 20 years ago, we have seen the rise of a kind of archaeology in which the emphasis of the discipline shifted from research driven archaeology to preventive archaeology, albeit in a commercial environment or not. The preservation of archaeological sites became the main purpose of national and regional institutions and sites that were not threatened by spatial developments were to be preserved in situ. The treaty resulted in many positive aspects, notably the fact that an impressive quantity of archaeological data have been gathered and gained in what came to be known as Malta Archaeology, with its own legislative logic and institutions. This is all very well known. There were and are however also quite a lot of problems and difficulties, being such that a new Malta-notion came into existence, namely the notion of the ""boomerang of Malta"". Above all the main problem is that in many Malta-legislations, the budget and time for post-excavation research remains limited or even non-existent. The new legislation in Flanders, which is presently under discussion avoids the aspect of post-excavation treatment of finds and results completely. In the Flemish Heritage Institute (formerly known as VIOE), comparable to English Heritage, the 25 heritage researchers such as the well-known faunal archaeologist Anton Ervynck are compelled to quit research and from now on work as heritage curators. In the almost 20 years that we have seen the rise and implementation of Malta-Archaeology, it seems that the notion of scientific, research-driven archaeology has become alienated from the preventive archaeology. Research-driven archaeology is the terrain of universities and academies and is to be seen as different from the archaeology involved in the spatial planning process. Research-driven excavations on non-threatened sites have become a rarity and as said, the data generated in the Malta-process are seldom transferred to studies other than a basic descriptive report. As a result, artifacts are more often not been processed into information and knowledge. This undermines the production of information, information we need to assess meaning, meaning which is what we need to derive in order to understand 'heritage'. This kind of 'archeography' will undoubtedly undermine the position of archaeology, since people and institutions will eventually ask what all these investments in the retrieval of ""old junk"" have brought us and no one will be able to answer this question. It also implies that archaeology will return to a kind of empirical stage, where knowledge is solely based on single field experience and not on research questions. The harvest of collected artifacts will overflow storehouses and we will have no criteria to make decisions or choices, because of the fact that research is alienated from the process of preventive archaeology in the context of spatial development. These developments are indeed explicitly the result of how the Malta Treaty is translated in most European countries and regions, namely that archaeology has to be taken into account in the trajectory and process of spatial planning and development. So, whenever a large building project, urban whether rural comes up, new agents are involved in the archaeological practice, such as the already mentioned curators, local municipalities, the actual developers and the audience. The new development in both The Netherlands and Flanders is that the responsibility for the actual curatorship and management of the archaeological heritage, including the decisions on choices of priorities, methods and techniques, is left to the administrations of the municipalities. This is problematic for three main reasons. First of all: the expertise on heritage curatorship in municipal administration will be often of a significantly lower level compared to the expertise of central regional or national institutions. Secondly, there is a much shorter distance between the parties and agents involved, which might lead in some cases to the danger of corruption. When for instance a party wants to develop a meadow with a medieval drainage system into building allotments and is on friendly terms with the local decision makers, it just might be possible that the heritage reflex of the municipal administration might be somewhat less stringent as can be expected. Thirdly, the financial resources of local municipalities are much weaker than those of more central authorities, which might cause problems in times of economic crisis as today. When a municipality has to make financial choices because of a restricted budget, heritage will be one of the more vulnerable aspects of local policy. In short, the maneuvering space for municipalities is basically restricted. It would seem to me that the development of the concept of 'Reverse Archaeology' would fit in this context, where the framework for local heritage policy is rather narrow and full of restrictions. Of course the idea of democratization of the archaeology process seems attractive. In practice however, this voluntaristic concept only seems a pragmatic way of cutting costs and preparing the field for compromises between the parties involved, namely the poorly budgeted municipalities, the spatial developers who are hampered by the loss of time that excavations imply and the heritage professionals that no longer have an interest in scientificly driven archaeological research because it is simply no longer expected. In this respect, several statements of the authors seem to me rather dangerous, in a contrast to what the idea of democratization reminds one of. The authors claim in a variation of arguments that ""Evaluating the remains by all shareholders involved is necessary to enable the heritage professional to make well-founded choices"". If that is the case, what to do when a municipal council of the Dutch 'Bible belt' opposes to research of the late Paleolithic camp, because in the biblical chronology there is no space for prehistory? They are after all 'shareholders' and have their respectable values, which have to be brought into account in 'Reversed Archaeology'! Hodder would be confronted with interesting situations when he would want to apply his reflexive archaeology in such a context. The authors claim that 'Reverse Archaeology' stands for ""value-based heritage management"", but the key question is which values and on the basis of which frame of reference the values are considered when it can't be based on values of seeking knowledge and information? When the authors claim that ""Assigning the values of the archaeological heritage is an interdisciplinary matter in which different shareholders play an equal part"", the same logic is used as the one we hear today when local heritage servants in some municipalities try to argue to let go certain supposedly disturbed areas as zones with no archaeological values, in order to enhance the basis for shared heritage values by the different parties involved, read, the spatial developers. For the developers not only inspiring quality of the developed space is of importance, as the authors state, but also and foremost the cost efficiency of the project. More than the concern whether to be interested in archaeology as a product they can or cannot use, they are interested in a positive balance of profit at the end of the project, which is perfectly logical. If this implies less archaeology, then they will try to cut archaeological costs whenever is possible. You can then state that archaeological value might add value to the spatial project, the practice in reality shows that this value is only superficial and entirely subjugated to commercial values. For example, in Antwerp, an important preventive archaeological project in the center of town was carried out by the town service in close collaboration with the spatial developer. He claimed to be interested in the results and wanted not only to add value to the project, relating it directly with the history of the site as recorded by the archaeologists, but also to integrate the medieval town wall present on the site in the new development. Only, when the medieval wall was hindering the power shovel in its attempt to smooth the terrain, the wall disappeared largely without any concern from the developers' side. The way in which the few remaining features of the side were incorporated in the project did not have a single effect on the project's spatial quality and the way the story of the site influenced the perception of the project was merely a commercial attempt to raise the price. When research, quality and budget are brought in balance, the latter will prevail when ""shareholding parties are mobilized and brought together at the discussion-making table where they are involved into a dialogue with the objective of achieving a consensus on heritage management"". One can indeed ask oneself the question what archaeology has to gain from this kind of 'Reverse Archaeology'. Imagine that when someone wants to build a factory in an area with high natural values, the developers, the municipality, the public and the scientists are brought together at the discussion table, in order to compromise in a dialogue, which part of the ecological system can be destroyed and which not and which species are considered to be of value to grant them an attempt to survive and which not. It would be an impossible discussion, since ecosystems are holistic and integrated systems, but moreover no one would challenge the assessment of the area by biologists as a democratic process in which every shareholder has an equal opinion. Then why would this be possible for questions on ""what costs should be used for archaeological research and what should be invested in preserving remains in situ""? The whole concept of 'Reverse Archaeology' seems therefor largely compromised and seems to me inherently in contradiction with the scientific approach of archaeology, already largely threatened in the actual state of preventive archaeology. This is symptomatic for the archaeological resource management of today in which scientific questions and approaches are becoming marginalized in the general process. The consequence of this is that the whole process of knowledge formation, in order to get some meaning out of the remains, is reversed with the consequence that there will be no longer any new information to tell, because all that will come from this is a mindless set of dumb artifacts. As Matthew Johnson states, ""What makes us archaeologists as opposed to mindless collectors of old junk Is the set of rules we use to translate those facts into meaningful accounts of the past, accounts that make SENSE, to us and the general audience"" (1999). Archaeology is still a behavioural science of great complexity, which needs time and resources to do the translation. This is not a democratic but a scientific process, in which data and results need to be evaluated constantly. In this way we can attempt how to see more and share this widely. Only then we can offer something to our most important shareholder, the public." "A new international journal on the archaeology of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period in the Netherlands and Belgium" "Dries Tys, Frans Theuws" "We are pleased to present the fi rst volume of MMM, Medieval and Modern Matters, a new journal of medieval and post-medieval archaeology and material culture studies in Belgium and the Netherlands, also referred to as Th e Low Countries. The journal aims at presenting new research and new data related to this region. Th e journal wants to provide an international forum for these research eff orts, the new excavations and new evidence, the new interpretations and new and interesting perspectives on themes of international interest, such as rural development, the rise and development of the town and the urban world, material culture and lifestyle, and the ways in which material objects act as markers of identity, social status and components of behaviour. Moreover we intend to provide a forum for the study of major social, economic and cultural processes of the Middle Ages and the Modern period such as religious transformation, commercialisation and changing group cultures, so as to provide a counterbalance to the fragmentation of present archaeological practices and perspectives." "From archaeology and conservation to heritage management at ancient Sagalassos (Turkey)" "Ebru Torun" "From archaeology and conservation to heritage management at ancient Sagalassos (Turkey) During the last two decades, conservation has evolved beyond the physical preservation of cultural assets. Today it is widely accepted that the long-term conservation of cultural resources requires sustainable management practices, bringing more than ever the disciplines of archaeology and conservation together. The decades-long mariage forcé between these two disciplines stands at the tipping point of a transformation today as they merge to function together within the wider scope of heritage management studied as a natural-cultural landscape. The Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project is a large-scale undertaking involving urban excavation and territorial survey in Southwest Turkey, exposing the ancient city of Sagalassos over the last 23 years. The proposed research will aim to scrutinize the above-mentioned transformation by taking Sagalassos Project as a case study. The general objective of this PhD thesis is to reconstruct the interdisciplinary research and development trajectory of the Sagalassos archaeological research project, starting from a traditional excavation and conservation practice at the archaeological site, to end up with an integrated spatial development approach valorising cultural and natural heritage of the Ağlasun micro-region. The PhD consists of four articles preceded by a methodological introduction explaining the built-up of the interdisciplinary trajectory and followed by a conclusion indicating future research avenues for integrated sustainable development of nature-culture heritage sites. The first paper explains the evolving anastylosis methodology, principles and techniques and examines the anastylosis project of the Arch of Claudius in Sagalassos. The project witnesses the ameliorated anastylosis approach as well as integrated documentation and conservation techniques employed at Sagalassos and allows for discussion on the effect of anastylosis at archaeological sites, their role in visibility and management of the heritage site. Based on the Sagalassos experience, the second paper offers a critical view towards the position of the conservation practice within the interdisciplinary collaboration structure of large-scale archaeological projects at archaeological sites in function of establishing a long-term management strategy for the heritage at hand. The third paper is a review of the available techniques and methods for the core issue of documentation at a site for which rapidly developing technology offers a variety of new tools and methods. It examines the use of conventional and new techniques simultaneously and evaluates the efficiency of the results in comparison to the current and future purposes of documentation. It also discusses the value of documentation as a management tool for heritage sites. The fourth paper presents the community archaeology and local development projects conducted at Ağlasun/Sagalassos, discussing the response of different disciplines to the changing concepts and collaboration perspectives in the fields of archaeology, conservation and heritage." "The archaeology of an architecture exhibition : 'Portrait of Flemish Biotopes' in de Singel’s archives" "Alice Haddad" "How can exhibitions not only inform us of, but also contribute to shape, the societal and environmental context in which architecture is embedded? This question is guiding my research into the social, conceptual, and material function of architecture exhibitions in Flanders during the 1990s-2000s—a period of major institutional shifts in spatial governance in Flanders, as well as of growing interests in the practice of curating architecture. Exhibitions stand as ephemeral markers of time. Most often produced with the support of institutional spheres, an essential function of these events is to serve as public platform and media. In the field of architecture, they have become a significant source for gaining historical and theoretical knowledge. They are relevant as complex objects of research and for the cultural meaning they collectively generate over time (Arrhenius, 2014). They may also contribute to a “conception of architecture as not primarily concerned with objects in the built environment but as a way of thinking about living in the world” (Blau, 1998). If the impetus of institution building is a change of value, I aim to examine how architecture exhibitions register and may contribute to this change. Hence, in this paper, I expose the findings of my research into one case study: the exhibition “Portrait of Flemish biotopes. The photography commission of the Flemish Government Architect” curated by Moritz Küng in collaboration with Katrien Vandermarliere in 2002/2003. It was shown at the arts centre deSingel, in Antwerp, as part of its architecture programme. A series of archival documents will serve to identify curatorial choices and the tensions that they unravel between various institutional stakeholders, narratives, sites, and objects, which I perceive as indicative of institutional change. The endurance of architecture exhibition’s documentary remains poses, however, a major challenge. It generally depends on an array of material linked to the original event retrieved from public or private archives and collections—the findings, in this case, are mostly retrieved from the administrative archives of deSingel. Reconstructing an exhibition is constitutive of an archaeology of knowledge (Foucault,1969). Recovering the archives of exhibitions can thus be seen as entangled in a double bind: they describe the enunciative function of the curatorial practice (what was said and how?) and of the archival system to which it belongs (how is it remembered?)." "Medieval markets: A soil micromorphological and archaeobotanical study of the urban stratigraphy of Lier (Belgium)" "Barbora Wouters, Yannick Devos, Karen Milek, Luc Vrydaghs, Bart Bartholomieux, Dries Tys, Cornelie Moolhuizen, Nelleke van Asch" "Market places remain underrepresented in studies of archaeological soil micromorphology. In Lier, micromorphology was applied to gain understanding of the stratigraphy and formation processes of the medieval “Grote Markt”. Block samples were obtained from a sediment profile that spanned the 11 th-15th century and contained three separate phases of thick, dark-coloured, humic, homogeneous layers - so-called ‘dark earth’. Combined with textural and archaeobotanical analyses (seeds, fruits and phytoliths), the results shed light on the formation processes that shaped this site. The oldest dark earth, dated to the 11th century, was characterised by agricultural activities. The second dark earth (12–13th century) formed as a result of intensive human activities, witnessing the site's transformation to an urban space. This layer contained large amounts of organic matter and anthropogenic inclusions and developed gradually in situ. It probably represents an early market or open space close to dwellings or small courtyards. Units that contain evidence for intensive building activity separate the second and third dark earth, and are possibly the result of a spatial re-organisation of the square. The formation of the third dark earth, which started in the 14th century, is characterised by an intensification of traffic and craftworking activities. Surfaces may have been maintained by spreading organic matter such as leaves, sand and hearth detritus. However, there is no evidence for a kept, empty urban square before a thick layer of levelling sand was deposited (in the second half of the 14th century at earliest) and the market was cobbled. The analysis shows that mixed market activities took place in this intensively used zone, and presents a number of micromorphological characteristics and inclusions typical of a medieval market place in a temperate climate."