EAA2012 - Session List

30/04/12 EAA2012 - Session List

1/30www.eaa2012.fi/programme/session_list

Home>Programme>Session List

Sessions

The meeting will focus on four major themes: Interpreting the Archaeological Record, Maritime Archaeology, ArchaeologicalHeritage Resource Management and Perspectives on Archaeology in the Modern World. In addition the Medieval EuropeResearch Congress (MERC) is organised in connection with the EAA Helsinki 2012 meeting. The more than 75 sessions arelisted below.

Please note that all paper abstracts will be evaluated by the session organisers and the Scientific Committee. In order togive all the submitted abstracts equal opportinity in the evaluation process all abstracts will be evaluated after 31 March2012. Thank you for your patience!

Interpreting the Archaeological Record

Animal Agency?

Organisers: Kristin Armstrong Oma (University of Oslo; Norway) and Gala Argent (Eastern Kentucky University; USA)

Contact: k.a.oma[at]iakh.uio.no

Archaeology by definition centralizes the human within its realm of study. As within broader Western socio-culturalconstructs, archaeological studies most often marginalize nonhuman animals as containers for human symbolism or aseconomic strategies, or segment them into abstract categories of inert variables. In a philosophical sense, ontologically thenature of being is the nature of human being; the nature of action is of human action. Animals are more than culturalabstractions. There is growing interdisciplinary recognition that many animals possess characteristics such as intelligence,emotion and awareness that vary from humans by degree rather than kind. Animals are alive, active participants in theirworlds, and the spaces where those worlds intersect and enmesh with humans are often messy and difficult to divide intoclean compartments. In addition to how humans use them, animals often take part in subjectified relationships with humansthat are impactful for both species at various levels of scale. But while particular lines of archaeological inquiry havefocused upon attributing objects and landscapes with agential abilities - while leaving it tacitly understood that this kind ofagency is secondary to the type of agency humans apply to their worlds - with few notable exceptions animals have beenleft out of this type of discourse. This session aspires to be one such exception, by addressing the question of animalagency. With these considerations in mind, this session is open to contributions that specifically address - or reformulate -the question of animal agency within archaeological studies. Questions might include: Do animals have agency, and if so,what type(s)? Do animals hold a middle ground between agential humans and inert material culture? How might animals beseen to have impacted particular societies and cultures, beyond their use? Can a consideration of animals as themselves,and as they live and interact with humans within shared worlds, assist with understanding the human cultures which lived orlive with them? How does animal agency challenge the paradigm of human centrality within archaeological studies? Howmight the manner in which conventional archaeological narratives construct animals be expanded? Can fresh theoretical ormethodological approaches be incorporated beneficially into archaeological studies which include animals? What are theethical implications of animal agency for archaeologies which approach them as objects? Contributors are also invited toaddress the relevance for archaeological studies of recent advances in human-animal studies, posthumanist and feministresearch.

Archaeological Research, Heritage Interpretation and "lieux de mémoire"

Organisers: Jana Maříková-Kubková (Archeologický ústav AVČR, Praha; Czech Republic), Dirk Callebaut (EnameExpertisecentrum voor Erfgoedontsluiting; Belgium) and Jan Mařík (Archeologický ústav AVČR, Praha; Czech Republic)

Contact: marikova[at]arup.cas.cz

This session will focus on various aspects of the rise, development, significance and pitfalls in the application of the so-called sites of memory theory, les lieux de mémoire (Nora 1984-1992), on archaeology and its evidence. Even though thetheory of lieux de mémoire is symbolic in its context as it describes the nature of the collective identity of a nation and thefundamental bases from which it arises, its implications for archaeology are fundamental and far-reaching. Attention will bepaid mainly to protohistoric and early Medieval archaeological sites closely linked to the creation of local and nationalidentities. In each country there are sites that can be considered to be key-sites for the understanding of the history, andtheir historical and archaeological exploration has been considerably influenced by myth-making processes. Obtainingarchaeological evidence, its evaluation and interpretation was often biased by those myths as cognitive proof of theirreliability was sought for. The papers we expect should deal with the following aspects: the results of the archaeological



investigation of such "key-sites", their part in the process of creating both local and national identities and shared socialmemories, and, last but not least, the various impacts of the mythmaking processes on obtaining archaeological knowledge,the interpretation of the finds and the interaction between those phenomena.

ReferencesAssmann, A. (2007) Geschichte im Gedächtnis. Von der individuellen Erfahrung zur öffentlichen Inszenierung, München.Assmann, A. (2007) Europe: A Community of Memory? Twentieth Annual Lecture of the GHI, November 16, 2006, Bulletin ofGerman Historical Institute, Spring, 11-25.Nora, P. (1984-1992) Les Lieux de mémoire. Gallimard.Maříková-Kubková, J., Schlanger, N. & Lévin, S. (Eds.) (2008) Sites of Memory. Between Scientific Research and CollectiveRepresentations. Proceedings of the AREA seminar at Prague Castle, February 2006. Castrum Pragense 8.

The Beginning of Agrarian Subsistence among the "Forest Neolithic" Cultures

Organisers: Teemu Mökkönen (University of Helsinki; Finland), Aivar Kriiska (University of Tartu; Estonia) and Valdis Bērziņš(University of Latvia; Latvia)

Contact: teemu.mokkonen[at]helsinki.fi

In Northern Europe the beginning of agriculture is remarkably delayed as compared to the Central European situation. Forthis reason, the cultures living in the boreal forest zone, who adopted most of the characteristic features of Neolithic StoneAge (above all, pottery technology) except for agrarian economy, are often referred to as "Forest Neolithic", "Subneolithic","Boreal Neolithic", "Paraneolithic" or even "Ceramic/Pottery Mesolithic". During the past decade, evidence has accumulatedthat suggests different origins for the southern and northern Neolithic Stone Age. The northern Neolithic most probably hasan eastern origin - it spread to Europe from Asia, from east of Ural Mountains. At the same time, the observations ofagrarian practices among "Forest Neolithic" cultures have multiplied. Today it seems reasonable to ask if it really was theCorded Ware Culture that introduced agrarian subsistence practices to the north, to areas previously settled by hunter-gatherers, or was the agrarian component present already in the "Forest Neolithic", possibly from the very beginning ofpottery manufacture? This session aims to:- gather together any new evidence relating to early agriculture in the northern latitudes, and- to raise discussion on the fundamental questions of how we define Neolithic Cultures: what can be labeled as "Neolithic",is the proportion of the agrarian component in the diet a reasonable criterion, and what was the mechanism through whichagriculture spread to the forest zone.

Body Categories and Identities, Health, and Society in Ancient Europe

Organisers: John Robb (Cambridge University; UK), Sheila Kohring (Cambridge University; UK) and Kirsi Lorentz (The CyprusInstitute; Cyprus)

Contact: jer39[at]cam.ac.uk

This session focuses upon how the human body was used to create social categories and identities in ancient Europe. Wereparticular forms of embodiment associated with genders, statuses or ritual identities? How were particular processes suchas violence or conditions such as death understood and integrated into social processes? To what extent was health a socialphenomenon? Possible sources of evidence include art and representations of bodies, burials as loci of bodilytransformation and as places where the special status of people with different bodies or health may be established, andskeletal remains as evidence of the experience of health and illness.

Boundary Crossings and Gendered Bodies: The Limits of the Body - Gender Trouble at the Margins and in the Center

Organisers: Bo Jensen (Denmark) and Silvia Tomášková (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; USA)

Contact: bojensen_dk[at]yahoo.dk

What are the natural and cultural boundaries of a body and how does gender cross the biological/cultural divide to form thesituated experience of personhood? How does bodily mobility across boundaries affect gendered experience? How do werecognize such a processes in the archaeological record? In this session, organized by members of the Archaeology andGender in Europe working party, we will look at the material expression of "biographies of the body" through the lens ofgender. We invite papers that address normative and non-normative gender formations in past societies as reflected on thephysical body, contributing to the nature/culture hybrid, and/or as reflected in physical space. We are particularly interestedin contributions that discuss cases in which generally accepted "boundaries", either bodily or spatial, are obscured, altered,or transgressed. Topics might include bioarchaeology and skeletal studies, decorated bodies - adornments, tattoos, physical



modifications - disabled or differently abled bodies, representations of bodies, materializations of bodies as idealized or asnormative, and technologies of the body. Diet, labor, and health might also be interesting "traditional" topics to viewthrough this prism. Likewise, we welcome papers dealing with the gendered ordering of movement, space and place, inritual, architecture, and economy. For this session, we encourage researchers who work on gender to focus on boundariesand boundary-crossings, and those who work on boundaries to focus on gender.

Burnt Animal Bones in Occupation Contexts - Where, When and Why?

Organisers: Kristiina Mannermaa (University of Helsinki; Finland), Jan Storå (Stockholm University; Sweden) and PirkkoUkkonen (Finnish Museum of Natural History; Finland)

Contact: kristiina.mannermaa[at]helsinki.fi

In Finland, as well as in adjacent areas at the same latitude, animal bones are found at Stone Age sites exclusively or nearlyexclusively as burnt. The acid soil of these areas is often given as the explanation why unburnt bones are not found at thesites, but the taphonomic histories of the burnt assemblages are complicated and great challenges for osteoarchaeologicalstudies. Despite the similarity of other archaeological finds, burnt bones are abundant at some sites while scarce at others.Thus, burning or boiling of refuse seems to be connected with human cultural behaviour, at least in northern latitudes. Toverify or reject this concept, more information is needed about burnt animal bones in northern regions as well as elsewherein Europe. Our aim for the session is to localize the phenomenon of burnt animal bones in time and space:- Where? In which geographical areas and environments and in what kind of depositional contexts do animal bone materialscomprise totally or nearly totally of burnt, fragmented bones?- When? During which archaeological periods is burnt bone dominating bone samples?- Why? How is this phenomenon to be explained? How can the taphonomy of the burnt bones be studied? Were these, e.g.,used as fuel or thrown into the fire as waste, or were they burnt accidentally, during cooking or some specific ritual?We call for interpretative and contextual studies about prehistoric burnt animal bones at settlements, hunting camps andother occupation activity areas all over Europe. The research themes can vary from geographic distribution of sitescontaining burnt animal bones, methodological and taphonomic studies, to combustion experiments and geochemical soilanalyses.

Ceremonies and Burial Practices in the Mycenaean World

Organisers : Ann-Louise Schallin (Sweden) and Helène Whittaker (Universitetet i Tromsø; Norway)

Contact: ann-louise.schallin[at]sia.gr

The study of ceremonies and burial practices is a way of gaining information about a society's organization and socialhierarchies. Behavioral concepts appear in stylized form and sometimes disguised in the matrix of ceremonies and practices,which are made up of components derived from both internal societal restraints and external stimuli. Ceremonies in theMycenaean society took place in connection with public festivities and burials. They may have been performed to legitimizea ruling elite or they may have expressed personal or shared social customs. Ceremonies and processions followedestablished routes to particularly designated areas. Specific equipment, grave goods or offerings were used or deposited toenhance the effects of the practices. Sculptures and figurines, sometimes frightening, were, like the practitioners, clad infestive clothes. Drinking and feasting occurred. Some ceremonies can be viewed as luminal performances. In order to studyMycenaean ceremonies and burial rituals we need to look not only at the archaeological record but also pay close attentionto landscape, topography and contexts. We should also make full use of the iconographical and textual evidence. Thissession aims to explore the various ways of interpreting the sources at hand in order to deepen our knowledge of howMycenaean society functioned politically, socially, symbolically and religiously. We invite contributions about ceremoniesand burial practices in the Mycenaean world which focus on processions, funerals, the organization of burials and how thesevarious components, isolated or together, affected the environment and Mycenaean society as a whole.

Circumpolar Rock Art

Organisers: Antti Lahelma (University of Helsinki; Finland) and Dagmara Zawadzka (Université du Québec à Montréal;Canada)

Contact: antti.lahelma[at]helsinki.fi

The circumpolar region is dotted with thousands of rock art sites, dating from the Early Holocene up until the 20th centuryAD. Even though their creators have been culturally and linguistically diverse, they nonetheless have created rock art thatshares many aspects of style, motifs depicted, technique, location and religious context. Frequently, these similarities seemto be couched in what Tim Ingold (2000) refers to as "circumpolar cosmology". Already since the late 19th century,



archaeologists and ethnographers have described cultural phenomena with an apparent circumpolar distribution. Suchcommonalities were thought to derive from a shared Stone Age background - an idea most famously advocated by theNorwegian archaeologist Gutorm Gjessing (1944). Rock art never played a significant role in this debate, however, and bythe 1960s the study of circumpolar archaeology had become unfashionable. Now, it seems, there are signs of a rebirth ofcircumpolar studies (Westerdahl 2010) and archaeologists are once again addressing questions of wide geographicalperspective, such as the dispersal of pottery among hunter-gatherers in Northern Eurasia (Jordan & Zvelebil 2009) or the useof slate artefacts in the circumpolar zone (Osborn 2004). But in spite of the new discoveries of rock art, vast amounts ofwhich have been found in the circumpolar region since the 1960s, few archaeologists have so far employed this fresh andexciting material for inter-regional comparison. Is rock art, as it is found in the Arctic and Subarctic, a genuine circumpolarphenomenon? If it is, how can rock art research contribute to the current "circumpolar reappraisal"? Presenters in thissession are asked to discuss the rock art of northernmost Eurasia and North America by considering its variousmanifestations in relation to each other, to other artistic productions, to mythology, and ultimately, to its place in thecircumpolar world.

ReferencesIngold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge: London and NewYork.Jordan, P. & M. Zvelebil (Eds.) (2009) Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek.Gjessing, G. (1944) Circumpolar Stone Age. Acta Arctica II, 19-70.Osborn, A.J. (2004) Poison hunting strategies and the organization of technology in the circumpolar region. In Johnson, A.L.(Ed.) Processual Archaeology: Exploring Analytical Strategies, Frames of Reference, and Culture Process, 134-193. Praeger:Westport.Westerdahl, C. (Ed.) (2010) A Circumpolar Reappraisal: the Legacy of Gutorm Gjessing (1906-1979). BAR International Series2154.

Climatic Archaeology: The Role of Climatic Factors in Archaeological and Anthropological Processes and Preservationof Archaeological Sites and Materials

Organisers: Galina Levkovskaya (Institute for Material Culture History, St. Petersburg; Russia), Amanda-Alice Maravelia(Hellenisches Institut für Ägyptologie; Greece) and Robert Van de Noort (University of Exeter; UK)

Contact: ggstepanova[at]yandex.ru

Different types of palaeoclimatic information obtained by archaeologists and specialists on dendrochronological,palynological, palaeobotanical, paleozoological, geological, chemical, physical and other methods is important forarchaeology in various aspects. Palaeoclimatic information offers additional, wider observation and deeper understanding ofthe causes of change in archaeological epochs, cultures, migration processes, anthropological types of population and theireconomy. The climate (past or present) influences the destruction or preservation of archaeological monuments, methods oftheir excavations or conservations, etc. All problems mentioned above are planned to be discussed at the session.Contributions within any aspect of climatic archaeology are welcome.

Creativity in the Bronze Age

Organisers: Joanna Sofaer (University of Southampton; UK), Sarah Coxon (University of Southampton; UK), Sebastian Becker(University of Cambridge; UK) and Helga Rösel-Mautendorfer (Naturhistorisches Museum; Austria)

Contact: jrsd[at]soton.ac.uk

This session focuses on creativity in the European Bronze Age. Studies of creativity frequently focus on the modern era, yetcreativity has always been part of human history. The European Bronze Age is an extremely dynamic period. This sessionexplores the ways in which the notion of creativity may be useful in unpacking the technological and stylistic underpinningsof Bronze Age material culture by investigating the relationship between creativity, material properties and change. Therehas been a trend within Bronze Age archaeology to discuss change and developments from a top-down perspective, forinstance in terms of long-distance exchange, settlement patterns and large-scale technological trends. The macro-analyticallevel implicated in using such a perspective has, however, tended to detract attention from the idiosyncrasies, affordancesand potentiality of material culture itself; the objects that people made and used in their everyday lives. Recent bottom-upapproaches have begun to focus on Bronze Age craftspeople and a discussion of shifts in material culture through the lensof creativity encourages investigation of their decision making processes and how these contribute to change anddevelopments in material style. Placing the spotlight on creativity within craft illuminates how people were exploiting thepotentials of materials and developing new ways of designing objects. It further directs archaeological narratives toincorporate discussions of how people were interacting with each other and developing the ideas that are encapsulated intheir material culture. This session is organised by the HERA-funded project Creativity and Craft Production in Middle andLate Bronze Age Europe (CinBA) (www.cinba.net). Bringing together partners from the Universities of Southampton,



Cambridge and Trondheim, the National Museum of Denmark, the Natural History Museum of Vienna, Zagreb ArchaeologicalMuseum, Lejre Archaeological Park (Sagnlandet) and the Crafts Council, the project investigates creativity in the Bronze Agethrough pottery, textiles and metal. We welcome speakers from both inside and outside of the project working with thesematerials and others to present and participate in discussions of creativity, craft and developments in Bronze Age materialculture.

Cremation in European Archaeology

Organisers: Howard Williams (University of Chester; UK), Jessica I. Cerezo-Román (University of Arizona; USA) and AnnaWessman (University of Chester; UK)

Contact: howard.williams[at]chester.ac.uk

There is a long history to the archaeological discovery and interpretation of cremation practices from prehistoric and earlyhistoric Europe in terms of changing religious belief, cultural identity and social organisation. However, recent studiesprompt us to rethink how we interpret cremation in Europe's past (e.g. Wickholm & Raninen 2006; MacGregor 2008;Williams 2008; Wessman 2010). How did cremation operate as a technology of remembrance, commemorating the dead andreproducing concepts of the person and the cosmos? How and why were cremation practices variable in the samechronological and geographical areas? Did cremation technologies and significations interact with other fiery technologies?When, how and why did cremation operate alongside other mortuary disposal methods? Other key issues concern how weintegrate archaeological science and theory in studying cremation? Can archaeological research engage with cross-disciplinary research on cremation by historians, geographers, anthropologists and sociologists? How should we exploremodern cremation across the globe as analogy and bias as well as being a legitimate topic for archaeological investigationin its own right (Williams 2011; Cerezo-Román & Williams 2012)? Recent dialogue between American and Europeanarchaeologists on the context and meaning of cremation makes this session theme particularly timely and appropriate(Cooney et al. 2012; see also papers in Nilsson Stutz & Tarlow 2012). Building on this debate, the session will both exploreand critique current theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of cremation in Europe as well as debate futureresearch directions for the archaeology of cremation focusing on European evidence. To achieve this, speakers in thesession will be expected to directly address and debate one or more of the following six key research themes:- Theorising cremation as a technology of remembrance employing corporeal, material, elemental, monumental, spatial andtemporal commemorative strategies.- Exploring the factors affecting the mortuary variability of cremation and the postcremation treatment of cremains.- Investigating how cremation intersects with other fiery and elemental technologies and disposal methods over differenttemporal and geographical scales.- Integrating scientific and osteological methods with archaeological theories of cremation.- Exploring theoretical dialogues with other disciplines.- The archaeology of cremation of, and in, contemporary society.

ReferencesCerezo-Román, J. & Williams, H. (2012) Future Directions in the Archaeology of Cremation, in G. Cooney et al. (2012).Cooney, G., Kuijt, I. & Quinn, C. (Eds) (2012) Fire and the Body: Cremation as a Social Context, Tucson: University of ArizonaPress.MacGregor, G. (2008) Elemental bodies: the nature of transformative practices during the late third and second millenniumbc in Scotland, World Archaeology 40(2), 268-280.Nilsson Stutz, L. & Tarlow, S. (Eds) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Wessman, A. (2010) Death, Destruction and Commemoration: Tracing Ritual Activities in Finnish Iron Age cemeteries (AD550-1150). ISKOS 18.Wickholm, A & Raninen, S. (2006) The broken people: Deconstruction of personhood in Iron Age Finland, Estonian Journal ofArchaeology 10(2), 150-166.Williams, H. (2008) Towards an archaeology of cremation, in C.W. Schmidt & S. Symes (Eds.) The Analysis of Burned HumanRemains, 239-269. London: Academic Press.Williams, H. (2011) Cremation & present pasts: A contemporary archaeology of Swedish memory groves, Mortality 16(2),113-130.

Cui bono? Who Profits from Social Inequality and Change? - Studies on Social Inequality in Prehistoric and EarlyHistoric Societies across Europe

Organisers: Jari-Matti Kuusela (University of Oulu; Finland), Samuel Vaneeckhout (University of Oulu; Finland) and ValterLang (University of Tartu, Estonia)

Contact: jari-matti.kuusela[at]oulu.fi

The study of social complexity, inequality and change are central aspects of our archaeological study of the past. We need



reconstructions of the organization of past prehistoric and early historic societies in Europe as the explaining factor behindour archaeological data. At the same time our understanding of local social organization is crucial for insight in theinterconnectedness between societies in Europe and beyond. It is obvious that the roughly contemporary processes leadingto social inequality and social change across Europe are not isolated and thus every study that tries to shed more light onthese processes should be welcomed. It is important that studies on social complexity should be extended also in thedirection of non-formal systems of social inequality. Instead of answering the question on the origin of social inequality weneed to redirect our questions towards questions on social change and on the benefits of social inequality. This sessionwelcomes papers dealing with any study on prehistoric or early historic social complexity. We encourage both regional casestudies and studies from a long term and large scale perspective. Especially welcome are studies dealing withinterconnectedness of societies and studies on "lower strata" in social complexities.

Death and Burial in Post-Medieval Europe

Organisers: Sarah Tarlow (University of Leicester; UK) and Jenny Nyberg (Stockholm University; Sweden)

Contact: sat12[at]le.ac.uk

Over the last two or three decades post-Medieval burial archaeology has developed into a particular field of study withinarchaeology both through excavations and laboratory research. This field is however still small and scholars are spread out,often feeling rather isolated in their respective countries as well as over Europe as a whole. This session will examine someimportant recent developments, and lay the foundations on which to build an international research group for the exchangeof information and ideas to vitalise and enrich the research field of post-Medieval burial archaeology across Europe. In manyparts of Europe research on post-Medieval burial customs has focused on the commemorative aspects of burial practicethrough the mediums of grave stones and monuments. In this session we would like to place focus on the very driving forcebehind the funeral ceremony i.e. the dead body itself. How is the materiality of the dead body handled throughout this timeperiod? What are the material traces of attitudes towards the dead body and views on death? How can developments in thetreatment of the dead body be related to wider changes in society such as aspects of faith, politics, law, social status,gender, emotions and medical science? We would like to encourage a wide variety of papers on this topic from all overEurope - and considering Protestant, Catholic and other post-Medieval societies - so that similarities and differencesrelating to religious faith can be discussed. We invite contributions on any aspect of death and disposal in the post-Medieval period (between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries); our focus is on mortuary practice rather than thescientific study of human remains as an approach to demography, disease, or other aspects of lived experience.

Entangled Colonialism: Changes in Material Culture and Space in the Late Medieval through to the Modern Period

Organisers: Jonathan Finch (University of York; UK), Magdalena Naum (University of Cambridge; UK) and Jonas M. Nordin(National Historical Museum; Sweden)

Contact: jonas.nordin[at]historiska.se

Early modern European colonialism with a legacy from the Reconquista in late 15th century Portugal and Spain meant vastchanges in material culture, global migrations and the rise of modes of production, use of space, etc. This session aims todiscuss archaeological aspects of colonialism and the colonial world, detectable in material culture and text in Europe andoverseas. Moreover, the session aims to provide a broader perspective on colonialism and its outcomes mingling theexperiences of relatively peripheral and small time agents, such as Denmark/Norway and Sweden/Finland with those of themajor agents, such as England, France, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Although the archaeological studies ofcolonialism currently are in a vital stage and are conducted worldwide, more general for a addressing both the empirical aswell as the theoretical issues are still lacking. This session intents to create a platform for archaeologists dealing withquestions of colonialism and related subjects of power, domination, creolization and hybridization in the colonial periodsfrom the late middle ages to the modern period. The session welcomes a wide range of papers dealing with research onmaterial culture, buildings, art and texts in the context of the rise of colonialism.

European Hunter-Gatherer Bog-sites: Data, Models, Perspectives

Organisers: Lars Larsson (University of Lund; Sweden), Harald Lübke (Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology;Germany) and Nicky Milner (University of York; UK)

Contact: Lars.Larsson[at]ark.lu.se

European hunter-gatherer bog sites with well-preserved organics have an enormous importance for the understanding of ourpast especially for the temperate climatic zone north of the Alps. They enrich our understanding of this important period notonly because of their well preserved rare cultural material but also because of their high resolution climatic and



environmental records. Sites of this early part of human history are very rare; and so the bog sites, with excellent organicpreservation, provide a unique insight into past lives. In addition, interdisciplinary collaboration and cutting edge scientificmethods are enabling high-resolution palaeo-climatic and environmental change to be modelled which can be used todiscover how these people reacted to and adapted to periods of extreme changes of their environment at the end of the IceAge and the early Holocene. However, over many parts of Europe this resource is under threat due to current climate changeand modern farming practices and extraction of peat, resulting in rapid peat degradation and the destruction of this valuablearchaeological heritage. This session aims at sharing information on cutting-edge scientific methodologies and to evaluatethe threats to this valuable cultural resource. The purpose is to gather together specialists who work on bog sites whichhave produced evidence of hunter-gatherers from the end of the last Ice Age to the introduction of farming. Presentations onthe following topics are requested:- The archaeological resource at bog sites across Europe.- Cutting edge and innovative techniques through interdisciplinary collaboration.- Assessing the risks to the cultural heritage resource.- Engagement of a wider audience.It is anticipated that through discussion of the various themes, the session will stimulate the growing interest of thescientific community in new areas of research on Mesolithic bog sites and collaboration on a European level.

Examining Diseases and Impairments in Social Archaeology: Current Issues and Future Options

Organisers: Darek Błaszczyk (Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica; Poland), Magdalena Domicela Matczak (AdamMickiewicz University in Poznań; Poland) and Leszek Gardela (University of Aberdeen; UK)

Contact: dariusz.blaszczyk[at]lednicamuzeum.pl

This session will be devoted to archaeological and anthropological investigations of diseases and impairments based on thecemetery evidence. Materials from cemeteries can provide extremely rich sources on living and health conditions of pastpopulations and individuals. Therefore, on the one hand, the session aims at presenting examples of burials of people withvarious physical anomalies from different archaeological periods and cultures. On the other hand, we aim to discuss ways ofplacing such burials in the social context of the life of past communities as well as possible methods of their analysis andinterpretation. We also hope to develop a research agenda for future studies. We would like the session to become anopportunity for archaeologists and anthropologists to come together and discuss their research. We welcome papers in thefollowing thematic categories:- Which social theories and research methods can be used to create a narrative about individuals with diseases andimpairments?- How were the people with various anatomical anomalies (diseases and impairments) perceived and treated within givensocieties, what were the attitudes to them?- How were diseases and impairments connected with social status?- What can we say about social practices of treating ill and impaired people?- What was the sexual or gender dimorphism in the incidence of diseases (the nature and frequency of diseases in bothsexes)?- Did the individuals buried in the so called atypical burials (e.g. "graves of the vampires") possessed physical anomalies?

Focus on Archaeological Textiles - From Finds to Facts on Fabric

Organizers: Sanna Lipkin (University of Oulu; Finland), Krista Vajanto (University of Helsinki; Finland) and Carol Christiansen(Shetland Museum & Archives; UK)

Contact: sanna.lipkin[at]gmail.com

The aim of the session is to bring in new starting points and methodologies in the research of textiles. Textiles are madefrom animal and plant fibres with differing techniques (weaving, sprang, felting etc.), but clothing was made also from othermaterials such as leather and fur. An archaeological textile is usually fragmentary and sometimes only an imprint in anothermaterial. The challenge of the session is to find answers to the questions: How the selection of the fibre and the appliedtextile technologies affected the value of the textile? What social impacts followed from the garments of different values?Can different textile techniques reveal something about the garment users in respect to others within the community oroutside of it? Traditionally the research is based on the analyses of the structure of the textiles: What is their material? Howis the textile made? What sort of textile is the one under research? Reconstructing textiles has also had an important role intheir interpretation. Reconstruction may be made similarly as the textile would have been as new or as it was whendeposited. It is worth discussing the terminology and practice of the reconstruction as well as the display context. Within thepast decades, the natural sciences have become a part of textile research. For example the provenance of the textile fibresand dyes have been studied. These studies have provided new insights in the exchange and trade of textiles. Thecollaboration with the natural scientists, such as zooarchaeologists and chemists has been launched and the results appliedto textile archaeological knowledge. Both practical and theoretical discussion on the role of natural sciences in textilearchaeology is warmly welcomed.



From Bone to Bead: Developments in European Research on Worked Osseous Materials

Organisers: Alice M. Choyke (Central European University; Hungary) and Aline Averbouh (CNRS -Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique; France)

Contact: choyke[at]ceu.hu

Worked osseous materials are among the earliest tools and ornaments manufactured and used by human beings. They arefound across the world in find assemblages from every period where conditions of preservation exist. Despite this fact bonetools have remained an understudied class of artifacts the study of which has only begun to take form in the past forty yearsand really take off in the past twenty years. The 1960s and 70s saw fundamental work carried out by schools of researchfounded by Henriette Camps-Fabre in France and by the lithics expert A.S.A. Semenov in Russia. However, elsewhere in theworld, individual studies work was carried out by individuals with little opportunity to coordinate and learn from each other.Starting in the 1980s, archaeozoologists also started to become involved in bone tool studies (for example Jörg Schibler inSwitzerland, Alice Choyke in Hungary and Sandra Olsen in the USA) creating schools with more of an emphasis on rawmaterial choice. Today, there is an official working group for bone tools (Worked bone Research Group-WBRG) and on-goinginitiatives by CNRS-based projects in France bringing together archaeologists from different scholarly backgrounds acrossEurope to exchange experience and solve targeted research problems. It is time to introduce the European archaeologicalcommunity to some of the achievements of the past twenty years in terms of developing theoretical and methodologicalapproaches to the study of this important but still understudied and misunderstood artifact class. Papers will be presented inthe following fields:- The history of bone tool research in Europe.- The work and results of the last GDRE and of the WBRG, Presentation of some of the bone tool labs.- Future research directions and potentials (methodology and theory) including raw material studies, memory and identity,attitudes to animals, trace wear studies etc.).- Papers concretely showing what kind of research is taking place in Europe and the world.

From Skulls and Skeletons to Ancient People: Approaches to Human Remains from Prehistoric Northern Eurasia

Organisers: Eileen Murphy (Queen's University Belfast; Ireland), Vyacheslav Moiseyev (Peter the Great Museum ofAnthropology and Ethnography The Kunstkamera; Russia) and Valery Khartanovich (Peter the Great Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography The Kunstkamera; Russia)

Contact: eileen.murphy[at]qub.ac.uk

From its earliest beginnings, physical anthropology has been recognised as an important tool for enabling the reconstructionof a variety of facets of human history. For many years anthropological data represented the predominant source ofinformation pertaining to the biological aspects of a past population's history. Given the attributes of the anthropologicaldata collected most studies have focused on the nature of genetic admixture apparent within population groups as well assought evidence relating to ancient migrations. In recent years, the situation has notably changed, however, and much moreattention is now placed on the study of the physical remains of these prehistoric people using a suite of other scientificapproaches, which include the study of ancient diseases, stable isotopes and ancient DNA amongst others. Approaches andtechniques within both physical anthropology and scientific archaeology are constantly developing and the objective of thesession is to draw together researchers, with a wide variety of research interests, but in which the corporeal remains of theancient people of Northern Eurasia are central. Contextualised research of this nature has the potential to providesubstantial insights on key archaeological themes, including diet, economy, health, lifestyle, funerary practices andmigration. It is envisaged that this cross-over of approaches has the potential to lead to more nuanced understandings ofthe prehistoric populations of Northern Eurasia and ensure that the people are central to these debates.

From the Ural Mountains to the Baltic Sea - New Insights into Early Ceramic Traditions in the Northern EuropeanForest

Organisers: Peter Jordan (University of Aberdeen; UK), Petro Pesonen (University of Helsinki; Finland), Henny Piezonka(Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University Greifswald; Germany) and Aleksandr Vybornov (Samara State Academy of Social Sciences andHumanities; Russia)

Contact: petro.pesonen[at]helsinki.fi

The last years saw increasing evidence for the eastern origin of early ceramic traditions among Stone Age hunter-gatherersof the Baltic, and it is now widely accepted that pottery production started in the lower and middle Volga region already inthe first half of the 7th millennium cal BC. Important new evidence is provided by the systematic application of AMS-dating



of charred crusts, analyses of the pottery matrix, and biochemical as well as stable isotope studies. New excavations on anumber of stratified and even waterlogged sites are contributing to a better understanding of the context of the earlyhunter-gatherer ceramics on a micro-scale, and the first supra-regional studies are summing up results on a macro-scale.However, the relationship of the various early pottery traditions, the role of early ceramic styles north of the Black Sea, andthe social context of the adoption of pottery needs to be clarified on a more reliable basis. The session aims to addressthese important research questions. We welcome contributions that can provide new information on these early potterytraditions, for example, their chronology, typology and technology, as well as insights from the application of new analyticalmethods, and also theoretical contributions investigating the development of early ceramic traditions in their social andecological environments. The session will also identify future directions of research into this remarkable Stone Ageinnovation and its origins further east.

Hunter-Gatherer Responses to Diminishing Resources

Organisers: Mikael A. Manninen (University of Helsinki; Finland), Miikka Tallavaara (University of Helsinki; Finland), EsaHertell (University of Helsinki; Finland) and Kjel Knutsson (Uppsala University; Sweden)

Contact: mikael.manninen[at]helsinki.fi

The growing rate of resource depletion is a current and worldwide problem and diminishing resources were and still are aproblem also for many hunter-gatherer societies. Climatic and environmental fluctuations, demographic changes andpressure from neighboring agricultural societies could have led to different kinds of consequences that hunter-gatherers hadto cope with, such as raw material scarcity and decreasing game density. It is also known that the abundances of differentresources are often not positively correlated and that in many situations tradeoffs exist between different resources. Forinstance, during the post-glacial colonization of northernmost Europe access to sources of cryptocrystalline lithic rawmaterials was gradually severed at the same time as new territory was gained. This session focuses on the archaeologicalsignatures of the ways past and present hunter-gatherers have coped with situations where resources diminish or aredepleted, as well as on the theoretical approaches applied when studying these strategies. For example, according toforaging models, an effective response to a decrease in the abundance of the highest ranking game species is adiversification of the food base. The responsive strategies to be discussed can include, but are not restricted to, intensifiedor diversified technological and foraging practices, proactive modification of the environment (niche construction), as wellas new social strategies and innovations. We invite papers that discuss these themes from different perspectives withoutany chronological or geographical restrictions.

Living and Being in Wetlands and Lakes

Organisers: Benjamin Jennings (IPNA - Basel University; Switzerland), Philipp Wiemann (IPNA - Basel University;Switzerland), Ramon Buxó (Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya; Spain), Stefanie Jacomet (IPNA - Basel University;Switzerland), Raquel Piqué (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Spain), Tony Brown (University of Southampton; UK) andChristina Fredengren (The Discovery Programme; Ireland)

Contact: benjamin.jennings[at]unibas.ch

Water plays an enigmatic, if not paradoxical role in landscape archaeology: central yet peripheral, separating yet attractingand revealing yet obscuring. From the Mesolithic to Medieval periods water, lakes and wetlands have had differingmeanings and affordances. In particular, prehistoric settlements in Wetland and lake environments are common acrossEurope. Our compartmentalisation of wet places into rivers, lakes, mires, etc., both obscures their common elements andimplies a fixed and relatively unchanging form, which we know from environmental studies, is rarely the case. The arbitrarydistinction between "wetland archaeology" and "archaeology" should be reconsidered to facilitate a holistic interpretation ofcommunities and societies living in "wet-scapes" (Van de Noort & O'Sullivan 2006; Menotti In Press). Despite, or in-spite of,the high standard of preservation of organic remains found in wetland settlements and environments, such as the lake-dwellings of the Circum-Alpine region and beyond, the methods of recovery are heterogeneous and produce barelycomparable results, while consuming large amounts of post excavation research time and budget. Furthermore, there havebeen relatively few attempts to incorporate these wetland settlements into wider theoretical models or comprehension ofthe social structures, social change, or "population" of the inhabitants (Skeates 2007). Papers are invited relating to threebroad categories:- Methods of investigation, sampling and recovery techniques. Topics covered should include: sampling strategies, recoverytechnique, methods of excavation and survey, new technologies, current research.- Consideration of the properties and dynamics of wetland environments, by seeking to include them in the cognitive loop. Itis the manipulation and internalisation of properties from the visual (reflection/refraction/opacity) to the value of wet placesas "thinking spaces" and a problem solving resource. Papers should relate to the broader approaches over a range of spatialand temporal scales.- The incorporation of theoretical models into the analysis of wetland settlements which go beyond the environmentalevidence and addressing the choice to settle, or abandon, wetland and lake environments, the role of lake-settlements inwider social networks and the interaction of wetland and terrestrial settlements.



References:Menotti, F. (In Press) Wetland Archaeology and Beyond: Theory and Practice, Oxford.Van De Noort, R. & O'Sullivan, A. (2006) Rethinking Wetland Archaeology, London.Skeates, R. (2007) Review of the book "Living on the Lake in Prehistoric Europe: 150 Years of Lake-Dwelling Research", by F.Menotti (ed.), Environmental Archaeology 12:1, 95-97.

Malga, buron, Alm, shieling, seter, salaš, orry and cayolar: Seasonal Exploitation of Uplands from Prehistory to theModern Day

Organisers: John Collis (University of Sheffield; UK) and Franco Nicolis (Provincia autonoma di Trento; Italy)

Contact: j.r.collis[at]sheffield.ac.uk

There is a considerable variety of ways in which the exploitation of summer farms took place throughout Europe, in somecases involving the movement of whole communities, sometimes only the men or the women, and there was also variety inthe distance travelled, from a couple of hours to several days. In some cases major structures were constructed for theproduction of cheeses, in other cases the passage of shepherds might leave little or no trace. In some areas summer farmswere an integral and essential part of the farming cycle, in other cases more of a supplement to that cycle. There were alsovariations in when such transhumance took place starting possibly as early as the Neolithic, but elsewhere reaching itszenith in the 19th century. At Oslo in 2011 we held a first session in which we explored some of the variety, but limited to asmall geographical and chronological sample. In this new session we hope to extend the survey to other areas not coveredin our first session and to explore the variations in greater detail to see if there are any underlying patterns.

Material Chains and Networks in Space: Production Sequences, Processes, Chaînes Opératoires and Object Biographiesin Bronze and Iron Ages Workshops

Organisers: Barbara Armbruster (CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; France), Alexis Gorgues (Université deBordeaux; France) and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury (University of Leicester; UK)

Contact: kcrs1[at]le.ac.uk

Craft production in the ancient Mediterranean and adjacent regions is a topic of long standing interest to archaeologists.The aim of this session is twofold. First, it aims to examine the theoretical underpinnings of studies of craft production,focussing on concepts such as production sequences, processes, chaînes opératoires and artefact biographies. Theseconcepts have considered technological elements of production, distribution and consumption step by step from theprocurement of raw materials to the finished item, extending into artefact distribution and transfer of technologies.Increasingly, social and embodied aspects of craft, and the importance of human agency on process have been taken intoconsideration. Examples include the social roles of the craftspersons and the embeddedness of their skills, learning,transmission and modification of styles and technologies, and gauging material properties with the human senses. Second,this session addresses the spatial dimension of craft production, which includes permanent structures such as workshops aswell as ephemeral traces. In some cases, the place where craftspeople worked can be well studied through moulds, furnacesand slags in situ (e.g. in the French Late Bronze Age site Fort Harrouard, or in Iron Age Spain). Regular and intense activitieswill have a major impact on the archaeological record, whilst one-off activities may be more difficult to reconstruct.Comparing the archaeological record linked to craft, work areas and their spatial organization will be explored throughspecific questions:- Permanence or temporariness of the work area: was its use permanent, temporary, or a one-off?- Location of the work area: is it a specific building, a specific area within a palace, mansion, farm or house? Was it part of aroom or located in an open space?- Exclusivity of the use of the area: was the work area exclusively dedicated to a specific production process, or was itembedded in a wider range of activities, such as domestic tasks?- How are workshops situated in relation to each other, to settlements and within the landscape?The place of craftspeople in Bronze and Iron Ages societies in Europe has been discussed within a range of theoreticalframeworks, using different sets of vocabularies in different languages. In this session, we will not only discuss howdifferent these approaches really are, but also find commonalities and differences between the concepts by examining casestudies in detail. We invite papers from prehistoric as well as classical backgrounds to contribute to our session. Thissession welcomes both theoretical papers and approaches focusing on new fieldwork or new methods used to analyse thearchaeological record. Case studies may include, but are not restricted to, stone tool chipping, pottery production,metalworking, textile production and woodworking in Bronze and Iron Age Europe; analyses about reciprocal influencesbetween different areas of the continent are especially encouraged.

The Michelsberg Culture - Territories, Resources and Sociopolitical Complexity?



Organisers: Detlef Gronenborn (Roemisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum; Germany), Laurence Manolakakis (CNRS - CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique; France) and Bart Vanmontfort (Eenheid prehistorische archeologie; Belgium)

Contact: gronenborn[at]rgzm.de

From 4500 cal BC onwards, one millennium after the introduction of agriculture, the Neolithic in northwestern Europe ischaracterized by major economical and technological transformations, but also by a growing sociopolitical complexity.During this period, the Michelsberg Culture (4200-3500 cal BC) developed in the Paris Basin and in the Rhineland. From thiscore region it expanded eastwards, southwards, and northwards. Michelsberg is characterized by a distinctive multi-tieredsettlement pattern centered on complex enclosures and hillforts. Some burials indicate the existence of elites. Thecommunities were active participants in elaborate networks of production and exchange of flint, both as raw material and asfinished goods, but possibly also salt. Jade axes of Alpine provenience constituted objects of wealth and power. The sessionwill present recent research, particularly from current projects in Germany, Belgium and France, focusing on links betweenterritories, resources and sociopolitical complexity. The objective of the session is to discuss the causes for the observedtransformations and its consequences. The result of this discussion is of interest to a much larger audience than the French-German MK community. The papers will be edited for publication and are planned to be published in 2013/2014 as a productof an ongoing MK project.

Moving on - Colonisation as a Social Process

Organisers: Håkon Glørstad (University of Oslo; Norway), Jarmo Kankaanpää (University of Helsinki; Finland) and Ole Grøn(University of Southern Denmark; Denmark)

Contact: hakon.glorstad[at]khm.uio.no

Archaeological literature about social-material transformative processes tends to organise explanation in a dual system:Either new features appear in an area because of migration, or because of various types of exchange. These concepts are ofcourse important tools for archaeology. Compared with the concept of innovation, exchange and migration are much morefrequently used explanatory tools for social change. The reduction of social and historical variation down to these twooptions - migration or exchange - has too often prevented archaeology from nuanced and specific analyses of the complexsocial dynamics inherent in most processes of change. The process of colonisation of an area most clearly brings this infocus because colonisation implies the movement of people. But how can those movements be described? What kind ofsocial fabric encompassed the actual historical process? This session explores the process of colonisation from the end ofthe last Ice Age to the present from a cross-cultural and interdisciplinary perspective. Key themes are:- The historical circumstances of the process of colonization.- Relations to the places of real or imagined origins.- The advantages and challenges of the natural setting.- The available means of communication technology.- Dynamics in biological history (included human DNA).By defining the key questions in a setting involving the disciplines of both natural and cultural history the session willpromote a wide spectrum of perspectives and analyses of global relevance.

The Neolithic House: Interdisciplinary Approaches to (Re)Constructing Prehistoric Architecture

Organisers: Peter F. Biehl (SUNY Buffalo; USA) and Nurcan Yalman (Turkey)

Contact: pbiehl[at]buffalo.edu

People create themselves through the houses they build. Recent anthropological as well as archaeological andethnoarchaeological inquiry has identified houses as active material culture entangled with both material and immaterialsocial values and rules. Architecture is the material expression of culture, both enabling and constraining the relationshipbetween people and their actions. In archaeology, we receive the final phase of the use-life of a house, yet abundantevidence exists for its making and constant re-making as living space. This session will explore the intersection ofarchitecture and archaeology focusing on interdisciplinary approaches to (re)constructing architecture from Neolithic Europeand the Near East. The abject spaces and materialities associated with archaeological investigation - dirt, waste, rubbish,ruins - can be useful as themes for thinking about the Neolithic house, its functions and meanings as well as its constructionof mudbrick, daub and wattle, timber or stone. The session will help to elucidate and challenge conventional narratives ofsedentism to seasonality, and spatial organization to early urbanism from a cross-cultural perspective. It will explore thearchitecture-archaeology intersection through discussing approaches ranging from geophysical surveys to laser-scanningand 3-D reconstructions and from archaeological and geo-archaeological to ethno-archaeological analyses of architecturalremains. It will also scrutinize the complex processes involved in constructing and re-constructing architecture and thereciprocal relationship between people and the things they built.



New Studies in Cultural Interactions in the Northern Black Sea in the First Millennium BC

Organisers: David Braund (Exeter University; UK) and Marina Yu. Vakhtina (Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg; Russia)

Contact: d.c.braund[at]exeter.ac.uk

This session will focus on cultural contact and exchange between inhabitants of the north coast of the Black Sea and itshinterland (c. 700 BCE-400 CE). It will present new data from very different sites of the region (e.g. Hallstatt, Scythian, Greekor hybrid) in the context of a session which is designed not only to offer new evidence about specific cultural interactions,but also to contribute to ongoing debates about the whole phenomenon of such interaction. Postcolonial perspectives areespecially welcome to balance the Greek and Roman viewpoints of our written evidence on the region and its peoples. It isintended that the set of papers will both constitute a series of informative new studies of particular issues/locations andalso provide a well-grounded and integrated treatment of this important topic, relevant to other regions and contexts.

Not Just Meat: The Role of Plants in Paleonutritional Reassessment

Organisers: Karen Hardy, (ICREA - Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona; Spain), Laura Longo (Ufficio Centro Storico UNESCO;Italy) and Anna Revedin (Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria; Italy)

Contact: palaeofood[at]gmail.com

Understanding human diet before plant and animal domestication is a challenge. Survival of material remains is variable butbones frequently survive more readily than plants, and this has led to a traditional focus on meat. It is now becoming clearhowever, that plants were consumed and processed deep into the Palaeolithic. There is though little data on the role ofplants in Palaeolithic and later pre-agricultural nutrition and more broadly, the way the need for plants might haveinfluenced behavioral choices among hunter-gatherers. This workshop will highlight the need for a better understanding ofplants in Palaeolithic and pre-agricultural diet and will highlight new and traditional sources of paleodietary information.This will include the biological and technological capabilities for the transformation of plants for human consumption as wellas the evidence for the plants themselves. We welcome contributions based on both traditional and recently developedtechniques that aim to understand the plant component of the diet and dietary reconstruction among hunter gatherers.

The Optimal Use of the Information Content of Complex Roman Settlements

Organisers: Tessa de Groot (Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency; Netherlands) and Heini Ynnilä (Oxford University; UK)

Contact: t.de.groot[at]cultureelerfgoed.nl

Many Roman settlements are characterized by a horizontal and vertical complexity. Due to long term occupation and severalformation processes, a complex pattern of features and finds was created, as well as a complicated stratigraphy. Variouspost-depositional processes also affect the readability and interpretation of the archaeological record. The purpose of thissession is to gain insight into ways in which justice can be done to the above complexity. In what ways can the potentialinformation of these sites be utilized to gain knowledge? The papers focus on relevant questions and methods, techniquesand research strategies with which they can be answered. Special attention is paid to the potential value of the find andcultural layers. A second focus is the influence of the organization of field research on the above issues. In a system inwhich most of the research is conducted by private companies, the constraints of money and time can put pressure on thequality of research. The question is whether specific choices should be made (yet) to gain the desired knowledge?

Organizing Landscapes and Settlements

Organisers: Mads Holst (Aarhus University; Denmark) and Anne Nissen Jaubert (University François Rabelais of Tours;France)

Contact: mads.holst[at]hum.au.dk

Fences, ditches, enclosures and track-ways are common features in medieval rural settlements and played an important rolein structuring the layout of the settlements and surrounding fields. Numerous sites offer evidence for long-lastingboundaries which in some cases even survive in present-day rural territories. The session aims to explore the development,interrelation and significance of these structuring features in various European landscapes during the medieval period. Sincelong, rural research has addressed roman cadastral systems and regular Medieval open-field systems. In non-RomanizedEurope archaeologists have studied the so-called Celtic fields since the 1930s. In recent decades there has been a growingawareness of the long-term continuities of these landscape structures, as well as the complex transformations anddevelopments, which occurred over time. Numerous archaeological investigations have revealed wide-ranging pre-Romanregulated field systems which were taken over in Roman Antiquity, while other studies have drawn the attention to



continuities into medieval field systems and land-division principles. A considerable time-depth has also been observed andargued in non-Roman Europe where it has been possible to demonstrate that Celtic fields were still recognizable in rurallandscapes of the early middle ages. This has resulted in a much more nuanced view on the rural territorial organizationchanging previous impressions of ruptures at the transition between pre-Roman, Roman and post-Roman periods or betweenearly and late Iron Age. The early Middle Ages has thus played and obvious role in the preservation of earlier field,settlement, road and cadastral systems. The long-lasting rural boundaries should, however, not shade the profoundtransformations of land management during the same period. In northern France, more settlements, e.g. Serris les Ruelles inÎle-de-France or Vieuxville-Bearaude in Brittany, attest an evolution from curved and apparently irregular fences and ditchesto a more regular layout of the farm plots and the surroundings of the settlements. However, they cannot be reduced tochronological phenomena. In some regions e.g. Central Sweden and Gotland apparently irregular field boundaries overlayrather regular field systems. This may also be the case in Southern Scandinavia, notably in Vallensbæk and Foulum (5th-6thcenturies) where parts of large fences recall the Late Iron Age infield and outfield systems observed in more Norwegian andSwedish Regions. The different issues of land division raise the question of the reasons for regular and non-regular layouts.Considered in a larger perspective, the changing rural territories seem to adapt to new political, social and economicregimes. In northern Europe, archaeological evidence of several domains suggests that the rural settlements change withprofound political transformations. In the western European post-Roman and Christian Roman world the most importantdevelopments in the rural settlements precede or accompany the development of Carolingian estates. The comparison ofEuropean regions is an opportunity to get a more detailed understanding of the specific regional contexts and more wide-ranging chronological trends across the mosaic of specific rural territories. The session will favour contributions whichaddress the phenomena of rupture and continuity of territorial organization during the first millennium AD, such as continueduse of antique or late prehistoric field boundaries during the second half of the first millennium AD or/and their survival inhigh Medieval and modern period field-systems. It also welcomes studies of innovations during the same period. Analyses ofspecific medieval field-system and their link to settlements and land-managing are also highly relevant for the themes wewish to explore in the session.

Place and Space in Iron Age Europe

Organisers: Ian Armit (University of Bradford; UK) and Phil Mason (Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage ofSlovenia; Slovenia)

Contact: i.armit[at]bradford.ac.uk

The Iron Age in many parts of Europe is characterised by the creation and elaboration of special places in the landscape.These may be natural features, such as hills, marshes and lakes, settlements, ritual enclosures and the archetypical site inmany areas, the hillfort. Hillforts especially have been seen in some regions as being confined to a single period, whilst inothers they are seen as being subject to periods of abandonment and reoccupation. They are also frequently interpreted asthe apex of the settlement hierarchy, their abandonment being linked to social change. In the past, such transformationshave been seen in terms of historic events, referenced in the written sources for the period. Research has shown hillforts aremuch more complex. They may represent the enclosure or fortification of a prominent natural feature or settlement, orentirely a new fortified settlement. However, once created within the landscape, the hillfort was always present and had thepotential to acquire new symbolic meanings even during periods of apparent abandonment. Thus a hillfort might represent adefended settlement permanently inhabited by a large or small group, a pre-existing special place co-opted by a dominantinterest group, a sacred space, a place of periodic assembly by large or small groups, or all of the above, perhaps atdifferent times. This session seeks to explore the nature of special places in the Iron Age landscape and relationshipsbetween human communities and space through the biography of the individual site and the changing culturalconstruction(s) of Iron Age landscapes over time. We invite contributions which examine the ways in which places werecreated in the European Iron Age and the ways in which they relate to the wider landscape at a regional or national scale.Perspectives drawn from fieldwork results and incorporating environmental archaeology or palaeoenvironmental analysis,are especially welcome. The Iron Age here is broadly defined to incorporate the 1st millennium BC across much ofcontinental Europe, as well as the "long Iron Age" of Northern Europe including Scandinavia, Ireland and Scotland, running aslate as AD 400-800. However, given the nature of the themes being explored, papers which deal with the earlier origins, andlater "after-lives" of Iron Age places are also welcome.

"Princely Sites", Oppida and Open Settlements: New Approaches to Urbanisation Processes in the Iron Age of Centraland Western Europe

Organisers: Manuel Fernández-Götz (Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart Landesamt für Denkmalpflege; Germany), HolgerWendling (Römisch-Germanische Kommission; Germany), Katja Winger (Römisch-Germanische Kommission; Germany),Josephine Friederich (University of Frankfurt; Germany) and Jesús Álvarez-Sanchís (Universidad Complutense de Madrid;Spain)

Contact: Manuel.Fernandez-Goetz[at]rps.bwl.de

This session will bring together on international level new approaches to Iron Age settlement archaeology. The discussion



will emphasize recent fieldwork results and innovative research approaches from colleagues in Central and Western Europe.On the basis of new data emerging from several research projects conducted during the last years on so-called "princelysites" like Heuneburg, Glauberg, Mont Lassois or Bourges, we have to rethink our traditional understanding of Early Iron Agecentralisation and urbanisation processes. On the other side, researchers have been working for years on a differentiatedtypology of Late Iron Age urban settlement areas. Apart from the recently introduced distinction between oppida situated onhilltops or in lowland areas, the role of large unfortified settlements that acted as production and distribution centres isgaining significance within this framework. By way of covering the whole Iron Age on an international basis, we will be ableto discuss e.g. the similarities as well as the differences observed between the centralisation and urbanisation processesthat took place both in the Late Hallstatt and the Middle and Late Latène period. Moreover, new approaches to the internalorganisation of the settlement and their formation processes can be brought together in a fruitful way. Another aspect thatwill be mentioned and thought about is the management of supplies of these central places from their respective environsand hinterlands. Finally, the crucial role that sanctuaries played in the formation of many urban settlements will also bedwelled upon.

Reconstructing Patterns of Mobility, Residency and Demographic Fluctuations among Prehistoric Populations

Organisers: Antti Sajantila (University of Helsinki; Finland), Volker Heyd (University of Bristol; UK), Anders Götherström(Uppsala University; Sweden), Tarja Sundell (University of Helsinki; Finland), Päivi Onkamo (University of Helsinki; Finland)and Markku Oinonen (University of Helsinki; Finland)

Contact: tarja.sundell[at]helsinki.fi

The possibility of reconstructing patterns of plausible population movements and changes among prehistoric populationshas inspired many researchers. Archaeological finds lay a foundation for studying the prehistoric population patterns. On theother hand, natural scientific methods provide a way to locate time windows for the archaeologically established contextsand cultures. Particularly, radiocarbon dating has had a key role is establishing temporal patterns. With the development ofnew genetic methods and isotopic tools it has become possible to trace back population histories and open views to theorigins of peoples. These approaches together will inevitably produce a more comprehensive picture of the past. We willhighlight several examples of types of studies falling within the proposed framework. One of the approaches is toreconstruct demographic events with a series of hypotheses relating to prehistory and to evaluate how clear traces aprehistoric occurrence e.g. migration or population bottleneck, would leave in the current gene pool. Similarly, isotopic dataprovide an independent data source to better understand and trace back lifetime movements of prehistoric individuals. Forinstance, strontium isotope studies have been successful in giving evidence for e.g. continuity of subsistence strategy ormovements of individuals, e.g. exogamy. This session attempts to provide new clues and visions concerning postulated pre-historic population movements and demographic fluctuations. We approach colleagues interested in the theme toparticipate in the session by presenting new results on temporal patterns in human prehistory and by mergingarchaeological and natural scientific data together.

Reindeer Hunting as Part of Circumpolar History against the Wider Background of Hunting in Central and NorthernEurope

Organisers: David George Anderson (University of Tromsø; Norway), Oliver Grimm (Zentrum für Baltische undSkandinavische Archäologie; Germany), John Olsen (Vest-Agder Museum and "Wild Reindeer as Added Value"; Norway),Ulrich Schmölcke (Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie; Germany), Ingrid Sommerseth (University ofTromsø; Norway) and Andrei V. Zinoviev (Tver State University; Russia)

Contact: j.olsen[at]vestagdermuseet.no

This first aim of this session is to initiate interdisciplinary discussions about reindeer hunting as a part of circumpolar historyin the long term. Across the circumpolar north in both Eurasia and North America, the wild reindeer/caribou hunt anddomestic reindeer husbandry have played and still play an important role in the economy and identity of indigenous andother societies. Strategies designed to encounter migratory reindeer, whether to hunt or to domesticate them, involve anunderstanding of the landscape. The predictable nature of this embedded knowledge made it practical to establishstationary hunting facilities in alpine tundras or at river crossings. Furthermore, ethnographic work with contemporaryreindeer herding societies demonstrate how the knowledge of holding domestic reindeer in certain landscapes mirrors theknowledge of the behavior of wild reindeer. Also, some societies have a still living hunting tradition with knowledge of howthe reindeers use the landscape. The focus will be on the presentation and discussion of ongoing research projects relatedto hunting and trapping wild reindeer and their cultural heritage; on discussion of interdisciplinary analytical approaches tothe study of human-reindeer relations (genetic research, landscape archaeology, ethnography), the comparison of stationaryreindeer hunting facilities to those of other large mammals and how the reindeer relationships are exploited commerciallytoday and what opportunities and challenges this brings. The second aim is to take an overall view on hunting in Northernand Central Europe. Hunting wild game has been a constant in European history even after the often-noted Neolithictraditions. Hunting involves many facets such as diverse hunting weapons, techniques, animals, preys and the development



of the fauna or single species. Hunting can often be linked to social status or religious believes or, in a society of farmers, tothe protection of the agricultural landscape. The papers will focus on various types of hunting specifically in northern orcentral Europe from the Palaeolithic up to recent times. Here we welcome an emphasis on game animals other than rangifer,and this includes reflections on multiple regions and with multiple methods to guide us to a view on hunting over the longterm. More generally, the role of hunting in social dynamics, hierarchies, burial customs and symbolism is worth discussing.The session's synthesis is meant to draw a picture of the history of hunting in northern and central Europe, with a certainemphasis on reindeer hunting, but also by assuming a more general approach. In addition, future perspectives of hunting-related research shall be outlined, in particular fields of research which yield high potentials but were not adequatelyaddressed so far.

Reuse of Burial Monuments

Organisers: Hrvoje Potrebica (University of Zagreb; Croatia) and Lena Fahre (Midgard Historical Center and the MedievalCastle Museum; Norway)

Contact: hpotrebi[at]ffzg.hr

Burial monuments are one of key sources of archaeological record and as such subjected to all kinds of archaeologicalinvestigation and analysis. This research is usually related to one or several basic questions:- WHERE?: geographic, local or regional position of the monument; the function of the monument in the landscape; spatialorientation of the monument; relation to other monuments.- WHO raised the monument? For whom it was raised?- WHEN the monument was constructed? When the monument was reopened/destroyed?- WHAT were the contents of the grave?- HOW was it constructed? Reconstruction of burial ritual.- WHY?: general meaning of the monument and its relation to the community which made it.However, most of research perceives burial monuments as results of activity of specific group of people performed as singleevent and used in time limited period. All that happened to those monuments after their construction, or after the initialperiod of use, usually became marginal in interpretation. Sometimes negativistic approach resulted in broad and oftenoversimplified use of terms such as "robbery", "destruction", "devastation", or in the mildest version, "disturbance". Thisimplies that any intervention on the burial monuments after their initial use is in some way deconstruction of the originalarchaeological context. This session will try to explore burial monuments as dynamic archaeological features which are notresult of single or limited time activity. Changes that those monuments underwent through time must not be ignored oreasily discarded since they are all part of their history and as such crucial for understanding and interpreting of thosemonuments. Basic thesis is that burial monuments have history. That history can be related to all sorts of physical changesor interventions on the monument itself but the general consequence is they don't always have single meaning. The changeof meaning is visible in whole range from evolutionary modification or shift in meaning to complete reinvention andreinterpretation of the monument, usually related to change in use of that monument by the same population or completelydifferent group of people that initially constructed the monument. The question arises: is there "original" use or we canspeak just of initial use of such monuments? The aim of the session is present some out of whole variety of differentpatterns of reuse of burial monuments and see how that physical intervention relates to conceptual transformation orcontinuity of the monument itself.

Settled and Itinerant Crafts People in History and Prehistory

Organisers: Berit Valentin Eriksen (Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology; Germany) and Gitte Hansen (UniversityMuseum of Bergen; Norway)

Contact: Berit.Eriksen[at]schloss-gottorf.de

In discussions of the organization of pre-modern craftsmanship, permanently settled full-time or part-time specialists vs.itinerant specialists frequently come up as alternatives. Well-known examples from Northern Europe are itinerant combmakers of 10-12th century, Viking Age fine-metal workers, and Bronze Age craftsmen (metal workers and flint knappersalike). Behind these general models there were real people. Some of them produced highly prestigious objects; others madeproducts for common everyday consumption. As part of society they had important roles in the maintenance of theorganization of the craft through their lifestyle. In this session we want to go beyond the description of crafts in terms ofgeneral organizational models and instead address the concrete implications of these models/lifestyles for actors,technology and products associated with crafts. We want to address questions such as:- How was knowledge of the technology of crafts transferred within respectively a permanent or an itinerant organizationmodel/lifestyle?- What were the consequences of either lifestyle/model for the maintenance or change of product styles/repertoire?- What was the status of the crafts people within either model, in terms of e.g. prestige, ethnicity, economy, or gender?Papers addressing one or all of these issues are welcome. As researchers we are too often confined within our own regional,temporal or "material" speciality. We believe that a discussion of these themes and/or of methodological approaches to



such issues across time, regions and "specialities" will prove very inspiring and fruitful. We thus welcome theoreticallyinformed papers from all regions that deal with these questions in prehistory, the Middle Ages, and early history.

The Sound as Symbol of Prestige, Element of Magic and Instrument of Power: Archaeological Finds and SonorousContexts

Organisers: Roberto Melini (Conservatorio "F. A. Bonporti"; Italy) and Raquel Jiménez Pasalodos (Universidad de ValladolidValladolid; Spain)

Contact: roberto.melini[at]conservatorio.tn.it

The recent developments of Music Archaeology turn out to be useful to the research not only as far as it concerns the"sonorous side" of our roots (see Archaeologies and "soundscape". From the Prehistoric sonorous experiences to the music ofthe ancient world, EAA Annual Meeting 2009), but also as a contribution to a more general reconstruction of several social-cultural aspects of ancient civilisations. In fact, as anthropologists have already stated, "music is symbolic and reflects thegeneral organisation of society. It's a way to understand the traits of different peoples and individual behaviour, andtherefore it becomes a very valid tool to analyse culture and society" (Alan P. Merriam, The anthropology of music, 1964).Music enhances emotion, creates group identities, easily propagates ideologies (it makes easier to remember stories, talesand myths thanks to rhythmical patterns), strengthens cohesion and cooperation and defines social divisions. Nevertheless,hitherto the use of sound and music as symbol of prestige, element of magic and instrument of power in ancient societieshas been scantily studied. The archaeological research (through the study of artefacts and iconographies, compared withdata of ethnomusicological origin and supported, when possible, with written sources) may provide enlightening informationon this subject: the finding of sonorous tools that reveal particular sumptuary/symbolic references, the recovering of musicalinstruments that bear witness to precise magical/apotropaic purposes, the analysing of sites/structures where powermanifestations took place through rituals, which may have had specific sonorous components (political ceremonies,religious rites, collective events, and so on). The aim of the session is to promote a discussion, with a pluridisciplinaryapproach (archaeology, anthropology, musicology, philology, etc.), on the numerous issues posed by this research. Forinstance, is it frequently possible to identify in the sonorous artefacts a creative design oriented to the making of prestigegoods? In what cases can we legitimately consider "sacral" the sound of certain musical instruments? Can we evaluate,considering the historical and cultural contexts, the use of music as a strategy for the legitimation and perpetuation ofpower?

Tephra and Archaeology - Chronological, Ecological and Cultural Dimensions

Organisers: Felix Riede (Aarhus University; Denmark), Satya Dev (Aarhus University; Denmark) and David Lowe (University ofWaikato; New Zealand)

Contact: f.riede[at]hum.au.dk

At any one time, there are at least 20 volcanoes active in the world, many of which are located in or near areas that aredensely settled today and that have been densely settled in the past (Chester et al. 2011; Grattan 2006). Volcanologists andarchaeologists have documented a wide range of case studies, where volcanic eruptions and their attendant ash (= tephra)fallout has directly or indirectly impacted on human societies and the course of their historical trajectories (de Boer &Sanders 2002; Grattan & Torrence 2007; Oppenheimer 2011). In purely practical terms, tephra provides a dating tool thatdoes not rely on organic preservation and potentially offers very high resolution. Recent methodological developments nowenable the detection and geochemical fingerprinting of otherwise invisible tephra layers - micro- or cryptotephras - andthereby extend the relevance and utility of this method beyond the immediate areas of volcanic activity (Lowe 2011).Importantly, several recent case studies, from the Late Glacial to the Viking Age, consider tephra in direct relationship witharchaeological deposits, either from a chronological, an ecological, or cultural perspective - or indeed in a combination of allthese aspects (e.g. Balascio et al. 2011; Petrie & Torrence 2008; Riede et al. In Press). The aim of this session is to takestock of these developments and to discuss the many ways in which the study of volcanoes and, specifically, their tephrarelates to archaeology. The geographic scope of this session is global, and its chronological scope covers all periods, fromdeepest prehistory to modern times. We invite papers and posters dealing with methodological aspects of tephrochronologyor age-modelling in relation to archaeological or palaeoenvironmental issues, as well as papers and posters discussingparticular case studies of how volcanoes and their tephra fallout have impacted on past societies.

ReferencesBalascio, N.L., Wickler, S., Narmo, L.E. & Bradley, R.S. (2011) Distal cryptotephra found in a Viking boathouse: the potentialfor tephrochronology in reconstructing the Iron Age in Norway. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 934-941.Chester, D.K., Degg, M., Duncan, A.M. & Guest, J.E. (2001) The increasing exposure of cities to the effects of volcaniceruptions: a global survey. Environmental Hazards 2, 89-103.de Boer, J.Z. & Sanders, D.T. (2002) Volcanoes in Human History. The Far-Reaching Effects of Major Eruptions. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, N.J.Grattan, J. (2006) Aspects of Armageddon: An exploration of the role of volcanic eruptions in human history and civilization.



Quaternary International 151, 10-18.Grattan, J. & Torrence, R. (Eds.) (2007) Living Under The Shadow. Cultural Impacts of Volcanic Eruptions. One WorldArchaeology 53.Lowe, D.J. (2011) Tephrochronology and its application: A review. Quaternary Geochronology 6, 107-153.Oppenheimer, C. (2011) Eruptions that Shook the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Petrie, C.A. & Torrence, R. (2008) Assessing the effects of volcanic disasters on human settlement in the WillaumezPeninsula, Papua New Guinea: a Bayesian approach to radiocarbon calibration. The Holocene 18, 729-744.Riede, F., Bazely, O., Newton, A.J. & Lane, C.S. (In Press) A Laacher See-eruption supplement to Tephrabase: Investigatingdistal tephra fallout dynamics. Quaternary International 246.

Traditions in Transition: Studies of Lithic Trajectories

Organisers: Mikkel Sørensen (Copenhagen University; Denmark) and Mara-Julia Weber (Centre for Baltic and ScandinavianArchaeology; Germany)

Contact: miksr[at]hum.ku.dk

One of the crucial tasks in Stone Age Archaeology is to make the stones speak, that is to analyse them in order to gaininformation on the people who produced, used and discarded lithic artefacts. The study of technology is a key method inreaching this goal, as it allows defining the knowledge that is transmitted from one generation to the next, even in a deeptime perspective. Due to this possibility, of recognizing particular knowledge and concepts deeply embedded in formertechnological traditions, the study of lithic technology is a prime methodology when investigating transitions in thearchaeological record. The period from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to the Late Mesolithic, the 13th to the 5th millennium BCin Northern Europe and adjacent regions, represents such a time of diverse transitions: drastic and often rapid changes inclimate and subsequently flora and fauna occur parallel with the development from largely uniform cultural systems in wideparts of Europe, such as the Magdalenian, to a diversified picture of groups on a regional scale, such as the ErtebølleCulture. Thus, the question that this session seeks to investigate concerns how transitions can be analyzed as knowledge atthe prehistoric intergenerational scale. Organized by the Nordic Blade Technology Network, this session aims at assemblingresearchers from Northern Europe and the adjacent regions in order to compare the technological traditions and theirdevelopment during the abovementioned period. Studies emerging from experimental research, studies based ondiachronous regional scales and studies on methodological questions are welcomed. An overall aim of the session is thatdifferent research schools and their approaches will be brought together as a step towards a common research languageand methodology.

War! Conflict Archaeology and its Role in the Study of the Past and Present of Europe

Organisers: Jette Linaa (Moesgaard Museum; Denmark), Claes B. Petterson (Jönköpings läns museum; Sweden), SamiRaninen (University of Turku; Finland) and Joonas Sipilä (Finnish National Defence University; Finland)

Contact: jette.linaa[at]live.dk

The archaeology of violent or latent human conflict has been ascendant during the last 10-15 years in maritime and land-based archaeology, and in this session recent work on European conflict archaeology is to be presented to a wideinternational audience. Much research has focused on the archaeology of the battlefield or the sunken ship, but the aim ofthis session is to focus not solely on the hard archaeological facts of the battle, but also on short- and long-termconsequences of warfare on civilians in the affected areas. The session takes its starting point in Nordic wars and conflicts,where recent fieldwork and research have addressed such issues as early modern and modern battle-fields andfortifications, military camps and other residues of passing armies, military burials, weapon depots and underwater sites.Among them are the battles where Denmark lost Scania to the Swedes AD 1658 - here the effects on the civilians in theareas have been researched as well. Prehistoric and Medieval themes have also been addressed, such as warfare andfeuding among the Forest Neolithic cultures in Finland, mass burial of Scandinavian warriors in Estonia in the 8th century AD,the remains of the battle of Masterby in AD 1361 in Sweden and the origin of men in a mass-buried Viking age troop inDenmark. But the archaeology of conflict is laddered with potential political problems. The question is if it is possible to talkopenly of past conflicts without opening a Pandora's Box of misfortunes. How do we as researchers confront the obviousdichotomy between the hard facts of our violent past and our countries official needs of forgetting conflicts today? And howdo we perform our research without hiding our violent past, but also without unwillingly delivering ammunition to variousmarginal political groups? We believe that it is possible to strike the balance, and this session is a place where current andongoing research can be put forward and these possibilities can be discussed.

Maritime Archaeology



Amphorae as Cargoes: New Interpretations and Research Perspectives

Organisers: Stella Demesticha (University of Cyprus; Cyprus) and Irena Radic Rossi (University of Zadar; Croatia)

Contact: demesticha[at]ucy.ac.cy

Amphorae are the commonest cargo type of ancient ships that can be documented today by maritime archaeology. Thereforethey are an important research tool not only for the ancient economy but especially for the mechanisms of seaborne trade.For example, the different amphora sizes in a certain shipment, document very well the amphora standardization modes, andthe measures and weights used in antiquity, sporadically mentioned in the written sources. Also, the amphora stowagesystem in a ship provides evidence on the sophistication in lading techniques and space arrangement on board. Moreover,recent developments in digital mapping and 3D parametric modelling techniques as well as interdisciplinary approaches tothe data acquisition during excavation, have provided new perspectives to the interpretation of the amphora cargoes assources for the size and capacities of ancient ships. Contributors to the session are invited to explore new approaches toamphora assemblages and to focus on their maritime aspect, beyond typological classifications or provenance studies. Thegoal of this session is to bring together shipwreck excavators, amphora specialists, maritime archaeologists with a specialinterest in seaborne trade but also surveyors and computer specialists, who participate in shipwreck and amphora projects,so that: specific issues are discussed, innovative methods are presented and new interpretations are proposed.

Flooded Stone Age - Towards an Overview of Submerged Settlements and Landscapes on the Continental Shelf

Organisers: Anders Fischer (Heritage Agency of Denmark; Denmark), Björn Nilsson (Södertörn University; Sweden) and FraserSturt (University of Southampton; UK)

Contact: andersfischerkalundborg[at]hotmail.com

The aim of this session is to bring together ideas and information to develop a first pan-European overview of the inhabitedlands that disappeared below the sea as the climate warmed and the ice sheets of the last Ice Age lost most of theirvolume. It continues the discussions in the recently published book "Submerged Prehistory" (Oxbow 2011), which sprangfrom a well attended session at the EAA 2009 meeting. This session will bring together updates on well known sites andregions along with reports on new sites, and work on areas not so well represented at the 2009 session. A central objectiveof the session is to contribute to the preparation of an atlas project on submerged Stone Age sites and landscapes of Europeand nearby areas of the Mediterranean. The project is in preparation as part of the EU-COST-financed SPLASHCOS network,which is focusing on the period of the great sea-level rise during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. This pan-European network is seeking to coordinate reports on finds of archaeological sites, terrestrial fauna and preserved landsurfaces older than ca. 5500 cal BP from sea-bed areas all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Topic and questions withinthe scope of the session:- New finds of submerged Stone Age sites and landscapes on the continental shelf.- Reconstructing the pace of sea-level rise and submergence of landscapes during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene inEurope.- Why is the distribution of present finds from the continental shelf so uneven - research history and/or preservation?- Are there examples of the preservation of Pleistocene or Early Holocene wood, bone, etc. in sea-floor areas outside Israel,the North Sea and the western Baltic?- Field methods for the location and excavation of submerged sites and landscapes.- Management of submerged prehistoric cultural heritage.- Co-operation between industry and archaeology in relation to submerged Stone Age sites and landscapes.

Interpreting Maritime Archaeological Record in and around Water

Organisers: Johan Rönnby (Södertörns Högskola; Sweden), Riikka Alvik (National Board of Antiquities; Finland) and ElenaPranckenaite (Klaipeda University; Lithuania)

Contact: johan.ronnby[at]sh.se

Past circa 50 years have seen an increased activity within the field called "maritime archaeology". The underwater locationof specific sites along with the source materials explicit for this environment, from shipwrecks to fish traps, have called for aspecialization within this specific field of research. People are bound to water in some way or another. As a consequencemaritime archaeological source material, and maritime activity can be everything from waterbound Stone Age settlements,to medieval towns or fresh water fish traps. The question is to what extent "empiry" or "theory" may be regarded"maritime"? People have been eating fish, hunting seals and seabirds and used water as route as long as they have existed,and these activities have left marks in the landscape. Waterbound material culture should be put into wider context, as partof history of human beings from prehistory to modern times and researched by multidisciplinary methods. Breaking theborder between land and water is crucial for understanding human past and the phenomena still existing in our present



societies. We are looking for presentations concerning interpretations of material culture found in and around water,extending the scope of maritime archaeology.

Settlements and Economies at the Sea: Maritime Settlement, Subsistence and Economic Histories 500 BC-1600 AD

Organisers: Tapani Tuovinen (University of Helsinki; Finland), Christer Westerdahl (Norwegian University of Science andTechnology; Norway) and Henrik Jansson (University of Helsinki; Finland)

Contact: Tapani.Tuovinen[at]helsinki.fi

In modern day maritime areas are often seen as peripheral. During the Late Prehistoric and Medieval Periods the coastal andarchipelagic areas were important contact zones. Peasants inhabiting and utilizing the most maritime areas had to adapt,though, to the special conditions at the sea. This adaptation did not only meant coping with different geographical andecological conditions, but also the fact that at the fringe of the sea people were close to the communications routes, acontact zone. This created both possibilities and challenges. The sea brought trade and sometimes foreign powers to thearea and with that also new ideas and ideologies. In this session the relations between and the effects of the sea onsettlements, subsistence and economic strategies will be discussed. The focus will be on the peasants and their economicstrategies in the most maritime areas meaning islands, archipelagic areas or the coastline. Examples of questions that canbe discussed in the session are: How did the strategies of the "maritime" peasant differ from the peasants in more classicagrarian areas? How did the seafaring and communication routes affect the settlement and economic strategies? What wasthe role of the maritime settlements in relation to urban centers and central powers? The aim of the session is to bringtogether researchers working with settlement and economic histories in the most maritime areas especially in NorthernEurope. The session belongs to the maritime archaeology. By presenting cases from different maritime areas interregionalconnections and traits can be discussed. Thereby the different regions can be placed in an international context. As a resultthe concept maritime cultures can be addressed.

Archaeological Heritage Resource Management

Advanced Prospection Methods for Cultural Heritage Management - Experiences and Challenges

Organisers: Axel G. Posluschny (Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute; Germany) and MartinGojda (University of West Bohemia; Czech Republic)

Contact: posluschny[at]rgk.dainst.de

The combination of traditional aerial archaeological reconnaissance practiced from low flying aircrafts with technicallyadvanced prospection methods, such as geophysics, satellite remote sensing and most recently also airborne laser scanning(ALS - LiDAR) have a great impact on Cultural Heritage Management. The possibility to detect new sites without expensiveand destructive excavations, to further investigate and to monitor sites, monuments and landscapes with easy applicablenon-invasive methods have lead to a change in the work of many European archaeologists. Still more and more complexinformation on how our predecessors lived can currently be extracted from surface layers with little or no need for digging.In our session we would like to present case studies to highlight these positive aspects of the use of the aforementionedsurveying methods, but also studies which show problems and pitfalls of these methods for Cultural Heritage Managementand investigation in a broader sense.

Round Table: Committee on Archaeological Legislation and Organization

Organisers: Jean-Paul Demoule (Université de Paris I; France) and Christopher Young (English Heritage; UK)

Contact: Christopher.Young[at]english-heritage.org.uk

With recent political changes and also the present economic and financial problems, the situation of archaeology, andespecially preventive archaeology, in Europe has to be examined. This round table will look at such changes and evolutionsin various European countries. Special attention should also be given for better statistical information on the impact ofchange and development on archaeological resources and the nature and scale of responses to these pressures. The roundtable will present examples from particular countries from on part, as well as some more general and synthetic papers. Thesituation in non-European countries will be also briefly examined.



Guidelines for in situ Preserved Archaeological Sites and Areas

Organisers: Vibeke Vandrup Martens (NIKU Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research; Norway) and MichelVorenhout (MVH Consult; Netherlands)

Contact: vvm[at]niku.no

Guidelines for in situ preserved archaeological sites and areas are now being made throughout Europe. Guidelines onstandard monitoring, building activities, consolidations, piling and other activities near or on top of archaeology are all beingdeveloped. Do we all need to start from scratch each time as every site is unique, or may we learn from each other? Howcan we best benefit from other, similar projects in both cultural heritage management and research? This session invitespresentations, both papers and posters, on the use of in situ preservation in various contexts, but with a special focus onguidelines and the implementation of practical monitoring of preserved sites. We would also like to focus on building on topof archaeology, and practical problems of monitoring such sites. A third focal point will be the costs of practical monitoringcompared to archaeological excavations - and who pays.

Interpreting Development-led Archaeology - The Question of Scale. Case Studies from the Prehistoric Landscapes ofNorthwest Europe

Organisers: Richard Bradley (University of Reading; UK), Leo Webley (University of Reading; UK), Colin Haselgrove(University of Leicester; UK), Marc Vander Linden (University of Leicester; UK) and Stijn Arnoldussen (University ofGroeningen; Netherlands)

Contact: l.webley[at]reading.ac.uk

Over the last two decades, development-led (or "preventive") archaeology has revolutionised our understanding of theprehistory of many regions of Europe. Large-scale excavations in advance of construction and quarrying have revealedancient landscapes on a scale not possible before, providing new insights into the long-term development of settlementpatterns, field systems and ritual complexes. These new results raise questions of scale. Can we now see comparabletrajectories of landscape development across wide areas of Europe, or does the new data rather highlight differencesbetween regions? In which periods are large-scale commonalities most evident and in which do they fade away? And cansuch comparisons provide new perspectives on the nature of cross-regional contacts, different to those derived from thestudy of portable artefacts? This session will explore these questions, with a particular focus on the later prehistory (lateMesolithic to pre-Roman Iron Age) of northwest Europe, a region defined here as encompassing the Low Countries, France,Germany, southern Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland. Each presentation will be thematic, with possible topics including:- The early development of farming.- Field systems and land boundaries in the later Bronze Age and Iron Age.- Settlement landscapes - when was domestic architecture a focus for investment?- Funerary landscapes.- The landscape context of metalwork and other artefact deposits.- Hillforts, large enclosures and gathering places in the late prehistoric landscape.When addressing these issues, contributors are asked to highlight any biases inherent in the contemporary practice ofdevelopment-led archaeology, which may mean that certain areas, periods or site types are over- or under-represented. Inorder to bring in outside perspectives, discussants for the session will come from other regions such as Iberia and CentralEurope. As development-led archaeology is organized on a national or sub-national level, it is easy to lose sight of thecontribution it can make to understanding larger-scale historical processes at a European level. Demonstrating that it canmake such a contribution is, we propose, more important than ever at a time when the economic pressures threaten thefunding of archaeological organizations across Europe.

Landscape of Our Ancestors: Current State and Future Vision

Organisers: Riikka Mustonen (Metsähallitus; Finland), Noémi Pažinová (Constantine the Philosopher University; SlovakRepublic) and Ján Beljak (Archaeological Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovak Republic)

Contact: riikka.mustonen[at]metsa.fi

This session is meant as open discussion about the state of cultural landscape and the priorities of its management. It is thesequel to last year's Round table: Managing Sites or Managing Landscapes: What Is the Proper Concern for Archaeologists?where the perspectives from England, Norway, Scotland and Sweden were discussed. In this year the session will focus onthree topics:- Debate on the role of cultural heritage managers/archaeologists in the landscape-scale conservation and the use of land.- Archaeological challenges and opportunities offered by rural and forested land management in Central/Eastern Europe.- Define the border between appropriate landscape changes and landscape conservation to secure protection and survival of



the archaeological record.The papers have to focus on state of archaeological heritage protection and management, rural land-use priorities andconditions, planning of landscapes, loss and degradation of archaeological sites by destructive processes as agriculture andforestry, debate about landscape futures in terms of cultural and natural heritage interests. The session will also act as themeeting of the Joint EAA/EAC Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management. Warmly expected are alsocontributions from not members.

Managing the Archaeological Heritage: Perceptions and Realities

Organisers: Stuart Campbell (National Museums Scotland; UK), Suzie Thomas (University of Glasgow; UK), Penny English(Anglia Ruskin University; UK), Raimund Karl (University of Vienna; Austria) and Marcin Rudnicki (Uniwersytet Warszawski;Poland)

Contact: s.campbell[at]nms.ac.uk

Heritage legislation aims to ensure the best possible protection for the archaeological heritage. Yet it remains the case thatlegislation can remain ineffective through other practical considerations. Some considerations may be legal or procedural,such as difficulties in enforcing legislation or in preventing crimes or damage to archaeological monuments. However, otherproblems may be less obvious and harder to address, and require solutions which go much further than the simpleapplication of the law. Different European countries have chosen quite different strategies to achieve heritage protection;from liberal approaches where the public is entrusted with a role in this protection, to more restrictive legislation whereprotection is entrusted - and restricted - to archaeological professionals. These distinctions are well known, yet it is rare thatthere is a proper consideration, and comparison, of how well the various systems seem to work, or indeed a consideration ofwhy laws are so different. There is unlikely to be a universal solution that could be applied to every country, and this raisesother issues of how a law or system can be made to work under real world conditions and what the other essentialingredients are. It is important not to focus merely on the letter of the law; heritage protection itself is of course subject toother national and cultural considerations. Laws which archaeologists may see as necessary may be significantly out of stepwith public opinion and may seem unnecessary infringements of personal liberty or property. The evaluation of material asarchaeologically significant may be rejected by a community which feels the material is of importance primarily to localidentity or culture. Paradoxically, many of these problems have been caused not just by the familiar threats to thearchaeological heritage of development or looting but also by some significant success of recent years, such as increasingawareness and appreciation of archaeology amongst the wider population. For example, the wider engagement with metal-detector users in the UK has perhaps popularised and legitimised many aspects of the hobby which other archaeologists feelare inimical to the cultural heritage. An increasing public interest in the past has perhaps fuelled an increasing market in"legal" antiquities and legitimised the private possession of cultural objects. This session will invite contributors fromvarious European and international jurisdictions, to discuss both the problems themselves and the solutions to theseproblems as well as subject matters from the protection of archaeological monuments to dealing with and controllingchance finds made by members of the public.

Methodology in Preventive Archaeology: Archaeological Evaluations

Organisers: Pascal Depaepe (INRAP - Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives; France), Alain Koehler(INRAP - Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives; France), David Barreiro (Incipit - Institute of HeritageSciences; Spain) and Kai Salas Rossenbach (INRAP - Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives; France)

Contact: kai.salas-rossenbach[at]inrap.fr

Preventive archeology is practiced today throughout Europe in varied legal, institutional and field contexts. Practitionersagree that there is a lack in discussing methods. Thus, and to initiate a series of meetings on these topics, this sessionpresented by the French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) aims to be a methodologicaldiscussion, in the strict sense of the term, not only a presentation of methods but a discussions about the method and theirresults. The theme this year will be the evaluation process in preventive archeology. Through presentations of differentEuropean contexts the idea of the session is to discuss this critical phase for the entire chaîne opératoire of preventivearcheology.

New Perspectives on Lithic Scatters and Landscapes: Evaluation and Selection in and outside the Context ofArchaeological Resource Management

Organisers: Eelco Rensink (Early Prehistory Cultural Heritage Agency; Netherlands), Clive Bond (University of WinchesterWest Hill; UK) and Erwin Meylemans (Flemish Heritage Institute Koning Albert II; Belgium)

Contact: e.rensink[at]cultureelerfgoed.nl



The archaeological heritage of the early prehistory (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic) is in a very general sensecharacterized by three different kinds of "preservation contexts", consisting of archaeological remains: 1) situated onPleistocene surfaces which are subject to tillage practices, 2) situated on Pleistocene surfaces and associated with more orless intact soils, and 3) associated with buried surfaces and covered by later Pleistocene and/or Holocene sediments. Eachpreservation context demands its own set of approaches and strategies to be defined in research and heritage managementframeworks. However, experiences from field work in Belgium and the Netherlands demonstrate that this is often not thecase. Surveys carried out in the context of preventive archaeology are often strongly oriented towards trial trenching and thedetection of features, explaining the absence or low amount of flint artefacts that are detected. When flint artefacts arefound, it is often not clear how to proceed with field work and how to evaluate early prehistoric sites or landscapes. Also,there is a tendency among archaeologists to consider the informative value of surface scatters a priori as low, meaning thatno further field work is carried out at all. This evokes the problem of evaluation and selection, which often over-value certaincriteria like preservation conditions and are usually based on low resolution information. Over the past few years, it hasbecome evident that the evaluation of early prehistoric remains is a crucial, but still poorly understood stage in the cycle ofarchaeological heritage management. The session aims at bringing together "best practices" concerning the evaluation andselection of early prehistoric sites and landscapes both in and outside the context of archaeological heritage management,and the alignment of strategies of evaluation and selection with broader research frameworks. Also taking into account thethree "preservation contexts" mentioned above, topics proposed for presentation and discussion are:- The development of "top-down" frameworks for the evaluation and selection of early prehistoric sites and landscapes.- Methods of fieldwork and evaluation.- Evaluation and lithic scatter and landscape approaches in and outside preventive archaeology.- "Information value" and its significance for selection of early prehistoric sites.

Over the Edge - Heritage Management and Coastal Erosion

Organisers: Tom Dawson (University of St Andrews; UK), Marie-Yvane Daire (Université Rennes; France) and Elias Lopez-Romero (Spanish National Research Council; Spain)

Contact: tcd[at]st-andrews.ac.uk

Coastal archaeology is a fragile resource, threatened by rising sea levels and severe storms in addition to human pressure.Polar areas are also threatened by a thawing of pack ice and of ground surfaces, leading to increased erosion. Coastalmanagers often choose between defending the coastline or a programme of "managed retreat". Some have suggested thatclimate change will make the problem worse in the future, while efforts to combat climate change, such as the building ofoffshore wind farms, is also impacting upon the coastal resource. The latter option inevitably leads to the loss ofarchaeological sites. This session will explore the vulnerability of Europe's coastlines; the threat that archaeological sitesare under; and how archaeologists are responding to that threat. The session is interested in papers from all European seas,including the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Papers are invited that exploredifferent methods of measuring the threat posed by coastal processes to archaeological sites and of ways of prioritisingaction at threatened sites. Examples of best practice are sought for the preservation or recording of vulnerable sites.Discussions on when it is acceptable to abandon an archaeological site to the sea are also welcomed. The aim of thesession is to raise awareness of a growing threat to our archaeological heritage and to explore the management optionsavailable for tackling a growing problem.

Vocational Training of Archaeological Heritage

Organisers: Rosa Martínez (Aranzadi S.C.; Spain) and Marjolijn Kok (ILAHS; Netherlands)

Contact: marjolijnkok[at]ilahs.com

The significance of archaeological heritage in contemporary society is ever increasing. It goes beyond responsibilities of theheritage professionals and embraces their numerous sectors such as local administration, engineers, architects, museumstaff, general public, etc. Hence, an in-depth understanding of archaeological heritage by both professional groups and thelay public is a must. It will secure a satisfactory engagement with the rich heritage at local and supralocal levels as well asprovide means of its preserving and valorizing beyond responsibilities of the heritage specialists. The session should serveas a basic introduction to approaches, perspectives, methods and tools used in education relating to cultural heritagemanagement. In particular, it aims to serve as a forum of discussion of various initiatives and projects of vocational trainingin the field of archaeological heritage. It will further intend to interrogate methods of the content preparation and delivery. Itwill eventually attempt to formulate the best practice in vocational training of archaeological heritage. The sessionorganizers seek contributions from practitioners in the field originating from different settings, presenting an array ofexperiences on teaching different groups of professionals and general public as well as discussing methodological solutionsimplemented to meet these goals.



Welcoming Visitors to World Heritage Sites - How Difficult Should It Be?

Organisers: Amanda Chadburn (English Heritage; UK), Emma Carver (English Heritage; UK), Susan Greaney (EnglishHeritage; UK) and Katya Stroud (Heritage Malta; Malta)

Contact: susan.greaney[at]english-heritage.org.uk

The aim of the session is to explore the life cycle of improving visitor facilities and interpretation at World Heritage Sites, inparticular archaeological sites, where interpretation can be challenging. Drawing on the experience of several countries, wepresent a number of case studies, each at a different stage of development - from a project in its infancy, to examples inplanning, to those with production in progress to those which are actually up and running. We look at the role that researchhas to play in informing decisions, the challenges facing the heritage manager in meeting the aspirations for the protectionand preservation of the site and the way in which local, community, political and financial interests can be played outthrough the project. Goals:- to highlight recent major infrastructure projects in European WHSs at different stages in their development;- to present a series of case studies illustrating the project lifecyles, sometimes over decades (including Stonehenge);- to informally assess the current controls - what are the main factors contributing to the success or failure of a project andits longevity?;- to consider whether different countries approach these projects in different ways - can we learn from each other?

Perspectives of Archaeology in the Modern World

Archaeology and Landscape: Integrated Research and the Common Good

Organisers: Kenny Brophy (University of Glasgow; UK), Chris Dalglish (University of Glasgow; UK), Graham Fairclough(English Heritage; UK), Alan Leslie (Northlight Heritage; UK), Gavin MacGregor (Northlight Heritage; UK), Aphrodite Sorotou(Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos; Greece)

Contact: gmacgregor[at]yorkat.co.uk

At the 2011 EAA meeting, an Integrated Landscape Research (ILR) round table discussed issues raised by the Science PolicyBriefing Landscape in a Changing World (SPB41). Key conclusions were that:- the research, practice and policy world in which archaeologists operate is changing;- archaeologists must respond to the opportunities and challenges arising from developments in ILR by thinking andpractising in new ways and by engaging in trans-national, cross-sector and inter- (not merely multi-) disciplinary dialogueand collaboration;- archaeologists can contribute creatively to ILR and the realisation of landscape as a common good.This follow-up 2012 session aims to:- explore responses to the opportunities and challenges arising from developments in landscape theory, practice and policy;- facilitate dialogue between disciplines and promote capacity building for ILR which meaningfully engages withArchaeology;- initiate a European Network for Archaeology and Integrated Landscape Research (whose question will be: how can the"past tense" of landscape contribute to ILR and the realisation of landscape as a common good?).In this session:- Speakers from other disciplines involved with landscape and the SPB will reflect on ILR and consider the significance to thisof landscape's 'past tense'; there will be presentations on the SPB and its emerging Action Plan.- Archaeologists will reflect on exemplar landscape projects, on the future of Archaeology in an integrated world and on ourdiscipline's contribution to the realisation of landscape as a common good.- A workshop will outline responses to SPB41 and progress a manifesto for the European Network for Archaeology & ILR. Weanticipate that this session will result in an edited volume on Archaeology, ILR and landscape as a common good.This session is part of a series of SPB-related workshops being planned as part of the SPB Action Plan for 2012 and 2013.Each workshop will take place at the conferences of the European associations of different disciplines working withlandscape, from landscape architecture to sociology and from spatial planning to landscape ecology, so that the series itselfwill help to create stronger integration. ESF/COST support and sponsorship are being sought.

Archaeology in Society and Daily Life

Organisers: Ulla Lähdesmäki (Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum; Finland), Vadim Adel (Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum; Finland),Aino Nissinaho (Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum; Finland), Phil Richardson (Archaeology Scotland; UK), Cara Jones



(Archaeology Scotland; UK) and Ingrid Ulst (University of Tartu; Estonia)

Contact: Ulla.Lahdesmaki[at]tampere.fi

The session describes, analyses and discusses how archaeology appears and functions in people's everyday life; what is therelationship between archaeology and ordinary citizens in modern societies and different cultures, in different political andeconomic contexts. The issue includes such aspects as:- How can archaeologists channel citizens' activity to improve the preservation and conservation of archaeological sites andhow to involve landowners in positive interaction with archaeological heritage?- How do archaeology and its products appear in the popular culture and everyday life, outside archaeological institutions?- Archaeology - alone or as part of something bigger? Does the cooperation with research and protection of built and naturalheritage make archaeology more understandable and stronger social actor?- How can archaeological heritage be presented and seen as part of wider cultural heritage and environment?

The Archaeology of 20th-century Terrorscapes: How to Proceed?

Organisers: Jan Kolen (VU University Amsterdam; Netherlands), Rob van der Laarse (VU University Amsterdam;Netherlands) and Marek E. Jasinski (Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Norway)

Contact: r.vander.laarse[at]vu.nl

The terms "terrorscape" and "traumascape" have been introduced recently by historians in order to refer to networks ofplaces of trauma and terror and their relationships with present-day memory cultures (Tumarkin 2005; Nachama 2008; Logan& Reeves 2008). Well-known examples are the concentration camps and Atlantic Wall dating from World War II, the post-World War II internment camps in the former Soviet-occupied parts of Europe, and traumatised cities like Sarajevo andSrebrenica. The archaeology of 20th-century war, terror and conflict is a growing field of research. The archaeologicalresearch of terrorscapes often overlaps with personal and collective memories. Yet, it shows that archaeology is able tocontribute to a fuller story about the war-related past by literally presenting a view 'from the underground'. Inmethodological terms, the discipline is eminently suited to present micro-histories about the material aspects of everydaylife in local settings of oppression. Excavations at the Sobibór extermination camp (Poland) conducted by a team from BenGurion University uncovered a small informal pathway to the gas chambers, as well as a concentration of scissors andshaving brushes that mark the spot of a "hair cutting section". In cases like these, archaeological discoveries tell the story ofhow oppression, terror and conflict infiltrated into the intimate and private life worlds of camp prisoners. In some cases,excavations at the hotly debated sites of the Second World War may have important political consequences. Examples areFather Patrick Desbois's reconstruction of the precise ways and exact locations of the extermination of more than onemillion Jews in the Ukraine and Belarus by mobile Nazi units (the "Holocaust by bullets"; Desbois 2008), and the discovery ofan SS Aussenlager near the German city of Rathenow, despite the fact that the present community of the city was unawareof or denied the existence of the former camp (Antkowiak 2002). It is evident that archaeological research at terrorscapes ofthe twentieth century, particularly those connected with the Holocaust, is concerned with more than making reconstructionsof everyday life in the concentration and internment camps. In a sense, it also involves the process of unearthing truth-values. In this respect, the archaeology of the Second World War contrasts with recent autobiographical literature, in whichsome camp survivors (like historians) have expressed the opinion that the time has come to mix historical fact, present-daytopics and even fiction in order to represent the war-related past in more imaginable ways for the wider public and youngergenerations (as in the work of Imre Kertész). In the case of archaeological research on terrorscapes, however, a postmodernconstructivist notion of the war past seems highly problematic. In the light of ongoing and recent Holocaust denials and thecontested nature of more recent war events, archaeology faces the burden of proof. Regardless of what archaeologiststhemselves may think of the truth-value of archaeological interpretations, it is clear that the discipline cannot withdraw frompublic and political expectations in these matters, as society expects archaeologists to reveal the "true" or "most probable"scenarios about the war past in local settings. We should be aware that such political embedding of archaeologicalexcavation is likely to increase further in years to come, as archaeology may become even more involved in the historicaland political evaluation of contested wartime events. This will involve events not only related to the Second World War, butalso with regard to the Balkan War and more recent conflicts in the Near East and Africa. Therefore, the session poses thequestion of how to proceed with the archaeology of 20th-century terrorscapes in Europe in the next decades, not only from amethodological and interpretative point of view, but also from a political perspective. Particularly, the following questionswill be addressed:- How can or should methodological standards of research be improved and optimised?- How to collaborate with other scientific disciplines within interdisciplinary research programmes; who does what?- How to choose between excavation and preservation? How to use the results of archaeological studies for the design ofmemorial landscapes?- How to communicate the results of the archaeological research of terrorscapes with the media, the public and specificgroups within society (such camp survivors and Holocaust deniers)?- How to design scientific and policy frameworks for the further research and future preservation of terrorscapes at local,national and international (European) levels?- How to build an international research community for exchanging results, knowledge and experiences?



Round Table: Committee on Professional Associations in Archaeology

Organisers: Kenneth Aitchison (Landward Research Ltd; UK) and Vesna Pintaric Kocuvan (University of Primorska; Slovenia)

Contact: kenneth.aitchison[at]landward.eu

This round table will be a discussion structured around the topics of:- the nature of professional archaeology today and the nature of that professionalism, seeking to discuss the strengths,successes and challenges facing professional associations at regional, national and continental levels in Europe andbeyond, and the roles that they will play in the future of (European) archaeology, with speakers giving brief reviews followedby contributions from the floor and general discussion;- the Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe project in 2012-14. This extensive project first collected and analysedinformation about archaeologists' professional work in twelve states between 2006 and 2008, with national andtransnational reports at www.discovering-archaeologists.eu, and twenty-one organizations from nineteen countriescontributed to an application to the European Commission for funding support for a repetition in 2012;- the round table will also hear a report on the Studying Archaeology in Europe project, an initiative that has been reviewingthe experiences and aims of current archaeological students and how this will influence their future working lives asarchaeologists. The session will conclude with the business meeting of the Committee, including elections to the position ofCommittee Chair.

Round Table: How to Get Published in Archaeology?

Organisers: Robin Skeates (Durham University; UK) and Estella Weiss-Krejci (University of Vienna; Austria)

Contact: Robin.Skeates[at]durham.ac.uk

This round table, sponsored by the EAA's European Journal of Archaeology, aims to build upon a series of shortpresentations by a group of experienced archaeology authors, editors, peer reviewers and publishers: first, as a basis fordiscussing some current issues relating to publishing archaeological research; and, second, to offer practical advice to lessexperienced archaeologists interested in getting the results of their research published. Issues to be discussed will include:approaching editors and publishers, originality, writing style and conventions, word limits, abstracts and keywords, tablesand illustrations, referencing and bibliographies, libel, copyright, peer review, rejections, deadlines, online submissions,publication processes and schedules, print vs. online, impact, and open access publishing.

Public Appropriations of Archaeologists' Narratives

Organisers: Thomas Meier (University of Heidelberg; Germany) and Elisabeth Niklasson (Stockholm University; Sweden)

Contact: thomas.meier[at]zaw.uni-heidelberg.de

How do different publics receive and transform archaeologist's stories? Archaeologists frequently - and oftendisappointingly - realise that their academic results are heavily "misunderstood" and transformed when their stories enterpublic discourse, even if they themselves have simplified their stories before handing them over to the visitor, listener orreader. In this session we regard such public receptions of archaeological narratives as productive transformations in theirown right and reject an old-fashioned notion of academic knowledge versus the misunderstood and deteriorated narrativesof "the villagers". The paternalistic guidance of the public towards the academically sanctioned truth, as endorsed bymodernity, has meant that these appropriations have consistently been disregarded and deemed useless. However, if weview such public transformations of archaeological knowledge as attempts to make archaeologists' results meaningfuloutside the academic sphere, they become vital for archaeologists to understand their own place in wider society. Morespecifically, such analysis of what is received on different levels and how archaeological narratives are transformed willenhance archaeologists' ability to meet requirements of different publics and relate to their preconceptions of botharchaeologists and objects. We especially welcome papers addressing one or more of the following questions:- Who is "the public" and how can we interact with different understandings and appropriations of archaeologicalknowledge? When talking about "the public" we often routinely construct "them" as a distinguishable group separate from"us". This can act as a blindfold since there is a myriad of "publics" appropriating archaeological narratives in differentways. (How) Can we consider and address this plurality?- In what form and by whom is archaeological knowledge presented to different publics? What is the role of the mediators?Local newspapers and magazines on popular history and archaeology often use academic results and create headlines suchas "Archaeologists have found the first Europeans". While the mediators or "middle hands" are often not archaeologists andneither part of "the public", the practices involved in the processes of transformation on these levels are of key importance.- Scales of reception. With regard to the roles archaeology often plays in identity formation, we expect that receptions andtransformations on the local and regional levels are most likely to provide the best access to the life-world of communities.On these levels there might be certain archetypes used in order to appropriate and transform knowledge, i.e. popular tales



that were once part of a shared oral tradition found in various versions over wide areas. Can we identify such commonnarrative matrices through which the archaeologists' messages are processed and recast?- Modes of reception. Reception is not only a matter of narratives, but likewise of practices. Thus, it is not enough to look forthe spoken or written stories, but practices (e.g. rituals and traditions connected to archaeological sites) may show ways ofreception, appropriation and transformation as well.

Towards a European Archaeology: Utopia or Nothing More than the Idle Wanderings of Confused Politicians?

Organisers: Mark Spanjer (ARCADIS; Netherlands) and Kenneth Aitchison (Landward Research Ltd; UK)

Contact: m.spanjer[at]chello.nl

During the existence of EAA there has always been a vague idea that there is a "European Archaeology", which existssomewhere over the horizon of the near or middle-distant future. In the light of the Valletta and Faro Conventions thereseems to be a political will to create and reach a shared European heritage which will ground the future common identity ofthe generations of today and tomorrow. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage as a tool of Social Engineering and NationBuilding: Archaeology as a Political Tool! But what about the politics of archaeology? EAA has always been drawn by anundercurrent of balancing the different archaeological traditions and climates in which these archaeologies exist. The mostvisible is the divide between the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which translates for many as being liberal and market driven, andthe French, socialist viewpoint. The Nordic point of view has always been there and we have seen the effects of thechanging political landscape on the archaeology of many Eastern European states. Not only our political viewpoints, but ourways of life and the sets of rules we play by are very diverse. But those "non-archaeological factors" define to a large extenthow we do our research. How do we rise from this heterogeneous melting pot with its wide mix of ingredients? This sessionseeks to explore the different traditions in archaeological practice and possible paths towards a developing a EuropeanArchaeology ... or not.

Using Social Media Technologies to Engage People in Archaeology

Organisers: Don Henson (University College London; UK) and Thomas Kador (EPOCH - the Cultural Learning Initiative;Ireland)

Contact: d.henson[at]ucl.ac.uk

Social media and hand-held devices are powerful and readily available technologies that have the potential to engagearchaeology with new and wider audiences. The pace of technological change can be frightening, but also offers newopportunities. As yet, the use of social media in archaeology is not very well understood at a deep level. Who uses socialmedia? Can it really empower people and can it be used to undermine traditional authority structures? How representativeof the wider population, or of archaeologists, are those who do use social media? Does the ephemerality of social mediamean we are in danger of losing our own archive for the future history of our discipline? Can digital technologies allow us toovercome language barriers? Some archaeologists and museums are beginning to explore the potential of digitaltechnologies to engage new audiences. But how well do we know if they are successful? Are we reaching the same,traditional audiences but in new ways? Engaging people with archaeology has traditionally between done through museumexhibitions and displays, books and public journals, newspapers, radio and television news, factual documentary televisionand public events or lectures. Social media offers new ways of engaging people with archaeology. These include onlineexcavation blogs, email discussion lists, facebook pages, twitter accounts, skype communications, interactive websites,online magazines, online events, contributory photographic archives, hand held device software for on-site interpretation,smart-phone apps and many more media. This session aims to highlight examples of current practice in using social mediaand digital technologies. We hope to discuss the possibilities of creating and engaging with new audiences, and the issuesarising from this. We are especially interested in whether the digital age is really allowing cross border perspectives or onlyperpetuating existing national archaeological communities. We also hope to explore issues of audience creation,maintenance or undermining of authority, credibility of authorship, multi-vocality and whether the use of new technologies ischanging how we conceptualise the past and our relationship to archaeological remains. We hope that the session willinclude papers that cover theoretical issues, practical examples and research into the uses of social media in archaeology.

Medieval Europe Research Congress

Baltic Urbanism

Organisers: Mathias Bäck (Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Mitt; Sweden), Erki Russow (Estonia) and Marian Rębkowski



(University of Szczecin; Poland)

Contact: mathias.back[at]raa.se

Urbanisation is the process that create urbanism; the very special way of living constituted by a concentration of people andfunctions in an urban milieu. The session aims to discuss how urbanism is constituted in The Baltic during c. 1000-1400.Urbanism is about patterns of daily life as well as spatial and social ways of organising and using the town. The physicalexpression of the medieval towns around the Baltic Sea during at least the 13-14th century was probably part of a wellknown ideal. The town-plan and the building- tradition was a manifestation of the very special juridical and economicprivileges of the town. At the same time there are archaeological indications of a higher grade of individuality amongmedieval towns. This joint session will involve presentations discussing medieval urban life in towns in present Poland,Finland, Estonia, Gotland and Sweden.

Beyond the Frontiers of Medieval Europe

Organisers: Søren M. Sindbæk (Aarhus University; Denmark) and Sam Nixon (University of East Anglia; UK)

Contact: soren.sindbaek[at]york.ac.uk

Interest in the archaeology of Medieval worlds beyond Europe continues to develop still stronger foundations. As researchdevelops in Africa, the Near East and Asia, cultural dynamics which were once thought specific to Europe gain a new andwider definition. Common patterns of cultural and religious change, material culture and technologies, seafaring, urbanism,trade and colonisation can be defined; these also reflect flows and interactions which are only vaguely identified by writtensources, and which until recently saw only cursory archaeological exploration. Archaeological recognition of a wider"Medieval" world prior to the Early Modern Sea Explorations challenges European self-images as well as the definition of theMiddle Ages. It is an essential challenge for 21st century Medieval archaeology to reexamine developments in a worldperspective: what were the scale, nature and social potential of global interaction, and how did local agency in or beyondEurope articulate with incoming stimuli, incentives and pressure? As well as studies of the European presence beyond thefrontier, this session invites studies wanting to investigate what cultural systems were developing at and beyond thefrontier, and what other "Medieval" systems Medieval Europe was linked to. The session also asks important questions tohelp define ideas of the global medieval world: How exactly is the term "Medieval" relevant for areas of the world beyondEurope? What core research themes should a global Medieval archaeology pursue? How exactly can we developcomparative ideas of Medieval worlds on a global scale? The scope of the session includes any area of the world of AD 500-1500 where Europeans went, which were connected to medieval Europe through larger cultural systems, and where the term"Medieval" is relevant for defining past societies. This includes Africa and the Near East, the moving frontiers of the RussianEast and the Viking North Atlantic, but also the wider worlds of Islam, the Indian Ocean and beyond.

Coastal and Maritime Archaeology of Medieval Europe, c. AD 600-1500: The Dynamics of Liminality and Connectivity

Organisers: Christopher Loveluck (University of Nottingham; UK) and Dries Tys (Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Belgium)

Contact: Christopher.Loveluck[at]nottingham.ac.uk

This session of twelve papers explores the nature of coastal and maritime-oriented societies of medieval Europe, exploringtheir roles as agents of wider social and economic changes, between circa AD 600 and 1500. Geographical coverage extendsfrom the North Atlantic, through the Channel, North and Baltic Seas, to the shores of the Mediterranean. The session formspart of the Medieval Europe Research Congress nucleus. The session explores four main themes, with three papersaddressing each theme:- "Life in the Edge": landscape, place and environment in coastal regions and islands, c. 600-1500. The first group of threepapers focuses on the duality of both the luminal nature of coastal and island societies, often hard to reach and police fromlandward interiors, and also their highly connected nature due to integration within maritime networks. The papers focus onthe nature of activities supporting coastal societies, with their predisposition towards specialist activities and exchange forthe support of most aspects of their lives, from nutritional needs to wider social relations. The theme is explored throughcontributions on the North Atlantic, the Channel/southern North Sea, and the Adriatic Sea.- Ports and maritime networks, c. AD 600-1100. The second group of papers focuses on the circumstances of the emergenceof port hubs and port societies as a consequence of integration within long-distance exchange networks, and trade ofspecialist products and bulk goods. The transformative impact of the emergence of these maritime port societies is alsoemphasized in relation to their hinterland territories. Examples discussed come from the North, Baltic and Adriatic Seas.- Maritime fishing societies, c. AD 800-1500 The third sub-session explores the importance of deep-sea fishing on societiesof Atlantic and northern Europe, from the perspective of zoo-archaeological evidence and excavated assemblages fromislands and fishing seaports from the Viking Age to the Later Middle Ages.- Ports and maritime-oriented societies of the later Middle Ages, 1100-1500. The final group of papers analyse differentaspects of the material culture of maritime-oriented societies of major ports in the later Middle Ages. These include shipsand maritime infrastructure in their wider context; reflections of wealth and civic power derived from sea-based trade and



resource exploitation, in the built environment of ports; and an exploration of the range and social lives of goods inmercantile households. Case study evidence considered covers both northwest Europe and the Mediterranean.

Round Table: Famine, Murrain, and Plague: The 14th Century in Bioarchaeological Perspective

Organisers: Kerstin Pasda (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München; Germany) and Richard Thomas (University ofLeicester; UK)

Contact: kerstinpasda[at]yahoo.de

The 14th century AD was a profoundly tumultuous period in European history. Climatic deterioration in the first quarter ofthe century triggered harvest failures and human famine in a population that had already exceeded the carrying capacity ofagricultural production. Human famine was compounded by the widespread loss of cattle and sheep as epizootics spreadacross the Continent. In many parts of Europe, continuous warfare and the consequential increased burden of taxationfurther stretched agricultural production to breaking point. In the middle of the century the Black Death swept throughEurope killing 30-60% of the population. These calamitous events had profound social and economic repercussions thatresonated far beyond the immediate aftermath of the population crash in the late 1340s and early 1350s. While these topicshave traditionally been explored using documentary evidence, new perspectives on the aftershock are now emerging in thearchaeological record. In England, for example, zooarchaeological evidence has indicated that significant changes in dietaryidentities and agricultural production occurred in the wake of the Black Death (Thomas 2005; 2007). The aim of thisworkshop is to bring European archaeologists together to explore further the short, medium, and long-term social andeconomic impact of these crises across Europe. The primary emphasis will rest on bioarchaeological evidence (e.g. plantremains, pollen, animal bones, stable isotopes, and human skeletal remains). Key questions to be explored will include, butnot be limited to, the impact on: agricultural production, diet and environment.

Life in the City: Environmental and Artefactual Approaches to Urban Europe in the Middle Ages

Organisers: Ben Jervis (English Heritage; UK), Lee Broderick (University of York; UK) and Idoia Grau-Sologestoa (University ofthe Basque Country; Spain)

Contact: lee[at]zooarchaeology.co.uk

Traditional approaches to the study of Medieval urbanism have focused upon the reconstruction of town plans and the studyof trade and craft activity. The wider potential of environmental and artefactual remains has not been fully realised. The aimof this session is to explore the range of insights that detailed study of these remains can provide in exploring, for example:- The levels of similarity and difference between urban and rural living. Did a continuum or a dichotomy emerge througheveryday life in these different environments? How did engagements with objects and the environment contribute to auniquely urban existence?- Did urbanism foster a worldview in which similar material and environmental objects generated different symbolicmeanings?- How did experiences of urban life vary between individuals and households, based, for example, on their wealth, ethnicity,gender or profession?- How did experiences of urban life vary between towns, for example, through the exposure of members of their populationto international influences?- The level of mutual dependence between urban and rural communities. How interdependent were towns and theirhinterlands and cities and their regions (including smaller towns)?- How can artefactual and/or environmental evidence help us understand the social structure of towns and cities?The range of papers in this session will not only allow us to explore these themes using a variety of evidence, but toconsider regional and temporal differences in experiences of urban life across Europe. Papers which combine differentstrands of evidence, to explore the role of artefactual and/or environmental assemblages in answering these questions areparticularly encouraged. By moving beyond the characterisation of urban landscapes, this session will begin to questionwhat it was to be urban in Medieval Europe, whether a single conceptualisation of this phenomenon can be reached, or ifinstead the study of this material leads to an acknowledgement of heterogeneity.

New Directions in Medieval Landscape Archaeology

Organisers: Andrew Reynolds (Institute of Archaeology, London; UK) and Juan Antonio Quiros Castillo (University of theBasque Country; Spain)

Contact: quiros.castillo[at]ehu.es

This session will explore new approaches to studying medieval landscapes in a pan-European setting. It will review current



themes, methods and problems in the context of thinking about new lines of enquiry. Much past work focusses on the studyof agricultural landscapes, and thus papers are invited which challenge current approaches and suggest original and newquestions from thematic perspectives. Potential topics which might be considered include the landscape archaeology of:- Burial and religion: These topics are frequently studied on a site-by-site basis, but what does the wider study of burial inthe landscape reveal about social relationships and perceptions of landscape? What points of contrast and comparison areobservable at a pan-European scale of analysis?- Travel and communication: The movement of human communities forms a central research area, particularly in the so-called "migration period". To what extent is it possible to reconstruct networks of routes in early Medieval Europe? Whatdoes landscape archaeology reveal about journeying as a process and the ways in which travel itself was an intellectualexperience with superstitious and folkloric cues provided by topography and anthropomorphic features?- Governance and power in the landscape: To what extent are emerging structures of governance recoverable from Medievallandscapes? Matters for discussion under this heading might include defense, judicial arrangements and public assemblyamong other topics.- Landscapes of production: To what extent is it possible to reconstruct the nature of agriculture production and the socialsystems which lay behind different modes of production?- Climate and environmental reconstruction: What contributions can medieval landscape archaeology make to understandingpast environments and the factors behind periods of stasis or change?- Scales and modes of analysis: There is considerable range in terms of the scale of analysis of medieval landscapes. Issuesfor consideration might include emerging technologies and analytical approaches. A further major issue is how to overcomeincreasing specialisation within archaeology to achieve a holistic approach to studying medieval landscapes.Papers which cross-cut traditional disciplinary boundaries are encouraged and the overall aims are to provide a criticalassessment of the field as it stands and to map out new intellectual territory for the study of medieval landscapes.

Rural Strategies in the Northern sphere

Organisers: Ulrika Rosendahl (University of Helsinki; Finland), Katalin Schmidt Sabo (Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd; Sweden)and Lena Beronius Jörpeland (Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Mitt; Sweden)

Contact: ulrika.rosendahl[at]helsinki.fi

The last years have seen a huge increase of archaeological knowledge of the medieval rural settlement in the Baltic regionand Scandinavia. Excavations and other archaeological projects have produced a rich and varied archaeological material,which enables new perspectives on the changes that took place in society when Northern Europe became part of thepolitical and religious spheres of Europe. This session aims to gather new research from the studies of settlement,landscapes, subsistence, networks, power and other structures that had an impact on the rural environment and itsdevelopment in this region in the Middle Ages. Simultaneously, we hope that the session will help to broaden the view of themore remote parts of Europe by pointing out both regional differences in the Northern sphere as well as influences andcontacts with other regions.

Symbols and Signs of Belief in Graves at the Transition from Pre-Christian to Christian Times

Organisers: Jörn Staecker (Eberhard-Karls Universität; Germany) and Heiki Valk (University of Tartu; Estonia)

Contact: joern.staecker[at]uni-tuebingen.de

This session discusses reflections of Christianization in the archaeological record of cemeteries. The phenomenon oftransition has attracted research interest in different parts of Europe, but its range has been just that of local or regionalcase studies, and the topic has not yet been discussed on common European level. The aim of the session is to attractresearchers from different parts of Europe to discuss the manifestations of the same phenomenon. Although the changestook place in different times and in different parts of Europe the aim is a holistic, problem-centred approach to the problem -no matter where the source material is located in space or on the chronological time scale. The process of approachingChristianity will be analysed since the first signs of the new religion appeared and until the acceptance of burial practicesthat entirely correspond to the Christian traditions. Different reflections of change in faith will be discussed: grave goods,pre-Christian or Christian symbolism, grave orientation, location and different types of cemeteries. The papers are alsoexpected to shed light on the dichotomies "individual - communal", "private - public", "centre - periphery", as well asecclesiastical attitudes towards transitional phenomena and strategies of Christianization in the sphere of burial rites.Speakers should not neglect social and ethno-cultural aspects of change in faith. The session encourages researchers topresent new materials and to discuss old data from new points of view. The two approaches: 1) "pre-Christian versusChristian" and 2) the syncretism of pre-Christian and Christian traditions in the frameworks of vernacular religion, areexpected to be integrated in the presentations. The organizers hope to attract researchers both from the eastern andwestern parts of Europe.



Utilization of Brick in the Medieval Period - Production, Construction, Destruction

Organisers: Tanja Ratilainen (University of Turku; Finland), Rivo Bernotas (University of Turku; Finland) and ChristoferHerrmann (University of Gdansk; Poland)

Contact: tanrat[at]utu.fi

The session brings together researchers studying brick manufacture, the brick building process, and use and re-use of bricksin the Medieval period. The complete life cycle of brick from acquisition of the raw materials to secondary depositions inarchaeological contexts will be discussed. Particular focus will fall on multidisciplinary approaches; innovativeinterpretations achieved by researchers applying, for instance, the latest digital surveying methods and scientific datingmethods and presenting new insights into written, pictorial or archaeological evidence will be encouraged to participate inthis session. The following aspects relating to the utilization of bricks will be discussed:- Production: How was brick production organized? What was the level of brick makers' knowledge? Use of moulds, stamps,bricklayer's marks? What was the capacity of kilns? What happened to the waste? Where was the production site locatedand how long it was used? Were unfired bricks used as building material?- Construction: To build a house, a church or a wall in brick, how huge an effort was it for the funding institution or privatepatron? How long was the process - taking into consideration fund raising, planning, finding workers and, especially, theactual building works? What can building techniques reveal about the construction process?- Destruction: What happened after the primary use of brick? Under what circumstances were bricks re-used?Considering these questions through a multidisciplinary approach will offer different perspectives with regards theutilization of brick in the medieval period. In addition, for future research projects the session encourages the co-operationand integration of different disciplines.

Where Is the Limit? Exploring Marginality in Medieval Europe

Organisers: Poul Baltzer Heide (Aarhus University; Denmark), Jette Arneborg (Danish National Museum; Denmark) and OrriVésteinsson (Iceland)

Contact: markpbh[at]hum.au.dk

Marginality is a function of life common to all times and places. Today the term has negative connotations, but reality ismore complex, as evidenced by the fact that marginality is frequently desired by particular groups and organizations, e.g.monasteries. In some cases whole regions can be characterized as marginal, such as the North Atlantic isles or the remoteparts of the Alps, but just as often marginality is to be found in the midst of capitals or in rural communities. Marginality canbe social, economic and political as well as geographical. What the marginalized have in common is that they are in one wayor another excluded from and bypassed by the rest of society. Marginalization may not be obvious to those it affects, whocan be oblivious to changes around them and may carry on regardless, but marginality can also be worn on the sleeve, as anidentity justifying and driving responses and behaviours as evidenced e.g. by barbarian interactions with Roman and laterChristian Europe. Seclusion can shelter independent developments in practically every aspect of life, whether art,technology, organization or ideology; aspects that we can sometimes detect in the archaeological record. For this session weinvite researchers dealing with questions of marginality in the whole of Europe, to share their observations, with a particularemphasis on how marginality can be detected in material culture. The organizers hope to bring to light trends anddevelopments that will support the view that the whole cannot be understood without including the margins.

Documents

EAA2012 - Session List