Between Rationalism and Romanticism - Archaeological Heritage Management in the 1990s

In this article it is argued that "heritage" both as a theoretical concept and a practice, is central to defining archaeology's role in society. Greater critical attention should therefore be given to this arena of archaeological practice on the part of theoretical archaeology and the heritage administration itself. Since archaeological heritage management is situated between interests in the present, these have to be defined as a first step. Three basic concepts and their role in shaping the development of archaeological heritage management are briefly analysed: the cultural environment, the cultural biography and cultural identity. It is argued that they are part of a development towards a more holistic perception and ideological use of the cultural heritage. This invites political manipulation. To avoid this, certain universal objectives in combination with ethical guidelines are suggested.

Digitisation and Data Management of Archaeological Heritage in Serbia (1991-2020)

In the Republic of Serbia, digitisation of cultural heritage was recognised as a segment of cultural development, while the digitisation process is understood as part of a complex system of managing cultural heritage in institutions of protection, such as museums, institutes for the protection of cultural heritage etc. By focusing on the issue of electronic/digital archaeological heritage management in Serbia's institutes for protection, this article briefly describes the national framework of archaeology in the country and presents some crucial moments in the journey towards digitisation and electronic management of archaeological heritage in Serbia since the 1990s. It also discusses recent efforts by the Ministry of Culture and Information in terms of regulating the procedure of cultural heritage digitisation and establishing a common information system. Finally, it identifies current challenges in archaeological data management in cultural heritage institutions and briefly discusses possible future scenarios.

Towards an Operative Predictive Model for the Songshan Area during the Yangshao Period

The literature in the field of archaeological predictive models has grown in the last years, looking for new factors the most effective methods to introduce. However, where predictive models are used for archaeological heritage management, they could benefit from using a more speedy and consequently useful methods including some well-consolidated factors studied in the literature. In this paper, an operative archaeological predictive model is developed, validated and discussed, in order to test its effectiveness. It is applied to Yangshao period (5000–3000 BC) in the Songshan area, where Chinese civilization emerged and developed, and uses 563 known settlement sites. The satisfactory results herein achieved clearly suggest that the model herein proposed can be reliably used to predict the geographical location of unknown settlements.

A Tricky Subject – archaeology in opinion polls on cultural heritage. Recent examples from Poland

Understanding the public by analysing the wants, interests and expectations regarding their involvement in archaeology is one of the strategic aims of Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC). Cultural heritage has been the topic of several public opinion polls in Poland over the past few years. In 2011 and 2015, the Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa (National Institute of Cultural Heritage) carried out two representative surveys. Subsequent polls focusing on more specific issues or groups of respondents were undertaken in 2015, 2017 and 2018. Other data from Poland come from the 2017 Special Eurobarometer survey on cultural heritage. They can be contrasted with archaeology-orientated opinion polls: a Europe-wide survey carried out within the NEARCH project led by Inrap (French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research) and several smaller-scale projects, which might be treated as starting points for more representative research. The scope of these surveys includes: public perception of cultural heritage and archaeology, subjective value of cultural heritage, attitudes towards archaeology, relevance of archaeology for the present (also in terms of the socio-economic potential of archaeological heritage), people's interaction with archaeology and archaeological heritage, sources of information about archaeological heritage etc. Comparison of these data will serve to establish the relevance of surveys for archaeological heritage management. The author will also examine if the specific nature of archaeological heritage is reflected in the surveys and how the public feels about its most hidden heritage. Based on the results of her analysis, the author will look at the desired scope of a survey aimed at filling the identified gaps and shaped to fit the needs of evidence-based archaeological heritage management.

Contested Heritage: Relations between contemporary Pagan groups and the archaeological and heritage professions in Britain in the early 21st century

This book examines a tense time in archaeological heritage management. Contemporary Pagan groups were actively contesting ancient sites and campaigning for human corporeal remains to be reburied. This book draws on ethnographic field research conducted by the author between 2008 and 2013 to analyse the contestation from both Pagan and heritage management perspectives.

Archaeological heritage management of the Prehistoric Art Museum of Mação, Portugal

The current article aims to explore the management of archaeological resources in the valleys of Tejo and Ocreza rivers, Portugal, based on research, communication, and education experiences developed at Tejo Valley Prehistoric and Sacred Art Museum, Mação County, Portugal. The article gives temporal emphasis on recent years, in the 21st century, when the museum was given this name and fully restructured. First, it addresses the strategies and theoretical guidelines adopted to run the museum. Subsequently, it describes research, post-graduate studies, communication, and other educational experiences. Finally, it performs an overall assessment and suggests future paths for the management of heritage assets, mainly in museological institutions.