Raimund Karl

Picture This! Community-Led Production of Alternative Views of the Heritage of Gwynedd

Abstract The digital camera has become ubiquitous. Every mobile phone has one built in, almost everyone has a mobile phone, and people use them constantly for all kinds of things, including taking pictures. In a new collaborative project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Bangor, Aberystwyth and Manchester Metropolitan Universities have teamed up with Gwynedd Archaeological Trust to develop tools to allow communities to picture their heritage and upload the images to an automated photogrammetry server to create metrical 3D models of the sites and objects they are recording. The data created will then feed into the local Historic Environment Record, providing a valuable tool for monitoring changes to heritage sites, while providing communities with added information and alternative views of their heritage. This paper is not intended to provide a formal research design or a fully developed prototype. Rather, it is intended to outline an experimental and collaborative approach that is situated as both practice and research, with neither enterprise being privileged over the other. The activities outlined here will be developed and evaluated over the next year and a half, after which we will report on whether or how the contingent aims and outcomes expressed were realized.

Alternative Representations of 3D-Reconstructed Heritage Data

By collecting images of heritage assets from members of the public and processing them to create 3D-reconstructed models, the HeritageTogether project has accomplished the digital recording of nearly 80 sites across Wales, UK. A large amount of data has been collected and produced in the form of photographs, 3D models, maps, condition reports, and more. Here we discuss some of the different methods used to realize the potential of this data in different formats and for different purposes. The data are explored in both virtual and tangible settings, and—with the use of a touch table—a combination of both. We examine some alternative representations of this community-produced heritage data for educational, research, and public engagement applications.

More tales from heritage hell: Law, policy and practice of archaeological heritage protection in Austria

Abstract The Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (heritage protection law) aims to give total protection to all archaeological heritage. To achieve this, it takes a ‘finds-centred’ approach: chance finds are protected by some provisions in the law, searching for archaeology is restricted severely, and exclusively to archaeology graduates, by others. Yet, what has been completely forgotten is that most archaeology, and particularly the most threatened archaeology, is the one that has neither been found yet nor is being searched for. The reasons for why this approach was taken are both historical and rooted in archaeological prejudices and self-interest. The law was first passed in 1923 and has since only been revised in ways that served to give archaeologists greater legal control (or in other words, ownership) over what is archaeology and what should happen to it. Yet, significant changes to the way farming, forestry and development works in the contemporary world were completely missed, and no serious attempts made to identify where archaeology might be actually threatened. In this paper, I examine how the Austrian archaeological heritage hell came to be and what lessons can be learnt from it.

Archaeological Responses to 5 Decades of Metal Detecting in Austria

Abstract Since metal detecting started in Austria in 1970, the National Heritage Agency (BDA) has focussed too much on prohibiting metal detecting. The strategy chosen, increasingly restrictive legislation, has turned out to be a failure. Rather than improving the protection of archaeological heritage from ‚unauthorised‘ metal detecting, the ‚hobby‘ has grown steadily. Yet, the changes to the law have made protecting archaeology more difficult and are restricting civil liberties, quite possibly making the law itself illegal. Five decades on, Austrian archaeology isn‘t better off, but considerably worse, and it is mainly our attempts to prevent metal detecting that are to blame.

Digging Up the Past in Gwynedd: Heritage Research Tourism in Wales

While volunteering is quite popular in the UK already it is not so common in other parts of the world, with the result that many tourists are interested in spending their holiday in the UK as a team member of an archaeological fieldwork project. In this chapter Moller and Karl look at voluntourism in archaeology and provide a summary of heritage research tourism in Wales. Projects which offer opportunities for the public to participate in archaeological research are introduced as case studies and used to examine the role of volunteers who are not only interested in spending their free time visiting heritage sites or museums, but are actually looking for opportunities to take part in hands-on research, in many cases even paying for the privilege.

Crowd-Sourced Digitisation of Cultural Heritage Assets

With the rise of digital content and web-based technologies, archaeologists and heritage organisations are increasingly striving to produce digital records of archaeology and heritage sites. The large numbers and geographical spread of these sites means that it would be too time-consuming for any one team to survey them. To meet this challenge, the Heritage Together project has developed a web platform through which members of the public can upload their own photographs of heritage assets to be processed into 3D models using an automated photogrammetry work flow. The web platform is part of a larger project which aims to capture, create and archive digital heritage assets in conjunction with local communities in Wales, UK, with a focus on megalithic monuments. Heritage Together is a digital community and community-built archive of heritage data, developed to inspire local communities to learn more about their heritage and to help to preserve it.

Holy Cow! Hawks, Wolves, Sheep and the Archaeological Animal Farm

Andersen, M. and Nielsen, P.O., eds., 2010. Danefæ: Skatte fra den danske muld. København: Nationalmuseet og Gyldendal. Bland, R., 2005. A pragmatic approach to the problem of portable antiquities: the experience of England and Wales. Antiquity, 79, 440–447. Bland, R., 2009. The development and future of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme. In: S. Thomas and P. Stone, eds. Metal detecting and archaeology. Ipswich: Boydell Press, 63–85. Fabech, C. and Näsman, U., 2012. Metallsökning inom uppdragsarkeologin: en angelägen discussion. Fornvännen, 107 (3), 203–206. Fincham, D., 2008. A coordinated legal and policy approach to undiscovered antiquities: adapting the cultural heritage policy of England and Wales to other nations of origin. International Journal of Cultural Property, 15 (3), 347–370. Jacobsen, K., ed., 2013. Slagene på Re. Tolvsrød: Orage Forlag. Omland, A., 2011. Ambivalent praktisering avstatlig eierskap i arkeologiske gjenstander. Nordisk museologi, (2), 19–47. Östergren, M. 2013. Metallsökning inom uppdragsarkeologi och vetenskaplig forskning. Fornvännen, 108 (1), 53–57. Ravn, M., 2014. Forvaltningsmessige utfordringer ved tilvekst og metallsøkerfunn. Unpublished presentation [online]. Available from: http:// www.khm.uio.no/tema/fagomradene/arkeologi/ ployejord-som-kontekst/02_mads-ravn_tilvekstproblematikk-ved-khm.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2014]. Svensson, H., 2012. Lär av Danmarks metallsökarerfarenheter. Fornvännen, 107 (3), 207–212. Thomas, S. and Stone, P., eds., 2009.Metal Detecting and Archaeology. Ipswich: Boydell Press. HOLY COW! HAWKS, WOLVES, SHEEP AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANIMAL FARM

Judgement Day in Heritage Hell: Heritage Practice, Policy, and the Law in Austria (and Beyond)

Abstract Two recent higher court findings from Austria show how the Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of § 11 (1) Austrian Monument Protection Law. While the BDA has maintained for decades that consent is required under § 11 (1) for any fieldwork, even surface surveys, regardless of whether archaeology is known, legal challenge has established that neither is the case. Rather, it appears that consent under § 11 (1) is only required where there is evidence that significant archaeology will be found during the fieldwork. Furthermore, § 11 (1) only applies to sub-surface fieldwork or under-water evidence. As a consequence, as many as c.10,000 permits may have been granted illegally, with potentially costly conditions attached. This paper examines the court findings, their consequences for Austrian archaeological heritage management, the reasons why the BDA misinterpreted the law and reflects on the wider implications.

The Freedom of Archaeological Research: Archaeological Heritage Protection and Civil Rights in Austria (and Beyond)

Archaeologists like to think that heritage protection laws serve the purpose of protecting all archaeology from damage. Thus, provisions like that of §11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz or Art. 3 i-ii of the Valletta Convention are interpreted as a blanket ban on archaeological fieldwork ‘unauthorized’ by national heritage agencies, and a general prohibition against archaeological field research by non-professionals. The Austrian National Heritage Agency, the Bundesdenkmalamt, interprets the Austrian law in this way. Using the Austrian example as a case study, this paper demonstrates that this interpretation must be wrong, since, if it were true, it would revoke a fundamental civil right enshrined both in the Austrian constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: the unconditional freedom of research, which applies to archaeological field research as to any other kind of academic research, and extends equally to every citizen.

Wir stehen drauf! Österreich, die Faro-Konvention und archäologische Bürgerbeteiligung

Osterreich hat am 23. Jan. 2015 die Faro-Konvention ratifiziert (CoE, 2005). Damit steht die osterreichische Archaologie vor einer grundlegend veranderten Situation: Signatarstaaten verpflichten sich, jeden Menschen zu ermutigen, am Prozess der Bestimmung, Erforschung, Deutung, des Schutzes, der Bewahrung und der Darstellung des Kulturerbes teilzunehmen. Die bisher in Osterreich gelebte facharchaologische Politik, interessierte Burgerlnnen von archaologischen Prozessen weitgehend auszuschliesen, wird damit durch internationale Verpflichtungen, welche die Republik Osterreich eingegangen ist, unmoglich gemacht: Auch die Facharchaologie, die ja (wenigstens angeblich) im offentlichen Interesse handelt, wird dadurch verpflichtet, Burgerbeteiligung an archaologischen Tatigkeiten zu ermoglichen. Um vorausschauend und nachhaltig auf diese veranderte Situation zu reagieren, wurde im Januar 2015 - mit Unterstutzung des osterreichischen Bundesdenkmalamtes und anderer archaologischer Organisationen - der Verein ArchaeoPublica gegrundet, der Moglichkeiten zur archaologischen Burgerbeteiligung schaffen bzw. interessierte Burgerlnnen mit an Kooperation interessierten Archaologlnnen vernetzen soll. Erste bedeutende Schritte dazu werden bereits gesetzt; so wird beispielsweise derzeit intensiv daran gearbeitet, eine osterreichweite Parteienstellung fur zivilgesellschaftliche Kulturguterschutzvereine in UVP-Verfahren zu erreichen. Die meisten Osterreicherlnnen „stehen“ auf Archaologie, darum versuchen wir sie nun auch gemeinsam zu schutzen.