NEARCHing Factory – Review
By Emily C. Arauz, PhD Candidate
Dept. of Archaeology and History of
Art, Graduate School of Social Sciences & Humanities
Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
Upon
exiting the San Martiño Pinario Monastery conference hall on the final day of
the NEARCHing Factory, a fellow attendee made the cursory remark to myself and
a colleague that this will go down in history as one of those conferences where, years hence, everyone will be asking one
another: “Were you at the Nearching
Factory in Santiago de Compostela, January 30th – February 1st,
2017?”
Fortunately,
I was one of the lucky 96 attendees who took part in this unique experience over
the course of two and a half rainy and cold days in the Galicia region of Spain.
The meeting, deemed a ‘factory’, was a public and interactive component of the
NEARCH (New ways of Engaging audiences,
Activating societal relations and Renewing Practices in Cultural Heritage) project[1],
organized in coordination with INCIPIT, CSIC[2],
CYTED, and with support from the European Union, Santiago City Council,
Galician Culture Council, and EMPRENDIA network. According to the website,
NEARCH is a five-year project (2013-2018) conducted by the French National
Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (Inrap) and has established a
cross-European network of 14 partners from 11 countries. The NEARCHing Factory
was a step towards increasing networks and expanding dialogues among
professionals.
With
archaeology at the center of the three-day event, the sessions were organized
with a goal of “creating new scenarios for archaeology […] to re-think the
practice of archaeological activity (i.e. archaeological as a way of life and
of making a living).”[3]
As one of the few in the conference room who could claim to be neither an
archaeologist nor currently working with archaeologists, I provided a counter-view
to the main discourse, often finding myself in disagreement with many of the
hegemonic perspectives propagated by a select few of the core group of NEARCH.
This difference in perspective was also heightened by my own professional
context of Turkey, which seemed incompatible at times with the viewpoints put
forth by those working in the UK, Sweden, or France, among others. Similar to
previous archaeology conferences, a striking dichotomy between northern and
southern (or [south]eastern) Europe was apparent among the perspectives and
case studies presented throughout the sessions. Non-European viewpoints were
represented by participants working in South American contexts who were members
of the parallel session organized by CYTED and conducted in Spanish. This
helped expand the discussions yet, overall, the European perspective remained dominant.
Nevertheless,
the discussions were pushed farther and critical views were more constructive
than at many heritage or archaeology conferences I have attended recently. This
success was certainly a direct result of the organizers’ democratic
sensibilities and desire to expand the notion of what archaeology should and
can be. The structure of the three working days and the additional, complicated
methodology of using post-it notes to establish discussion points were critical
in establishing a participatory framework, supported by an extensive social media presence which expanded the platform and audience.
The
first day of the NEARCHing Factory began semi-traditionally with a key-note but
was followed by a live interview about cities and mapping conducted by a local
Galician journalist with two practitioners working in Cuba and Colombia.
Following the theme of mapping, the afternoon activity was a walking event, for
which participants were divided into small groups and led to different parts of
Santiago in order to brainstorm about the cultural values of the city. As most
conferences tend to imprison their participants, this activity was a welcome addition
to the program as it is important to recognize and experience the cultural
space in which an international conference is held, a particularly critical
aspect for cultural practitioners.
The
second day of the event was a full working day, divided into two segments of
ten parallel sessions – five in the morning and five in the afternoon – with an
additional session conducted in Spanish by CYTED. Each session was given a
lengthy four hours for discussion which served to foster more in-depth
discussions. However, this also limited the number of sessions in which each
attendee was able to participate, an unfortunate consequence of the constrained
time-frame.
The
theme of the sessions varied greatly, ranging from art, professional ethics,
heritage values, sustainability, digital technologies, place-making,
archaeology of the present and for the future, social innovation,
entrepreneurship, education and participation. The structure of each session also
varied and resulted in different outcomes. For instance, the session on
“Heritage & Participative Strategies,” managed by Hayley Roberts from
Bournemouth University, was organized around participants’ short presentations
which fostered topics and diverse case studies for discussion. Contrarily, the
afternoon session on “Heritage Value(s),” began with a presentation on the
history of the topic by the session manager, Dr. Margarita Diaz-Andreu, based
at Barcelona University. This didactic introduction was followed by an impromptu
survey of some of the available local residents regarding the user-determined values
of a popular public park in Santiago. While this participatory aspect put into
practice the topic of discussion, it also highlighted the fact that the concept
of heritage values is itself a structural format imposed on heritage sites and
managers by UNESCO. Hence, the discussions during this afternoon session did
not lead to any new conclusions and did not advance the concept of heritage values;
rather, it served only as a didactic session on what those concepts involved,
how they had evolved and how to put them into practice.
Alternatively,
and to the credit of the manager and the participants, the session on
“Participative Strategies” produced a more productive round of discussions and
arguments. As a result, this dynamic group decided to prepare a working
document on what participation means and guidelines for how it may be
implemented. While the case studies presented by the participants cemented the
understanding that site-sensitive applications of participative strategies was
necessary, and that a gap existed in some cases between archaeology and
heritage practices, the participants of the session nevertheless agreed that
some form of a statement would benefit the wider community. This document is currently
in an early phase of preparation and will be shared at EAA in Maastricht this
fall. It intends to propose a guideline and common language for those already
working on the topic and serve as a form of education for new practitioners.
Other
sessions resulted in a similar diversity of results and conclusions, but no
other group decided to prepare a working document to be presented at EAA. However,
the NEARCH group will be leading a discussion session at EAA, most likely
complete with post-it notes and extensive social media documentation. The
session is titled, Creating new scenarios
for Archaeology: NEARCHing Factory reloaded.[4]
Be sure to attend the session if you are at EAA this year in order to
experience an alternative to the standard EAA sessions and for a more in-depth
overview of the event.
The
final, half-day of the factory was a culmination of the working groups as each
manager gave short, six-slide, six-minute presentations on their sessions’
results. This was followed by a group discussion organized around the final
round of post-it note comments and questions collected during the managers’
presentations. While the post-it note discussion topics were being collated by the
discussion leaders, a final participatory activity was organized: each participant
was asked to give a 40-word response to the NEARCHing Factory experience. The
short version of the video of participants reading their statements is available online.
 |
| NEARCHing Factory Day 3 |
Overall,
despite some critiques on the sessions and the frigid cold of the meeting room,
the NEARCHing Factory was a success. Let us hope that those who were in
attendance in Santiago will bring their energy and collaborative experience to
the European Association of Archaeologists Meeting in Maastricht this fall. While
these smaller and intimate conversations are exciting and useful, nothing will change
on a grander scale unless the audiences in platforms like the EAA, AIA or the
WAC recognize and place value in expanding the critical discourse on
archaeology and heritage. My final ‘post-it note’ on the factory, recommended
that we are clear that “heritage” does not equal
“archaeology”, one term should not be interchanged with the other for
convenience or a particular political agenda. Going forward with this
discussion among professionals and amateurs, a more critical approach to the
language used and concepts explored, as well as attention to the diversity of cases
and practitioners, will help the field and the practice develop in productive
and sustainable directions.
[2] Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas [CSIC] & Instituto
de Ciencias del Patrimonio [INCIPIT] website: http://www.incipit.csic.es/es/Default.aspx
[4] NEARCH session announcement, EAA 2017: https://www.klinkhamergroup.com/eaa2017/sessions/overview/index.php
Comments