Review of Decolonisation , heritage and the field , London 26 – 27 January 2018

Closing Comment We would like to thank the respondents to our paper for their contributions to the unfolding debate over Brexit and its relationship to archaeology and heritage. These essays reflect in diverse ways the complex intersection of the scholarly, the political and the personal that has perhaps always been with us, and increasingly commented upon, but which Brexit has b ought to a moment of crisis from which we can only hope a positive outcome is still salvageable. Since writing the initial paper for this Forum in July of 2017, events have moved forward in several ways, although ironically in terms of the actual process of exiting the EU remarkably little has happened. More and more evidence is certainly emerging of the social and economic problems that this process, should it reach conclusion, will cause, whether in UK generally, in the rest of Europe (particularly in Ireland; e.g. House of Lords 2016; The UK in a Changing Europe 2017), or in our particular sector (Schlanger 2017). More disturbingly, perhaps, the tone of debate represented in some media outlets has darkened even further and universities in particular have come under attack as bastions of ‘remainerism’. Just prior to writing this piece, the Conservative politician Chris Heaton-Harris MP was in the news for seeking information about the teaching of Brexit-related issues in all UK universities (BBC 2017a). Whatever the motivation behind this, the front cover of the Daily Mail on October 26th (headline, ‘Our Remainer Universities’) followed up on this story, and made it clear that for some on the pro-Leave right-wing, universities are now a major target for political attack. This can be seen as part of a wider trend, pre-dating the referendum and becoming widespread across the western world (and certainly in the US), of right-wing populists painting universities – and, by extension, academic and scientific knowledge – as simultaneously liberal/left-biased and elitist (cf. Runciman 2016). Meanwhile, these same populist movements appear to be, literally, on the march, from Charlottesville in August (BBC UCL Institute of Archaeology, GB Corresponding author: Andrew Gardner (andrew.gardner@ucl.ac.uk) FORUM


Iida Käyhkö
'Decolonisation' can be understood either as the historical process during which colonies gained independence and their subsequent nation-building projects or, drawing from postcolonial theory, as the undoing of colonial power structures in society and in academic research.This definitional split marks a fundamental difference: the former sees a definitive endpoint to the decolonisation process, while the latter perceives it as a continued effort and responsibility.At the Heritage, Decolonisation and the Field conference, organised jointly by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Heritage Priority Area (based in the UCL Institute of Archaeology) and the German Historical Institute in London on 26th and 27th January 2018, this divide could be clearly seen.While all the papers provided insight into the development of the heritage field in an international context of decolonisation, many did not explicitly engage with the latter definition -the decolonisation of heritage practice itself.This is perhaps surprising, considering the intensity of debate on the topic of postcolonial decolonisation processes both in academic communities and in public discourse in recent years.
Despite this rift between approaches, all the papers presented at the conference provided timely and critical insight to the development of heritage practices in a world that presents significant contemporary challenges -environmental, political and social -to heritage sites and governance.Overarching themes included the relationship between colony and metropole, the processes of nation-building and the creation of a global system of heritage governance.The conference was well attended and discussion sessions made it clear that many among the audience evidently held a keen interest in the more theoretical aspects of decolonisation.

Closing Comment
We would like to thank to our paper for their con unfolding debate over Bre tionship to archaeology an essays reflect in diverse w intersection of the scholarly the personal that has perh with us, and increasingly co but which Brexit has brough crisis from which we can on outcome is still salvageable.initial paper for this Forum events have moved forward although ironically in terms cess of exiting the EU rem happened.More and more tainly emerging of the soci problems that this process conclusion, will cause, whe erally, in the rest of Europ Ireland; e.g.House of Lords The keynote address, given by Daniel J. Sherman (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), presented a view of 'colonising the field' as a process linking archaeological research with the establishment of French colonial power in 20thcentury Tunisia.Applying Bourdieu's (1984) observations of the scientific field both to a physical landscape and an emerging discipline, Sherman showed colonial domination to be formed of a web of contested reasons, including interpersonal competition, scientific advancement and political goals.The paper provided a comprehensive background to many of the topics covered during the conference as the role of Western knowledge production in building colonial power was to be a recurring theme throughout.In the opening session, Knowledge Practices, Marie Huber (Humboldt University of Berlin) presented a paper on UNESCO and Ethiopian heritage governance and Mark Thurner (Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London) discussed heritage networks in the Latin American context.Both papers gave interesting and broad overviews of the development of heritage governance in two different decolonising contexts.In the following Museums session, all three speakers emphasised the role of museums as spaces of power, able to shape national narratives of the past -but also as institutions of alternately waxing and waning value in the eyes of the state and of wider society.Nation-building projects at two different museums were outlined: Sarah K. Griswold (New York University) focused on the role of the Louvre in defining France's role as a cultural power after the end of its colonial project, and Tânia Madureira (University Institute of Lisbon) traced the journey of the National Museum of Ethnology in Mozambique from promoting a colonial salvage agenda to post-independence attempts to consolidate national identity.In a fascinating paper, and the first to characterise decolonisation as a contemporary agenda instead of merely a historical process, Claire Wintle (University of Brighton) addressed the complicated and often collaborative relationship between British museums and former colonies, which gave a space for the political elites of decolonising nations to put forward their views on their newly independent nations.In the next session, Archives, Fabienne Chamelot (University of Portsmouth) and Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharp (Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge) similarly focused on the elevation of Western and colonial expertise as 'apolitical' and the persistence of colonial heritage legacies in decolonising nations.Katja Müller (Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) highlighted the role of archives as agents in cultural production through limiting or allowing access to archival resources.Müller's compelling paper argued that the internet may be seen as an avenue for breaking existing power structures in heritage access and governance.In India, legislation requiring the digitisation of archival material has recently transformed the relationship between the public and colonial archives, while the emergence of 'guerrilla' archiving -digital community archiveshas further contributed to decolonising and democratising archives.The final session of the first day, Decolonising Practice, directly tackled many of the theoretical points alluded to by earlier papers, taking a more political approach to decolonisation and to contemporary debate.This session resulted in lively discussion, with many among the audience expressing interest and further insights over the theoretical approaches put forward in the papers.The papers presented made several incisive observations on the state of heritage studies as a whole, and served to illuminate problems in contemporary heritage governance.Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann (Hampshire College) presented Autoarchaeology as a decolonising archaeological heritage practice, outlining a community archaeology project on the coast of Ghana at Osu/Christianborg Castle.A research project focuses on descendant archaeology, which Engmann calls autoarchaeology -an archaeology of the self and one's own past.As proposed by Engmann, autoarchaeology aims to connect communities to their difficult pasts and challenges Western heritage orthodoxy, dismantling the binary between the researcher and the researched and emphasising the partial and subjective nature of knowledge itself.Similarly, Dean Sully (UCL Institute of Archaeology) argued for a guest-host model in heritage and conservation practice, in which researchers see themselves as guests while research subjects are given the authority of hosts.Sully suggested a 'peoplesbased' model for conservation which prioritises the needs of contemporary local or descendant communities.In colonial contexts, this requires active self-reflection on part of researchers.As an example of the ways in which this process can be initiated (and possibly to provide some comic relief) Sully referred to himself as 'a blockage in the pipeline', explaining that as a white man at risk of inadvertently perpetuating colonial and masculine power structures within academia, reflexivity is key to his work.

Closing Comment
We would like to thank to our paper for their con unfolding debate over Bre tionship to archaeology an essays reflect in diverse w intersection of the scholarly the personal that has perh with us, and increasingly co but which Brexit has brough crisis from which we can on outcome is still salvageable.initial paper for this Forum events have moved forward although ironically in terms cess of exiting the EU rem happened.More and more tainly emerging of the soci problems that this process conclusion, will cause, whe erally, in the rest of Europ Ireland; e.g.House of Lords UCL Institute of Archaeology, Corresponding author: Andrew (andrew.gardner@ucl.ac.uk)

Andrew Gardner and
This short report repres Archaeology and Heritag Keywords: Archaeology; B Jessica Namakkal (Duke University) presented a paper on removing and renaming monuments.Drawing from recent political campaigns focused on dismantling statues, such as #RhodesMustFall in Cape Town and Oxford and the movement seeking to bring down Confederate statues in Southern states of the United States, Namakkal questioned the purpose of heritage conservation.As Namakkal noted, statues commemorating and honouring Cecil Rhodes or Robert E. Lee create specific historical narratives: these statues are often not intended to preserve the past, but to obscure aspects of it through the promotion of specific narratives.Namakkal's paper provided a timely and passionate call for all heritage professionals to engage in these debates and to develop moral standpoints, reminding the conference that not all heritage sites must be preserved.The final session, Nation/State/Globe centred the role of heritage in nation-building.Nicodemus Fru Awasom (University of Swaziland) and Emmanuel Yenkong Sobseh (University of Bamenda) both focused on the memorialisation and governance of heritage in Cameroon as attempts to unify a divided nation.Amal Sachedina (George Washington University) similarly demonstrated how heritage has been used to construct national unity in Oman.Walter Rossa and Miguel Bandeira Jerónimo (University of Coimbra) examined architectural and heritage aspects of Portuguese colonial landscapes with a novel multidisciplinary approach.The ending keynote presentation was given by Sudeshna Guha (Shiv Nadar University), drawing together several threads from the conference presentations.Focusing on the responsibilities of archaeologists, curators and archivists in heritage-making, Guha extended the reach of the decolonisation process -from decolonising heritage to decolonising the mind, raising the question of what this mental decolonising entails.The creation of an expert-centric field of heritage governance is a political agenda itself; further consideration of power, ethics and agency in heritage-making is needed.
More consideration of the ethical questions highlighted by Guha would have been welcome throughout the conference.While the presented research on developments in heritage governance is certainly crucial to better understanding the role of archaeology and heritage in decolonisation and nation-building processes, the most engaging sessions -for myself and, judging by the lively debate, for many among the attendees -stressed the importance of decolonising the theory and Gardner Agenda https://

Closing Comment
We would like to thank to our paper for their con unfolding debate over Bre tionship to archaeology an essays reflect in diverse w intersection of the scholarly the personal that has perh with us, and increasingly co but which Brexit has brough crisis from which we can on outcome is still salvageable.initial paper for this Forum events have moved forward although ironically in terms cess of exiting the EU rem happened.More and more tainly emerging of the soci problems that this process conclusion, will cause, whe erally, in the rest of Europ Ireland; e.g.House of Lords Decolonisation can either be understood as a historical process leading to the establishment of an independent nation; or it can be viewed, as expressed by Claire Wintle, as an ongoing process that continues to dismantle Western scientific orthodoxies.Research that challenges current methodology within heritage studies is necessary in order to relate research to precisely the contemporary debates highlighted in Namakkal's and Sully's papers.The conference demonstrated the necessity of developing an engaged, challenging and committed discourse on the meaning of decolonisation within academic archaeology and heritage studies.Without doing so, research on heritage, decolonisation and the field risks remaining peripheral to ongoing debates at best, or unquestioningly perpetuating accepted heritage orthodoxy at worst.
practice of archaeology and heritage.It is notable that most papers were presented by Western academics working in non-Western contexts.As noted by both Sully and Engmann, this specific researcher-researched relationship must be considered when conducting research.