Manuel d'archéologie médiévale et moderne

Burnouf, Joëlle; Arribet-Derouin, Danielle; Desachy, Bruno; Journot, Florence; Nissen-Jaubert, Anne

doi:10.3917/arco.burno.2012.01

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2004, roughly two and a half decades after the birth of the sub-discipline in France, the journal Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie published an issue, edited by Burnouf and Journot, with numerous contributions seeking to theorise a common ground for the archaeological study of the past five centuries (Burnouf & Journot 2004;Trombetta 2004). This unifying project was later continued by the editors elsewhere, as Journot went on to publish a volume dedicated to modern and contemporary archaeology in France (Journot & Bellan 2011) while Burnouf co-edited a Manual of medieval and modern archaeology (Burnouf et al 2012). In 2014, another issue of Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie was dedicated to French modern and contemporary archaeology (Hurard et al 2014), witnessing the growth of the sub-discipline since the start of the 2010s.…”

Section: Origins and Historiographymentioning

confidence: 99%

French historical and contemporary archaeology: a critical assessment

Michaut

2024

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern and contemporary archaeology, the French equivalent of historical archaeology, emerged in the 1970s. Subsequent attempts at theorising this sub-discipline have been hindered by a lack of broad professional recognition and funding. While the archaeology of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries is now more widely recognised in France, studies of the post-nineteenth-century period remain limited to a few specific contexts. Here, the author offers an overview for the Anglophone readers of modern and contemporary archaeology in France and argues that greater theorisation, cross-fertilisation with other archaeological traditions and a diversification of the range of themes considered might enhance recognition of this sub-discipline within and beyond France.

show abstract

Section: Origins and Historiographymentioning

confidence: 99%

French historical and contemporary archaeology: a critical assessment

Michaut

2024

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, this principle, along with the conditions for its application and its exceptions, has been widely accepted in the literature, again both for archaeology in general, in times of peace (Burnouf 2012;Smith 2014) and armed conflict (O'Keefe et al 2016), and for underwater archaeology in particular (Martín Bueno, 2003;Grenier et al 2006;Manders 2012;Khakzad and Van Balen 2012;Maarleveld et al 2013). Interestingly, these scholarly pronouncements have been accompanied by collective scientific discourses, the product of increased interrelation among researchers, as well as their organization into more or less stable international discussion forums.…”

Section: In Situ Preservation As An Archaeological Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

In Situ Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage as an International Legal Principle

Aznar

2018

J Mari Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In situ preservation is not necessarily the best underwater archaeological solution, nor is it legally required in all circumstances. Rather, it is the first and, perhaps, the most technically desirable option, when archaeological, legal, and political circumstances⎯in that order⎯so advise. Otherwise, the removal of the historical object or objects found under the sea and their conservation outside the marine environment is another plausible option, provided the archaeological standards accepted by the international scientific community are met. This paper aims to clarify the legal contours of this rule, as codified by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. To this end, it proposes the following basic hypothesis: in situ preservation, as a current legal principle in underwater archaeological activities, is the first option for the protection of that heritage; because it is an option, this preservation may take a different form depending on the circumstances; nothing legally prevents the removal of remains from the seabed, provided it is done properly and they are appropriately preserved; and, finally, if necessary, this should be done as soon as possible, given the circumstances.

show abstract

Identification and characterisation of Late Neolithic (3600–2150 Cal. BC) living floors in a temperate environment: Case studies from the southern Paris Basin

Onfray¹

2022

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manuel d'archéologie médiévale et moderne

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

French historical and contemporary archaeology: a critical assessment

French historical and contemporary archaeology: a critical assessment

In Situ Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage as an International Legal Principle

Identification and characterisation of Late Neolithic (3600–2150 Cal. BC) living floors in a temperate environment: Case studies from the southern Paris Basin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About