*NOTICE: DUE TO THE UNCERTAINTIES CAUSED BY THE ONGOING COVID CRISIS, THE DATE OF THE EVENT HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK AGAIN TO SEPTEMBER 18-19, 2021, AND THE HOSTING CITY BEEN MOVED TO DELPHI.
Thank you for understanding. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Organising Committee.
To promote mutual interest in cultural and environmental issues on a global scale, the University of the Aegean, Greece and Henan University, China as part of an MOU agreement since 2017 and 2019, are announcing the SECOND jointly organized conference on Global issues of Environment & Culture.
The Sino-Hellenic International Conference is a series of international conferences hosted in Kaifeng and Rhodes alternatively. On 30th June 2019, the 1st Conference was held in Kaifeng, Henan University, to inaugurate the newly established Research Centre for Hellenic Civilisation. The 1st Sino-Hellenic International Conference in Kaifeng was organised by the Collaborative Innovation Center on Yellow River Civilization & Key Research Institute of Yellow River Civilization (Prof. Miao Changhong) and Sustainable Development, and the University of the Aegean (Prof. Ioannis Liritzis).
The 2nd International Conference on Global Issues of Environment & Culture
The 2nd SHIC on Global Issues of Environment & Culture will take place in Delphi, Greece, on the 18-19th of September 2021. The conference welcomes contribution on any topics related to the environment and cultures globally.
Proposed themes can be a trade networks across Eurasia, comparative research, including periods from prehistory to the 15th century AD. Mainly we welcome experts on cultures from all over the world.
Abstract Deadline Submission date : Sunday 21st of February, 2021.
Decision Date (acceptance, revision, rejection): Sunday 7th of March 2021
We welcome abstracts from a broad range of subjects. Prospective participants may submit proposals related to any of these themes or other ones too.
For any questions please feel free to contact us.
Archaeology & Archaeometry
Archaeological science – Archaeometry
Silk Road (Maritime & Land): Operational Sequences of Artefacts & Diffusion of Ideas
Environmental Evidence of Human Migration
Skyscape Impact on Cultural Development
Cultural Geography & Geosciences
Sacred landscapes & Religious Aspects
Predictive Modelling of Αrchaeological Sites
Climate Change & Ancient Culture
New technologies & Sustainability
Cultural Management, Innovation Technologies, Sustainability
Quantitative approaches in archaeoenvironmental modelling
Conservation of Monuments and Works of Art and Environmental Factors
Society & Environment
Environmental-Cultural reports from European and Asian Ancient Sources
Intangible Cultural Heritage Inspired by the Environment
Enviro-cultural Reports from Ancient Literature Sources
* The best presentations are to be published as a book indexed in SCOPUS
Organised jointly by:
Research Center for Hellenic Civilization
Collaborative Innovation Center for Yellow River Civilization
Key Institute for Yellow River Civilization & Sustainable Development School of Environment & Planning
International Research Center for Ancient Civilizations
Officially Endorsed by:
'Manolis Andronikos' Interdisciplinary Centre for Archaeological Studies
Venue & Registration
VENUE: DELPHI, 18th and 19th of September 2021
150 Euro*: Includes conference material, logistics, optico-acoustical service, lecture room, abstract book, two light lunches, four coffee breaks, welcome buffet, museum entrance, local transport.
50 Euro: For those unable to be present but wish to attend online and will be able to participate through videoconferencing. This includes a (digital) abstract book.
*In case of unexpected cancelation due to coronavirus, the presentation can be given online. Fees will be refunded, retaining only the 50 Euros fee.
The Scientific Committee
- Dr. Bassiakos, Yannis (Emer. Research Director, National Center for Scientific Research, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”)
- Dr. Cai Shuhui (IGG-CAS)
- Dr. Dimitriadis, George (Instituto Terra e Memoria & CGEO-Centre of Geoscience, Group of Quaternary and Prehistory, University of Coimbra, and OBSERVARE – Dept. Geopolitics and International Relations UAL- Autonomous University of Lisbon, Portugal)
- Prof. Efstratiou, Nikolas (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dept. of History & Archaeology, Greece)
- Prof. Evelpidou, Niki (Dept. of Geology and Geoenvironment, University of Athens)
- Prof. Guerci, Antonio (Cattedra UNESCO “Antropologia della Salute e Sistemi di Cura, Università degli Studi di Genova, Italy)
- Prof. Hatzopoulos, John (Emeritus Prof. Dept. of Environment, Uni. of Aegean, Greece)
- Prof. Hou Weidong (Henan University, College of History & Archaeology)
- Prof. Iliopoulos, Ioannis (Uni. of Patras, Dept. of Geology, Greece)
- Prof. Kassianidou, Vasiliki (University of Cyprus, Department of History and Archaeology)
- Prof. Kidder, Tristam R. (Anthropology and Environmental Studies, Washington University in St. Louis, USA)
- Prof. Korka, Eleni (Honorary Ephor of Dept. of Antiquities, Ministry of Culture, Greece, Director of Blue Shield UNESCO Branch, Greece)
- Prof. Liritzis, Ioannis (Archaeometry, co-Coordinator of SHAP)
- Prof. Miao Changhong (Henan University, School of Environment & Planning)
- Prof. Maggidis, Christofilis (Mycenaean Foundation, Greece & Dickinson College, USA)
- Prof. Oosterbeek, Luiz (Instituto Terra e Memoria, UNESCO Chairholder in Humanities and Cultural Integrated Landscape)
- Prof. Papatheodorou, George (Uni. of Patras, Dept. of Geology, Greece)
- Prof. Vitsilaki, Chryssi (Rector, University of the Aegean, Greece)
- Prof. Sarris, Apostolos (University of Cyprus, Chair “Sylvia Ioannou Foundation” for Digital Humanities
- Dr. Sakellariou, Dimitris (National Center for Marine Research, Athens, Marine Geologist)
- Prof. Seglie, Dario (CeSMAP & Department of Museology, University of Turin, Italy)
- Prof. Stefanakis, Manolis (University of the Aegean, Archaeology)
- Prof. Voutsaki, Sofia (Associate Professor of Greek Prehistory and Theoretical Archaeology (University of Groningen)
- Prof. Tsokas, Gregory (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dept. of Geology, Greece)
- Prof. Wang Wei (CASS, Henan University, Archaeology)
- Prof. Wei Jiyin (Henan University, College of History & Archaeology)
- Prof. Zacharias, Nikolaos (Uni. of Peloponnese, Dept. of History, Archaeology & Management of Cultural Resources, Greece)
- Prof. Zerefos, Christos (Academy of Athens, Academician)
- Prof. Zhang Lidong (Henan University, College of History & Archaeology)
- Prof. Zouros, Nikos (University of the Aegean, Dept. of Geography)
The Scientific Advisory Committee
- Prof. Niki Evelpidou (Dept. of Geology and Geoenvironment, University of Athens, Greece)
- Prof. Changhong Miao (Henan University, School of Environment & Planning, China)
- Prof. Zhang Lidong (Henan University, College of History & Archaeology, China)
- Dr. Elena Korka (Honorary Ephor of Dept. of Antiquities, Ministry of Culture, Greece, Director of Blue Shield UNESCO Branch, Greece)
- Prof. Christofilis Maggidis (Mycenaean Foundation, Greece & Dickinson College, USA)
- Prof. Gregory Tsokas (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dept. of Geology, Greece)
- Dr. George Dimitriadis (Instituto Terra e Memoria & CGEO-Centre of Geoscience, Group of Quaternary and Prehistory, University of Coimbra and OBSERVARE – Dept. Geopolitics and International Relations UAL – Autonomous University of Lisbon, Portugal
Proposals for holding and organising Sessions (minimum 5 presentations) on the topics outlined above are most welcome and encouraged.
For additional information please contact:
Session 1: RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST AT VERGINA-AEGAE
Organisers: Prof. Gregorios Tsokas (Lab. of Geophysics, Geology Dept. Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki) (firstname.lastname@example.org); Prof. (Emeritus) Chr. Paliadeli Saatsoglou (Dept. of Archaeology, Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki)
Vergina is best known as the site of ancient Aigai (Αἰγαί, Aigaí, Latinized: Aegae), the first capital of Macedon. It was there when in 336 BC Philip II was assassinated in the theatre and Alexander the Great was proclaimed king. The ancient site was discovered in 1976 and excavated under the leadership of archaeologist late prof. Manolis Andronikos. The excavation unearthed the burial sites of many kings of Macedon, including the tomb of Philip II, father of Alexander the Great, which, unlike so many other tombs, had not been disturbed or looted. It is also the site of an extensive royal palace. The archaeological museum of Vergina was built to house all the artifacts found at the site and is one of the most important museums in Greece. Aigai has been awarded UNESCO World Heritage Site status as “an exceptional testimony to a significant development in European civilization, at the transition from classical city-state to the imperial structure of the Hellenistic and Roman periods”. The royal palace and the area compose an integrated set where archaeology, cultural heritage and environment are combined
Presentations are welcome concerning the research and applications on the archaeological site of Vergina and the associated proximal Macedonian environment on: Archaeology & Archaeometry, Archaeological Prospection, Geoarchaeological Issues, Sacred landscapes & religious aspects, Predictive Modelling of archaeological sites, Cultural Management, Innovation Technologies, Sustainability, 3D reconstructions, Society & Environment.
Keywords: sculptures, environmental archaeology, pigment, painting, tomb, artifacts, monuments, sustainability
Session 2: GEO-ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLOBAL PARKS AS OPEN SOCIAL-ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL REVOLUTION
Theme Unity: Society & Environment
Sub-theme: Geoarchaeological Parks
Organizers are convinced, after the AAI Congress, Genoa 2005 and the two sessions organized jointly at the UISPP-WS19 & WS20, Portugal 2006 and at the IFRAO Congress, Brazil 2009 that museology and museography should be sciences dedicated to the survival of the spiritual heritage of humanity. Today the trend of protection and conservation strategies is decidedly close to a global approach that takes into account all the archaeological evidence (including rock art sites), geological, anthropological and ethnological evidence present in an open-air museum. This is why the promoters of the session have long wanted to explore how the new concept of geoarchaeological global park as a social glue is sustainable in an open socio-environmental system and how it adapts to the era of the digital revolution too. Our motivations consider geoarcheological global parks as sites where the presence of geological and anthropo-archaeological elements coexist or are integrated between them in the same area. On the other hand, we define the presence of human communities within the park area as an open socio-environmental system. What is the perception of the community of geo-archaeological global problems? What is the relationship between archaeological landscapes like adjacent landscapes, humanized by the local communities and the problems of such interaction? How is the concept of anthropo-geoarchaeology transformed into a digital way?
The Geopark concept was introduced at late 90’s aiming to protect and promote Earth heritage sites through the sustainable local development of territories containing abiotic nature of significant value. The Global Geoparks Network (GGN) established in 2004 operates as an international platform of cooperation among Geoparks around the world. The 38th UNESCO General Conference (November 2015) ratified the statutes of the new International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme and the UNESCO Global Geoparks Operational Guidelines, introducing the brand UNESCO Global Geopark as a label of excellence for areas that meet the criteria set by the above mentioned guidelines. In doing so, it has legally endorsed the new UNESCO label of “UNESCO Global Geopark”. In 2020 there are 161 UNESCO Global Geoparks in 44 countries working to protect Geological heritage and promote local sustainable development. The UNESCO Global Geopark branding could strongly contribute to raising Earth Heritage sites visibility in the world and in high-quality public outreach on sustainable development linked to issues on geodiversity, the environment, geohazards, climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources.
Participants should address the issue of inter-institutional cooperation around the world for a search for appropriate ways to document and incite the aesthetic, technical, ecological, cultural, sustainable and touristic interest of local citizens and general visitors, and for the achievement of converging objectives of conservation, education, research, appreciation and socio-economic enhancement. Study-cases will be strongly welcomed.
The purpose of this session is to identify the best procedures for valid identification, management, protection and conservation of geo-archaeological parks; it is necessary to plan monitoring with instruments that record the variability and variation of environmental parameters and the impact on archaeological and contemporary human sites, including rock art monuments. Museums projects and/or anthropo-archaeological institutions outdoors or indoors, as are cultural centers for the interpretation of the real world, are a form of cultural heritage conservation technique.
Keywords: digital museography, geo-archaeology, landscape, open air museum, archaeological and rock art sites, socio-environment theory.
Poggiani-Keller, R., Dimitriadis, G., et. al. (Eds.). 2009. Rock Art Data Base. New methods and guidelines in archiving and cataloguing. BAR International Series 1996.
Dimitriadis, G., Seglie, D., Munõz, G. (Eds.). 2009. Rock Art and Museum. BAR International Series 1997.
Dimitriadis, G. (Ed.). 2009. Landscape in Mind: Dialogue on Space between Anthropology and Archaeology. BAR International Series 2003. https://jfit-for-science.asia/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/1.ZOUROS-NIKOLAS-GLOBAL-GEOPARKS-NETWORK.pdf
Zouros, N (2004) The European Geoparks Network. Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes 27, 3, 165-171.
Zouros, N. (2016). Global geoparks network and the new UNESCO global geoparks programme. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 50(1), 284-292. doi:https://doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.11729
Session 3: STRATEGIES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SHRINES IN BYZANTINE & BUDDHIST LANDSCAPES. PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
Theme Unity: Cultural Geography & Geosciences
Sub-theme: Sacred Landscapes & Religious Aspects
The Earth is sprinkled with time capsules, places like monuments, tombstones and archaeological sites as well as cultural landscapes created by human initiative. Although these places are dynamic and complex, culture landscapes are created as scenarios for the reconstruction of myth-historical narratives and reflect the cosmological organizing principles of society. Such narrative structure enduring the social memory and the socio-symbolic aspects of human-environment interaction. Sacred places and landscapes can be found both in nature and in the built environment. What distinguishes such spaces is not the degree of human modification, but the acts that are performed there.
The sacred sites in Greece, India and China somehow presents common characteristics and basically has two dimensions: one related with the sites that are in worship and the other sites that are not. Archaeology becomes key to both the sides. The archeological explorations have led to unearthing the sites that have vanished where as there are couple of sites that are still being worshipped. Sacred geography also becomes part of the religious practices as well as worshipping economy, on the other hand, the idea of sacred site or places of worship gets advocated in Orthodox (Meteora Monasteries) and in the Buddhist (Mahaparinibbansutta of the Digha Nikaya) religion according to its textual tradition. From late nineteenth century Greece, India and China rediscover those places as archeological ruins and reconstructs the history. While some sites become part of world heritage, but the environmental aspects and its relations are an area that have been less explored. Many sites have developed keeping in mind its accessibility and public presence. The present inquiry goes into the concerns of the sites specificities in order to understand the very idea of sacred that gets associated as well as the sites that are otherwise not part of the canonical advocacy. In such scenario, the authors agreeing that Orthodox-Byzantine and Buddhist sacred sites present common elements in the historical-religious conception and function as well as in the cultural heritage management (CRM), understood as “a means of investigating qualities of heritages that focuses on them as material manifestations and particular kinds of places”. Archaeological, anthropological and fine arts study cases are strongly welcome.
Keywords: Byzantine and Buddhist sites, culture landscape, CRM-culture heritage management, sacred places, sino-hellenic academic project
Reese-Taylor, K. 2017. Sacred Places and Sacred Landscapes. In: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311487485
Sorensen, M.L. and Carman, J. 2009. Heritage Studies. Methods and Approaches. Routledge: London and New York.
Tlley, Ch. 2010. Interpreting Landscapes. Walnut Creek: California.
Waterton, E. & Atha, M. 2008. Introduction: Recovering Landscape as a Cultural Practice. In: Landscape Research, Vol.33, n°5, 509-510. London: Routledge.
Session 4: PHARMACOBOTANY IN SAGAS, MYTHS, AND APPLICATIONS, IN ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS
Organizers: Prof. I.B. Chinou & Assoc. Prof. Nektarios Aligianis (National and Kapodistrian Univ of Athens, Section of Pharmacy, Lab of Pharmacognosy and Chemistry of Natural Products, Greece)
The history of technologies of pharmacology and botanology in ancient World characterizes an environmental and political status proper for the development of natural medicine and more. Research on the diachronic information about a region rather than one specific site, coupled with contemporary landscape and vegetation is mostly in demand. There was the wide-scale transition of many human cultures during the Neolithic period from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement, making an increasingly large population possible. These settled communities permitted humans to observe and experiment with plants to learn how they grew and developed. This new knowledge led to the domestication of plants.
Nomadic hunter-gatherer societies passed on, by oral tradition, what they knew (their empirical observations) about the different kinds of plants that they used for food, shelter, poisons, medicines, for ceremonies and rituals etc. The uses of plants by these pre-literate societies influenced the way the plants were named and classified—their uses were embedded in folk-taxonomies, the way they were grouped according to use in everyday communication. The nomadic life-style was drastically changed when settled communities were established by the end of the last Glacial period and the onset of the Holocene, with the called agricultural revolution, during the early Neolithic Revolution which extended from about 10,000 to 4000 BP depending on the region. With these communities came the development of the technology and skills needed for the domestication of plants and animals and the emergence of the written word provided evidence for the passing of systematic knowledge and culture from one generation to the next (Morton 1981). Changes in key traits occurring during the processes of plant domestication have long been subjects of debate. Only in the case of genetic analysis or with extensive plant remains can specific sets of changes be documented. Historical details of the plant domestication processes are rare and other evidence of morphological change can be difficult to obtain, especially for those vegetables that lack a substantial body of archaeological data. Botanical records chronicled in the ancient literature of established ancient civilizations, such as that of Greece and China, are invaluable resources for the study and understanding of the process of plant domestication.
In the great civilizations (e.g. Greek, Chinese, Egyptian, Indian) pharmacology and botany are cultural assets, and in antiquity actors played a significant role in the transmission of pharmacological and botanical knowledge. The session welcomes contributions related to sagas, myths and the applications of botanology as pharmaceutical entities to therapy. Botanology first appears in the teachings of Aristotle’s student Theophrastus at the Lyceum in ancient Athens in about 350 BC; this is considered the starting point for modern botany. In Europe, this early botanical science was soon overshadowed by a medieval preoccupation with the medicinal properties of plants that lasted more than 1000 years. During this time, the medicinal works of classical antiquity were reproduced in manuscripts and books called herbals. In China and the Arab world, the Greco-Roman work on medicinal plants was preserved and extended (Wang et al 2008).
The cultivation, trade and transmission of knowledge was established by the authorities who claims to have expertise and effective treatments. Transmission occurred orally, and attitudes toward the written word in general, and recipes in particular, were ambivalent. The question of efficacy from a cross-cultural point of view is of interest and here where botany meets archaeology and archaeometry. The culturally bound efficacy is adopted in the modern era using ancient texts for bioprospecting (“new” remedies). This interdisciplinary session involves collaborative studies including historians, archaeological scientists, environmental archaeologists (ethno)-pharmacists, geoarchaeologists.
Presentations involving documentation of analytical work (organic residue analysis etc), and agro-cultural evidence, but literature sources too, on the duality of pharmacobotany and ancient cultures. Examples of key research interests include: research results on palaeobotanical remains that archaeologists can recover and the methods used to analyse them, the importance of iconographic and textual evidence on ancient plants, diet and palaeoeconomy, medicines, poisons, and psychotropics; perfumes, cosmetics, and dyes; and prestige.
Totelin L.M.V 2016 Technologies of Knowledge: Pharmacology, Botany, and Medical Recipes. Oxford Handbooks online. Series: Classical Studies, Ancient Science and Medicine.
Morton, A. G. (1981). History of Botanical Science: An Account of the Development of Botany from Ancient Times to the Present Day. London: Academic Pres
Jin-Xiu Wang, Tian-Gang Gao, Sandra Knapp (2008) Ancient Chinese Literature Reveals Pathways of Eggplant Domestication. Annals of Botany, Volume 102, Issue 6, 891–897.
Day Jo (2013) Botany meets archaeology: people and plants in the past. Journal of Experimental Botany, Volume 64, Issue 18, 5805–5816.
Session 5: GEOARCHAEOLOGY
Organizers: Prof. Evelpidou N.(email@example.com) (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Dr Karkani A. (firstname.lastname@example.org) (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Dr Sakellariou D. (email@example.com) (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research).
Geoarchaeology is a multidisciplinary science that combines and bridges archaeological, geological and geomorphological knowledge, tools and concepts with the aim to answer questions related to the dynamically changing environment throughout the human era, the interaction of humans with the environment and their adaptation to the environmental changes, the migration and settlement history and evolution. Geoarchaeology in the coastal zone and on the seafloor deals with various topics ranging from palaeogeographic reconstructions of ancient settlements, ancient harbors, relative sea level changes, natural hazards, etc. Geoarchaeological researches in the coastal and underwater environment take advantage of various field methods, such as corings, and remote sensing techniques such as drones and various underwater vehicles, laser scanning, as well as photogrammetric approaches and Geographic Information Systems. Presentations should examine the interrelationship between archaeology and the various disciplines within Quaternary science and the Earth Sciences in general, including, for example: geology, geography, geomorphology, pedology, climatology, oceanography, geochemistry, geochronology, and geophysics, as well as those that deal with the biological record of past human activity through the analysis of faunal and botanical remains and palaeoecological reconstructions that shed light on past human-environment interactions.
This session invites scientific contributions on multi-disciplinary and innovative research on geoarchaeological approaches – techniques and methods, paleoenvironmental studies, and landscape evolution focused on the coastal zone.
Keywords: sedimentology, coastal archaeology, environmental archaeology, remote sensing, palaeogeography, sea level changes, marine archaeology, proxy data.
Dean S, Horton B, Evelpidou N, Cahill N, Spada G, Sivan D. (2019) Can we detect centennial sea-level variation over the last three thousand years in Israeli archaeological records? Quaternary Science Reviews, 210:125-135
French, C. (2003) Geoarchaeology in action: studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge
Jing, Z., G. Rapp & T. Gao. (1995) Holocene landscape evolution and its impact on the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in the Shangqiu Area, northern China. Geoarchaeology 10: 481-513.
Karkanas, P and Goldberg, P (2018) Reconstructing Archaeological Sites: Understanding the Geoarchaeological Matrix. John Wiley & Sons, UK. Kraft, J., H. Bruckner, I. Kayan & H. Engelmann. (2007) The geographies of ancient Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia. Geoarchaeology 22: 121-49.
Session 6: PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES AND UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARKS
Theme Unity: Society and Environment
The Geopark concept established in Europe during the last decade of the 20th Century leading to the establishment of the European Geoparks Network in 2000, In parallel the same period effords led to the establishment of the first Geoparks in China. The Geoparks aim to achieve the protection of the geological and geomorphological heritage sites through local community involvement to their management, in the frame of a sustainable development strategy.
Geopark activities have been part of the UNESCO work plan since 2001 and, since 2004, UNESCO has offered ad-hoc support to Global Geoparks upon requests from individual Member States. The Global Geoparks Network (GGN) established in 2004, under the umbrella of UNESCO, including Geoparks from China and Europe, as an international network of cooperation among Geoparks. In 2014 after one decade of successful operation as a volunteer network that led to the establishment of Global Geoparks in all continents, the GGN gained legal personality and became the international non-profit association of the Global Geoparks and the Global Geopark professionals.
In 2015 UNESCO established the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme, introducing the brand UNESCO Global Geopark as a label of excellence for areas that meet specific criteria. The GGN became officially the partner of UNESCO for the operation of the UNESCO Global Geoparks programme. UNESCO Global Geoparks should manage their geological heritage, in connection with all other aspects of that area’s natural and cultural heritage, to promote awareness of key issues facing society in the context of the dynamic planet we all live on. In doing so, UNESCO Global Geoparks adopt an holistic approach on territorial heritage and resources.
The Geoparks quality control mechanism is the UNESCO Global Geoparks Council through the evaluation and revalidation exercise. The GGN is the operational and coordination mechanism for the Geopark common activities, working to disseminate knowhow, exchange best practice and built capacity to protect and manage geological heritage sites and promote local sustainable development. Today there are 161 UNESCO Global Geoparks in 44 countries (July 2020). According to the Programme Operation Guidelines all UNESCO Global Geoparks should become members of the Global Geoparks Network (GGN).
Participants should address the issue of inter-institutional cooperation around the world for a search for appropriate strategies and methodologies to conserve the integrity and diversity of abiotic and biotic nature, to enhance tangible and intangible cultural heritage, to explore and promote the links between natural and cultural heritage, to ensure that any use of the territorial natural resources is equitable and sustainable, to enhance local communities resilience in natural hazards and climate change, to promote environmental education and geo-tourism activities and to support economic and cultural development of local communities through the valorisation of their unique heritage and identity.
The purpose of this session is to identify best practices in management, protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage within UNESCO Global Geoparks and areas wishing to joint this new UNESCO site designation and its international network of cooperation. It also aims to present the results of scientific cooperation in developing, advancing methodologies on geodiversity protection, conservation and management and other disciplines related to geo-conservation, geo-tourism, geo-education as well as on natural and cultural heritage communication and promotion through museums, open-air parks, interpretation centres and visitors information facilities.
Keywords: gediversity, geosites, geo-conservation, geoparks, open air museum, natural and cultural heritage.
N. Zouros (2010). Geotourism in Greece: A case study of the Lesvos petrified forest. In R. Dowling, D. Newsome (Ed.) Global geotourism perspectives. Goodfellow publishers Ltd. 215-229. ISBN 978-1-906884-17-8
Zouros, N (2004) The European Geoparks Network. Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes 27, 3, 165-171.
Zouros, N. (2016). Global geoparks network and the new UNESCO global geoparks programme. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 50(1), 284-292. doi:https://doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.11729
Session 7: ANCIENT IRON IN EUROPE AND CHINA (c 8th to 3rd centuries BCE) TRANSCULTURAL COMPARISONS IN THE STUDY, REPRESENTATION AND PRESERVATION OF IRON TECHNOLOGICAL HERITAGE.
Organizers: Dr. Maria Kostoglou (Kostoglou.firstname.lastname@example.org)
Iron ores occur in most areas of the world; however, their existence does not predetermine their use. Not all cultures and ancient economies turned to iron, some fully explored its potential early on like China (Wagner 1993) or the Mediterranean and Europe (Pleiner 1980, Wertime and Muhly 1980), while others have never fully utilized it until colonial contact. The iron craft in pre-industrial societies was a powerful factor that produced magnificent everyday tools and weapons that diversified economies and cultures; in many societies acquired magical attributes symbolizing life and cosmological order (Blakeley 2003) closely associated and deeply embedded in indigenous developments. Nevertheless, there are still many gaps in our knowledge that can be addressed with innovative interdisciplinary methodologies (Kostoglou 2010 and 2021) while our archaeological record in both these regions has being expanding hugely over the last few decades forcing a re-visiting of well-established theories on the spread, development and uses of iron. Meanwhile iron objects as well as related technologies are often underrepresented in archaeological and historic narratives, museum displays and heritage preservation projects.
Some of the earliest evidence correlating iron with such complex socio-cultural phenomena is found in the Greek and Chinese archaeological record of the first millennium BCE (covering roughly the later Iron Age to Hellenistic periods in Greece and the Warring States period in China, from Zhu to Qin dynasties). The session invites transcultural comparative perspectives from Europe and China covering the aforementioned periods looking at some of the earliest evidence of iron craft and its products, including archaeological, historical and analytical studies; contributions on how early iron technology in Europe and China emerged/developed, on manufacturing techniques especially forging and carburization methods, technological traditions within local/regional contexts, knowledge/technique distribution and exchange along the silk route and related themes; studies of iron objects from museum collections, including challenges on displaying iron objects and their interpretation/representation in museum context, as well as studies on issues related to the preservation and representation of heritage sites in their natural environment is also welcomed.
The session aims to generate discussion (and future collaborations) on the socio-cultural organisation of iron production, on how superior iron tools and weapons were adapted and used by communities, how they revolusionised other technologies and how ultimately moved ancient communities to complex, albeit different, socio-cultural formations in Europe and China in the first millennium BCE. Ultimately, the session aims at taking a holistic view on the study of current studies of iron in order to identify the current state of research, discuss major challenges and find transcultural ways of addressing them in the field and in the museum.
Keywords: ancient iron, silk route, manufacturing techniques and traditions, innovation, carburisation, technological heritage, transcultural approach.
Blakeley, S. (2003) Myth, Ritual and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and recent Africa. Cambridge University Press.
ZKostolgou, M. 2021. Iron in Iron Age Greece. In J. Carter and C. Antonnacio ‘The Cambridge Companion to the Greek Iron Age’. New York: Cambridge University Press (in print)
Kostoglou, M. 2010. Iron, connectivity and local identities in the Iron Age to Classical Mediterranean. In P. van Dommelen, and A. B. Knapp ‘Material Connections in the ancient Mediterranean’: 170-89. London: Routledge.
Pleiner, R. 1980. Early iron metallurgy in Europe. In T.A. Wertime and J.D. Muhly (eds), The Coming of the Age of Iron, 375–416. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wagner, D., 1993 Iron and steel in ancient China.
Wertime T. A. and J.D. Muhly (eds) 1980 ‘The Coming of the Age of Iron’: 335–74. New Haven: Yale University Press.