Cover: “Seeing through”

Nicolas Vanderesse1 & Romane Martin2

1PACEA, CNRS, University of Bordeaux

2Association Adichats

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science." It is with these words from Albert Einstein that we would like to introduce this funerary urn, originating from the Gallo-Roman necropolis of Excisum, France (1st century AD). Displayed here in false colours, it has been analyzed by X-ray microtomography, a non-contact technique that produces three dimensional images of the internal structure of objects. The bones are clearly evident due to the relatively high density that make them appear brighter than the sedimentary content of the urn. This visualisation helps in the assessment of the spatial distribution of the bones before their manual removal for further analysis.

The mystery of this urn is doubled: What does the urn contain, and what were the funerary practices that led to the conception of this funerary vessel? The study of the bones has led to the conclusion that one third of them are of animal origin, and the rest belong to a single, 10–14-year-old person. Ancient written sources show that in Gallo-Roman times, funeral ceremonies were ritualized and codified: burying the dead was an art. However, only the final deposit has survived to the present day. It is up to the archaeologist to gather all the clues needed to retrace this process, possibly with the help of advanced characterization techniques that complement his or her expertise.

So, what about archaeology, art and science? Let's just say that some images speak for themselves: given a reasonable amount of post-processing in an image analysis software (Comet's Dragonfly in the present case), archaeological mysteries can turn into aesthetic experiences.

Go back to top

Minutes of Annual Members Business Meeting

Dear Members,

Please find in the following the Minutes of the Annual Members Business Meeting (AMBM), which took place online on 5 September 2025. We sincerely apologise for the delay in their distribution.

Everyone will be invited to approve the Minutes, which are a summarised record of the meeting, as part of the per rollam voting associated with the hybrid AMBM to be held in Athens in September 2026. The recording and transcript of the AMBM (along with a record of the Zoom chat), can be found here: https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA/EAA/Members/AMBM.aspx.

As you will appreciate, the Executive Board (ExB) is navigating a challenging situation. We ask for your forbearance as we work through this. The ExB first formal meeting since Belgrade was held on 21 October 2025.

Our agenda included planning and implementing the roadmap that voting Members approved by 72.5% and 69.7% respectively. These include:

  • seeking a full and wide-ranging review of the EAA’s Statutes, calling a Special Meeting of the Association to approve the recommendations as outlined in the voting text, and
  • establishing a Task Force to advise on how those EAA Statutes are put into practice.

Details of both can be found at the end of item 15 in the Minutes.

The agenda also included addressing questions that Members have raised in the context of the Belgrade AM and AMBM.

We would also like to inform you that on 7 October 2025 the ExB and Statutes Committee received a request to call a Special Meeting of the Membership asap, supported by over 10% of the current EAA membership. We will update you on this matter just as soon as we can.

0. Technical note

Following the provision of Art. IX of the EAA Statutes, the EAA Executive Board specified the following Rules of Procedure for the 2025 EAA Annual Membership Business Meeting:1. The 2025 EAA AMBM shall be held per rollam, i.e., voting electronically within a given timeframe and under security settings that ensure a single, verified and anonymous vote per Full Individual Member.

2. An informal virtual meeting with Members shall be held in advance of the per rollam voting process to allow discussion about, and questioning of, the subject of the votes. This informal meeting was held online on 5 September 2025, attended by 297 Full Individual Members.

3. Notice of the AMBM with detailed instructions for registration and voting per rollam shall be given to all Full Individual Members not less than sixty days prior to the date of the informal virtual meeting. The notice was given to Full Individual Members via web page and email communications.

4. All documents for the Annual Membership Business Meeting and necessary for the per rollam decision shall be sent to Full Individual Members electronically at least fifteen days before the informal virtual meeting. Members received notice of the 2025 AMBM Reports on 20 August 2025.

5. The per rollam ballot was open from 15 to 25 September 2025 and individualised secured access to the ballot, together with the link of the AMBM informal meeting recording, AMBM chat transcript and other documents (https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA/Members_Area/AMBM/EAA/Members/AMBM.aspx?hkey=15a6d18e-a97a-47b9-aad5-06b44789adf7), was provided to all Full Individual Members on 15 September 2025. The quorum for the per rollam ballot consists of 5% of Full Individual Members. As of 15 September, the EAA had 2990 Full Individual Members; the quorum therefore was 150 Members. Altogether 651 total responses (of which 531 complete responses and 120 dropouts) were received in the per rollam ballot, the quorum was therefore reached.

6. Decisions shall be made by simple majority of the voting Members.

7. The results of the voting of the AMBM shall be published by 6 October 2025 on the EAA website and by sending these results by e-mail to the electronic addresses of all Full Individual Members.

The following report combines the discussion held at the 5 September 2025 informal meeting with the results of the per rollam voting. Matters not subject to the per rollam voting are covered in the AMBM Reports, available to all EAA Members, and are only referenced in the present Minutes.

1. Opening and welcome

The EAA President Eszter Bánffy opened the informal meeting and welcomed the Members in attendance. She highlighted a few essential steps made since last year, among them the new 2025–2028 Strategic Plan. In line with its primary goals to uphold academic freedom, protect cultural heritage and foster solidarity with professional archaeologists, the Executive Board approved a new pilot project entitled “Concept Note: Bridging Heritage and Hope”, aimed at supporting early career scholars from conflict zones. The project consists of inviting 12 or 15 postgraduate students from both sides of several conflict areas to jointly organise a session at the EAA Annual Meeting, and thus enabling them to exchange ideas, network and peacefully cooperate for our shared heritage.

Before following the AMBM agenda, former EAA Presidents Kristian Kristiansen and Felipe Criado-Boado addressed the audience. Kristian Kristiansen provided historical background to the establishment of the EAA in the early 1990s, in the context of the then recent Cold War and divided Europe. The EAA’s aim back then was to enable dialogue between archaeologists throughout Europe based on shared values, despite political oppression in many countries and the fact that cultural heritage has often been abused for political purposes. In other words, the EAA aimed to bring together its Members across political histories and governments, as long as they shared EAA values as reflected in the Statutes. The EAA is a membership organisation based on shared values, irrespective of individual countries’ political regimes. This does not mean that politics and archaeology can be separated – there are political dimensions to archaeological research, and the EAA has engaged in political matters on several occasions.

Felipe Criado-Boado continued by adding that in the current situation of mistrust and negative atmosphere, the EAA must keep its original values of open dialogue and must regain trust of its Members. He expressed solidarity to members of the Executive Board in view of the current difficult political context, in which the EAA must be respectful of its membership’s diversity and plurality, and yet keep a political perspective. All social action is political action. Back in 1995, at the first EAA Annual Meeting in Santiago de Compostela, three main strands were discussed within five thematic blocks: archaeological practice, theory and method of archaeology, and the politics of archaeological practice. The EAA indeed has been political throughout its history, from the 1995 Foz Coa case to the present.

The EAA Secretary, Sally Foster, clarified that there will be two online discussion periods: one after exhausting the regular AMBM agenda points and another following the ‘Any Other Business’ point. Members were asked to write their queries and comments into the Zoom chat and signal if they wish to speak.

2. Minutes of the 2024 AMBM

The Minutes of the 2024 AMBM were previously published on the EAA web. There were no questions raised, and the President proposed to the AMBM to approve the Minutes of the 2024 AMBM as a correct record of the Meeting.

The President proposed to the AMBM to approve the 2024 AMBM Minutes. EAA Full Individual Members voting per rollam approved the minutes of the 2024 AMBM as follows: 275 (51.6%) voting Members approved, 63 (11.8%) voting Member did not approve, 195 (36.6%) voting Members abstained; there were 118 blank responses.

3. Matters arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising from the 2024 AMBM Minutes.

4. Membership report

The EAA Secretary Sally Foster briefly summarised the EAA Membership report (cf. AMBM Reports p. 4–6), including an overview of the number of EAA Members vs. Annual Meeting attendees and the distribution between A and B countries. In years when the Annual Meeting is hosted in a B country, there tend to be more B country attendees. The EAA currently has 25 Corporate Members and the EAA is grateful for their support.

5. Financial report

The EAA Finance Manager Lucia Trlicová introduced herself, as she only started working at the EAA in April 2025. She presented the 2024 accounts which contain the final and complete figures. The number of Members in 2024 reached 5,559, which is the highest membership in EAA’s history. The 2024 accounting shows a very healthy surplus of 105,960 EUR. The 2024 Annual Meeting in Rome will go down in EAA history as the most successful event with the highest number of participants (5,172). The 2024 Annual Meeting generated a profit of 61,158 EUR.

The 2025 figures contain actual figures until the end of April and revised budgeted figures thereafter. The EAA experienced a lot of challenges since the Annual Meeting in Belgrade had to be transformed into online-only format, which translated into a lower number of conference attendees and EAA Members – as of 4 July 2025, the estimate total membership was 3,320 pax, but it currently stands at 3,049 pax. However, a positive financial result is still forecast for 2025.

Lucia Trlicová presented the first draft of the 2026 budget. The 2026 is based on the estimate of 3,500 Members and 3,000 participants to the 2026 Annual Meeting. The preliminary 2026 budget indicates a positive balance including a contingency.

The President proposed to the AMBM to approve the 2024 financial statement. EAA Full Individual Members voting per rollam approved the 2024 financial statement as follows: 346 (65.0%) voting Members approved, 35 (6.6%) voting Member did not approve, 151 (28.4%) voting Members abstained; there were 119 blank responses.

The President proposed to the AMBM to approve the 2025–2026 budget. EAA Full Individual Members voting per rollam approved the 2025–2026 budget as follows: 332 (62.4%) voting Members approved, 37 (7.0%) voting Members did not approve, 163 (30.6%) voting Members abstained; there were 119 blank responses.

6. Membership fee level for 2026

The Executive Board decided that the membership fees in 2026 will remain the same as in 2025.

7. Statutes Committee Report

The EAA President Eszter Bánffy reported that no Statutes amendments were proposed to the AMBM in 2025.

8. Oscar Montelius Foundation Report

The Chair of the OMF Board of Trustees Elin Dalen presented the 2024 OMF report (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 14–15) and encouraged Members to raise questions by email to the OMF Trustees.

The OMF's economic situation is healthy; a generous donation of 50,000 euros from the EAA in 2024 enabled the foundation to continue its support for EAA Members to attend and present their work at the EAA Annual Meeting in 2025, in the absence of support from the Wenner-Gren Foundation.

The Early Career Achievement Prize has been awarded every year since 2020 to recognise the work of young archaeologists.

After 6 years, Elin Dalen's term of office as an OMF Trustee has come to an end. The newly appointed Trustee will be announced later in the agenda. Elin Dalen expressed her gratitude to fellow Trustees, the OMF Auditor and EAA staff for fruitful cooperation. Eszter Bánffy thanked Elin Dalen for her service to the OMF.

9. Nomination Committee Report and election results

The EAA Secretary Sally Foster referred to the 2024 Nomination Committee report (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 13) and presented the election results. Altogether 477 valid votes were received online, recorded automatically by the QuestionPro software and confirmed by the EAA Nomination Committee Members Matija Cresnar, Cornelius Holtorf, Ileana Micarelli and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury. The candidates elected (shown in bold below) will serve from 2025 to 2028 at the Executive Board, and 2025 to 2029 on the Nomination Committee. The EAA congratulates the successful candidates, and thanks those who were not elected for their continued interest in the work of the Association.

TREASURER

  • Eva Kars: 155 received votes
  • Niamh McCullagh 185 received votes
  • Gábor Virágos 87 received votes
  • 50 abstained

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER 1

  •  Fedir Androshchuk 255 received votes
  • Alessandro Garissi 160 received votes
  • 62 abstained

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER 2

  •  James Symonds 201 received votes
  • Peter Tóth 209 received votes
  • 67 abstained

NOMINATION COMMITTEE MEMBER

  •  Peter Biehl 374 received votes
  • 103 abstained

 

10. New appointments and reappointments

The EAA Secretary Sally Foster thanked the outgoing EAA Boards and Committees members.

EAA Executive Board: Katja Predovnik

Maria Mina

EJA Editorial Board: Cate Frieman

Joern Lang

Nomination Committee: Cornelius Holtorf

Book Prize Committee: Kristian Kristiansen

Christopher Prescott

Robin Skeates

Heritage Prize Committee: Emine Nurcan Yalman

Oscar Montelius Foundation: Elin Dalen

Appeal and Anti-Harassment Committee:

Laura Coltofean

 

Sally Foster welcomed the newly (re-)appointed members of the following EAA Boards and Committees:

EJA General Editor: Zena Kamash (2025-2028)

EJA Deputy Editor: Marianne Moen (2025-2028)

Assistant Reviews Editor: Maria Relaki (2019-2028)

EJA Editorial Board: Georg Haggren (2019-2028)

Clara Masriera-Esquerra (2019-2028)

Book Prize Committee: Ariane Ballmer (2022-2028)

Manuel Fernández-Götz (2022-2028)

Jan Kolář (2022-2028)

Laurence Manolakakis (2022-2028)

Uroš Matić (2022-2028)

Mehmet Özdoğan (2022-2028)

Marinella Pasquinucci (2022-2028)

Predrag Novaković (2025-2028)

April Nowell (2025-2028)

Marc vander Linden (2025-2028)

Heritage Prize Committee: Jan Mařík (2022-2028)

Georg Haggrén (2022-2028)

Paulina Florjanowicz (2022-2028)

OMF: Jesper Hansen (2025-2028)

Adrian Olivier (2013-2028)

Statutes Committee: Kristian Kristiansen (2022-2028)

Appeal and Anti-Harassment Committee:

Isabelle Algrain (2025-2026)

Marcella Giorgio (2025-2028)

Kayt Hawkins (2025-2026)

Joachim Kjellberg (2022-2028)

Nils Anfinset (2022-2028)

Scientific Advisory Committee: Maria Ivanova-Bieg (2022-2028)

Andrea Dolfini (2022-2028)

Heritage Advisory Committee: John Carman (2022-2028)

Jana Fries (2022-2028)

Roger Thomas (2025-2028)

Nathan Schlanger (2025-2028)

Public Benefits Advisory Committee:

Almut Schülke (2022-2028)

Education, Training and Professional Development Advisory Committee:

Laura Coltofean (2022-2028)

Daniela Hofmann (2022-2028)

11. EAA Publication reports

The newly appointed EJA Editor Zena Kamash took the opportunity to clarify that no member of the EJA editorial team had a role in the Executive Board's recent decisions, and that as Incoming Editor, she did not condone the recent actions of the Executive Board.

In relation to the European Journal of Archaeology report (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 16-17), Zena Kamash stated appreciation for the work of the Outgoing Editor, Cate Frieman, who had done stellar work with the Journal for many years. She welcomed Marianne Moen as the new EJA Deputy Editor.

The main highlight for the EJA in 2024–2025 was the complete flip to open access publishing. It is reassuring that 83% of EJA articles are covered by transformative agreements, which means that the EJA open access model is sustainable for the future and can cover for waivers to authors who may not be covered by transformative agreements. Submission numbers and processing time have returned to pre-Covid normal, helped by newly introduced processes at Cambridge University Press.

Monika Baumanová and Maria Relaki, the Reviews Editors, worked hard on broadening the scope of reviews. Zena Kamash concluded by thanking the EJA peer reviewers for their cooperation and invited anyone interested in reviewing for the EJA to contact either herself or the Reviews Editors.

TEA Co-Editors Samantha Reiter and Matthew Walsh started their pre-recorded The European Archaeologist report (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 19–20) by thanking the EAA Members, the Executive Board, EAA staff and TEA contributors. The last four issues of TEA averaged 90 pages per issue, including 46 featured articles by over 100 co-authors and multiple other format pieces. For ease of access and citation, DOI numbers have been assigned to TEA, which might help recruit contributors. All EAA Members are welcome to provide new and interesting content for future TEA issues, or images for the TEA photojournalism competition. Online exhibition composed of past TEA photojournalism competition entries is available through the Annual Meeting mobile app or web platform.

Elements Co-Editor Bettina Arnold presented the Elements series report (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 18). Since its launch in 2018, nine Elements volumes have been published and eleven are under contract. The reach of the series is pretty extensive and download metrics indicate a healthy interest in the series. She invited Members to submit proposals for Elements volumes.

Robin Skeates took the opportunity to express his personal unhappiness over the recent actions of the Executive Board. On behalf of the THEMES in Contemporary Archaeology team, he reported on the series (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 15). Over the past year, the THEMES maintained a good flow of books published and in production and saw continued interest in publishing in the series.

12. Appeal and Anti-Harassment Committee Report

Member of the Appeal and Anti-Harassment Committee (AAHC) Bettina Arnold reported on the activities of the Committee in the past year (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 21). The Committee met remotely three times to, among other things, establish a dedicated web page for the AAHC archive (minutes and documents).

The AAHC should create a safe space for Members to discuss potentially highly sensitive issues; confidentiality is very important to the AAHC. Last year, the committee submitted a major report on harassment, assault, bullying, and intimidation in the field of archaeology, with an overview from 2009 and 2024, available on the AAHC website (https://www.e-a-a.org/AppealProcedure). EAA members Laura Coltofean, Bisserka Gaydarska, Kate Hawkins, and Marta Hlad organised a successful workshop called the Anti-HABI Toolkit to equip participants with information and practical tools to identify, prevent, and address situations of HABI in their personal and professional life, which is also accessible through the website.

The Committee received individual complaints on the part of some EAA Members over the last two days. Bettina Arnold pointed out that the AAHC had not been consulted before by the Executive Board about the decisions it made. The AAHC will discuss the ramifications of the ExB decisions and the complaints received at its next meeting before the end of September.

13. Advisory Committees Reports

Representatives of EAA Advisory Committees briefly outlined their activities (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 25–29).

Ariane Ballmer, on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Committee, explained that the Committee focused on two main tasks over the past year: helping draft the EAA Statement on European Gender and Women's Studies (published on EAA website and in TEA 84), and providing advice to the Belgrade Annual Meeting Scientific Committee regarding a controversial contribution.

Maria Taloni, on behalf of the Heritage Advisory Committee, thanked its members and summarised its activities over the past year. The Committee held three online meetings over the year and focused on how best to serve as a think tank to the EAA, which materialised in the form of the Committee’s proposed terms of reference and also a plan for future EAA actions. The Committee provided advice e.g. regarding the site of Stonehenge and the implications of artificial intelligence for archaeological work. It co-organised roundtable session number 102 about legal protection of archaeological heritage in times of crisis and social transformation.

Carenza Lewis, Chair of the Public Benefits Advisory Committee, reported on the Committee’s work and three online meetings over the past year. The Committee provided advice to the Executive Board about the implications of artificial intelligence for archaeological work. It organised two sessions and a roundtable at the Belgrade Virtual Annual Meeting, the latter presenting the first draft of the new manifesto on the public value of archaeology that the Committee is working on. The final version should be brought to the attention of the Executive Board next year.

Daniela Hofmann reported on the activities of the Education, Training and Professional Development Advisory Committee. Between July 2024 and June 2025, the Education Advisory Committee held five online meetings during which it e.g. developed the survey assessing the scope and content of archaeological teaching and training in higher education institutions across Europe, contributed to drafting the EAA Statement on European Gender and Women’s Studies and provided input to the EAA on the use of AI and its potential to enhance higher education and training in archaeology. The Committee addressed the topic of diverse and inclusive career paths in archaeology by organising a dedicated workshop at the 31st Annual Meeting.

14. EAA Communities

The EAA Vice-President Ariane Ballmer, with responsibility for liaison with EAA Communities, presented the report on EAA Communities (cf. AMBM Reports, p. 28–29). As of today, the EAA comprises 26 communities, including 3 newly established ones, which are the Community for Archaeometallurgy (ARCMED), the Crop History Community, both of them established this year, and the Community on Storytelling and Archaeology established in 2024. All the other Communities have successfully renewed their status. Reports from each Community as presented in the EAA Annual Report highlight their research contribution, and most importantly, their efforts in networking and collaboration.

She reminded everyone that since 2024, Communities have been able to apply for EAA funding. Each project can receive up to 1,000 euros, and applications with external co-funding are especially encouraged. This year, the Executive Board approved funding for four applications, totalling a little more than 3,000 euros. The next deadline for funding applications is 29 September.

She also thanked the Communities for their commitment, highlighting the Association’s appreciation for their dedication in fostering cross-community exchange and interest in engaging the wider EAA membership, and expressed the ExB’s support for their ideas.

15. Any other business

No questions or comments were received about agenda points 1–14. The EAA Secretary Sally Foster therefore opened the discussion under any other business. By way of introduction, the EAA President Eszter Bánffy summarised the events of the past two weeks [from her own personal perspective, which may be different from the perspectives of some other Executive Board members].

The recent controversy within the EAA began on 20 August, when the Executive Board received an open letter about the situation in Gaza from a society called Archaeologists Against Apartheid (AAA) signed by more than 1200 individual signatories, approximately 30% are current EAA members [dated 18 August, received by the Secretariat 19 August].

On 22 August, the Executive Board held an ad hoc meeting where its majority voted to remove the institutional affiliations of Israeli colleagues attending the Belgrade Virtual Annual Meeting. The decision was taken urgently, as the conference Programme Book was about to be released. At the same time, three EAA Advisory Committees and the Statutes Committee were consulted for broader advice.

As reported by the President, protest emails against this measure began arriving that same day. By the end of August, the EAA had received 92 messages from across Europe and beyond. The feedback varied: some were strongly worded or emotional, many threatened membership cancellations, while others offered constructive criticism. Several correspondents pointed out that the measure was counterproductive, punishing Arab-Israeli scholars and Israeli academics who themselves oppose their government. One institute’s director foreshadowed legal action against the EAA and contacting Greek institutions to cancel hosting the next Annual Meeting at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

As described by the President, at the regular 1 September Board meeting, two issues were voted on: (1) whether to reverse the decision on Israeli affiliations, and (2) whether to endorse the President’s idea of a long-term strategy separating archaeology – in the context of the EAA as an academic society – from political activism. Both votes gained a simple majority.

On 2 September, the first protest emails as well as a call to action against the EAA from the Black Trowel community reached the EAA. Shortly before the Opening Ceremony, the Officers present in Belgrade first appreciated the implications of another communication by the AAA, which called on presenters to read out political messages during sessions. Fearing disruption of the academic programme, the Officers issued an immediate announcement to session organisers and volunteers to prevent this. The hasty wording caused confusion, and some participants felt they might be censored. The Officers apologised shortly thereafter, admitting it was inappropriate, in particular, to ask the volunteers to intervene.

On 3 September, a clarifying announcement reaffirmed support for academic freedom and free speech, while also emphasizing the need to respect participants’ boundaries. Apologies were sent to session organisers and volunteers. Nevertheless, several sessions and papers were cancelled. By then, 54 protest messages had arrived opposing the reversal of the original decision.

On 4 September, more emails were received—mostly against the reversal, but some in support of it. Another letter from the AAA reached the EAA and was interpreted as a call to disrupt the congress.

By 5 September, the membership appeared deeply divided. Members will be invited to vote per rollam on a vision for a strategy on the elaboration on which the Board will then work, together with the Advisory Committees. The prime objective is to move forward to all EAA matters in a way that adequately represents the spirit and ethos of the EAA as enshrined in this Statutes. The EAA must stand for archaeology, heritage and archaeologists, while carefully distinguishing between political contexts relevant to archaeology and direct political activism. In this scenario, the EAA will need to revisit past measures and find alternatives. The Board aims to create a constructive long-term strategy within the remit of the EAA and will invite Members to comment and endorse it in due course.

Subsequently, AMBM participants were given the opportunity to share their views either in the Zoom chat or through an oral contribution. The members who chose to speak expressed strong opinions, representing opposing perspectives.

John Chapman referred to a quote by Joseph Goebbels: ‘Muses do not stand silent in war’. He criticised the leadership for retreating from symbolic support for Palestine, accused the Board of breaching the EAA principles, and called for new guidelines on archaeologists’ roles during armed conflict. He requested that the Executive Board, in consultation with the Political Strategies Community, formulate such guidelines and circulate them for Members' comments, adopting a final version next year.

Eric Kolchinsky urged the EAA to avoid politics altogether, warning that political statements harm EAA’s credibility and produce backlash.

Alessandro Vanzetti clarified he was consulted as a member of the Statutes Committee, together with the other Committee members, who agreed that the points raised in the AAA open letter were relevant to the EAA and should be addressed. He stressed the complexity of the situation and its importance for the EAA. He criticised the Board’s lack of clear leadership and requested that it is restored.

Svend Hansen welcomed the reversal of the initial Board’s decision, seeing it as essential to preserving the EAA’s integrity as a European archaeological voice. The EAA is not the battleground to fight between Hamas and Israel; it is an archaeological association that must be political but at the same time keep a strong reputation in Europe.

Bridget Melloy argued that archaeology is inherently political, especially when heritage is under threat, and silence could be seen as complicity or lack of care. If we, as the EAA, want to represent Archaeology on the international stage, and want to preserve archaeological heritage or encourage the preservation of archaeological heritage, then it is our duty to say something, to show some kind of support even if it is only symbolic.

Jean Olivier Gransard-Desmond followed from a comment in the chat requesting professional mediation and democratic processes to resolve the conflict among EAA constituents.

Arkadiusz Marciniak highlighted the need for trust, mutual respect, and new protocols for responding to situations of armed conflicts, as the EAA did not envisage these when established.

Zena Kamash pointed out the inconsistency of the Board’s decision revoking the precedent regarding Russian affiliations removed from Russian delegates. She criticised the way in which the AAA has been referred to as an allegedly anonymous organisation, although more than 1,200 people signed the open letter, and denounced the use of terms like ‘collective punishment’. The only way forward seems to be a vote of confidence in the EAA leadership.

Florian Klimscha argued that the current conflict was started by a massacre of more than 1,200 Israeli civilians. He perceived targeting Israeli colleagues indeed as a ‘collective punishment’ which is discriminatory and unhelpful. Parties in other conflict zones do not receive the same treatment by the EAA.

Thomas Meier suggested developing clear guidelines to address potential future crises through cooperation of the EAA statutory and Advisory committees as well as local conference organisers.

Sirio Canos Donnay expressed deep disillusionment, accusing the leadership of biased language and calling for transparency, democracy, and possibly a no-confidence motion.

Gabrielle Gattiglia denounced the Board’s management as illiberal and anti-democratic, demanding resignations.

Peter Biehl emphasised unity, democratic dialogue, and trust in the Board despite the crisis.

Alessandro Pintucci insisted resignations and new elections were the only way to save the Association and questioned whether Israeli academics could truly separate themselves from their government affiliations.

The Executive Board took note of the oral input and will review the Zoom chat messages, with the aim of considering the issues raised in its way forward.

In order to consult Members about the way forward, two questions were developed after the 5 September AMBM informal meeting and subsequently included in the per rollam voting.

The President proposed to the Membership that the Executive Board invites the Statutes Committee to undertake a full and wide-ranging review of the EAA's Statutes, to include but not necessarily limited to: Defining the geographical scope of the Association – essentially a definition of what is meant by 'Europe' and 'European' and how it is to be determined. Defining the scope of areas of interest of the Association – the extent to which topics other than an interest in archaeology/ cultural heritage may be addressed (if at all). Adding a mechanism for a vote of no confidence in Officers/Board members and their forced removal. Including in the duties of Officers and Board members a specific requirement to act with integrity towards the association and always in the best interest of the Association. The Executive Board will call a Special Meeting of the Association to approve the recommendations (Statute IX.2). EAA Full Individual Members voting per rollam approved the proposal as follows: 385 (72.5%) voting Members approved, 108 (20.3%) voting Members did not approve, 38 (7.2%) voting Members abstained; there were 120 blank responses.

The President proposed to the Membership that the Executive Board will establish a Task Force to advise on how EAA Statutes are put into practice through internal guidelines and outward-facing documents, to include but not necessarily limited to: how the EAA optimally functions as an academic forum; exploring the fine line between Safe Space Policy and freedom of speech; reviewing internal decision-making processes within the EAA leadership/governance bodies, including at times of perceived and urgent external threat to our Statutes, spirit and ethos. This will include a process of critical self-reflection by the Executive Board, re-examining the practice of institutional suspensions, including current suspensions, exploring options in relation to our Statutes and Safe Space Policy for individuals wishing to attend at the Annual Meetings, reviewing the third version of the Israel-Gaza statement of 2024, where we expressed concerns and compassion for the unbearable human suffering and called on all parties involved in the conflict to strive for immediate solutions that safeguard human lives, and the cultural heritage on the region. The Task Force invitees will include the Statutes and Advisory Committees, representatives of the Early Career Community (as the EAA Community of the next generation of archaeologists) and may draw on other internal and external parties as needed. This work will be scheduled to begin early in 2026, but the timing of work packages will be dependent on any Statutes revisions. After any necessary legal checks, the aim is for the Executive Board and Task Force's proposed way forward to come to Members for online endorsement in advance of the Athens 2026 AMBM, if possible, so that they can be enacted in advance of the Athens 2026 AMBM.

EAA Full Individual Members voting per rollam approved the proposal as follows: 370 (69.7%) voting Members approved, 116 (21.9%) voting Members did not approve, 45 (8.5%) voting Members abstained; there were 120 blank responses.

16. Location of future Annual Meeting

The EAA President Eszter Bánffy reminded Member of the already known future Annual Meeting locations:

  • 33rd EAA Annual Meeting – Leiden, Netherlands, 25–28 August 2027
  • 34th EAA Annual Meeting – Vienna, Austria, 23–26 August 2028

17. Announcement of the 32nd EAA Annual Meeting

Yiannis Papadatos, Chair of the 2026 Scientific Committee, briefly introduced the 32nd EAA Annual Meeting, to be held in Athens, Greece, 26–29 August 2026. He explained the symbolism of the Annual Meeting logo and motto ‘Resonant past’, introduced the Annual Meeting venues and themes and invited Members to enjoy Athens and the archaeological heritage of Greece.

 

The EAA Secretary Sally Foster reminded Members of the AMBM time schedule:

15 September 2025: deadline to publish on EAA web the video recording of the AMBM informal meeting and to provide individualised secure access to an electronic ballot to all Full Individual Members

15–22 September 2025 (extended till 25 September): AMBM voting held per rollam

6 October 2025: deadline to publish the results of the AMBM voting on the EAA website and by e-mail to all Full Individual Members

Go back to top

Calendar for EAA Members

October 2025 – February 2026

  • October / November: Call for EAA Book Prize nominations opens
  • Early November: Registration for the 32nd EAA AM in Athens, Greece, opens
  • 30 October: Deadline for session proposals for the 31st EAA AM
  • 12 December: Announcement of session acceptance / rejection
  • 19 December: Call for papers for the 31st EAA AM in Athens, Greece, opens
  • 22 December – 4 January: EAA Secretariat closed
  • 31 December: End of the 2025 EAA membership
  • 1 January: Beginning of the 2026 EAA membership
  • January: Call for nominations to the EAA election
  • January: Call for nominations to the European Archaeological Heritage Prize
  • January: Call for nominations to the Oscar Montelius Foundation (OMF) Early Career Achievement Prize (ECAP) circulated to Members
  • 1 January: Deadline for submissions to 2026 TEA winter issue
  • 28 January: Payment deadline (registration and membership fee) for all session organisers
  • 29 January: Final list of sessions and session organisers for the 32nd EAA Annual Meeting in Athens, Greece, available
  • 2 February: Call for volunteers opens
  • 5 February: Deadline for paper submissions
  • 27 February: Call for volunteers closes
  • 27 February: Deadline for EAA Book Prize nominations
Go back to top

Chat with EAA Official over TEA

Fedir Androshchuk

Institution: National Historical Museum (Stockholm)/Uppsala University, Sweden

Position: Former general director of the National Museum of the history of Ukraine, currently principal investigator at the National Historical Museum in Stockholm, member of the international advisory board at Centre for the World in the Viking Age (WIVA), Uppsala University

Position in the EAA: Ordinary Member of the Executive Board

EAA Member since: 2022


Image above courtesy of F. Andorshchuk


TEA: Why do you do archaeology/How did you decide to do it?

F. Androshchuk: During my school years, I enjoyed reading books on various historical subjects, particularly those about the distant past. In this regard, archaeology was the perfect field for me, as it offered a personal touch to the past. At the age of 14, I attended an archaeological excavation of the early medieval hill-fort of Khodoriv - a beautiful site on the high bank of the Dnieper River in central Ukraine. Then, two years later, I volunteered at the excavations of the Novgorod excavations, where I saw perfectly preserved organic material and even caught the scent of the medieval town’s dung. It gave me a rare opportunity to see ancient remnants in such good condition that we usually can only imagine. After that, I participated in archaeological excavations of early medieval sites in Soviet Ukraine and Russia every summer. This was an interesting experience, revealing different contexts, scientific environments, cultural clashes, and even the hierarchical principles that shaped working teams. It was during this period that I became interested in Viking activities in the east, a subject which would have a significant impact on my future career and life.

 


Androshchuk and local canine runestone expert “Mailo” examine Risbyle runestone U 161 on the shore of Vallentuna Lake, Sweden. Image courtesy of Androshchuk.

TEA: What is the most important and relevant part of your work?

F. Androshchuk: I see two main aspects here. The first is the assessment of the accuracy of the information that I’m dealing with, which is essential in archaeology, both in the field and in research. This goal is, of course, a very subjective and challenging one to achieve, one that we all need to work on. The second aspect is the popularisation of research and the sharing of its results with a broader public. I believe that thematically designed exhibitions, public lectures and writing of books for the general public are the most important forms of engagement. Their help to disseminate knowledge and ensure that archaeology remains an interesting and relevant topic.


Androshchuk’s first day in the role of the director of the National Museum of History of Ukraine. A giant ceramic vessel found before WWII in Olbia stands in the background. Image courtesy of Androshchuk.

TEA: How do you see archaeology changing in the future?

F. Androshchuk: During my archaeological career, I have experienced the impact of various archaeologies: “traditional”, extremely theoretical, rescue, academic, museum, totalitarian and politically correct, to name a few. They reflect different forms of adaptation to the shift of political ideas and paradigms in society. In the past, aside from digging, we were expected to carry out many other tasks in the field, including various forms of documentation. Today, many of these tasks are carried out digitally. The implementation of new technologies has made, and will continue to make, many tasks in archaeology easier, enabling better analysis, visualisation and comprehension. However, it also means that we can create new versions of the past that must be critically and qualitatively verified. To do this, we need to master new tools and knowledge, which will present a significant challenge to the field and to career opportunities.

TEA: What/How does archaeology contribute to society at large?

F. Androshchuk: Since its establishment as a science, archaeology has primary served an educational purpose: to inform people about the development and evolution. During the late 1920s, some Marxist archaeologists in Soviet Russia considered a cultural layer to be a condensed remnant of a socio-economic formation. They believed that rigorous stratigraphical excavations would allow archaeologists to study the gradual evolution of these formations from prehistory, through to slavery, feudalism and capitalism. Gordon Childe expanded this idea in his book “Progress and Archaeology”. Today, archaeology focuses on a variety of issues relevant to contemporary society, such as identity, gender, conflict and violence and so on. I believe that the value of archaeology and history lies in their connection to memory. As long as society feels the need to establish its identity in relation to the surrounding world, it will require the remembrance of different events and processes. Archaeology has the power to tell stories, which can be manipulated and used for different political purposes. Preventing such manipulations is an important task for archaeology.

TEA: What archaeology literature are you reading right now?

F. Androshchuk: These are actually four books related to my research and lectures: “River Kings” by Cat Jarman, Jörn Staecker’s “Rex regum et dominus dominorum : die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanhänger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altdänemark und Schweden”, “Den nordlige jernalder: kulturminner of funn fra Malangen till Loppa” by Roy Anders Nilsen and Ernst Herzfeld, “Die Malereien von Samarra”.


Androshchuk explains to Mailo the problems and challenges of dating the Skokloster picture stone in Uppland, Sweden. Image courtesy of Androshchuk.

TEA: What, in your opinion, is the role of a museum today? How has this changed?

F. Androshchuk: Throughout history, museums have played many different roles: as places to store and display curious objects and confiscated goods; as research and educational institutions; as propaganda hubs; and as venues for public entertainment. Regardless of the priorities that shape their collections, all museums possess the power to create narratives that can influence public knowledge and understanding of certain events, processes and people. These narratives can be manipulated for various purposes. This is why the freedom to choose topics for exhibitions and research subjects is essential for museums in democratic societies. Unfortunately, museums often depend on donors, owners, and governments, making them vulnerable when it comes to making particular choices and decisions. The desire to attract more visitors can sometimes lead to “disneyfication” of museums when commercialisation replaces scientifically-based exhibitions and narratives. From my experience as a former director of a poorly financed museum, I would argue that museums can still contribute to and even shape public opinions on matters of cultural heritage and rethinking the contested past and present by creating even small exhibitions related to current social issues.

TEA: Some people say that culture (broadly speaking) is a luxury. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

F. Androshchuk: In my view, the status of culture in different countries is equivalent to its position in the portfolios of local politicians. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that cultural institutions in all countries feel underfunded. However, this is partly a consequence of our reluctance to promote the benefits of culture to politicians at all levels, as well as society in general. If society as a whole understood and shared the social value and benefits of culture, I would call this a luxury. Therefore, we still have a long way to go to achieve this.

Go back to top