EAC Symposium – Setting the Agenda: Giving new meaning to European archaeological heritage
Break-out session 3
Managing the sources of European history
Student group
Library
Chair: Suzanne Vonk
Minutes: Anne van den Heuvel
After a short introduction to the theme Dare to choose the students’ statements were put up on the
board. The first few focused on the actual interpretation of legislation relating to fieldwork, looking
at expanding expertise in the field through the use of specialists in, for instance, geology or botany. It
was felt that data should be translatable into knowledge if produced more in tune with the needs of
specialists involved in fieldwork. Although there was general consensus on this, people felt that the
personal biases of specialists should not be underestimated when it came to interpreting data. This
would also require a set of basic rules and quality controls, which are not yet fully achieved through
self-regulation in the form of the Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard (KNA). The government should
be responsible for quality control.
The discussion then shifted towards legislative matters. It was stated that money saved by
governments not performing their own excavations but having the commercial market do it for them
should be returned to the scientific field. It was also felt that the quality of archaeological research
would be improved by more legislation and less separation between the commercial and scientific
parts of the sector. As well as improving quality, this would allow more scope for protecting
monuments for future generations. People felt strongly that we need to remind ourselves that we
don’t excavate simply to see the past, but to also keep it intact for future research.
Finally, the discussion switched to public aspects. A comment that the Dutch public didn’t see
archaeology in the landscape as clearly as in, say, Ireland, led the discussion to the role of
archaeologists in educating and raising the interest of the general public. However, the students felt
that we have to remember that the government’s role in boosting public interest lies mostly in the
area of legislation, which brought them back to their previous topic.
There were several separate statements
conclusions/recommendations were:
outside
the
themes,
but
the
three
main
List of themes and statements
1. Define a basic set of rules to eliminate conflicting interests between commercial and
scientific archaeology






Archaeology is an interdisciplinary, thus complex, science. Excavation strategies should reflect
this.
PVEs and PVAs have to be better at an early stage of research to increase our knowledge.
Minimal science-based norms should be defined in commercial excavations: pollen sampling,
paleo-environmental sampling, stratigraphic research, mapping in the city plan in the context
of research.
Act rather than discuss: set up rules, regulations and standards; discussion can come later >
allow room for mistakes!
Define scientific value.
Define good archaeology and aim to eliminate differences between commercial and scientific
archaeology.
1
2. Decide who gets to make the distinction between the value of scientific and commercial
archaeology














Each society gets the archaeological team it deserves.
The public does not view archaeology as a science at all.
Education has to focus more on archaeology rather than history and nation-building.
A scientific framework is only possible through government policy.
Is it the developer or archaeologist who sets the rules? Public vs private benefit. What can you
learn from the public?
How do we know what sites are truly important? What is important to us now may be very
different from what is important for future generations.
Should we pick sites that exemplify a certain type, like ticking them off on a checklist?
If we make the move towards in situ preservation instead of excavation, what responsibilities
do we incur? Monitoring, lack of visibility, etc.
Archaeologists can’t clearly decide what is more important or not as mentalities and attitudes
to material change. Things must therefore be preserved and conserved as best as possible for
any future investigation.
Selection: what exactly is important to archaeologists and what is important to developers?
Knowledge of what is more important?
In relation to the selection procedure, archaeologists should have in mind existing antiquities
or the possibility of finding antiquities before excavating or agreeing to development-led plans.
How can we decide beforehand to dismiss a site, when new insights might be gained from it?
You never know what you’ll find, but if you don’t look for the unexpected, you’ll never find it.
Whose choice?
The ‘free’ market of the commercial archaeological sector should be limited.
3. Create conservation norms to preserve archaeology as best we can, with our current vision,
to allow future generations access to the heritage we now preserve in situ





The archaeological product should be measurable and re-interpretable. Data  translatable
into knowledge that is relevant to society.
The choices made by our colleagues of 50-100 years ago, or even earlier or later, are much
regretted now. We can’t know what our future colleagues will want to find out. So how can we
choose what to excavate and what not to excavate, since if we don’t, the knowledge will be
lost forever.
It is difficult to set up a European kind of public archaeology, since every country has a
different starting point when it comes to public involvement and the ease with which this can
be done.
Money saved from excavations (because paid for by developers) should be invested in
researching the excavated material.
In cases where remains can’t stay in situ because of construction work (but this should be
considered beforehand), archaeologists and developers should breathe life into the remains by
including them in the plan.
2
3