Archaeological heritage management and research

European Science Foundation

Institute of' Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Foundation "Res Publica Multiethnic.i"

Quo vadis archaeologia?

Whither European archaeology

in the 21

st

century?

Proceedings of the F.uropean Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop

Madralin near Warsaw, 12-13 October 2001

Edited by Zbigniew Kobyliiiski

Prefaces

Romuald Schild <> Marek Rubnikowlcz

Introduction

Observations on the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop "Whither Archaeology?" Stanislaw Tabac/ynski ....12 Quo radis arcbaeologia? Introductory remarks

/bigniew Kobylinski 17 Part I. Archaeology in uniting Europe: its cognitive and cultural role

I.ogicist modelling and the transfer of knowledge in the humanities

Jean-Claude Gardin 22 The cognitive role of archaeology

I'v/en Neustupny w> Borders of ignorance: research communities and language

Knstian Kristiansen « Discussion I 1 1 Excavating the other: European archaeology in the age of globalisation

Bjornar J. Olsen r Role of archaeology in bridging the gap between Eastern and Western Europe

Bo/ena Werbart ^ From isolation to integration: some remarks about Bulgarian archaeology 1944-1989

Ivan (iat.snv <><> Discussion II W Part D. Archaeological heritage: protection, management and use

Archaeological heritage and archaeological sources: new vision of the subject matter of archaeology Xbigniew Kobyliriski "% Archaeological heritage management and research

Willem Willems «< (hanging approaches to the historic environment

Adrian Olivier and Kale (lirk ')2 Discussion III l(H Part III. Methodology and programming strategy of archaeological research

The future of archaeology

Nicholas Conard I I H . The future of field archaeology

Martin Carver.... UK Archaeological field research - definition of minimum requirements

Jean Bourgeois m Survey archaeology and its scientific potentials: not a panacea but a step to the right direction

Maria lacovou Md

Discussion IV I i1)

Part IV. The past for the present and for the future Teaching archaeology in higher education - glance from Russia

Ludmila Koryakova is« Discussion V 1(>S Presenting the past through scientific journals

Isabel Martine/ Navarreic Hi« Towards a 21" century archaeology for everyone: uniting current theory with the wider community

John Carman P I Archaeology in the museum: presenting the past to the general public

Zbignieu' Kobyluhki

82

References

Carman,J. 2000 Theorising the p r a c t i c e (rfarchaeological heritage management

Archaeolofiia l'olona .-58: 5-21.

Carver, M. 1995 Digging lm data pruu iplcs .nul procedures lor e v a l u a t i o n , exi , i \ . i l i o n . n u l posi

exca-vation in towns in Theory and practice of archaeological research Vol // Acquisition offlaid data at mil/Il alruin s;/rv, l' l 'rbark'/yk (ed.), 255-.W2. Wars/a w . i

Flannery, K.V. 1982 The C.olden Marshalltown ,i p.irahle lor the are liae'ology of the 1980s Amerutin

Anthropologist 84: 265-278.

Holtorf, CJ. 1998 Is the p,ist .1 non renew,ihle resource'' I'd/icr giivii ill the U/K, Ink-i ( oin,'irss mi

Tbt Destruction tun/ < omciTuiion <>/ < ultural Property* on ihe Island of Brat, (.ron/ui, ^-1 May /9<AV

Holtorf, CJ. and T. Schadla-Haü 1999. Age .is .irtel.ut on ,ir< li.ieologK.il .uithentieity.

/'iiro/x'HH /onriitil <>/ Anhtifiilitfiy 2(2): 229-247.

Kobyliriski, Z. 2001 Teoretyczn«podstawy XvoAcn/wc/i dziedzitnm arcbtoiogicznego. w,irs/.i\\.i

- 2002 Archaeology on n u n s of ivory towers what theory we neeil' In .In /x/ro/o^/cs <>/'l-ttro/x' lli^lor\', methods and theories, I ' l Hiehl. A d r a i n s i h and A. Mareiniak (ed.s), Münster In print

Kristiansen, K. 1989 Penpecttves on the archaeological hc-nl.ige history and future.

In Archaeological heritage management in Ihe modern ii'orld, II I ( l l e e i e (ed I, 23-29. London Kunkel, R. 2000 I'roblemy / a t / . | d / , i m a d/ied/u twetu kullurowym - dokimienl.K |,i In l'inhlciiiv

zarzqdzania dzii'dziilurnt ktillitroii'yiii, K ( i i i t o w s k a (ed ). 129 Ml Wars/aw a

Larsen, K.E. ed. 199S Nora Conference on Authenticity Trondheun

Lipe, W.D. 1984 Value and meaning in c u l t u r a l resource's In Approaches to the archaeological

heriitifii'. n rlc-erc (ed.), i - l i . Cambridge

Lowenthal, D. 2000 stewardmg the- |iast in a perpk xing present in Values and heritage conservation,

I. A v t a m i and K Mason (eds), I8^2S The- ( i e l l y ("onsi'rvalion I n s t i t u t e , los Angeles

McGimsey, C.R. 1972 I'lihlii un hneolo^v New York.

Schaafsma, C.F. 1989 Significant until proven otherwise problems v c i s u s ivpiesenlalive sample's

In Archaeological berttage inun/l^nticnl in //<c modern world, 11 I ( leete (c'd ). ,-iS-Sl London

Sloggett, R. and R. Fremantle 1995 /'rcserririfi /he/>asl A guidt for Conserving library collections

Melbourne

Tabaczyrtskl, S. 1998 Archaeological sources: problems of i d e n t i l i c a t i o n and i n l e i e n c e In 'l'hcon'nui/

l>radn i' <>/ un hueolofiu tl/ re^eiin h Vol 111 Dialogue iri/h the dtiln the un Ixiealo^Y of < om/>le\ societies and */s lonle.vl in Ihe ')(h. S I'abac/ynski (c'd ), .1V63 Wars/aw.i

Archaeological heritage management

and research

Willem J . H . Willems

There is ,1 wide-spreael leveling in our discipline1 lh.it the practice' ot lientage

man-agement and .icadi'iim atchacologv h a v e grown a p a r t ' even very far apart and that the' gap between the two needs to be closed, or at least bridged. One approach to this challenge is to emphasise the role or task ot' archaeology as a scientific discipline in the protection and management of archaeological heritage. It is indeed quite clear, t h a t archaeological heritage management needs critical reflection and an adequate theoretical basis and that it needs better scientific tools. These matters will be exami-ned below. There1 are. ho\\e\er. t\\o additional issues that are relevant. First, we

should realise that the problem is not limited to the relation between archaeological heritage management and archaeological research: it is a b u n d a n t l y clear that other disciplines are i m o k c d as \\ell and that what we need to improve heritage manage-ment should partly (.ome from oilier disciplines anil be part of an integrated approach. Second, it is necessary to look at the history of development of our disci-pline because1 the existing separation needs to be explained and better understood.

This will be done f i r s t .

It is COIHnonly aexeptcd that about t\\o centuries ago. arounel the beginning of the 19"' century, archaeology became a scientific discipline . Antiquarunism turneel into

SVChaeoiogy anel the new discipline rapidly evolved in other directions than the

tradi-tional interest for the Mediterranean area and the classical word. In 1818, C. Reuveiis in the Netherlands was appointed the world's first university professor of archaeolo-gy with an explicit teaching commitment for "national", prehistoric archaeoloarchaeolo-gy and in 1819 C. Thomseii in Denmark elesigneel the national museum around the stone-bron/e-iron suevession.

These- and many other elevelopments arounel the same time were by no means a coincidence. The scientific interest tor non-classii al anhaeology was promoted as a direct consequence of the political restrueluring of post-Napok-omc Furope, the f o r m a t i o n of nation states anel the need to elevelop, or to (re)deline, a "national ielen-tity". The past is an essential component in that proevss and it is significant t h a t the concept of "national antiquities" was invented in this period. The term autu/mti'*

nationales was used in the title of a collection of five- volumes, published in 1790 by

the French antiquarian A-L. Millin, and was soon applied widely all over early 19' century Furope.

See. tor example, numerous p.ipers m « M U I overview» s m l i .is H u n i e r n u l K.iKloii 1WV Dusek I">'H Kohvlmski

2000

Willem Willems

84

The national héritage rapidly became one of the foundations of the nation as a political and a demographic entity and was — often quite consciously — used to cre-ate and foster a national awareness und pride. This new importance of national anti-quities was, ol course, a strong impetus for measures to conserve m o n u m e n t s m the field and to display relevant objects in national museums. At the same time-, the story behind these remains of the past had to be told as well and it needed scientific legiti-mating. In fact, the favourable political climate t h u s also created a basis for the develop-ment of academic research. In t h i s sense, it may be said t h a t protection and manage-ment of archaeological heritage' arc- not new tasks of archaeology as a scientific dis-cipline but indeed very old and fundament.il ones.

Initially, research and conservation activities had a common basis in the- need to develop documentation and inventarisation ol archaeological remains. On the other hand, it is clear that already during the 19'1' and especially in the 20'1' century,

dea-ling with protection and conservation of archaeological heritage and scientific archaeological research became different lines of work. It is not very difficult to see why t h i s occurred, despite' the common roots and a common interest in inventarisa-t i o n . Afinventarisa-ter all, archaeology is abouinventarisa-t sinventarisa-tudying inventarisa-the pasinventarisa-t. Alinventarisa-though archaeology may be1

used or abused for political purposes, completely unconsciously for lack of theoreti-cal reflection, to "colour" a story in a polititheoreti-cally desirable way, to leave out elements that are considered undesirable, or even to falsify evidence', it is about discovering and interpreting material remains from the past. We do have pseudo-science, but most an h.icological rescarc h is clone in a scientific manner and is generally conside-red by its recognised practitioners as apolitical and as "pure- research"4.

By contrast, the activity of "taking care of the past" ( t h e ' derm.in c o n c e p t of

Denkmalpflege, or the D u t c h monumentenzorg) - or its modern form of

archaeo-logical heritage management - is something t h a t is done in the present. It is always a political activity that is traditionally dominated by legal issues and practical con-cerns of conservation methods. For a very long time, therefore, there has been t h i s increasing gap between on the one hand academic research into the history of man and necessarily having an International perspective, and on the other the' protection and management ol heritage, almost entirely from ,i n a t i o n a l viewpoint and primari-ly coping with political, legal, administrative and t e c h n i c a l issues. The' l i n k between t h e - two were- the rescue excavations, nowadays also referred to by the politically cor-rect terms of "conservation ex situ" or "conservation by record". In many western European countries such as the' I IK and Germany, even this natural link between research and heritage management became' quite weak, in my view for social as well as economic reasons such as the growth of the heritage industry and a rigid academic s t r u c t u r e . In smaller countries ( s u c h as in Scandinavia, the Netherlands) and in most of Eastern Europe where integration was achieved through the Academies of Science, both branches of archaeology never grew that far apart. Nevertheless, while-it is understandable why academic researi h and herwhile-itage1 manage-me'nt became

sepa-rated to varying degrees, it remains curious t h a t until very recently there was nothing

In i t ' i cnl ve.irs .1 v.isl amount of' l i t e r . i l m e l u s br< ome , i v , i i l , i l > l e , i l ion! ,m h.ieolo^y in n l il K ni lo u lei >lo}',y .nul n, il ion i l r . n i '.ee loi e x . u n p l e Knsti.i risen 19*,H or ( ir.imst h 2(100 on I h r u n d loi l i n i m l u il development in ,ir< h.icology ,is ,1 me.ms lo < ope w i t h polins.ilion ol rese.m h .mcl publie presentation Tills issue of "Anhiicolo^n ill

MriqgHM**lK> i n c l u d e s extensive releremes on lh< • i c lu ion-, I « KM < n IK h .lenlogy. n.ilion.ihsm .nul ideology

in archaeology comparable to the role of archival sciences as a sulxlisciplinc of his torical sciences. The preservation of its stuck m a t c i u l \\as apparcntlv not a great concern to archaeology.

From the 1960s onwards, many changes occurred. The Ne\\ Archaeology einer ging trom the USA led to critical reliée lion and a more central role tor archaeologi-cal theory thai has changed the discipline: a process that was already described in the early 1970s as archaeology's "loss of innocence" by David Clarke. At the- same-time. the1 environmental movement started, resulting in the green debate and the

recognition that the world's natural and cultural resources arc' in danger This became the basis lor the birth of archaeological heritage or "resource" management in the modern sense, the program for which \\.is first laid out by Hill I.ipe in 1974\

Archaeological monuments, in the' sense ot m o v a b l e as w e l l as immovable' parts of the cultural heritage, .ire no longer seen primarily as objects of study but as cul-H i i a l resource's to be' of use and benefit in the present and future. In some' ways, "archaeological resource management" may be a better term thai "archaeological heritage management" because it is probably a more value-free concept than "heri-tage". It refers to the idea ol seeing the material remains of the' past as a resource: for society as a whole as well as lor research by archaeologists. The concept of "carc-ane! protection of monuments" has been replaced by the management ot these-arc haeological resources, and \iewing them in isolation cannot do this. It has to lie-clone in context: in the context of the- landscape and therefore at a regional scale-, and in the context ol the' planning process. It was increasingly reali/e'd that "rescue" or "salvage-" e x c a v a t i o n s arc- in t a c t the' result o f ' a f a i l u r e ' to plug archaeology into the decision-making in the land-use planning process'. This development has lc-d to the Convention of Malta ol ll)l)2. in w i n c h ihis principle is embeclde-ds, and to notions ol

sustainable development discussed below.

In a p r a c t i c a l sense', the' implementation ot the Convention in national legisla-tions has not only led to major improvements in way in which archaeological remains arc- being de-alt w i t h , it has also created a boom in archaeological work. These two lac tors are now - finally - beginning to change traditional archaeological research and training.

It has become clear that for a sensible arc lucological heritage manage-ment, auhae-ology needs new and different tools and new types ol research are needed to provide such tools. M u c h of this research is in l.u t being done by national bodies charged w i t h (archaeological) hcrii.ige management, w h i c h are diverting their core business from traditional research through e x c a v a t i o n to the- kind ot research that is specifically aimed at creating the knowledge needed for effective management1

Academic archaeology in Furopc' is slower in adapting to this need, although there a i e vast differences between Furopean countries in this respect Thc-se depend to a large extent on the way their university system works and the flexibility of the .K.I demie structure'. Another reason tor s u c h difleivnex-s is the' degree ot integration ot

l i p . IT I S,v un l i n s subir, t .ilso VVillrnis I9T ,iml 1WS

I lir k-rm w.is im i nu 11 In 11 l i n k r n u l K. liston ( l W V srr thsi ussion on p \ n \ 111)

Astonishingly Ihr l o t u r p l h.is .ipp.uvnlly brrn ivinlrotltu ril bv H M ' I ' s \ y h u h srrms to i r n n l K h . i \ i i sl.iblishi tl i ( < Immission lol S.ilv.i^r AR h.u'olo^y"

( o n m i l ol l ill-opt' IW2

At llli1 l i n u ' ol vM'ilim; ( S u n i n i r r 2001). thr ( o m t ' n l i o n h.ui IHTII r.inlk'il by 20 t onnlnrs

l \ i m p l i s ne l nglish UITI.IKI- .mil Ihstom Siotl.mil in thr I ' K Rijksdienst O i n l h r i i l k n n u i . « Bodanandcnoek m Hu- N i ' t h i ' t l . m i l s K i k s . i n m . i m .inibrli'l m s\\riK n

Willem Willems

86

academie and heritage management agendas: the way in which stnitegic alliances c a n he created between heritage management institutions and universities and the' degree to which these- institutions have funding policies aimed at influencing research'

The increase in work has also increased demand lor properly trained proles sionals, so there is not only change in the type- of research that is being clone, but also in university training. Such change, however, has only barely begun; in most of Europe it is hardly even visible This is not surprising when compared to the situa tion in the USA, where contract archaeology started in the early 1970s: even today, the heritage management sector there c o m p l a i n s about the lack of adequate t r a i n i n g of students1^.

I lowever this may be, there- are nowadays a number ot research directions which an h.ieology has taken up that are very different from the traditional subjects of archaeological research. It is u s e f u l to examine these in more detail and to see which trends can be discerned and which desiderata remain.

Theory development

Much of the work in archaeological heritage management is being done from a p r a c t i c a l point of view under daily constraints of time and money and within an often

unquestioned, positivist framework in which it is assumed that, for example, t h r u - is

some o b j e c t i v e way in which to assess value, to make choices on what to preserve, c/( I here .ire \ e r y strong politic al and moral dimensions to this, but at t h e same t i m e -it is also a matter of theoretical development and c r i t i c a l reflection. In recent years, there- h a v e - been several c a l l s to develop the theoretical underpinning of archaeo-logical heritage management in which we can discern at least four important direc-tions. It can be clone by developing a reflexive approach to its role in society' . by-examining its basic principles or, rather, assumptions'4, by looking at the- approaches

to interpretation of vast amounts of accumulating data'\ and by developing relevant concepts in relation to other disciplines". Some of these have- led to important results t h a t will be returned to below and, despite differences in emphases, there is of course- a considerable- degree of overlap between them.

Selection

One of the most basic problems of archaeological heritage management is that of selection. Not all that remains from the past can be preserved, investigated, or even taken into consideration. Selection itself is a process of political derision-making, governed by aims and constraints that are beyond the realm of science, so there1 are

two ways in w h i c h archaeology should be involved w i t h selection.

One is by political activity as a pressure group, by questioning and exposing the explicit or implicit political agendas or the possibly fallacious assumptions and dis-torted pictures of the' past that govern decisions about the heritage, and the legal and other processes by which decisions are being t a k e n . This requires the- development of a critical reflexive theory and also the building of an infrastructure- as a v e h i c l e for

On ihr LIMIT suh|iil sei t v Thorn.!'. I'J'M

I'or numerous discussions on t h i s suhjei t SIT for ex.itnple. r e c e n l \ o l u m e s of newsletters s m l i .is i h < s.i |

Unlit-mi nul II» I KHI/HHII AnhtHtilof'i',1 "

See e f t . d r . i m s i l i 2000 .mil s e \ i i i l p i | > < i s m il us v o l u m e Si e , ;> ( .irm.m 2000

See e.i; Modder IW

action, both at tin- national ami at the international le'Ve'l' Theoretical developments have already been mentioned. As lor the " a c t i o n " part, the organisation ot archaeolo-gy at the national level shows vast dillerciices m l mope ami elsewhere. Some coun-tries do have institutions or associations, which are used lor political a c t i o n , in others these seem to be virtually lacking. At the International l e v e l , there arc- associations such as the SAA tor the Americas and the KAA in Furope. w h i c h can and do serve as tools tor the community ot archaeologists to become involved politically. In addition there is. at the global level, the role of ICOMOS as a non-governmental organisation a f f i l i a t e d to UNKSC'.O. One of ils central aims is "to establish intc-rnalioii.il standards tor the- preservation, restoration, and management of the c u l t u r a l environment". It has several international committees dealing w i t h aspects of archaeological heritage' ma-nagement1", which produce these standards in the form ot c h a r t e r s ' . They have

proved to be quite e f f e c t i v e political instruments on main occasions

Of course1 tin1 organisations and tools mentioned so f a r . are important and

neces-sary lor many other aspects, but they arc- included here because "selection" is the most basic issue. Another, very different way in which archaeology is involved w i t h selection, is by research that is intended to provide criteria and a methodology tor judging the significance1 of archaeological remains. As Carman (2000) has recently

demonstrated, measuring archaeological significance is a very complex and often underestimated issue t h a t , again, nevels thorough theoretical analysis. Recently. Darvill has made- an important contribution to this by his distinction between value systems and importance' systems, w h i c h are' distinct but interpenetrating. In the first, there is a consensus of social s i g n i f i c a n c e ' that is \\icle-lv shared by individuals and groups and relates in very broad terms to archaeological heritage. In the second, there are q u a n t i t a t i v e - as w e l l as q u a l i t a t i v e sc.iles ot importance- w h i c h are object ive-spceilie and (in social terms) differently situated because they are developed and implemented by professionals on be-half of society as a whole1 As is evident from

the rapidly i n c r e a s i n g amount of literature on t h i s subject'1', t h i s a! least is a task t h a t

archaeology as a scientific discipline is t a k i n g up.

Quality management

An issue that has so far not received comparable attention is that ot quality ma-nagement in archaeological heritage mama-nagement . Quality can be defined t a i r l y

Straightforward as the total of properties and characteristics of a product or service

that is relevant for compliance' w i t h requirements or nevels, although in reality the concept is rather complex. Quality management is a systematic approach to obtaining or m a i n t a i n i n g q u a l i t y and improving it and t h u s has two aspects on the- one hand it refers to quality assurance, on the other to q u a l i t y improvement.

< / VVilli-ms 2000

" Nol.ihly liitiTii.ilion.il ( ommitliv on A n l i . u - o l o n u . i l UCTII.IKI- M.m.igi-nu-nt (1C AI IM) l i n l n k i n . n i o n . i l c o i n i n i l t r r o n 1 1 u l ' i n l i i « î l e - i ( u l l n i il l i c t i l .ii;i- ( 1 C l ' c 1 1 ) n n l ihc- i ommilti-i-s i k - . i l u i K w i l l i K o e k A n .mil l i i l n i i . l l Tourism

Mosl nol.lhk- .m- l l u - c I n i l c i lor Ihr Prok-ition .mil M m i i \ . n u ni ol I hi Vu h.li-olo.nu .il l k Tll.lgi'. .llso known .is Ihr l . l i i s . m i u ( h , u u i . n u l l l u ( h n i e i loi llu p i o t r i l l o n ol l l u l ' i u k i \ \ Mc i ( u l l i n . i l HiTil.lgr proilun-il .is p . u i ol i di i l l ( 01 I M - u t ion on Ihr I in le i \\ î l e i • c i i l t i i r . i l I li-iit.i>;i- i l r \ r l o p r c l loi 1 N I se O b\ l i n l n l r i n . i l i n n . i l l . i \ \

Assoi i.uion s c iilnir.il 1 li-riLi^i' < c 'ininille c ' n.irvill 2001. im i

l l s r l n l i r i i - n l si m i n i , i i u s c .m I H - lonml m ( .11 ni.m 2000 ( 10-1 S) .mil D . m i l l 2001 l i n - issur -\n hilnliyi^

ht-Ninhn hlrilhlnll d 2 . l i o n n e I l i n l l n - i n r ol Hrtirilinifi ( \ . i l n . i t i o n ) is .ilso .m mlni-slm^ souui loi o t l u - i i l un

Anglos.ixoil .ippro.u In-s

WÜlem

Willcms

88

Obviously, the concept of q u a l i t y in archaeological heritage' management has two very d i f f e r e n t , though nevertheless related, aspects because then- arc- two kinds of needs or requirements that have to be complied with: the needs of the client thai has commissioned archaeological work and the' needs ol society and the a n h a e o logical community. The first is normally governed by a contract t h a t is often q u i t e ' s p e c i f i c ; the second may be1 covered by legislation and a permit, w h i c h q u i t e ollen

is rather general.

There is not enough space' to go into details here \ but it is evident that Improved heritage legislation has created a basis for a v a s t increase in archaeological work in many countries. The1 u l t i m a t e ' purpose- ol t h i s is to retain as mu< h as possible1 arc

haeo-logical information in s////, or e-lse- e x c a v a t e , record and interpret it so that it t o n t r i b u t e ' s to knowledge- of the- past. It is surprising to see that instruments by which we can ascertain that w h a t is being done - ranging from evaluation boards to project designs, etc. - is and remains relevant to those purposes, are- still underdeveloped. This is all the- more- surprising given the loudly voiced objections to a "heritage indus-try", although it should be1 added that - again - there are considerable differcnc es between countries in ( h i s respect. Some 'lime's even w i t h i n countries, such as the le-elc

ral republic of dermany.

On the other hand, significant advance's have been made in some countries in developing standards of perlornianc e, specifications for archaeological work, codes of p r a c t i c e - and c ' t h i e s . and very basic tools s u c h as project management. Fspcc i . i l l v where- the "developer pays principle" has been Incorporated in legislation, these are essential in quality assurance as regards the product For the' developer this product may simply be the removal of remains on time- and at the' agreed upon costs, for thé-profession and society it can be- s u c h t h i n g s as a report t h a i is a c t u a l l y produced a n d . on top of t h a t , may even contain relevant i n f o r m a t i o n . . .

Technical conservation issues

A field where much development has occurred is t h a t ol t e c h n i c a l conservation issues. Traditionally, archaeology as a s c i e n t i f i c discipline has been m u c h concerned about the conservation of e x c a v a t e d materials. In addition, there is i n c r e a s i n g research into "the- conservation and management of are haeological sites", w h i c h in f a c t is the- t i t l e - of a journal that appears since 1996. As is evident from the content of t h i s journal, a lot of work is being done to develop methodologies and tools w h i c h enable site's to s u r v i v e ' , and the' n a t u r e - ol s u c h work varies widely. It involves prac-t i c a l . prac-t h e - o r e - l u a l as w e - l l as eprac-thical issue-s. suc h as resprac-toraprac-tion prac-t e c h n i q u e s , prac-the use' of vegetation c o v e - r , t h e - i m p a c t of tourism, the r e - c o n c i l i a t i o n of conservation goals and questions of historic and aesthetic integrity, cl<

Also, considerable methodological and t e c h n i c a l a d v a n c e s in archaeological sur ve-y should be- mentioned here. They are important not only lor better conservation, bul e s p e c i a l l y as a cornerstone1 ol modern archaeological heritage management t h a t Increasingly depends on t i m e l y and a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about the' presence' of archaeological re-soim es.

A fairly recent branch in the field of technical conservation issue's is the study ol the conservation of une-xc a v a t c c l materials by archaeometry. Although there is a general

I ' it i n Interesting debate ' i n Iwo v n v d i l l ' i < i l l i p p i n . K I K - . l" N r,. i l . i n < l p i , K lic .il sysu-ms ni qu.illly m.in.igc.'im'nt

II! I I I I K I . 1 1 1 ( 1 I I I i l H ' N i i l K i l H i l l s w I l K I I 111 l l l f l l .11V ( I I I 11 K I I I I I ' ' I I I I l i t ' A llgl( )S.I \ ( 111 OMr Scr 1 1 \ \lllll t lit A , /( •

presumption in f a v o u r ol preservation in situ on the- assumption t h a t archaeological W";//i'w sik's and their contents an- best left in the1 sc >j|. tins assumption is nol nci essai ilv true1.

It is becoming clear t h a t environmental i hange's cause-el bv industrialisation and. tor example, changes in agricultural practices, h a v e - caused major change's in the condi-tion of buried materials and that the environment in the soil is by no means a static and stable one'1'. This process of de-gradation has so far only been studied in a

limi-ted way, it is ol course- q u i t e - expensive and qualified personnel a i e h a u l to come by. Nevertheless, it is sale- to sav thai l u - i e should be- one- ol the1 research priorities of archaeology and s u n - K one- thai deserves a global approach.

Alliances with other fields

As slated above-, w h e n we abandoned the concept of "care and protection ot monuments" and the- n a t i o n a l ".stamp collections" of sites that go with it, t h i s was replaced by the' concept ot managing archaeological resources. This has io be' done' spatially at a regional scale, in the context ot the landsiape. and organisational!) in the context of the- planning process. These change's in perception, scale and organi-sation require changes, or rather, supplemental v approaches in archaeology as a dis-cipline and they require a l l i a n c e s w i t h other disdis-ciplines and therefore the instruments and concepts thai allow f r u i t f u l i n t e r a c t i o n .

Landscape arc haeologv is one ol the current b u / / w o r d s . but the- term is some-what confusing and used in d i l l c i c n t me-anings Traditionally, archaeology has at-tempted to reconstruct and understand past landscapes This is now quite useful in heritage- man.igcmcnl. as such studies arc- v i t a l building blocks for prédictive model-ling and for constructing managcim-nt tools such as i n d i c a t i v e ' maps ol archaeologi-cal resources. A d i l l e i c i i t angle is taken by the introduction of the concept of the cul-t u r a l biography of landscape's, w h i c h helps cul-to creacul-te- an underscul-tanding of lime- depcul-th and past meanings In the new I'liro/x'tin laiitlsni/x- ( oi/rciilinii , landsiape is com-prehcnsivcK dehned as "an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result ot t i n - action and interaction of n a t u r a l and or h u m a n factors". Various ap-proaches are being developed to come to grips with sustainable development and i hange- at a regional scale. The approaches mentioned either look at llie past and do no! siudy the- preseni. or they are limited to p r o v i d i n g archaeological tools t h a t a i e

Understandable for others and therelorc ensure lh.it the arc 'haeologie al landsiape is

laken into account in decision-making.

L'airc'lough has i c i e i i t l v dcsuibcd t h e - nu-thod of historic landscape' c liaraclerisa-t i o n . which lakes a more holisliaraclerisa-tic' approach in line1 w i t h the definition trom the

land-siape convention. It resis upon interpretation and cspei iallv on perception; il aims at understanding the present day landscape1 almost .is an archaeological artefact,

unravelling its components to establish are'.is defined by shared attributes based on the historie character and time-depth of the landsiape This at least has the adv an lage of taking most aspects ol the1 historic as w e ' l l as the present landscape' into

account, which allows a more balanced v i e w on susiainability ami managing change, although there seems to be a neglect ot the- invisible, buried landscape w h i c h could potentially be rather dangerous

Sr< K.irs ii)(P lor .in overview Sri ff> Kovm.ins I'WS * i mm i l nl 1 UK >pr 2(1110

Vi'illcni Willcms

90

In any case there are, at the moment, many developments in an hueologit.il rese.m h v v l i u h arc1 l u n c l a m e n t a l l y changing archaeological t h i n k i n g about landscape

and w h i c h aim at providing the necessary instruments for f r u i t f u l co-operation with other d i s c i p l i n e s and for integrated approaches that will help to better manage' c h a n g e and achieve sustainable development.

In this contribution, some developments in archaeology as a s c i e n t i f i c discipline have been highlighted, which are relevant to heritage management. Of course there is more1 and there clearly is a need for alliances with other discipline's: spatial sciences

including town and country planning, data management, social sciences such as demo graphy and recent specialisations such as leisure/tourism studies or comparative law.

In addition, there is a need to develop a better insight in what is termed "public archaeology", which encompasses all aspects related to the interaction tx'tween ar-chaeology and the public. This includes a whole variety of issues that have to do with the role of archaeologists, the presentation of archaeology by various media and cultural tourism, heritage claims of indigenous groups, illicit trade, etc. As has often been pointed out, there is a direct relation between the perceived Ix-nefits of archaeology and the acceptance by society of the cost of arc haeological heritage management and the amount of public support it receives. There is an inherent and apparently fairly universal public interest in archaeology, but this may be less deeply rooted than is often assumed. There is a certain complacency about the need for public education and "outreach". In addition, it has become clear that public interest often arises from elements that are not normally appreciable to a professional, rather than a genuine understanding of the past. All such elements need to be researched, as they are vital to the' task of heritage1 management.

Finally, it should be stressed t h a t there is a need to develop international - in some ease's perhaps specifically F.umpean - perspectives on all issue's discussed. Archaeological heritage management needs to ge> beyond the1 national level at w h i c h

it has been practiced far too long.

References

Carman,J. 2000 Theorising the' practice' <>l an hae'olognal In-rit.ige1 i n a n a g r i m ' n l In Archaeological

btHtagt management / Kobylmski u-el > ArahMolqgte/MOM 3& ^-21.

Council of Europe 1992 Kitro/x'aii < «in cnlion on the I'rolci lion of the .\n hnculo^u til llriil«w

tri'tiM'd) Stmixiurg(European itv.iiy si-ru-s N<> i i-u

- 2000. Kuropcan fancJvn/x- ( 0111 ciilniii. sir.isboutg (I mope m lu u \ Se-iu-s No. 176).

Darvill, T. 199^ Working pr.u tie e-s \n Archaeological R&ourct Management in tin UK, I i h m i < i

,iml I Kalslon (e-els). 169- W H.illi

2001 Value- syste-ms in ,ire hai'ology and hrnlagr managum nt ArcMotogtSCbn \iuhrn hlciihldll

6 ( 2 ) . Wt 19 i

Dusck, S. 199:1 ArcMohgttcbe Denkmalgflegp inn/ /orv Imn^ Kolloquium <i)it«\\ln h derJabrtstaguHQ

1992 W r i i i i n

l ; i i n lough, <i.|. ( i n pivss) ( . u l t u r a l lantlst ape-, ( o i n p u t c ' i s and ( h a r a e l i ' M M l i o n . in l l u1 Pn)C€edtngS <>/ Ihc 20O1 C.'omfmlci', \/>/>/n «ti<ni\ in Anhmiihifiy t on/emu c. l'/s/>v. April 2001

Gramsch, A. 2000 He-fle-xive-ne'ss in ar< hae'ology. nalionalism and Kuropcanisni Anhtiriihi^niil

l>inl<if>n<"< 7 ( 1 ) . l 19

Ciroenewoudt, BJ. andJ.H.F. Bkxmiers IW7 De'.ilmg with s i g n i l u a i u c ( oiucpis. sir.iie'gie-s. and pnontie-s

ll.iism.mi). 11. 2000 An h.ieologv in ihr "Until Kin h In In/VA'o/o.^v K/<Wc>i;i uni/ v« it•/}

The dft'nitin t'.\/>t:nt'iit i'. Il 11.like (eil ), (>S-1S() l i . m k l u i t .mi M.un

Hoddcr, I. 1W.1 l h.inging configurations the icl.itionslnps between iheoiv .mil p r . u l i i i

In Anlxii'olo^iinl Recount' Minuet nient in /hi' I K . I I l u n l r r ,mil I K.ilston (eils ). 1 1 IS H.ith Hunter, J. and I. Ralston (eds) l')'M . i n h<ic<i/ui>i«<l A V v u m r \liiiin.i>cnicnl in the I A, H.ith Kars, II. 1W. Conservation -.iirtm- .mil t l u .111 h.irolugK.il prciprrt\ In .-In h(Hi>lot>n ill llcnliit^c

\l,in,Wi>i<-nl in the ,\cl/>ir/,iii</\ \\'] II \Vtllcnis. Il K . i r - . n u l D P I l . i l k w.is ( n i s ) . 17.V191. Assi-n Anii'isfootl

Knbyliriski, Z. (ed.) 2000 An htiti>l(if>K ill hcntitac mtinti^cniciil .In huoilo^in I'oloiui X

Kristiansen, K. l'W3 I'ltc strength ol tin- p.isl .iml Us giv.it might . .in rss.iv on tin- use ()| the p.ist tournai of Europtan Arcbaeokjgy ] ( 5 ) 3 *<i

Lipe, W.O. W-\ A i onsen .mon model loi A m e i u . m .in h,ieolog\ IhfKu« V ) ( l - 2 ) 2l.^-2l3 Roymans, N. P)l)S The cultut.il hiogr.iphv ol urnhekls ,itul the long term histoiy o l . i m\ t h n . i l l.unlsi.i|X'

An hiici>lo(>Rill l)iitl<>i>iic'< 2 ( 1 ) : 2-24.

Schnapp, A. l')').•< La Conquête du Passé aux origines di I'arcbtotoglt P.ms

Thomas, R. l')l)3 I n g l i s h lient.ige l u i u l i n g pollues .mil t h e n i m p , u t on r e s e . u i h s t t . i t e g \

In . I n hiicitlt>KH ni Kcviiin i Maiiii^cnicnl ni the I A. l l h i n t e r .mil I K.liston (eils). I % 1-tS H.ith Willems, WJ.H. l()'n A u h . i e o l o g u . i l I U t i l . i g e M.m.igeiilent in thé Nellierl.mils P.ist Piesenl .mil

I u l u l e In I n hiifol(ii>iitil lli'nliif>e \t<iii«wiiiciil in Ihc \clhcrlniHh. \X I 11 \ V i l l e m s . l i k , u s . u n i D.P l l . i l l e \ \ . i s ( e i l s ) . ^ 't i Assen \meisloort

l WK. Aiih.ieologv .mil henl.ige ni.in.igemi nt m l nropi In tuis .mil developments. I'iii'o/H'iin /oiiniiil a/ A>< ImfolanY l ( 3 ) 293-M l

- 2000: Areh.ieologN .mil I mope ielle\i\eness . n u l .u t ion . ! / < hiictiltinn.nl I1i«lt>i>ii<^ ~ ( l ) .-il) « Willems, WJ.H. (eil ) 2000 ( htillciw* lol l HIH/ICI/II uit /Vfro/ni;) /oi ti i meet 2000

\\illcin

\\ llll'HH