Power to the People? Desirability and feasibility of community archaeology in The Netherlands (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archaeology in the Netherlands 2002: The National Archaeological Review and Outlook
European Journal of Archaeology, 2004
Too little is known about the effects of archaeology policy, which makes it difficult to evaluate and adjust the policy on the basis of rational arguments. We simply do not have enough hard evidence. As a result, policy development depends largely on subjective factors such as instinct, vision and expert judgment. A well-balanced assessment of policy – something both politicians and the public would very much like to see – is therefore impossible. To help fill the gap, targeted research is now being conducted into the effects of policy. This article outlines the findings of the report Archaeology in the Netherlands 2002: the national archaeological review and outlook, which was presented to the government of the Netherlands.
Archaeologists are widely regarded as searching in our present reality for traces of the past. However, in this lecture I argue that archaeologists searching for the past will instead find their present. In reviewing the relations between archaeology, heritage and present-day society, I argue that the remains of the past which archaeology studies cannot be seen only as a record of past human realities that were substantially different from our own. Instead, I propose that archaeological objects and practices can be conceived of as media of social practice. They assist us in negotiating our very own social realities and our understanding of what it means to be human. It is this quality that archaeology and heritage should mainly be concerned about in contemporary society. This perspective can considerably increase the value and significance of the discipline and practice of archaeology in present-day society.
2018
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), adopted by the Council of Europe in 1992, had a significant influence on the practice of archaeology in Europe. The attitude expressed in the Convention considers prevention as a prerequisite for the preservation of archaeological heritage which can be conducted through the active participation of experts in the early stages of planning procedures. After the ratification in 2004, the Convention became an important factor in the development of archaeological practice as a direct participant in the planning of spatial and infrastructural development in Croatia. Although the changes were significant, they did not include the full range of requirements needed for the successful practice of preventive archaeology. As Croatian archaeology is still not turning in that direction, this paper is focused on consideration of factors which can fulfill the requirements for implementation of efficient preventive archaeology, but also the ones which are currently preventing Croatian archaeology from changing attitude towards sustainable archaeological heritage management.
Dalfsen A Dutch Case Study of Involving the Community by Development-Led Archaeology
Advances in Archaeological Practice 6 (3), 2018
The Oosterdalfsen excavation in the municipality of Dalfsen received a wealth of media attention in the Dutch and foreign press in spring 2015 (Bouma and van der Velde 2017) due to spectacular finds and a well-thought-out media strategy. The excavation sparked the imagination of the village, local politicians were positive, and the site was visited by large numbers of local residents. This article looks at the background of this excavation, why local politicians were so mistrustful of archaeologists before the exca-ABSTRACT This article discusses the way development-led archaeology in the Netherlands disseminates archaeological knowledge to and with the public using the way archaeological projects were designed in Dalfsen (Netherlands) as a case study. In the early days of contract archaeology, which in the Netherlands was designed after the Valetta Convention, archaeologists were primarily concerned with the financial and planning aspects of projects, and there was little room for public archaeology. We suggest that this caused archaeologists to forget to involve the public in their projects. In time, it became almost impossible to rectify this mistake because archaeological contractors became extremely bureaucratic. In the case of Dalfsen, a spectacular project was needed to change this situation. The project, and especially its media value, inspired the municipality to invest in community archaeology and make choices that an archaeologist would not primarily be concerned with. Thus, we discuss the effects of these choices and archaeologists' actions in this process. We conclude that it is important for archaeologists to act as facilitators because it improves the success rate of community archaeology projects. Este artículo aborda la manera en que la arqueología comercial en los Países Bajos comparte los resultados con el público, usando como estudio de caso el diseño de proyectos arqueológicos en Dalfsen, un poblado en el este de los Países Bajos. En los primeros años de la arqueología comercial, que en los Países Bajos fue diseñada con base en el convenio de La Valetta, los arqueólogos se enfocaron en la planificación y gestión financiera de los proyectos en el contexto de las obras públicas de gran tamaño, dejando poco espacio para la arqueología pública. La resolución de este problema se complicó porque actuando de esa manera las empresas arqueológicas se volvieron extremadamente burocráticas. El caso de Dalfsen, donde se encontraron los restos de un cementerio de la época megalítica, ha causado un cambio relevante. El grande impacto mediático de los hallazgos ocasionó que el ayuntamiento del mismo pueblo decidiera invertir en un proyecto de arqueología pública. De esa manera se abrió un campo de trabajo antes no conocido, donde los arqueólogos se transformaron de científicos y profesionales del patrimonio en gestores e intérpretes para el público. El artículo describe esta transformación y concluye que el éxito de la arqueología pública depende de las decisiones de los arqueólogos y su voluntad de cambiar la dirección de la profesión. vation began, and how the local government turned an unexpected find not only into a short-term marketing asset but also into an enduring cultural program that is still active two years after the event. The positive attitude of the government of Dalfsen toward its own archaeological heritage today contrasts sharply with the views expressed during previous projects. From the start of development-led archaeology in the Netherlands, archaeological projects have been undertaken at the municipality level. As such, Dalfsen illustrates an interesting example of the position of public archaeology in the Netherlands. Noteworthy projects include Oosterdalfsen (which spans the years from 2011 to the present)