Dare to Choose – Making Choices in Archaeological Heritage Management

18th Heritage Management Symposium of the European Archaeological Council / Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, 9 - 10 March 2017, Athens, Acropolis Museum

by Sophie Hueglin, Vice-President, European Association of Archaeologists (s.hueglin@web.de)

The European Archaeological Council or Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC) aims to support the management of archaeological heritage throughout Europe. All national bodies charged with the management of archaeological heritage in Europe can become members of the Council. The EAC aims – especially through the Symposia at the Annual Meetings and their publication in the EAC Occasional Papers series – to provide a forum for organisations to establish closer and more structured co-operation and exchange of information.[1][2] The current president of the EAC is Leonard de Wit from the Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency, a lawyer by training. This years’ Symposium in Athens was organised by Ann Degraeve from Ghent University in Belgium.

The topic of the Symposium derives directly from EACs Amersfoort Agenda, a strategic document that intends nothing less than setting the future of archaeological heritage in Europe.[3][4] Theme two of the Amersfoort Agenda _Dare to choose_ lists three agenda items: firstly, to be conscious, explicit and transparent about choices being made; secondly, to develop an infrastructure to be able to make informed choices, and thirdly, to adopt a broader perspective. The Symposium gave EAC members and guests an opportunity to explore the variety of approaches and consider how this may become embedded in general archaeological policy and practice in the coming years. The conference contributions were subdivided into three sessions: _Decision-making mechanisms_, _Research questions for excavations_, and _Involvement of society_.

Barney Sloane from Historic England opened the first session by presenting the preliminary results of a survey that an EAC Working Group had conducted upfront with EAC heritage managers in order to assess differences and similarities of approaches. With 21 answers from 18 countries he deducted three kinds: the structured approach – which would take research questions as guidelines, the broad approach – which by making use of the polluter-pays-principle would try to excavate almost everything – and a least structured approach, that would not have a formal research framework and might try to keep everything. Therefore, Sloane sees a high potential for the EAC to develop supporting structures and guidelines such as National Research Agendas.

Angeliki Simosi turned the attention away from the land to the Mediterranean, to the rich underwater heritage of Greece of which the Antikythera shipwreck is just one of the most famous examples.[5] Although she stressed that Greece has not signed the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the obligations listed there are being fulfilled in the daily practice of the Ephorate (Greek heritage authority).[6]

David Bibby from the State Office for Cultural Heritage Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and Duncan Brown from the Archaeological Data Service, York, United Kingdom showed that Archaeological Archives in Europe are one step ahead and have a printed policy already: their ARCHES project has produced and published quite pragmatic best practice guidelines that have been widely translated and adopted, but certainly will need further dissemination and implementation.[7] Because it is the archivists, they pointed out, which select the common (conscious) cultural memory of tomorrow.

Lyudmil Vagalinski from the National Archaeological Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences argued strictly in favour of state-led excavations and his institution has won a court case already against the State Road Agency on the question about the admission of private companies. He took up Sloane’s idea of a National Research Agenda, but wishes to widen the perspective and think about trans- and international research questions namely for sites that reach across borders or are (on) borders.

In Denmark, and similarly in other Scandinavian countries, excavations and archaeological research is in the hand of museums. On the legal background of the Convention of Valetta, Thomas Roland sees two stages, where one can prioritise with excavation triggered by building activities: in the planning phase and in the field. For his constituency he calculated that less than one percent of the plans studied lead to an excavation. The purpose is to prevent “repetitive” archaeology and to investigate a wide variety of features from all periods. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly update the knowledge with the new findings and revise research strategies every three years. Because “no man is an island”, Roland called for inter-Nordic strategies in archaeology.

Representing a possibly outdated, but still widely prevailing attitude, Franco Nicolis from the Autonomous Region of Trento in Italy described how he finds it difficult to negotiate his decisions with all the non-archaeologist experts that are involved in heritage management, be it art historian or architect. He cannot possibly imagine to have to explain his decisions to everybody. To his view the general public sees archaeology and culture as entertainment and his “strategy” is to show that “Archaeology is fun you can have with your pants on”. Here I would like to remark that while it is certainly a good strategy to address emotions and to be passionate oneself, when speaking about archaeology in public or to the media, fun is just one of the “sunny” emotional shades that can and should be evoked.

Agnes Stefánsdóttir and Kristín Sigurđardóttir from the Cultural Heritage Agency of Iceland describe economic explosion with grow rates of 25-30 % per annum that Iceland is experiencing after the currency crash in 2008. In 2008, three airlines brought about 5000 tourists. In 2016, 26 airlines transport 1.7 million travellers per summer season to an island with just over 330,000 inhabitants. This leads to a multitude of building projects, one of them being Reykjavik’s old harbour. This is the most publicly discussed of cases where developers not only criticise, but have gone to court claiming compensations as high as 5.5 million Euros for – in their eyes unrightfully –conditions imposed by the Cultural Heritage Agency. The pending lawsuit in this case will have to clarify whether remains of buildings that are older than 100 years – and therefore protected by Icelandic law since 2012 – still enjoy this status, if they have been moved since as it is the case with some of the harbour buildings. Stefánsdóttir and Sigurđardóttir see in these court cases the acid test for Iceland’s heritage legislation and invest considerable time and energy to convince public and politicians of their point of view.

Against these two women, Bernhard Hebert, the head of the Archaeology Department of the Austrian National Heritage Agency, seemed worldly; detached from aspirations and emotions. In his eyes, it is hubris to believe humans could make monuments survive. A Classical archaeologist by training, he used the Parthenon on the Acropolis hill – just outside the conference venue – as an example. When formulating factors of survival he chose to treat monuments as subjects with strategies rather than object of heritage managers and society. The main strategies used also by the Parthenon was staying in use and changing use. Hebert illustrated this with a painting from the 1830s where the half-ruined Parthenon houses a mosque. Maybe we should not be surprised if the Parthenon chose this strategy again considering the midterm shift of populations and beliefs?

The current political situation in Hungary seems responsible for the overall disenchanted tone of the presentation by Gábor Virágos entitled ‘Dare to lose’, but his arguments pinpoint precisely some of the weak spots of todays’ heritage management. Artefacts, sites and monuments, he criticised, are registered in artificial categories and treated – with little success – like “dying species”. Archives also appear artificial to him, because in his eyes many of them are of dubious origin and have only a very subjective value. Today, he feels, we drown in digital data, which we lose as we gather, because we cannot digest them. He sees documents not being post-processed and finds deteriorating in storage, while decisions are made by politicians and not by heritage managers. Virágos sees some hope in a new concept of ownership that puts UNESCO’s World Heritage above national, regional and personal regimes. A concept that – inverting a well-known motto – could be called: ‘Think global – act local!’

Ulla Kadakas from the National Heritage Board of Estonia concluded the first session by presenting the number of 6655 archaeological sites she has to look after, what makes something like 1 monument per 6.58 km2. While in her eyes the system set up for heritage management in principle is good, she sees two weaknesses: the one is the lack of resources and the other the lack of public interest and acceptance. Among her colleagues, she observes three kinds of response to the current challenges in heritage management: one group is complaining about losing control, others pretend to be in control and a third part has become somehow sarcastic about not being able to control. She pleads that we not ‘run against the (proverbial) tide, but swim with it and look for allies’. She sees the solution in an integrated approach that embeds a monument in a protection zone with archaeology one of the diverse layers of the cultural landscape.

The discussion of the first session brought forward that a strategy where – in the view of the public – archaeological monuments ‘occupy’ more and more territory and do not allow development is not appropriate and no longer enforceable. Moreover, it does not help in the case of archaeological finds and features which are ‘by nature’ hidden underground. Heritage managers who sit in a trench and fight for their monuments against stupid society, populist politicians and economic pressure are not choosing, but are bound to lose. Similarly, in environmental protection such battle sprit has also lead to vicious circles and has been replaced by what Kadakas called an ‘integrated approach’.

Day 2, and session two, focussed on research frameworks behind choices made with regard to fieldwork. The specific situation of Albania was pointed out by Berbis Islami. Archaeology there began only in the early 20th century, there is no national overview of sites, and research questions derive mainly from written sources and chance finds. Research in the Bronze and Iron Ages dominated in the 1950s to 1990s, and centred on the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians and continuity – according to Islami now proven – to the Albanians of today. This certainly helped modern state formation. Recently, Albania has opened for cooperation with other archaeologists and to research expeditions from other European countries. Today, Islami sees an antagonism at work in which the wish to show one’s heritage stands against the fear of inviting misuse and destruction of sites if they become known publically or become popular tourist destinations like the World Heritage site Butrint.

Commenting on the situation in Albania, session chair Katalin Wollák from Hungary mentioned that she had been asked seriously: ‘Why don’t you just excavate the important sites like Schliemann?’ The underlying message here being: obviously, a site without a name and known location cannot be important.

John O’Keeffe from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency pointed out that most excavations are not the result of research questions, but of development proposals, land use change or the interest of a sponsor. As the number of excavations has increased enormously, there has been a concurrent accumulation of massive data banks. But as nobody finds the time to draw conclusions from these, decisions made today are still based on the knowledge of yesterday. There is also an influence of today’s settlement density on the way sites are treated when discovered: in urban areas they tend to get excavated and thus destroyed completely, in peri-urban areas they are likely to get monumentalised after partial excavation and in rural areas known sites will be avoided.

Bert Groenewoudt from the Cultural Heritage Agency presented Netherlands _New National Archaeological Research Agenda_ (NOaA 2.0).[9] The use of this online tool is not compulsory, but it is meant to help the responsible local authorities with archaeological decision making and may result in giving an excavation mandate to a private agency. Stating that ‘most of Dutch archaeology is not like the Acropolis, but hidden underground’, he deems it is necessary to find it before it is destroyed. For this, it is important not only to work with research questions, but also to develop predictive models, to scrutinize disturbances, to employ non-invasive prospection methods, to mal the results and especially to close the Archaeological Heritage Management (AHM) cycle by creating synthesis and new meaningful information. In the Netherlands there is still a high pressure of development and the crux is that sites that are known already tend to be almost destroyed while the hidden ones are the best preserved.

In Slovenia, Matija Črešnar from the University of Ljubljana explained, the classical site oriented approach has been replaced and widened to have now the whole landscape in view. New methods like LiDAR have prompted this, because they show ‘the landscape is full of sites’. Confronted with such a ‘messy landscape’ it becomes obvious that it is not enough to study development plans others have made, but that it is necessary to get involved in the planning process itself. This should be done with two aims: firstly to steer the development to cause excavations that answer research questions and secondly to make the development fit or even enhance the historic character of the landscape.

Peter Schut works in the Dutch ‘Bible Belt’. In his municipality he is not allowed to mention that the world could be older than 6000 years. At the same time – or because of this – since 2007, the Netherlands have one of the strictest and best obeyed heritage laws worldwide. Every development over 100 m2 is subject to some kind of research. So a multitude of reports is being produced, which in Schut’s opinion are mostly irrelevant. He therefore set up guidelines for his region, which strongly discourage engaging in research on or excavation of non-promising or mostly destroyed sites. He wants such sites be made available to public or volunteer research, because this will raise public interest in archaeology and allow professionals to concentrate on the relevant objects. It would be interesting to apply Groenewoudt’s NOaA 2.0 agenda and Schut’s guidelines to the same areas and compare the outcome.

Agnieszka Oniszczuk from the National Heritage Board in Poland made a case for the scientific value of development-led archaeology. With regard to statistics, she argued, it is certainly better to have large random samples. Research-led archaeology done by Universities probably is not as ‘scientific’ as it is commonly labelled. Archaeology in Poland is a market divided between academic scholars, commercial companies and heritage managers. Distinguished academics have literally been pushed out of the field. Commercial archaeologists on the other hand, have the time to neither think nor write, while their findings could rewrite the entirety of prehistory. Worldwide, the importance of development-led archaeology can estimated by looking at the 60 top ten discoveries between 2010 and 2016 published in the Archaeology Magazine: most of them were discovered by commercial archaeology. [10]

With Jef Pinceel’s and Ann Degraeve’s paper the perspective shifted from field features to treatment of finds. Since 2002, when the archaeological conservation and restoration laboratory for the Brussels region was founded, the number of artefacts ‘harvested’ has increased drastically, but the number of personnel has stayed almost the same. This results in pressure to minimise the input of resources, to maximise the output of information and to preserve the future potential of artefacts. For the different materials a range of possible levels from passive or preventive conservation to highly complex conservation and restoration strategies has been developed. To treat or not to treat is the question faced here every day.

The third and last session aimed at the involvement of society. Particularly, the practice of ‘embedding archaeology in society’ through public participation is still in its infancy. In this regard, it was interesting to see what practices the heritage managers regarded as being effective for raising public engagement and awareness under session chair Adrian Olivier. He was English Heritage’s former Heritage Protection Director before the archaeological part of it was renamed Historic England, and it remains a so-called QUANGO, a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation.

Constantina Benissi from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports presented a multi-authored paper that centred on the theme of site management plans as a tool for participative decision-making. According to §11, managing a cultural world heritage site requires a ‘participatory planning and stakeholder consultation process’. [11] The list of the stakeholders is long and while it is meant to create trust, it also increases complexity and excludes certain groups, which might not have qualified to be involved. Here, I am reminded of Akrotiri, Santorini’s town from the Bronze Age. There in 2005, an ambitious roof construction collapsed just before it was finished and killed one visitor. But this was not the only victim: from the beginning, wasps wanted to settle under the roof of the site that reopened in 2012, but are constantly killed off with insecticides. Shouldn’t these wasps be stakeholders too instead of victims at this extraordinary site?

There are countries that already have a national research agenda for archaeology: Mary Teehan from Ireland, Rebecca Jones from Scotland and Mike Heyworth from England undertook a comparative analysis of three differing approaches to develop an archaeology strategy: ‘Archaeology 2025’ in Ireland [12], ‘Scotland’s Archaeology Strategy’ [13] and ‘Heritage 2000’ [14] in England. Even that they are under three different jurisdictions, they share similar challenges like the economic crisis in 2008, the demographic shift, the technological turn and a raising demand for public participation. First results were presented, but a thorough analysis will follow in the publication of the symposium.

João Marques and Filipa Neto presented some examples that included guided tours, travelling exhibitions, annual meetings and creative workshops. These initiatives – to involve and inform the public at all – would by British or central European standards simply be called public relations. They are not the expected new quality of public involvement asked for in the Amersfoort Agenda, but maybe archaeologists in Britain or Germany are taking for granted what is new in attitude and format to other regions. With the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure such practices of involvement of stakeholders are now being harmonized now throughout the European Union states. [15]

The dissemination measures described by Eva Skyllberg from Sweden seemed also not out of the ordinary, but are obviously a challenge in the daily life of heritage managers and contract archaeologists, especially if no time and budget is allocated to that task. The Swedish Historic Environment Act from 2014 states explicitly that results of an archaeological excavation must be communicated. There is a platform called ‘samla’ – to be released in 2018 – where these reports will be available online. In the discussion following the talk, it was mentioned that also the French government has included the dissemination of results into the new heritage legislation that came out in 2016. This new rule does apply to INRAP, the French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, but not to private companies. In Denmark the target of the prescribed dissemination measure is more the developer than the public and often is done in form of a small exhibition in the newly erected building that gave rise to the excavations.

The threat to sites through metal detectorists, is a topic that had been raised by Kadakas with Estonia before and was taken up by Sandra Zirne from Latvia again. In 2013, amendments to the law ‘On Protection of Cultural Monuments’ were made, due to the critical situation in the country and triggered considerable interest public interest in archaeological heritage preservation problems. Not all comments made publicly about the archaeologists were especially flattering, and showed the degree to which archaeological aims and methods were foreign to the public. The times when it was enough to publish scientific reports, but not to communicate with the wider public throughout the process are definitely gone.
The symposium showed an enormous spectrum of attitudes and approaches to archaeological heritage management in general and decision making in particular. The two most extreme positions are on the one side the site centred perspective that defends its territory by drawing lines and erecting fences; this is on retreat to the high towers of UNESCO world heritage. The other side takes a landscape perspective that sees traces of history and culture everywhere. The first group would be happy to be left alone with the crown jewels (and some funding), the other group wants to get involved in the planning process and to involve the public in all aspects of archaeology. While for the first group the danger is to lose contact with the people, the second group risks losing the status of the untouchable and infallible. But archaeology in a modern democracy probably must be close to the people and at the same time as complex and contradictory as society and each individual. Making choices in archaeology is a process of negotiation and compromise and it would be good if in Europe this could be done in a transparent, well-informed way according to shared principles. This is the way that leads from Valetta to Faro, from the polluter-pays-principle to the landscape convention.

SESSION 1: The decision-making mechanisms
  • Barney Sloane: Frameworks for Choice – Preliminary Findings of the EAC Making Choices Working Group
  • Angeliki G. Simosi (Greece): The Protection of Underwater Antiquities in Greece
  • David Bibby & Duncan H. Brown: Making Choices for Archaeological Archives in Europe
  • Lyudmil Vagalinski (Bulgaria): Making Choices in Archaeological Heritage Management – The Case of Bulgaria
  • Thomas Roland (Denmark): Tools for Validation of Archaeological Investigations and in situ Conservation
  • Franco Nicolis (Italy): Making Choices in Archaeological Heritage Management in Trentino, Northern Italy
  • Agnes Stefánsdóttir & Kristín Huld Sigurđardóttir (Iceland): Austurbakki – A Case Study from Iceland
  • Bernhard Hebert (Austria): Are monuments struggling for life or are we making choices?
  • Gábor Virágos (Hungary), Dare to Lose
  • Ulla Kadakas (Estonia): Defining Archaeological Heritage in Estonia
SESSION 2: The choice of research questions for excavations
  •  Mariglen Meshini (Albania): The New Structure of Archaeological Processes in Albania
  • John O’Keeffe (Northern Ireland): Why (or Why Not)? Do I really need to dig it?
  • Bert Groenewoudt (Netherlands): Question-Driven Archaeological Fieldwork in the Netherlands: The New National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA 2.0)
  • Matija Črešnar (Slovenia): “Research as a firm fundament for decision-making” sounds like a sound choice…
  • Peter Schut (Netherlands): Dare to Choose: History Writing or Posthole Pampering?
  • Agnieszka Oniszczuk (Poland): Is Question-Driven Fieldwork vital or not? The Archaeological Heritage Manager’s Perspective
  • Jef Pinceel & Ann Degraeve (Belgium): To Treat or Not to Treat: Insights in the Strategic Decision Making in the Archaeological Conservation and Restoration Laboratory of the Brussels Capital Region
SESSION 3: The choice concerning the involvement of society
  •  Elena Kountouri, Constantina BENISSI & Julia PAPAGEORGIOU: Management Plans: A Tool for Participative Decision Making
  • Mary Teehan, Rebecca Jones & Mike Heyworth (Ireland): Three for One: Analysis of Three Differing Approaches to Developing an Archaeology Strategy
  • João Marques & Filipa Neto (Portugal): Steps towards Public Engagement with Archaeological Heritage – Some Portuguese Examples
  • Eva Skyllberg (Sweden): An Urgent but Difficult Task – Dissemination of the Archaeological Results for the General Public
  • Sandra Zirne (Latvia): The Relevance of Professional Ethics of Archaeologists in Society
Notes

[1] EAC Publication series “Occasional Papers”, in which the conference contributions will be published: http://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/eac-occasional-papers (30.06.2017)
[2] Programme of the 18th Heritage Management Symposium on the EAC Website: http://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/annual-meeting-2017 (30.06.2017).
[3] The slides of some of the individual contributions are available at: http://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/presentations-eac-2017 (30.06.2017).
[4] The EAC Amersfoort Agenda: http://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/strategic-documents (30.06.2017).
[5] “Return to Antikythera”, the research project of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports: http://antikythera.whoi.edu/about/ (20.06.2017).
[6] The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention/ (30.06.2017).
[7]  The Standard and Guide to Best Practice in Archaeological Archiving in Europe_ available as pdf in seven languages on the ARCHES website: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/arches/Wiki.jsp (30.06.2017).
[8] Ruins of the Parthenon and the Ottoman mosque built after 1715, painted by Pierre Peytier in the early 1830s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon#/media/File:Peytier_-_Mosque_in_the_Parthenon.jpg (30.06.2017).
[9] The New National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA 2.0) in Dutch: http://www.NOAA.nl (30.06.2017).
[10] ‘Top ten discoveries of 2016’ in Archaeology Magazine, published by the Archaeological Institute of America: http://www.archaeology.org/issues/240-1701/features/5125-top-10-archaeological-discoveries-of-2016 (30.06.2017).
[11] Manual downloadable from the UNESCO webpage in eight languages: http://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-cultural-world-heritage/ (30.06.2017).
[12] May 4 2017, official launch of ‘Archaeology 2025: Strategic Pathways for Archaeology’ at the Royal Irish Academy: https://www.ria.ie/news/archaeology-standing-committee/launch-archaeology-2025 (30.06.2017).
[13] ‘Scotland’s Archaeology Strategy’ on the website of Historic Environment Scotland: http://archaeologystrategy.scot/ (30.06.2017).
[14] ‘Heritage 2020: strategic priorities for England’s historic environment 2015-2020’ on the webpage of the Heritage Alliance: http://www.theheritagealliance.org.uk/tha-website/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Heritage-2020-framework.pdf (30.06.2017).
[15] The Environmental Impact Assessment on the webpage of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/index_en.htm (30.06.2017).


Go back to top