ciuchini - archaeological policies and practices across europe: national developments and...

8/4/2019 Ciuchini - Archaeological policies and practices across Europe: national developments and international trends

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ciuchini-archaeological-policies-and-practices-across-europe-national-developments 1/12

Ciuchini, P. (2010) Archaeological policies and practices across Europe:national developments and international trends. ArchaeoJobs [Internet].Available from: <http://archaeojobs.blogspot.com/2010/07/archaeological-policies-and-practices.html>

Paolo Ciuchini

Archaeological policies and practices across Europe: national developments and international trends

Paper written in the context of the Postgraduate Module 'Archaeology in the EU' held by Prof. MuirisO'Sullivan during the second semester of the AY 2009-2010 at UCD School of Archaeology.

Introduction

'Growth', 'commercialisation', 'regulation', 'internationalisation', 'convergence'. These couldbe the main key words of the present review. The development of archaeology across theEuropean Union in the last forty years is a story of growth through adaptation and reactionto increasingly shared drivers of change. As a result of this common trend, nowadaysarchaeologists and legislators are often dealing with the same or very similar issues, whichin many cases are addressed at the European rather than just at the national level. Thetendency towards an international alignment of archaeological policies and practices,which finds parallels in many other sectors of activity, is particularly evident in countries

that have already been members of the European Union and the Council of Europe for several decades. This article reviews the national paths of Ireland, Italy and TheNetherlands, which are eventually contextualised within the wider European andinternational dimension.

Ireland

At the beginning of the XX century in Ireland there was just a handful of professionalarchaeologists, mostly based in universities and museums. The Irish Free State approvedin 1930 the National Monuments Act (NMA), which decisively strengthened heritage

protection and the position of the archaeologists in the public sector. During the 1940s thediscipline further entrenched itself at the academic level: new professors took over of thefirst academic 'pioneers' in Dublin, Galway and Cork (respectively in 1943, 1945 and 1947)and Queen's University Belfast established its first chair of archaeology (in 1948). Fromthe 1950s to the 1970s there was a modest growth in the number of full-time professionalarchaeologists. At that stage virtually all of them were employed just by universities andthe State services.Such a situation changed considerably during the 1980s: the necessity of carrying outassessment and excavation of archaeological sites affected by infrastructural works andprivate developments led to the emergence and growth of commercial archaeology.Instrumental in facilitating the assessment of the archaeological impact of new

construction projects was the compilation, under the supervision of the Archaeological

1

http://archaeojobs.blogspot.com/2010/07/archaeological-policies-and-practices.html%3E






Survey of Ireland, of a national desktop inventory of archaeological sites and monuments,called Sites and Monuments Records (SMR). The 1994 National Monuments(Amendment) Act established the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP), a statutory listof all known archaeological monuments which expanded and revised the SMR in the lightof fieldwork. In close connection with the growth of the country's 'Tiger economy' andparticularly of its oversized construction industry, the commercial sector of archaeology

grew steadily from the early 1990s until the end of 2007, when the trend was abruptlybrought to a halt by the beginning of the current financial crisis (Condit, 2008; Eogan &Sullivan, 2009; Sullivan, 2009). Given that during the same period the growth of archaeology in universities and the public services was comparatively modest, the vastmajority of archaeologists ended up working in the private sector. The Irish report of theEU-sponsored Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (DISCO) project gives a clear insight of the situation near the peak of the boom in the summer of 2007 (McDermott & LaPiscopia, 2008).During the 2000s it became clear that the surge in archaeological activity was not beingproperly handled. In 2006 the foresight study Archaeology 2020 highlighted severalsystemic failures, like the absence of structures and directions to assure a coherent

archaeological strategy at the national level, the disconnection of most development-ledexcavations from a wide-ranging research framework, the serious shortcomings noticeablein archiving and curation of archaeological records and materials, and the existence of anunsustainable backlog of unpublished excavation reports, all translating into a generalfailure to create knowledge (Cooney et al., 2006). I n September of the same year theseissues were also discussed within a forum on the prospects of archaeological research inIreland held by the Royal Irish Academy (Cooney, 2007).In 2007, in order to draft a completely new National Monument Act, the Minister for theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government set up an Expert Advisory Committee. Thenew law has not yet been presented, but this collaborative approach has already led topositive outcomes such as the draft of a comprehensive Review of Archaeological Policyand Practice (DoEHLG, 2007; NMS, 2009), the establishment of the Irish NationalStrategic Archaeological Research (INSTAR) Programme and a sensible increase in theavailability of archiving and storage spaces (DCC, 2010; Halpin, 2010). No real answer has yet been provided, though, to the problem represented by the huge backlog of unpublished excavation reports. During the 'Tiger years' many development-ledinvestigations became increasingly focused on impact mitigation through recording andrecovery of the archaeology in order to deliver to the builders a 'clean' site, ready for construction. Particularly starting from the early 1990s, less time and resources werededicated to publish excavation reports and to engage in dissemination activities, despitethese being the ultimate scientific and social goals of an economic investment in

archaeology. This alarming trend led to a situation where the number of published reportscompared to the total number of excavations carried out per year became extremely small(Cooney et al., 2006, p.15; Ó Drisceoil, 2009).The current economic crisis, having basically frozen the 'dig frenzy', representsparadoxically a unique opportunity for archaeologists to take some breath and tacklewisely this and the other issues mentioned above. The downturn has led to the loss of several hundreds of jobs in private practices and just a few, so far, in the public sector.Since the crisis is still ongoing, it is difficult at present to estimate the real extent of such'rebalancing', and whether it will be just temporary or it will characterise the new Irisharchaeological scene on the long term.

2



Italy

Despite some significant efforts by the young Italian State, at the end of the XIX Italianarchaeology was affected by poor organisation, a lack of regulation and a very low level of professional involvement. The Law 386/1907 established Superintendencies(Soprintendenze) for the Monuments in each region. The Law 384/1909 established the

State ownership of every archaeological find and restricted private rights on anymonument declared 'of public interest' by the Superintendencies for the Monuments.During the Fascist era, the Law 1089/1939 enshrined conclusively the priority of publicinterest over the private one, created in each region a Superintendency for Archaeologyapart from the one for Fine Arts and Monuments, and ruled that the modification of everypublic property older than 50 years had to be approved by the relevant Superintendency.From that moment onward a Superintendent for Archaeology could stop any work that hadled to an occasional finding, estimate their importance, reject construction projects. TheSuperintendent, though, had a very low budget and, crucially, could intervene just once thefinding has been made. It is little surprise that many and perhaps most of the occasionalfindings were not reported to the Superintendency, with incalculable loss of archaeology.

Nevertheless, it must be said that, given the country's delayed industrialisation, thedamage brought to the archaeological heritage until the late 1940s was relatively modest.Large-scale destruction of archaeological sites started after the Second World War,particularly as a consequence of agricultural intensification and mechanisation, and got alot worse during the fast industrialisation and economic boom of the 1960s, when theconstruction of large-scale pieces of infrastructure, particularly the motorway network, andof thousands of private houses, overstrained the already weak control system.The Circular Letter 3763/1982 of the Office of the Prime Minister provided for each publicconstruction project to be approved by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage. In absence of aproper law, though, the Circular Letter started to be often interpreted as if the need of apreventive approval applied just to areas already declared 'of archaeological interest'.However, the document basically marked the beginning of preventive archaeology,sparking an intensification of the action of the Superintendencies in relation to new large-scale infrastructural works (De Caro, 2008, p.14). In compliance with the Directive 85/337of the European Economic Community, the Law 241/1990 introduced the obligation for aconsultation of all relevant authorities every time that an administrative proceedinginvolved different public interests, indirectly strengthening the position of theSuperintendencies within the decisional process. In some regions the principles of preventive consultation started to be extended to major private construction projects. TheLaw 554/1999 ruled that all projects for public works must include preliminaryarchaeological investigations. Very often, though, this investigation meant just the

consultation of archaeological records in the local Superintendency's archive. The Law289/2002 earmarked 3% of all public infrastructure funds for 'the protection andinterventions in favour of cultural heritage and activities', but it was decided that thismoney would be managed by the specially set up company ARCUS S.p.a. (Art, Cultureand Spectacle Joint Stock Company). As a result just a relatively small portion of this sumis being spent for archaeology (about 20%, amounting to € 5737 million, in 2004) (Maggi,2007, p.151).The Decree Law 42/2004 (amended in 2006 and 2008) enshrined the 'Developer Pays'principle and allowed the Superintendent for Archaeology to order 'preventivearchaeological test excavations' in relation to projects for public works, but it still makes noreference to private projects. The Decree Law 109/2005 (later included in the Decree Law

163/2006) regulated the procedures for preliminary archaeological investigations, clarified

3



the respective responsibilities of Superintendencies and contractors, and provided for thecreation of a Register of subjects allowed to carry out these investigations (Master'sgraduates in Archaeology and Archaeology Departments). It definitely represents a bigimprovement, but still refers just to assessing and testing, neglecting resolution or monitoring, and concerns just public works (Malnati, 2005).The belated Decree Law 60/2009, which sets the criteria for the keeping of the above

mentioned Register, is being heavily criticised, particularly because it establishes thearchaeology departments as privileged actors in the market of preventive archaeology, tothe detriment of independent professionals and private companies (ANA, 2009; CIA,2009). Moreover, after over one year, the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities hasnot yet published the form to apply for the admission to the Register (Galasso, 2010, p.1).As written above, the State ownership of all archaeological heritage has been establishedin Italy over a century ago. Despite this and other early demonstrations of concern, someof the provisions enacted since then to manage the impact of the country's developmenthave proved to be not fully effective and patchily applied.Nevertheless the concept and practice of preventive archaeology have gained groundduring the last 30 years and are now firmly rooted. Now the Superintendencies routinely

carry out extensive excavations in advance of public and private works, generally hiringprivate companies staffed by qualified archaeologists. These companies have recentlybeen allowed to obtain contracts for assessing and testing activities directly from all publicclients, in a clear drive to gradually introduce free-market elements in an otherwise totallyState-controlled system. The business of preventive archaeology is by now worth severalmillion Euros per year. University departments, which in the past generally avoided to getinvolved in rescue archaeology, have been trying in recent years to enter the market, in anattempt to offset the frequent government cuts to education and research (Maggi, 2007,p.154).With respect to quality control and management, it must be said that the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities has not established compulsory standards for goodpractice. Nevertheless the quality of all archaeological works is actively controlled by therelevant Superintendency, which remains responsible for the scientific management of theoperations. Binding guidelines for preliminary archaeological investigations and a Register of accredited subjects were established with the mentioned Decree Law 109/2005. Someefforts to promote quality assurance are also being made by the private sector: both theNational Association of Archaeologists ( Associazione Nazionale Archeologi , ANA) and theItalian Confederation of Archaeologists (Confederazione Italiana Archeologi , CIA) have setmembership criteria, based on academic qualifications, work experience and themandatory adhesion to the respective codes of conduct.During the years leading to the economic crisis, Italy did not experience a construction

boom comparable to the ones that took place in Ireland and in other parts of Europe.Anecdotal evidence suggests that employment and wage levels in preventive archaeology,typically quite low1, have remained fairly stable until the beginning of 2010, with a possibledeterioration in recent months.

The Netherlands

Archaeology has been taught for almost two centuries in the country, since C.J.C.Reuvens was appointed in 1817 to the Chair of Archaeology at the University of Leiden,which was the first Chair in the world explicitly dedicated to the subject. For a very long

1 The first survey of the archaeological profession in Italy was carried out by the ANA in 2004-2005 (Cevoli, 2006).

4



time Dutch archaeology remained characterised by a neat divide between professionalarchaeologists with an academic training and a bigger group of enthusiastic amateurs,who gave an important contribution to the development of the discipline.The independence and scope of amateur initiatives have been limited by the introductionin the 1960s of a licensing system, the adoption of legally-binding regulations andguidelines, and in general by the progressive professionalisation of archaeology. Still in

1995, all the archaeological fieldwork, mostly rescue excavations, was a prerogative of theState Archaeological Service (Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek ,ROB), the National Museum of Antiquities (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, RMO), universitydepartments and municipal archaeologists. At that time about 250 people in TheNetherlands worked in archaeology (50% archaeologists and 50% support staff) (Waugh,2008, p.10). Less than 80 university students studied archaeology and their chances tofind employment in the field were rather slim (Waugh, 2008, p.10). The number of keenamateurs was still quite high. The scarcity of qualified professionals and research funds,which amounted almost exclusively to limited budgets made available by the Dutchgovernment, led to a huge backlog in post-excavation activities and consequently in thedraft and publication of excavation reports (Waugh, 2008, p.10).

A legislative framework for the protection of archaeological monuments was set up for thefirst time in The Netherlands with the 1961 Monuments and Historic Buildings Act, whichwas amended in 1988. Among other aspects, the act regulates procedures for monumentdesignation, find ownership and responsibilities for archaeological research. It alsoenshrines the principle that government and citizens share responsibility for monumentsmanagement and protection.After signing in 1999 the Bologna Declaration (CoE, 1999), The Netherlands adopted in itsuniversities the international standard degree system formed by Bachelor's Degree,Master's Degree and Ph.D. Today archaeology is taught in Leiden, Amsterdam, Groningenand Nijmegen. Until a few years ago archaeology departments had a prominent role inrescue archaeology, and are still active in today's preventive archaeology through thecommercial units that each of them has set up.The 2007 Archaeological Management Act, approved after years of debate and delay,formally implemented the Valletta Convention (CoE, 1992), reorganised the Quality Controland Licensing systems, introduced the 'Developer Pays' principle and compelled localcouncils to assess the archaeological impact of developments and to provide for mitigation. These changes have led to a big increase of the funding available for archaeology, to the creation of a market for archaeological services, and therefore to themushrooming of a number of archaeological companies that compete in order to wincontracts from public and private clients. Most of these companies are registered with theAssociation for Contractors in Archaeology (Vereniging oor Ondernemers in Archeologie,

VoiA). Given its importance in understanding the country's heritage and past,archaeological work is regarded as both a service and a research activity. Therefore in thefield of archaeology the application of market principles is accompanied by strictregulation. Whoever wishes to carry out an archaeological invasive investigation mustobtain an excavation licence from the National Service for Cultural Heritage (Rijksdienstvoor het Cultureel Erfgoed, RvhCE) and a certification confirming that he works accordingto the guidelines set by the mandatory Quality Control System ( Kwaliteitsnorm voor Nederlandse Archeologie, KNA). The KNA deals with the procedures of archaeologicalpractice, while further guidelines and recommendations concerning the researchframework within which the investigation should be carried out are set out in a NationalResearch Agenda (Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie, NoaA). The KNA

establishes that some important archaeological procedures can only be carried out by

5



certain actors that have the required combination of qualifications and experience; specificcriteria are also set for specialists. Since 2007 licence applicants must also be registeredwith the Professional Register of Archaeologists, kept by the Dutch Association of Archaeologists (Nederlandse Vereniging van Archeologen, NVvA). Admission to theRegister is based on education, training, experience and the signing of a Code of Conduct.The functioning of the archaeological system as a whole is constantly monitored by the

State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage (Erfgoedinspectie) (Monique H. Dries, van den &Willems, 2007). The three parallel forms of quality control, which are being frequentlyreviewed and adjusted, apply to every subject, either private or public, keen to undertakearchaeological excavations or other forms of invasive investigations. Other services suchas non-invasive investigations, archaeological advice and consultancy are (still) exemptedfrom any obligation in terms of quality control or certification, although some companiesthat provide them voluntarily apply for KNA certification. The activities of commissioning,supervision and inspection carried out by public authorities are likewise (still) exempted.The somewhat problematic overlapping of the three different control systems and the justmentioned exemptions are matters of concern that need to be addressed.Between December 2007 and May 2008 a comprehensive survey of the archaeological

profession in The Netherlands was carried out by the Dutch archaeological companyVestigia BV in the context of the international DISCO project (Waugh, 2008). The surveyrecorded a marked growth, compared to a decade before, in the number of archaeologistswith paid jobs. There were then nearly 1000 archaeologists, most of which had a degreeand were employed by commercial companies. Given the strong demand for archaeological services entailed by the then-booming construction industry, the surveyalso highlighted a shortage of suitably qualified staff, particularly of candidates for senior positions.In September 2009, during the 'Archaeology and the global crisis - multiple impacts,possible solutions' round-table held on the occasion of the 15th Annual Meeting of theEuropean Association of Archaeologists (EAA), the Dutch speakers reported a clear decline in the number of field projects in the first months of 2009. Nevertheless, at thattime, the economic crisis did not seem yet to have impacted on Dutch archaeology as hardas in many other countries (Aitchison, 2009, pp.662-663; Bakker et al., 2009).

The European dimension

During the first half of the XX century in most of the Western countries archaeology finallybecame a firmly established academic discipline and found its place within universities andnational public bodies in charge of the protection of antiquities. From the 1960s a growing

concern about the increasing rate of destruction of natural heritage led to the realisationthat also a great quantity of archaeological heritage was being irremediably lost every day,particularly because of agricultural intensification2, infrastructure development and housingconstruction. Archaeologists and policy-makers understood, in some countries earlier thanin others, that the management of archaeological resources could no longer be confined tothe mere protection of ancient monuments, but had to be redefined within the frameworks

2 Increasing agricultural productivity has always been one of the main goals of the European Community's Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP). Mechanisms to encourage farmers to carry out their activities in a more extensive and

environmentally friendly way were set up just in the 1990s, on the wake of the GATT's Uruguay Round started n

1986 (Gupta, 1996, pp.59-61, 68; WTO, 2005). In this context must be seen the Rural Environment Protection

Scheme (REPS), introduced in 1994 by the Irish Government under the European Council Regulation 2078/92.

Although focused on the natural environment, the Scheme also incorporated a measure for the protection andmaintenance of historical and archaeological features (O'Sullivan, 1996; O'Sullivan & Kennedy, 1998).

6



of spatial planning and territorial policies.Although early signs of such transformation can be tracked in several countries throughthe 1970s and 1980s, the real watershed along this process is represented by the 1992Valletta Convention (CoE, 1992). This convention, one of a series of conventions for theprotection of the cultural heritage produced by the Council of Europe (CoE) from the 1950sonwards3, outlines a standard way to manage the archaeological heritage and establishes

archaeology as a pivotal element within the processes of spatial planning and policy-making. It is essentially a new version of the London Convention (CoE, 2005), the upgradeof which had been made necessary by the evolution of planning policies in Europeancountries after 1969. In particular, the London convention did not touch the topics of theintegration of archaeology in development planning and of the funding of archaeologicalwork (CoE, 1969). To date, the Valletta Convention has been signed by all the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, including Ireland, The Netherlands and Italy, plus the HolySee. During the last 15 years it has led to significant reforms in the legislative frameworkand statutory organisation of archaeology in most of the signatory countries. Although theterms and scope of legal obligations varies from state to state, as appears clear from thethree cases examined in this review, archaeology has generally become a mandatory part

of the planning process. This shift has on the one hand led to the reorganisation andreduction of the practice of 'rescue' (or 'salvage' or 'emergency') archaeology, that haddeveloped from the 1950s and expanded through the 1970s and 1980s in connection withmajor infrastructure developments, and on the other hand determined a surge in thedemand for preventive archaeological investigations. This new kind of archaeology hasbeen variously labelled as 'preventive archaeology', 'contract archaeology, 'developer-ledarchaeology', 'commercial archaeology', and in other ways. These labels are not perfectlyinterchangeable and often reflect the different ways in which the preventive archaeologyhas been organised across Europe.Each country is indeed implementing the Valletta Convention through its own specificformula, taking into account political and legal peculiarities, as well as different concepts of archaeology and economic environments. Observing the main features of these 'nationalways to Valletta', it is possible to divide the signatory States in three broad groups:countries that consider archaeological work to be a service and at the same time want tocontrol the quality of archaeological work (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden);countries that consider archaeological work to be a service and do not want to control thequality of archaeological work (notably UK); countries that do not consider archaeologicalwork to be a service and want to control the quality of archaeological work (e.g. Austria,France, Greece and Italy) (Willems, 2007, pp.7-13).In The Netherlands, which represents a very clear example of the first group, the creationof a market for archaeological services was considered the best way to deal with the

increasing demand for archaeological works. At the same time, because of the socialimportance of archaeology as a source of knowledge for the country's past, archaeologistsand policy-makers wanted to avoid the foreseeable negative effects of an uncriticalapplication of 'free market principles' on the quality of the process and results of archaeological activities. To this purpose the Dutch law established that the free marketsystem in archaeology must be controlled and offset by means of a mandatory system of quality assurance. The main components of this system are the mentioned KNA andLicensing System. The private sector gives its contribution to quality assurance through

3 The competency of the CoE in this area was established with the 1954 European Cultural Convention (CoE, 1954).This series also includes the Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (CoE, 1969), the

Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (CoE, 1985), the European Landscape

Convention (CoE, 2000) and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CoE, 2005).

7



the Registry of Archaeologists, kept by the Dutch Association of Archaeologists.Many of the considerations made for The Netherlands apply in principle for Ireland. InIreland, indeed, the official position was that the risks entailed by the introduction of a 'freemarket archaeology' would be offset by the existing Licensing System. Even in Ireland theprivate sector has taken some steps towards self-regulation, particularly by means of theCodes of Conducts, Guidelines, Technical Papers and Register of Members of the Institute

of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI). In recent years it has clearly emerged, though, that theseinstruments are not effective enough. The Irish Licensing System, originally conceived for research excavations, has not been reformed in order to cope with the dynamics and therapid growth of the commercial sector. Membership of IAI has never been considered anecessary condition to apply for a job. The Institute itself has always had a modest number of members compared to the total number of archaeologists employed in the country, andits guidelines have been applied just patchily and on a voluntary basis.The second group of countries, where archaeological work is considered as a service andthere is not State quality control, is clearly exemplified by the UK. Here, in the 1980s,following the example set by USA and Canada in the 1970s, archaeological work waslargely privatised without legal provisions to assure its quality. The British system still lacks

such provisions, although the system of private self-regulation organised through theInstitute of Field Archaeologists is somewhat more efficient than its Irish equivalent.The clearest instance of the third group of countries, where archaeological work is notconsidered as a service and State quality control is in place, is France. Here the State setsthe expense that the developer must cover, decides what operations must be carried out,and controls directly the archaeological work through the National Institute for PreventiveArchaeological Investigations (Institut National de Recherches ArchéologiquesPréventives, INRAP). The vast majority of archaeological work is carried out by Statearchaeologists, although some private archaeological companies and individualprofessionals, included in an official list kept by the Ministry of Culture, are allowed to workunder strict State supervision. Since the work is basically done and checked by the State,no explicit quality standards and control mechanisms have been set up yet.The Italian system works very much like the French one. The Italian equivalent of theINRAP is the General Direction for the Antiquities (Direzione Generale per le Antichità,DGA) which operates through the local Superintendencies for Archaeology. It must beobserved, though, that nowadays the Superintendencies subcontract most of thearchaeological works to private companies, and they have started doing that since thebeginning of the 1980s, while in France this phenomenon is still limited and more recent.Despite being very akin to the French model, the Italian system is also introducing someelements typical of the first group of countries, to which Ireland and The Netherlandsbelong. In particular, the Decree Law 109/2005 has created a 'free market' for

archaeological preliminary investigations (i.e. assessing and testing), where commercialunits can compete in order to win contracts directly from the developers (although just thepublic ones, at present) without the interposition of the Superintendency. Coherently, thelaw has also provided a level of quality assurance through the creation of an officialRegister of accredited subjects, which, despite some flaws, is on its way to beimplemented. Another indication of the ongoing shift of the Italian system from the Frenchtowards the 'Irish-Dutch' model is the establishment in 2004-2005 of two nationalprofessional associations (ANA and CIA, mentioned above), which are attempting tointroduce a private system of quality assurance by setting specific membership criteria andcodes of conduct.

8



Conclusions

The history of the development of archaeological policy and practice across Europe isultimately a history of convergence. Ireland, Italy and The Netherlands, the three verydifferent countries at the core of this comparative exercise, make no exception. Therespective approaches to archaeology and protection of national antiquities had already

many traits in common before the Second World War. After the conflict severalinternational bodies were set up, which produced a number of declarations, conventionsand directives with a strong influence on every sphere of activity in the signatory States 4. With regards to European archaeology, the most influential document so far has been the1992 Valletta Convention, which firmly placed archaeology within the planning process. Inorder to implement the Convention, each State introduced or re-organised the practice of preventive archaeology. The methods of implementation vary from country to country, andcan be connected to three different models, characterised by alternative concepts of archaeology and views on whether the State should control the quality of archaeologicalworks or not. In this context, some countries, like Italy, are shifting progressively from amodel in which the State had the monopoly of the archaeological work to one in which

'free market principles' apply, at least for certain types of activities. The current economiccrisis is affecting archaeology and archaeologists in every country that signed the VallettaConvention. Despite all its negative consequences, this crisis represents a perfect stresstest, the ideal opportunity to assess for the first time how these different models of archaeological resource management perform during periods of economic weakness.

Paolo CiuchiniUCD School of Archaeology

[email protected]

References

Aitchison, K. (2009) After the ‘gold rush’: global archaeology in 2009. World Archaeology ,41 (4), pp.659-671.

ANA (2009) Archeologia preventiva: comunicato stampa. ANA [Internet]. Available from:<http://www.archeologi.org/web/news.asp?id=459> [Accessed 24 April 2010].

Bakker, C., Dries, van den, M. & Waugh, K.E. (2009) Crisis in Dutch archaeology?[Abstract of the paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the European

Association of Archaeologists, Riva del Garda, 17 September]. Available from:<http://www.ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/Crisis-session-EAA%20Riva%20de%20Garda-17sept2009.pdf>.

Cevoli, T. ed. (2006) Dossier I Censimento Nazionale Archeologi 2004-2006 . Napoli, ANA.

CIA (2009) Lettera aperta al Ministro On. Bondi in merito al Regolamento concernente la

4 At the global level the organisations with the most evident impact on archaeological resource management are the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Council on

Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Archaeological Congress (WAC). At the European level the biggest

roles are played by the Council of Europe and the European Union. Important initiatives are also carried out by

organisations such as the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and the Europae Archaeologiae Consilium(EAC) (Cooney, 2009; Harding, 2009; Willems, 2009).

9



disciplina dei criteri per la tenuta e il funzionamento dell'elenco previsto dall'articolo95, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 12 aprile 2006, n. 163. CIA [Internet]. Availablefrom: <http://www.archeologi-italiani.it/> [Accessed 24 April 2010].

CoE (1985) Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe.Granada, 3.X.1985. CETS No.: 121. Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (1992) European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage(Revised). Valletta, 16.I.1992. CETS No.: 143. Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (1969) European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.London, 6.V.1969. ETS no. 066 . Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (1954) European Cultural Convention. Paris, 19.XII.1954. CETS No.: 018 .Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (2000) European Landscape Convention. Florence, 20.X.2000. CETS No.: 176 .

Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (2005) Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Faro,27.X.2005. CETS No.: 199. Strasbourg, CoE.

CoE (1999) The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Strasbourg, CoE.

Condit, T. (2008) The Tiger's legacy. Archaeology Ireland , 22 (4), p.3.

Cooney, G. ed. (2007) Archaeology in Ireland : a Vision for the Future. Dublin, RIA.

Cooney, G. (2009) European and global archaeologies. World Archaeology , 41 (4),pp.626-628.

Cooney, G., O’Sullivan, M. & Downey, L. (2006) Archaeology 2020: Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge Society . Dublin, UCD.

DCC (2010) Dublin City Archaeological Archive. DCC [Internet]. Available from:<http://www.dublincity.ie/RecreationandCulture/libraries/Heritage%20and%20History/Dublin%20City%20Archives/Pages/DublinCityArchaeologicalArchive.aspx> [Accessed 25 June

2010].De Caro, S. (2008) Archeologia preventiva, lo stato della materia. In: A. D'Andrea & M. P.

Guermandi eds. Strumenti per l'archeologia preventiva : esperienze, normative,tecnologie. Budapest, Archaelingua Foundation, pp.11-20.

DoEHLG (2007) Review of Archaeological Policy and Practice in Ireland: Identifying theIssues. Dublin, DoEHLG.

Dries, van den, M.H. & Willems, W.J. (2007) Quality assurance in archaeology, the Dutchperspective. In: W. H. Willems & M. H. Dries, van den eds. Quality management in

archaeology . Oxford, Oxbow, pp.50-65.

10



Eogan, J. & Sullivan, E. (2009) Archaeology and the demise of the Celtic Tiger. The Archaeologist , 72, pp.26-27.

Galasso, G. (2010) Che fine ha fatto l'elenco degli archeologi? ArcheoNews, 76, pp.1, 9.

Gupta, K.R. (1996) Gatt Accord: Results Of The Uruguay Round Of Multilateral TradeNegotiations [Second Reprint 1997] . Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.

Halpin, H. (2010) National Museum of Ireland Archaeological Excavations Facility Collections Resource Centre Swords, Co. Dublin [PowerPoint of the presentationgiven at the IAI Spring Conference 2010, Galway, 20th April 2010] . Dublin, IAI.Available from: <http://www.iai.ie/Publications_Files/NMI_Presentation_to_IAI_ %20April_2010.pdf>.

Harding, A. (2009) Towards a European archaeology. World Archaeology , 41 (4), pp.629-640.

Maggi, R. (2007) The Approach to Preventive Archaeology in Italy. In: EuropeanPreventive Archaeology [Papers of the EPAC Meeting , Vilnius 2004] . Budapest,National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary – Council of Europe, pp.146-154.

Malnati, L. (2005) La verifica preventiva dell'interesse archeologico. Aedon [Internet].Available from: <http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2005/3/malnati.htm> [Accessed14 April 2010].

McDermott, C. & La Piscopia, P. (2008) Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Ireland .Dublin, Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland.

NMS (2009) Summary of proposals to consolidate, revise and extend the National Monuments Acts, 1930 to 2004 and related enactments . Dublin, NMS. Availablefrom:<http://www.archaeology.ie/en/PublicationsFormsLegislation/FileDownload,321,en.doc>.

Ó Drisceoil, C. (2009) The Half-Baked Cake?: Perspectives on the Publication Crisis inIrish Archaeology. [Paper presented at the IAI Summer Conference 2009]. Availablefrom: <http://www.iai.ie/Publications_Files/presentations%20conf%202009/C%F3il

%EDn%20%D3%20Drisceoil%20IAI%20talk%20July%202009.pdf>.O'Sullivan, M. (1996) Reps, farming and archaeology. Archaeology Ireland , 10 (4), p.8.

O'Sullivan, M. & Kennedy, L. (1998) The survival of archaeological monuments: Trendsand attitudes. Irish Geography , 31 (2), pp.88-89.

Sullivan, E. (2009) A survey of the employment levels in Irish Archaeology conducted by the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland . Dublin, IAI.

Waugh, K.E. (2008) Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Netherlands. Amersfoor,

Vestigia BV.

11



Willems (2007) The times they are a-changing': Observations on archaeology in aEuropean context. In: G. Cooney ed. Archaeology in Ireland : a Vision for theFuture. Dublin, RIA, pp.5-23.

Willems, W.J. (2009) European and world archaeologies. World Archaeology , 41 (4),

pp.649-658.

WTO (2005) Understanding the WTO. The Uruguay Round. WTO [Internet]. Availablefrom: <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact5_e.htm> [Accessed9 April 2010].

Acronyms

ANA Associazione Nazionale ArcheologiCAP Common Agricultural Policy

CIA Confederazione Italiana ArcheologiCoE Council of EuropeDCC Dublin City CouncilDGA Direzione Generale per le AntichitàDISCO Discovering the Archaeologists of EuropeDoEHLG Department of Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentEAA European Association of ArchaeologistsEAC Europae Archaeologiae ConsiliumEPAC European Preventive Archaeology CorpusGATT General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeIAI Institute of Archaeologists of IrelandICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesINRAP Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques PréventivesINSTAR Irish National Strategic Archaeological ResearchKNA Kwaliteitsnorm voor Nederlandse ArcheologieNMA National Monuments ActNoaA Nationale Onderzoeksagenda ArcheologieNVvA Nederlandse Vereniging van ArcheologenREPS Rural Environment Protection SchemeRIA Royal Irish AcademyRMO Rijksmuseum van Oudheden

RMP Record of Monuments and PlacesROB Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig BodemonderzoekRvhCE Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel ErfgoedSMR Sites and Monuments RecordsUCD University College DublinUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationVoiA Vereniging oor Ondernemers in ArcheologieWAC World Archaeological CongressWTO World Trade Organization

12

ciuchini - archaeological policies and practices across europe: national developments and...

Documents