What to Dig? Selection in Dutch Municipal Archaeological Policies

In my thesis I have studied the use of both quantitative and qualitative selective measures, as an instrument of archaeological heritage management in Dutch municipal archaeological policies. These measures are used in the process of valuing archaeological remains, in order to determine whether or not they are considered to be worthy of preservation. Currently, they are increasingly the topic of debate, as their effects can be both positive and negative, depending on the view of the beholder. First, I have made an overview of the presence of municipal archaeological policy in general. In total, 254 out of the 430 Dutch municipal administrations have or are developing an archaeological policy and 292 an archaeological map. Of these, 186 use the quantitative selective measure of limits which exempt certain areas of the requirement to archaeologically research them before disturbances beforehand. Qualitative selective measures are much rarer and are used by only 22 municipal...Show moreIn my thesis I have studied the use of both quantitative and qualitative selective measures, as an instrument of archaeological heritage management in Dutch municipal archaeological policies. These measures are used in the process of valuing archaeological remains, in order to determine whether or not they are considered to be worthy of preservation. Currently, they are increasingly the topic of debate, as their effects can be both positive and negative, depending on the view of the beholder. First, I have made an overview of the presence of municipal archaeological policy in general. In total, 254 out of the 430 Dutch municipal administrations have or are developing an archaeological policy and 292 an archaeological map. Of these, 186 use the quantitative selective measure of limits which exempt certain areas of the requirement to archaeologically research them before disturbances beforehand. Qualitative selective measures are much rarer and are used by only 22 municipal administrations. Their use is a relatively recent development, but growing in number. Secondly, I have studied the selective measures in more detail. I started with listing the limits of exemption currently in use and showed that they are very diverse. This is mainly caused by a lack of knowledge on their effects on the archaeological heritage, although this effect might theoretically be both big and negative. Instead, the use of limits of exemption is mainly motivated by non-archaeological interests, like reducing the amount of archaeological research which is needed and its costs. Therefore, although for archaeologists the use of these limits might be a cause for concern, it might be beneficial for other stakeholders. Next, I have studied the qualitative measures and their effects. This showed that a bias exists in the composition of the final selection which are made. Certain periods and research themes are prioritised, while others are neglected. Again, this might be a cause of concern, mainly for archaeologists, as this threatens the representativeness of the archaeological heritage, both in situ and by record. My study has also shown that there are several methods of making a selection and measures which are used in implementing these, which are heavily influenced by the author of the selective policy. Although municipal administrations can formulate their own policy, they may also hire a commercial archaeological consultant agency to do this for them. I have noticed that most of the selective policies were written by one of these agencies, Past2Present. This gives them a large influence, as these policies are based on their views, their methods and the judgements of their archaeologists, used in the method of composing a selection, even though the municipal council still has to agree by officially confirming the policy. Past2Present is a main proponent of using selective measures and indeed all of their policies contain these. Next, I have studied the aims for using qualitative selective measures and the general and specific motivations behind them. I have concluded that these are mainly non-archaeological. The main aim is to reduce the amount of archaeological research which is needed, although selective measures may also aim to structure the gathering of knowledge, gain more local knowledge, strengthen the local identity or make the process of valuation and selection more transparent. The main motivations behind this are practical and economical and based on local interests. In general, I consider these motivations to be insufficient, as in my opinion they do not motivate strongly enough why certain archaeological remains should not be preserved, especially not from an archaeological point of view. Thirdly, I have mapped the stakeholders which are involved, their interests, which may conflict, and their influence. Currently, archaeologists still have most the most influence over the process, but the balance of power seems to be shifting. For example, the main aims and motivations for using selective measures already reflect mainly non-archaeological interests. They are mainly practical and economical and are not focused on gathering as much knowledge of the past as possible. In addition, both quantitatively and quantitatively selecting might have a negative effect on the amount and representativeness of the archaeological heritage and the knowledge it potentially contains. Again, this is especially a cause for concern for archaeologists. On the other hand, for example, spatial developers may benefit, as less archaeological research is needed and for them costs are lowered. In conclusion, I have identified several developments and practices, which, for me as an archaeologist, are causes for concern. Therefore, it is important that the debate on the subject of using selective measures as an instrument of archaeological heritage management in Dutch municipal archaeological policies continues. With my thesis I hope to add facts and figures on the current situation, which were lacking before. Hopefully this will result in better arguments to be presented in favour of adjusting the current measures, which I consider to have a negative effect on the archaeological heritage.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

What to Dig? Selection in Dutch Municipal Archaeological Policies