The good, the bad and the ugly? Evaluating three models of implementing the Valletta Convention

Abstract

In World Archaeology 41(4), Kristian Kristiansen discussed the various ways in which European countries implement the principle of developer funding for archaeological research promoted by the Valletta Convention of 1992. The main issue is whether archaeological research is considered a public responsibility or a private enterprise. Kristiansen (2009: 644) made a comparison of the implications that these two approaches have for the quality of archaeological work, the assurance of academic standards and, ultimately, for the production of knowledge. His conclusion was that the choice between the ‘socialist’ approach and the ‘capitalist’ approach is basically a choice between a knowledge-producing archaeology and a fact-producing archaeology. As the Netherlands is one of the ‘model countries’ from which Kristiansen draws his conclusions, my aim with this article is to reflect on his analysis from the Dutch perspective and to demonstrate that it cannot be claimed that the ‘capitalist’ model produces facts rather than knowledge. Second, the option for a given model has major consequences and it may not do justice to the complexity of the matter if we reduce it to knowledge production. I will look into some other issues that should be taken into account in a consideration of the various models.

Keywords:

• Malta Convention
• contract archaeology
• commercial archaeology
• socialist and capitalist approach
• knowledge production
• stakeholders

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Harry Fokkens and Willem Willems for their comments on draft versions of this article. However, the statements are solely my responsibility.

Notes

See the Council of Europe's website at http://conventions.coe.int/.

An English version was made available in 2004 (Willems and Brandt). Although in many respects outdated, it still gives a good idea of the level of current reporting standards.

According to the Dutch Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage, in 2009 more than 75 per cent of the excavations from 2006 were reported; the others were in the process of report making (Erfgoedinspectie 2010).

During 2010, 3316 reports on inventories and excavations were uploaded in the national information system ARCHIS.

These data are drawn from the Dutch archaeological information system ARCHIS (http://archis2.archis.nl/archisii/html/index.html). The data collected prior to 2000 may not be 100 per cent reliable because back then they were not systematically recorded.

At this moment an evaluation of the Netherlands Monuments Act is being conducted by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The results are expected towards the end of 2011. It may well provide a basis for such a comprehensive evaluation.