Advisory Commissions for Archaeology — Sense or Nonsense? The Case of Belgium

Abstract

Belgium has a long tradition of consultative commissions, responsible for the preservation of heritage. In the 1940s and 1950s, Belgian archaeologists expressed a need for such an institute, specifically competent for archaeology and the supervision of excavations. Only in 1965, the first members of a National Commission for Excavations were appointed. They had modest powers, but were able to advocate the value of archaeological heritage and, to a limited extent, supervise fieldwork performed by amateurs. The Commission was also asked to prepare a legal text that would protect archaeological heritage. However, ratified laws were not accomplished and, despite much regret of Belgian archaeologists, the Commission was abolished in 1979.

During the 1980s, Belgium underwent several state reforms which ultimately resulted in the complete regionalization of archaeology (1988–89). Throughout this period, a shift in opinion occurred between Walloon (French-speaking) and Flemish (Dutch-speaking) archaeologists. This resulted in different arrangements of governmental agencies responsible for immovable heritage and archaeology. Nonetheless, as UNESCO had recommended in 1968, all three Belgian regions (including the Brussels-Capital Region) installed advisory commissions that were involved in the preservation in situ of archaeological remains. However, these consultative bodies had little influence on politics and policy. Especially in Flanders, the Archaeological Council achieved very little. Probably, the lack of continuity retained the Council from building up a reputation and authority. Nevertheless, advisory commissions for archaeology do make sense in Belgium. They provide a necessary ‘forum’ to discuss problems and to express undivided opinions; they form a ‘channel’ to communicate with policy makers; and they present an ‘instrument’ for advocating the preservation of archaeological heritage.

Keywords:

• Belgium
• archaeological heritage management
• governmental agencies
• legislation
• preservation in situ

Notes

1 The Royal Commission for Monuments was to give the Minister responsible for Heritage, advice on the preservation of valuable historical buildings. In 1912, the Commission was extended with a section for historical landscapes and urban sites and was renamed as ‘Royal Commission for Monuments and Landscapes (Stynen, 1985).

2 Contrary to the National Commission for Excavations, the Royal Commission for Monuments and Landscapes had been divided into two sections in 1968: one for the Dutch-speaking area and one for the French-speaking area. When dealing with the monumental heritage situated in the German-speaking area and in the bilingual (French-Dutch) area of Brussels, both the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking sections of the Royal Commission for Monuments and Landscapes assembled together (Draye, 1993).

3 The National Commission for Excavations was composed of researchers of the National Service for Excavations, university professors, museum curators, representatives of associations of amateur archaeologists, city archaeologists…

4 After the aforementioned state reforms, the proposed archaeology legislations and advisory boards were now (mostly all) community-based.

5 A thorough inventory of the Flemish archaeological heritage was non-existent. For too long, the focus of Flemish archaeology had been on research and not on preventive archaeological heritage management. In 1996, the Council reported to the minister that such an instrument was absolutely necessary to implement a selective, yet consistent, preservation policy. The members therefore asked the minister to install an inventory team at the Flemish Archaeological Heritage Institute (Archives of the Flemish Archaeological Council, 1996b).

6 A Central Archaeological Inventory (Centrale Archeologische inventaris) was initiated in 2000 (Meylemans, 2004).

7 In Flanders, the low amount of designated archaeological sites will hopefully multiply in the near future. In 2010 the Flemish Heritage Institute started to develop a new inventory containing information on where sites are possibly preserved. It will show the archaeological potential of a place. This new inventory will hopefully form the basis of a more thorough and sensible designation regime for archaeological monuments (Handleiding voor het afbakenen van archeologische zones, 2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jonas Van Looveren

Jonas Van Looveren received a Master’s degree in Archaeology from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and a Master’s degree in Conservation of Monuments and Sites from the Artesis University College of Antwerp. Currently, he is a PhD candidate in Conservation of Monuments and Sites at the University of Antwerp. In his research, he focuses on the history of archaeological heritage management and the genesis of archaeology legislation in Belgium. His PhD research is financed by the Artesis University College of Antwerp.

Correspondence to: Jonas Van Looveren. Email: [email protected]