Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:18:33.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology and Heritage Management in Europe: Trends and Developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Willem J. H. Willems
Willem J. H. Willems*
Affiliation:
Dutch State Archaeological Service and the University of Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of archaeological heritage management in a united Europe has increased in recent years, and the archaeological scene is changing drastically. Causes of this development are, among others, the end of the political division of Europe and the ‘green debate’ with its effects on the way in which the archaeological heritage is being treated. Equally important are the effects of the. Malta Convention and the influence of lawmaking within the EU. This paper discusses recent developments and the need for cooperation at a European level, as well as the various opportunities, tasks and challenges of heritage management in the immediate future.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Archäologische Denkmalpflege als gesellschaftliche Aufgabe wird im vereinten Europa immer wichtiger und die archäologische Landschaft verändert sich tiefgreifend. Ursachen sind u.a. das Ende der politischen Spaltung Europas und die ‘grüne Debatte’ samt ihre Auswirkungen auf den Umgang mit dem archäologischen Erbe. Ebensowichtig ist die Auswirkung der Konvention von Malta und den Einfluß der EU Gesetzgebung. In diesem Beitrag werden die rezente Entwicklungen diskutiert, sowie die Notwendigkeit der Zusammenarbeit auf europäische Ebene und die verschiedene Chancen und Aufgaben der Bodendenkmalpflege in den nächsten Jahren.

L'importance portée à la gestion du patrimoine archéologique au sein d'une Europe unie a augmenté pendant les dernières années et le paysage archéologique est en train de changer d'une manière considérable. Les causes de cette évolution sont, entre autres, la fin de la division politique de l'Europe et le “débat vert” dont les effets se font sentir dans la manière dont on traite le patrimoine archéologique. Les retombées de la Convention de Malte sont aussi très importantes de ce point de vue, ainsi que l'influence des lois passées it l'intérieur de l'union européenne. Cet article porte sur les récents développements, le besoin de coopération au niveau européen, les différentes possibilités pour ce qui est de la gestion du patrimoine ainsi que de son coût dans un futur proche.

Keywords

archaeological heritage managementConvention of MaltaEuropean Unionhistory of archaeologymanagement cycle
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , 1998 , pp. 293 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, D. and Shepherd, I., 1993. Local Authority opportunities. In Hunter, J. and Ralston, I. (eds), Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: 100–14. Bath: Allan Sutton/IFA.Google Scholar
Beran, J., 1996. On social psychology and the professional self-assessment of the last generation of East-German archaeologists. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 39–44.Google Scholar
Chapman, J., 1994. Destruction of a common heritage: the archaeology of war in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina. Antiquity 68: 120–6.Google Scholar
Cleere, H. (ed.), 1984. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, 1987. Archaeology and planning. Report of the Florence Colloquy. Architectural Heritage Reports and Studies, 5. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of, Europe, 1989. Archaeology and major public works. Report of the Nice Colloquy. Architectural Heritage Reports and Studies, 12. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., and Fulton, A. K., 1998. MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995. Main Report. Bournemouth and London: Bournemouth University and English Heritage.Google Scholar
Deeben, J., Andrikopoulou-Strack, N., Gerlach, R., Obladen Kauder, J. and Willems, W.J.H., 1997. Cross-border cooperation in archaeological heritage management: the Niers-Kendel project. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands: 282–95. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
European Union, 1994. European Spatial Planning. Informal Council of Spatial Planning Ministers, Leipzig, 21/22 September 1994. Bonn: European Union.Google Scholar
European Union, 1996. First Report on the Consideration of Cultural Aspects in European Community Action. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
European Union, 1997. European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). First official draft. Meeting of Ministers responsible for spatial planning of the member states of the European Union, Noordwijk 9/10 June 1997. Den Haag: European Union.Google Scholar
Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Groenewoudt, B.J., Hallewas, D.P. and Zoetbrood, P.A.M., 1994. De degradatie van de archeologische betekenis van de Nederlandse bodem. Interne Rapporten ROB, 8. Amersfoort: ROB.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. and Ralston, I. (eds), 1993. Archaeological Resource Management in the UK. Bath: Allan Sutton/IFA.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J., 1996. Zur Wissenschaftsstrategie in der deutschen Archäologie seit 1990. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janik, L. and Zawadzka, H., 1996. One Europe – one past? In Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities: 116–24. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koschik, H. (ed.), 1995. Situation und Perspektiven archäologischer Denkmalpflege in Brandenburg und Nordrhein-Westfalen. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland, 4. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lipe, B., 1974. A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39: 213–45.Google Scholar
Shore, C., 1996. Imagining the new Europe: identity and heritage in European Community discourse. In Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities: 96–115. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Slapšak, B., 1993. Archaeology and the contemporary myths of the past. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 191–5.Google Scholar
Tayeb, M., 1994. Organizations and national culture: methodology considered. Organization Studies 15 (3): 429–46.Google Scholar
Willems, W.J.H., 1997. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands: past, present and future. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands: 3–34. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. and Hallewas, D.P. (eds), 1997. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar