The National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA) and quality management in Dutch archaeology

Abstract

In less than fifteen years the nature of Dutch archaeology has changed dramatically, partly as a result of the signing, in 1992, of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.1 One key change has been the introduction in 2001 of private agencies to perform excavations since 2001. This not only introduced market forces to archaeology, but also new forms of societal involvements, reflected in a quality management system devised by the archaeological sector itself (self-regulation) and new forms of gouvernment supervision. The quality management system not only stipulates technical standards for research (in the field and otherwise) and standards for excavating parties and individual archaeologists, it also defines the goals that the archaeological system should be ideally be working towards. What do we understand by archaeological heritage management (both in and ex situ) and by meaningful examination of the past? The National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA) aims to answer both these questions. The present paper discusses the purpose, need for, form and content of the research agenda. It also clarifies its role in the system of quality management in archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands.

Introduction

The character of Dutch archaeology has changed dramatically in less than fifteen years. The cause is clear: the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (the Valletta Convention), signed by the Netherlands in 1992. However, in the late 1980s, developments were already occurring in the Dutch archaeological system that in fact anticipated the measures agreed in the Convention. In 1987, for example, a covenant was signed stipulating that the national public works organisation Rijkswaterstaat would play an official role in the care for the archaeological heritage.2 Since then, many other ‘players’ in the spatial planning process have shouldered their responsibility, and now consistently allow scope for archaeological interests and help shape efforts to safeguard them. The forthcoming amendment to the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1988 will codify practices that have been developing over the years. However, it is not clear precisely what the responsibility of developers actually entails, or how far it extends. Under the revised legislation, they have a general, financial and organisational responsibility for safeguarding archaeological remains (either in or ex situ). The Act sets out no more specific or detailed answer than that. Nor could it.

The official incorporation of archaeological heritage management into spatial planning has significantly added to and prompted a redefining of the aims, roles and processes in the field of archaeology. The terminology is highly revealing in this respect. The discipline is now no longer referred to simply as ‘archaeology’ but also as ‘archaeological heritage management’. Archaeological remains have been referred to since the early 1990s as archaeological values. At the same time, a great deal has changed in the archaeological infrastructure: in archaeological databases, archives, repositories, as well as in teaching and research.3 The greatest change – relative to the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1988 – has been the use since 2001 of private agencies to perform excavations. This has not only brought market forces into archaeology, but also new forms of societal involvements, reflected in a new quality management system and new forms of supervision. Up to now, however, there has been no specific definition of what these old and new parties are supposed to be working towards. What exactly do we mean by preservation of the archaeological heritage (in and ex situ) and meaningful examination of the past?

The National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA) is designed to underpin both the developments described above; to provide the substance needed for mandatory yet meaningful, productive, preservation-oriented care of the heritage. The NOaA clearly sets out the reasons behind the responsibility that developers and principals now bear. It provides an answer, in accordance with present-day standards, to the question of (1) what we mean by sustainable preservation of the heritage and (2) what questions investigation should focus on if preservation in situ proves impossible. As such, the NOaA defines the public interest at stake in archaeology.
This essay not only describes the form that the NOaA takes, it focuses particularly on its role in the new system. To clarify matters, I should first like to explain how the public interest in general, and in archaeology in particular, is safeguarded in the Netherlands.