Ciuchini, P. (2010) Archaeological policies and practices across Europe: national developments and international trends. ArchaeoJobs [Internet].

Available from: <http://archaeojobs.blogspot.com/2010/07/archaeological-policiesand-practices.html>

Paolo Ciuchini Archaeological policies and practices across Europe: national developments and international trends
Paper written in the context of the Postgraduate Module 'Archaeology in the EU' held by Prof. Muiris O'Sullivan during the second semester of the AY 2009-2010 at UCD School of Archaeology.

Introduction 'Growth', 'commercialisation', 'regulation', 'internationalisation', 'convergence'. These could be the main key words of the present review. The development of archaeology across the European Union in the last forty years is a story of growth through adaptation and reaction to increasingly shared drivers of change. As a result of this common trend, nowadays archaeologists and legislators are often dealing with the same or very similar issues, which in many cases are addressed at the European rather than just at the national level. The tendency towards an international alignment of archaeological policies and practices, which finds parallels in many other sectors of activity, is particularly evident in countries that have already been members of the European Union and the Council of Europe for several decades. This article reviews the national paths of Ireland, Italy and The Netherlands, which are eventually contextualised within the wider European and international dimension. Ireland At the beginning of the XX century in Ireland there was just a handful of professional archaeologists, mostly based in universities and museums. The Irish Free State approved in 1930 the National Monuments Act (NMA), which decisively strengthened heritage protection and the position of the archaeologists in the public sector. During the 1940s the discipline further entrenched itself at the academic level: new professors took over of the first academic 'pioneers' in Dublin, Galway and Cork (respectively in 1943, 1945 and 1947) and Queen's University Belfast established its first chair of archaeology (in 1948). From the 1950s to the 1970s there was a modest growth in the number of full-time professional archaeologists. At that stage virtually all of them were employed just by universities and the State services. Such a situation changed considerably during the 1980s: the necessity of carrying out assessment and excavation of archaeological sites affected by infrastructural works and private developments led to the emergence and growth of commercial archaeology. Instrumental in facilitating the assessment of the archaeological impact of new construction projects was the compilation, under the supervision of the Archaeological 1

Survey of Ireland, of a national desktop inventory of archaeological sites and monuments, called Sites and Monuments Records (SMR). The 1994 National Monuments (Amendment) Act established the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP), a statutory list of all known archaeological monuments which expanded and revised the SMR in the light of fieldwork. In close connection with the growth of the country's 'Tiger economy' and particularly of its oversized construction industry, the commercial sector of archaeology grew steadily from the early 1990s until the end of 2007, when the trend was abruptly brought to a halt by the beginning of the current financial crisis (Condit, 2008; Eogan & Sullivan, 2009; Sullivan, 2009). Given that during the same period the growth of archaeology in universities and the public services was comparatively modest, the vast majority of archaeologists ended up working in the private sector. The Irish report of the EU-sponsored Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (DISCO) project gives a clear insight of the situation near the peak of the boom in the summer of 2007 (McDermott & La Piscopia, 2008). During the 2000s it became clear that the surge in archaeological activity was not being properly handled. In 2006 the foresight study Archaeology 2020 highlighted several systemic failures, like the absence of structures and directions to assure a coherent archaeological strategy at the national level, the disconnection of most development-led excavations from a wide-ranging research framework, the serious shortcomings noticeable in archiving and curation of archaeological records and materials, and the existence of an unsustainable backlog of unpublished excavation reports, all translating into a general failure to create knowledge (Cooney et al., 2006). In September of the same year these issues were also discussed within a forum on the prospects of archaeological research in Ireland held by the Royal Irish Academy (Cooney, 2007). In 2007, in order to draft a completely new National Monument Act, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government set up an Expert Advisory Committee. The new law has not yet been presented, but this collaborative approach has already led to positive outcomes such as the draft of a comprehensive Review of Archaeological Policy and Practice (DoEHLG, 2007; NMS, 2009), the establishment of the Irish National Strategic Archaeological Research (INSTAR) Programme and a sensible increase in the availability of archiving and storage spaces (DCC, 2010; Halpin, 2010). No real answer has yet been provided, though, to the problem represented by the huge backlog of unpublished excavation reports. During the 'Tiger years' many development-led investigations became increasingly focused on impact mitigation through recording and recovery of the archaeology in order to deliver to the builders a 'clean' site, ready for construction. Particularly starting from the early 1990s, less time and resources were dedicated to publish excavation reports and to engage in dissemination activities, despite these being the ultimate scientific and social goals of an economic investment in archaeology. This alarming trend led to a situation where the number of published reports compared to the total number of excavations carried out per year became extremely small (Cooney et al., 2006, p.15; Drisceoil, 2009). The current economic crisis, having basically frozen the 'dig frenzy', represents paradoxically a unique opportunity for archaeologists to take some breath and tackle wisely this and the other issues mentioned above. The downturn has led to the loss of several hundreds of jobs in private practices and just a few, so far, in the public sector. Since the crisis is still ongoing, it is difficult at present to estimate the real extent of such 'rebalancing', and whether it will be just temporary or it will characterise the new Irish archaeological scene on the long term.

Italy Despite some significant efforts by the young Italian State, at the end of the XIX Italian archaeology was affected by poor organisation, a lack of regulation and a very low level of professional involvement. The Law 386/1907 established Superintendencies (Soprintendenze) for the Monuments in each region. The Law 384/1909 established the State ownership of every archaeological find and restricted private rights on any monument declared 'of public interest' by the Superintendencies for the Monuments. During the Fascist era, the Law 1089/1939 enshrined conclusively the priority of public interest over the private one, created in each region a Superintendency for Archaeology apart from the one for Fine Arts and Monuments, and ruled that the modification of every public property older than 50 years had to be approved by the relevant Superintendency. From that moment onward a Superintendent for Archaeology could stop any work that had led to an occasional finding, estimate their importance, reject construction projects. The Superintendent, though, had a very low budget and, crucially, could intervene just once the finding has been made. It is little surprise that many and perhaps most of the occasional findings were not reported to the Superintendency, with incalculable loss of archaeology. Nevertheless, it must be said that, given the country's delayed industrialisation, the damage brought to the archaeological heritage until the late 1940s was relatively modest. Large-scale destruction of archaeological sites started after the Second World War, particularly as a consequence of agricultural intensification and mechanisation, and got a lot worse during the fast industrialisation and economic boom of the 1960s, when the construction of large-scale pieces of infrastructure, particularly the motorway network, and of thousands of private houses, overstrained the already weak control system. The Circular Letter 3763/1982 of the Office of the Prime Minister provided for each public construction project to be approved by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage. In absence of a proper law, though, the Circular Letter started to be often interpreted as if the need of a preventive approval applied just to areas already declared 'of archaeological interest'. However, the document basically marked the beginning of preventive archaeology, sparking an intensification of the action of the Superintendencies in relation to new largescale infrastructural works (De Caro, 2008, p.14). In compliance with the Directive 85/337 of the European Economic Community, the Law 241/1990 introduced the obligation for a consultation of all relevant authorities every time that an administrative proceeding involved different public interests, indirectly strengthening the position of the Superintendencies within the decisional process. In some regions the principles of preventive consultation started to be extended to major private construction projects. The Law 554/1999 ruled that all projects for public works must include preliminary archaeological investigations. Very often, though, this investigation meant just the consultation of archaeological records in the local Superintendency's archive. The Law 289/2002 earmarked 3% of all public infrastructure funds for 'the protection and interventions in favour of cultural heritage and activities', but it was decided that this money would be managed by the specially set up company ARCUS S.p.a. (Art, Culture and Spectacle Joint Stock Company). As a result just a relatively small portion of this sum is being spent for archaeology (about 20%, amounting to 5737 million, in 2004) (Maggi, 2007, p.151). The Decree Law 42/2004 (amended in 2006 and 2008) enshrined the 'Developer Pays' principle and allowed the Superintendent for Archaeology to order 'preventive archaeological test excavations' in relation to projects for public works, but it still makes no reference to private projects. The Decree Law 109/2005 (later included in the Decree Law 163/2006) regulated the procedures for preliminary archaeological investigations, clarified 3

the respective responsibilities of Superintendencies and contractors, and provided for the creation of a Register of subjects allowed to carry out these investigations (Master's graduates in Archaeology and Archaeology Departments). It definitely represents a big improvement, but still refers just to assessing and testing, neglecting resolution or monitoring, and concerns just public works (Malnati, 2005). The belated Decree Law 60/2009, which sets the criteria for the keeping of the above mentioned Register, is being heavily criticised, particularly because it establishes the archaeology departments as privileged actors in the market of preventive archaeology, to the detriment of independent professionals and private companies (ANA, 2009; CIA, 2009). Moreover, after over one year, the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities has not yet published the form to apply for the admission to the Register (Galasso, 2010, p.1). As written above, the State ownership of all archaeological heritage has been established in Italy over a century ago. Despite this and other early demonstrations of concern, some of the provisions enacted since then to manage the impact of the country's development have proved to be not fully effective and patchily applied. Nevertheless the concept and practice of preventive archaeology have gained ground during the last 30 years and are now firmly rooted. Now the Superintendencies routinely carry out extensive excavations in advance of public and private works, generally hiring private companies staffed by qualified archaeologists. These companies have recently been allowed to obtain contracts for assessing and testing activities directly from all public clients, in a clear drive to gradually introduce free-market elements in an otherwise totally State-controlled system. The business of preventive archaeology is by now worth several million Euros per year. University departments, which in the past generally avoided to get involved in rescue archaeology, have been trying in recent years to enter the market, in an attempt to offset the frequent government cuts to education and research (Maggi, 2007, p.154). With respect to quality control and management, it must be said that the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities has not established compulsory standards for good practice. Nevertheless the quality of all archaeological works is actively controlled by the relevant Superintendency, which remains responsible for the scientific management of the operations. Binding guidelines for preliminary archaeological investigations and a Register of accredited subjects were established with the mentioned Decree Law 109/2005. Some efforts to promote quality assurance are also being made by the private sector: both the National Association of Archaeologists (Associazione Nazionale Archeologi, ANA) and the Italian Confederation of Archaeologists (Confederazione Italiana Archeologi, CIA) have set membership criteria, based on academic qualifications, work experience and the mandatory adhesion to the respective codes of conduct. During the years leading to the economic crisis, Italy did not experience a construction boom comparable to the ones that took place in Ireland and in other parts of Europe. Anecdotal evidence suggests that employment and wage levels in preventive archaeology, typically quite low1, have remained fairly stable until the beginning of 2010, with a possible deterioration in recent months. The Netherlands Archaeology has been taught for almost two centuries in the country, since C.J.C. Reuvens was appointed in 1817 to the Chair of Archaeology at the University of Leiden, which was the first Chair in the world explicitly dedicated to the subject. For a very long
1 The first survey of the archaeological profession in Italy was carried out by the ANA in 2004-2005 (Cevoli, 2006).

time Dutch archaeology remained characterised by a neat divide between professional archaeologists with an academic training and a bigger group of enthusiastic amateurs, who gave an important contribution to the development of the discipline. The independence and scope of amateur initiatives have been limited by the introduction in the 1960s of a licensing system, the adoption of legally-binding regulations and guidelines, and in general by the progressive professionalisation of archaeology. Still in 1995, all the archaeological fieldwork, mostly rescue excavations, was a prerogative of the State Archaeological Service (Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, ROB), the National Museum of Antiquities (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, RMO), university departments and municipal archaeologists. At that time about 250 people in The Netherlands worked in archaeology (50% archaeologists and 50% support staff) (Waugh, 2008, p.10). Less than 80 university students studied archaeology and their chances to find employment in the field were rather slim (Waugh, 2008, p.10). The number of keen amateurs was still quite high. The scarcity of qualified professionals and research funds, which amounted almost exclusively to limited budgets made available by the Dutch government, led to a huge backlog in post-excavation activities and consequently in the draft and publication of excavation reports (Waugh, 2008, p.10). A legislative framework for the protection of archaeological monuments was set up for the first time in The Netherlands with the 1961 Monuments and Historic Buildings Act, which was amended in 1988. Among other aspects, the act regulates procedures for monument designation, find ownership and responsibilities for archaeological research. It also enshrines the principle that government and citizens share responsibility for monuments management and protection. After signing in 1999 the Bologna Declaration (CoE, 1999), The Netherlands adopted in its universities the international standard degree system formed by Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree and Ph.D. Today archaeology is taught in Leiden, Amsterdam, Groningen and Nijmegen. Until a few years ago archaeology departments had a prominent role in rescue archaeology, and are still active in today's preventive archaeology through the commercial units that each of them has set up. The 2007 Archaeological Management Act, approved after years of debate and delay, formally implemented the Valletta Convention (CoE, 1992), reorganised the Quality Control and Licensing systems, introduced the 'Developer Pays' principle and compelled local councils to assess the archaeological impact of developments and to provide for mitigation. These changes have led to a big increase of the funding available for archaeology, to the creation of a market for archaeological services, and therefore to the mushrooming of a number of archaeological companies that compete in order to win contracts from public and private clients. Most of these companies are registered with the Association for Contractors in Archaeology (Vereniging oor Ondernemers in Archeologie, VoiA). Given its importance in understanding the country's heritage and past, archaeological work is regarded as both a service and a research activity. Therefore in the field of archaeology the application of market principles is accompanied by strict regulation. Whoever wishes to carry out an archaeological invasive investigation must obtain an excavation licence from the National Service for Cultural Heritage (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, RvhCE) and a certification confirming that he works according to the guidelines set by the mandatory Quality Control System (Kwaliteitsnorm voor Nederlandse Archeologie, KNA). The KNA deals with the procedures of archaeological practice, while further guidelines and recommendations concerning the research framework within which the investigation should be carried out are set out in a National Research Agenda (Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie, NoaA). The KNA establishes that some important archaeological procedures can only be carried out by 5

certain actors that have the required combination of qualifications and experience; specific criteria are also set for specialists. Since 2007 licence applicants must also be registered with the Professional Register of Archaeologists, kept by the Dutch Association of Archaeologists (Nederlandse Vereniging van Archeologen, NVvA). Admission to the Register is based on education, training, experience and the signing of a Code of Conduct. The functioning of the archaeological system as a whole is constantly monitored by the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage (Erfgoedinspectie) (Monique H. Dries, van den & Willems, 2007). The three parallel forms of quality control, which are being frequently reviewed and adjusted, apply to every subject, either private or public, keen to undertake archaeological excavations or other forms of invasive investigations. Other services such as non-invasive investigations, archaeological advice and consultancy are (still) exempted from any obligation in terms of quality control or certification, although some companies that provide them voluntarily apply for KNA certification. The activities of commissioning, supervision and inspection carried out by public authorities are likewise (still) exempted. The somewhat problematic overlapping of the three different control systems and the just mentioned exemptions are matters of concern that need to be addressed. Between December 2007 and May 2008 a comprehensive survey of the archaeological profession in The Netherlands was carried out by the Dutch archaeological company Vestigia BV in the context of the international DISCO project (Waugh, 2008). The survey recorded a marked growth, compared to a decade before, in the number of archaeologists with paid jobs. There were then nearly 1000 archaeologists, most of which had a degree and were employed by commercial companies. Given the strong demand for archaeological services entailed by the then-booming construction industry, the survey also highlighted a shortage of suitably qualified staff, particularly of candidates for senior positions. In September 2009, during the 'Archaeology and the global crisis - multiple impacts, possible solutions' round-table held on the occasion of the 15th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), the Dutch speakers reported a clear decline in the number of field projects in the first months of 2009. Nevertheless, at that time, the economic crisis did not seem yet to have impacted on Dutch archaeology as hard as in many other countries (Aitchison, 2009, pp.662-663; Bakker et al., 2009). The European dimension During the first half of the XX century in most of the Western countries archaeology finally became a firmly established academic discipline and found its place within universities and national public bodies in charge of the protection of antiquities. From the 1960s a growing concern about the increasing rate of destruction of natural heritage led to the realisation that also a great quantity of archaeological heritage was being irremediably lost every day, particularly because of agricultural intensification 2, infrastructure development and housing construction. Archaeologists and policy-makers understood, in some countries earlier than in others, that the management of archaeological resources could no longer be confined to the mere protection of ancient monuments, but had to be redefined within the frameworks
2 Increasing agricultural productivity has always been one of the main goals of the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Mechanisms to encourage farmers to carry out their activities in a more extensive and environmentally friendly way were set up just in the 1990s, on the wake of the GATT's Uruguay Round started n 1986 (Gupta, 1996, pp.59-61, 68; WTO, 2005). In this context must be seen the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), introduced in 1994 by the Irish Government under the European Council Regulation 2078/92. Although focused on the natural environment, the Scheme also incorporated a measure for the protection and maintenance of historical and archaeological features (O'Sullivan, 1996; O'Sullivan & Kennedy, 1998).

of spatial planning and territorial policies. Although early signs of such transformation can be tracked in several countries through the 1970s and 1980s, the real watershed along this process is represented by the 1992 Valletta Convention (CoE, 1992). This convention, one of a series of conventions for the protection of the cultural heritage produced by the Council of Europe (CoE) from the 1950s onwards3, outlines a standard way to manage the archaeological heritage and establishes archaeology as a pivotal element within the processes of spatial planning and policymaking. It is essentially a new version of the London Convention (CoE, 2005), the upgrade of which had been made necessary by the evolution of planning policies in European countries after 1969. In particular, the London convention did not touch the topics of the integration of archaeology in development planning and of the funding of archaeological work (CoE, 1969). To date, the Valletta Convention has been signed by all the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, including Ireland, The Netherlands and Italy, plus the Holy See. During the last 15 years it has led to significant reforms in the legislative framework and statutory organisation of archaeology in most of the signatory countries. Although the terms and scope of legal obligations varies from state to state, as appears clear from the three cases examined in this review, archaeology has generally become a mandatory part of the planning process. This shift has on the one hand led to the reorganisation and reduction of the practice of 'rescue' (or 'salvage' or 'emergency') archaeology, that had developed from the 1950s and expanded through the 1970s and 1980s in connection with major infrastructure developments, and on the other hand determined a surge in the demand for preventive archaeological investigations. This new kind of archaeology has been variously labelled as 'preventive archaeology', 'contract archaeology, 'developer-led archaeology', 'commercial archaeology', and in other ways. These labels are not perfectly interchangeable and often reflect the different ways in which the preventive archaeology has been organised across Europe. Each country is indeed implementing the Valletta Convention through its own specific formula, taking into account political and legal peculiarities, as well as different concepts of archaeology and economic environments. Observing the main features of these 'national ways to Valletta', it is possible to divide the signatory States in three broad groups: countries that consider archaeological work to be a service and at the same time want to control the quality of archaeological work (e.g. Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden); countries that consider archaeological work to be a service and do not want to control the quality of archaeological work (notably UK); countries that do not consider archaeological work to be a service and want to control the quality of archaeological work (e.g. Austria, France, Greece and Italy) (Willems, 2007, pp.7-13). In The Netherlands, which represents a very clear example of the first group, the creation of a market for archaeological services was considered the best way to deal with the increasing demand for archaeological works. At the same time, because of the social importance of archaeology as a source of knowledge for the country's past, archaeologists and policy-makers wanted to avoid the foreseeable negative effects of an uncritical application of 'free market principles' on the quality of the process and results of archaeological activities. To this purpose the Dutch law established that the free market system in archaeology must be controlled and offset by means of a mandatory system of quality assurance. The main components of this system are the mentioned KNA and Licensing System. The private sector gives its contribution to quality assurance through
3 The competency of the CoE in this area was established with the 1954 European Cultural Convention (CoE, 1954). This series also includes the Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (CoE, 1969), the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (CoE, 1985), the European Landscape Convention (CoE, 2000) and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CoE, 2005).

the Registry of Archaeologists, kept by the Dutch Association of Archaeologists. Many of the considerations made for The Netherlands apply in principle for Ireland. In Ireland, indeed, the official position was that the risks entailed by the introduction of a 'free market archaeology' would be offset by the existing Licensing System. Even in Ireland the private sector has taken some steps towards self-regulation, particularly by means of the Codes of Conducts, Guidelines, Technical Papers and Register of Members of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI). In recent years it has clearly emerged, though, that these instruments are not effective enough. The Irish Licensing System, originally conceived for research excavations, has not been reformed in order to cope with the dynamics and the rapid growth of the commercial sector. Membership of IAI has never been considered a necessary condition to apply for a job. The Institute itself has always had a modest number of members compared to the total number of archaeologists employed in the country, and its guidelines have been applied just patchily and on a voluntary basis. The second group of countries, where archaeological work is considered as a service and there is not State quality control, is clearly exemplified by the UK. Here, in the 1980s, following the example set by USA and Canada in the 1970s, archaeological work was largely privatised without legal provisions to assure its quality. The British system still lacks such provisions, although the system of private self-regulation organised through the Institute of Field Archaeologists is somewhat more efficient than its Irish equivalent. The clearest instance of the third group of countries, where archaeological work is not considered as a service and State quality control is in place, is France. Here the State sets the expense that the developer must cover, decides what operations must be carried out, and controls directly the archaeological work through the National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Investigations (Institut National de Recherches Archologiques Prventives, INRAP). The vast majority of archaeological work is carried out by State archaeologists, although some private archaeological companies and individual professionals, included in an official list kept by the Ministry of Culture, are allowed to work under strict State supervision. Since the work is basically done and checked by the State, no explicit quality standards and control mechanisms have been set up yet. The Italian system works very much like the French one. The Italian equivalent of the INRAP is the General Direction for the Antiquities (Direzione Generale per le Antichit, DGA) which operates through the local Superintendencies for Archaeology. It must be observed, though, that nowadays the Superintendencies subcontract most of the archaeological works to private companies, and they have started doing that since the beginning of the 1980s, while in France this phenomenon is still limited and more recent. Despite being very akin to the French model, the Italian system is also introducing some elements typical of the first group of countries, to which Ireland and The Netherlands belong. In particular, the Decree Law 109/2005 has created a 'free market' for archaeological preliminary investigations (i.e. assessing and testing), where commercial units can compete in order to win contracts directly from the developers (although just the public ones, at present) without the interposition of the Superintendency. Coherently, the law has also provided a level of quality assurance through the creation of an official Register of accredited subjects, which, despite some flaws, is on its way to be implemented. Another indication of the ongoing shift of the Italian system from the French towards the 'Irish-Dutch' model is the establishment in 2004-2005 of two national professional associations (ANA and CIA, mentioned above), which are attempting to introduce a private system of quality assurance by setting specific membership criteria and codes of conduct.

Conclusions The history of the development of archaeological policy and practice across Europe is ultimately a history of convergence. Ireland, Italy and The Netherlands, the three very different countries at the core of this comparative exercise, make no exception. The respective approaches to archaeology and protection of national antiquities had already many traits in common before the Second World War. After the conflict several international bodies were set up, which produced a number of declarations, conventions and directives with a strong influence on every sphere of activity in the signatory States 4. With regards to European archaeology, the most influential document so far has been the 1992 Valletta Convention, which firmly placed archaeology within the planning process. In order to implement the Convention, each State introduced or re-organised the practice of preventive archaeology. The methods of implementation vary from country to country, and can be connected to three different models, characterised by alternative concepts of archaeology and views on whether the State should control the quality of archaeological works or not. In this context, some countries, like Italy, are shifting progressively from a model in which the State had the monopoly of the archaeological work to one in which 'free market principles' apply, at least for certain types of activities. The current economic crisis is affecting archaeology and archaeologists in every country that signed the Valletta Convention. Despite all its negative consequences, this crisis represents a perfect stress test, the ideal opportunity to assess for the first time how these different models of archaeological resource management perform during periods of economic weakness. Paolo Ciuchini UCD School of Archaeology [email protected]

References
Aitchison, K. (2009) After the gold rush: global archaeology in 2009. World Archaeology, 41 (4), pp.659-671. ANA (2009) Archeologia preventiva: comunicato stampa. ANA [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.archeologi.org/web/news.asp?id=459> [Accessed 24 April 2010]. Bakker, C., Dries, van den, M. & Waugh, K.E. (2009) Crisis in Dutch archaeology? [Abstract of the paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, Riva del Garda, 17 September]. Available from: <http://www.ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/Crisis-session-EAA%20Riva%20de %20Garda-17sept2009.pdf>. Cevoli, T. ed. (2006) Dossier I Censimento Nazionale Archeologi 2004-2006. Napoli, ANA. CIA (2009) Lettera aperta al Ministro On. Bondi in merito al Regolamento concernente la
4 At the global level the organisations with the most evident impact on archaeological resource management are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Archaeological Congress (WAC). At the European level the biggest roles are played by the Council of Europe and the European Union. Important initiatives are also carried out by organisations such as the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and the Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC) (Cooney, 2009; Harding, 2009; Willems, 2009).

disciplina dei criteri per la tenuta e il funzionamento dell'elenco previsto dall'articolo 95, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 12 aprile 2006, n. 163. CIA [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.archeologi-italiani.it/> [Accessed 24 April 2010]. CoE (1985) Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. Granada, 3.X.1985. CETS No.: 121. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (1992) European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised). Valletta, 16.I.1992. CETS No.: 143. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (1969) European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. London, 6.V.1969. ETS no. 066. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (1954) European Cultural Convention. Paris, 19.XII.1954. CETS No.: 018. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (2000) European Landscape Convention. Florence, 20.X.2000. CETS No.: 176. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (2005) Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Faro, 27.X.2005. CETS No.: 199. Strasbourg, CoE. CoE (1999) The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Strasbourg, CoE. Condit, T. (2008) The Tiger's legacy. Archaeology Ireland, 22 (4), p.3. Cooney, G. ed. (2007) Archaeology in Ireland : a Vision for the Future. Dublin, RIA. Cooney, G. (2009) European and global archaeologies. World Archaeology, 41 (4), pp.626-628. Cooney, G., OSullivan, M. & Downey, L. (2006) Archaeology 2020: Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge Society. Dublin, UCD. DCC (2010) Dublin City Archaeological Archive. DCC [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.dublincity.ie/RecreationandCulture/libraries/Heritage%20and %20History/Dublin%20City %20Archives/Pages/DublinCityArchaeologicalArchive.aspx> [Accessed 25 June 2010]. De Caro, S. (2008) Archeologia preventiva, lo stato della materia. In: A. D'Andrea & M. P. Guermandi eds. Strumenti per l'archeologia preventiva : esperienze, normative, tecnologie. Budapest, Archaelingua Foundation, pp.11-20. DoEHLG (2007) Review of Archaeological Policy and Practice in Ireland: Identifying the Issues. Dublin, DoEHLG. Dries, van den, M.H. & Willems, W.J. (2007) Quality assurance in archaeology, the Dutch perspective. In: W. H. Willems & M. H. Dries, van den eds. Quality management in archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow, pp.50-65. 10

Eogan, J. & Sullivan, E. (2009) Archaeology and the demise of the Celtic Tiger. The Archaeologist, 72, pp.26-27. Galasso, G. (2010) Che fine ha fatto l'elenco degli archeologi? ArcheoNews, 76, pp.1, 9. Gupta, K.R. (1996) Gatt Accord: Results Of The Uruguay Round Of Multilateral Trade Negotiations [Second Reprint 1997]. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. Halpin, H. (2010) National Museum of Ireland Archaeological Excavations Facility Collections Resource Centre Swords, Co. Dublin [PowerPoint of the presentation given at the IAI Spring Conference 2010, Galway, 20th April 2010]. Dublin, IAI. Available from: <http://www.iai.ie/Publications_Files/NMI_Presentation_to_IAI_ %20April_2010.pdf>. Harding, A. (2009) Towards a European archaeology. World Archaeology, 41 (4), pp.629640. Maggi, R. (2007) The Approach to Preventive Archaeology in Italy. In: European Preventive Archaeology [Papers of the EPAC Meeting , Vilnius 2004]. Budapest, National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary Council of Europe, pp.146-154. Malnati, L. (2005) La verifica preventiva dell'interesse archeologico. Aedon [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2005/3/malnati.htm> [Accessed 14 April 2010]. McDermott, C. & La Piscopia, P. (2008) Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Ireland. Dublin, Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland. NMS (2009) Summary of proposals to consolidate, revise and extend the National Monuments Acts, 1930 to 2004 and related enactments. Dublin, NMS. Available from: <http://www.archaeology.ie/en/PublicationsFormsLegislation/FileDownload,321,en.d oc>. Drisceoil, C. (2009) The Half-Baked Cake?: Perspectives on the Publication Crisis in Irish Archaeology. [Paper presented at the IAI Summer Conference 2009]. Available from: <http://www.iai.ie/Publications_Files/presentations%20conf%202009/C%F3il %EDn%20%D3%20Drisceoil%20IAI%20talk%20July%202009.pdf>. O'Sullivan, M. (1996) Reps, farming and archaeology. Archaeology Ireland, 10 (4), p.8. O'Sullivan, M. & Kennedy, L. (1998) The survival of archaeological monuments: Trends and attitudes. Irish Geography, 31 (2), pp.88-89. Sullivan, E. (2009) A survey of the employment levels in Irish Archaeology conducted by the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland. Dublin, IAI. Waugh, K.E. (2008) Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Netherlands. Amersfoor, Vestigia BV. 11

Willems (2007) The times they are a-changing': Observations on archaeology in a European context. In: G. Cooney ed. Archaeology in Ireland : a Vision for the Future. Dublin, RIA, pp.5-23. Willems, W.J. (2009) European and world archaeologies. World Archaeology, 41 (4), pp.649-658. WTO (2005) Understanding the WTO. The Uruguay Round. WTO [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact5_e.htm> [Accessed 9 April 2010].

Acronyms
ANA CAP CIA CoE DCC DGA DISCO DoEHLG EAA EAC EPAC GATT IAI ICOMOS INRAP INSTAR KNA NMA NoaA NVvA REPS RIA RMO RMP ROB RvhCE SMR UCD UNESCO VoiA WAC WTO Associazione Nazionale Archeologi Common Agricultural Policy Confederazione Italiana Archeologi Council of Europe Dublin City Council Direzione Generale per le Antichit Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government European Association of Archaeologists Europae Archaeologiae Consilium European Preventive Archaeology Corpus General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland International Council on Monuments and Sites Institut National de Recherches Archologiques Prventives Irish National Strategic Archaeological Research Kwaliteitsnorm voor Nederlandse Archeologie National Monuments Act Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie Nederlandse Vereniging van Archeologen Rural Environment Protection Scheme Royal Irish Academy Rijksmuseum van Oudheden Record of Monuments and Places Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed Sites and Monuments Records University College Dublin United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Vereniging oor Ondernemers in Archeologie World Archaeological Congress World Trade Organization

12