'Quality' Advice from French Preventive Archaeology

Kai Salas Rossenbach,Nathan Schlanger

doi:10.37718/csa.2010.04

Abstract

In their lucid and thought-provoking paper, Carolina Andersson, Agneta Lagerlof and Eva Skyllberg clearly identify the looming quandary of contemporary archaeology: how can we promote our professional concerns with scientific and patrimonial ‘quality’ in a context increas ingly dominated by (often short-term) economic and political considerations? Almost twenty years have passed since the Valletta Convention called for the reconciliation of archaeology and spatial planning (CoE treaty n° 143, 1992), but some European countries still remain ambivalent or uncertain regarding the systems they have chosen to implement. In terms of their overall policies on archaeological heritage management, Sweden and France are both clearly on the ‘public service’ end of the spectrum, where the state is expected to take re sponsibility over threatened archaeological remains and then control the quality of their protection and study (cf. Demoule 2002; Demoule 2010; Willems & Van den Dries 2007:10; Kristiansen 2009:643 ff). Given these affinities, some recent experiences in French archaeology can well serve as examples – or indeed as cautionary tales – for the un folding situation in Sweden. A brief terminological excursus will clear the way, insofar as both Swedish and French can offer some linguistic depths vis-a-vis the lin gua franca. In the critical spirit of this paper, the casual expression ‘de velopment-led archaeology’ appears difficult to uphold. It builds on an ambiguity in the English language between a wide-ranging and noble notion of development (‘sustainable’, ‘social’, ‘cultural’) and the more

Highlights

In their lucid and thought-provoking paper, Carolina Andersson, Agneta Lagerlöf and Eva Skyllberg clearly identify the looming quandary of contemporary archaeology: how can we promote our professional concerns with scientific and patrimonial ‘quality’ in a context increasingly dominated by economic and political considerations? Almost twenty years have passed since the Valletta Convention called for the reconciliation of archaeology and spatial planning (CoE treaty n° 143, 1992), but some European countries still remain ambivalent or uncertain regarding the systems they have chosen to implement
Our respective mother tongues prove here more subtle: the Swedish upp drag translates as ‘commission’ or ‘assignment’, while the French archéologie préventive can well be rendered as preventive archaeology, in the mode of preventive medicine or preventive detention
As France is concerned, the long awaited heritage law of 2001 emphasizes that preventive archaeology is a mission of public service governed by the principles of scientific research, which seeks to identify, safeguard, study, interpret and widely disseminate results pertaining to threatened archaeological remains This 2001 law brought about the creation of INRAP, transforming and expanding a pre-existing association into a national research institute, with over 1800 archaeologists

Summary

Introduction

In their lucid and thought-provoking paper, Carolina Andersson, Agneta Lagerlöf and Eva Skyllberg clearly identify the looming quandary of contemporary archaeology: how can we promote our professional concerns with scientific and patrimonial ‘quality’ in a context increasingly dominated by (often short-term) economic and political considerations? Almost twenty years have passed since the Valletta Convention called for the reconciliation of archaeology and spatial planning (CoE treaty n° 143, 1992), but some European countries still remain ambivalent or uncertain regarding the systems they have chosen to implement. These notions can serve us to place the ‘lead’ on quality where it squarely belongs: not with the building contractors, but rather with the archaeological operators, prescribers and regulators.

Results

Conclusion