The good, the bad and the ugly? Evaluating three models of implementing the Valletta Convention

Abstract

In World Archaeology 41(4), Kristian Kristiansen discussed the various ways in which European countries implement the principle of developer funding for archaeological research promoted by the Valletta Convention of 1992. The main issue is whether archaeological research is considered a public responsibility or a private enterprise. Kristiansen (2009 Kristiansen, K. 2009. Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity. World Archaeology, 41(4): 641–8. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 644) made a comparison of the implications that these two approaches have for the quality of archaeological work, the assurance of academic standards and, ultimately, for the production of knowledge. His conclusion was that the choice between the ‘socialist’ approach and the ‘capitalist’ approach is basically a choice between a knowledge-producing archaeology and a fact-producing archaeology. As the Netherlands is one of the ‘model countries’ from which Kristiansen draws his conclusions, my aim with this article is to reflect on his analysis from the Dutch perspective and to demonstrate that it cannot be claimed that the ‘capitalist’ model produces facts rather than knowledge. Second, the option for a given model has major consequences and it may not do justice to the complexity of the matter if we reduce it to knowledge production. I will look into some other issues that should be taken into account in a consideration of the various models.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.