Archaeological monuments are threatened by man and nature

Along the Houtbeekweg on the Stroese Heide, yellowish grasses and faded heaths stretch for hundreds of metres, up to a grove of small, irregularly shaped oak trees. “This is archaeological national monument number 45112,” says archaeologist José Schreurs of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE). “Here are remains of habitation, a cart track and twelve burial mounds from the Stone Age and Bronze Age.” She points to freshly churned up ground. “That was done by a wild boar.” Further on, on top of an overgrown burial mound, two rectangular pits can be seen. Unmistakably dug here. “Possibly the work of robbers.”

The archaeological site at Stroe is one of more than four hundred archaeological national monuments where the condition is not good. This is the conclusion of a study into the state of a total of 1,458 archaeological national monuments, which the RCE published at the end of last year. “In 146 monuments, including national monument 45112, it can even be called bad,” says project leader Guido Mauro of the RCE.

The results of the research raise questions. What is an archaeological national monument? What is lost if an archaeological national monument is in poor condition? What can be done against attack? What does the outcome of the study say about the meaning of archaeological national monuments? Who are they kept for? And for how long? Forever?

Medieval monastery

To begin with, a short history of the archaeological national monuments is necessary. In 1967, the first archaeological national monuments were designated in the Netherlands. Because of their beauty, significance for science or cultural-historical value, they were considered to be of ‘obvious public interest’. In the beginning it was only about visible objects: dolmens, mounds, castle ruins and burial mounds.

Twenty years later, invisible sites in forests, under farmland and in urban areas had also been given monument status, such as traces of habitation from the New Stone Age under a field in Aartswoud in North Holland. At that time, the counter already stood at 1,248 archaeological national monuments.

In the following years, the attention of the responsible civil service shifted from separate objects and places to complexes and landscapes, on land and under water. Nowadays designation as a monument is only sparse, says Mauro. “The site of the former medieval monastery Klaarkamp near the Frisian village of Rinsumageest was the last for the time being in 2021.”

The monuments may be officially protected, yet there are numerous threats. “By man and nature.” Schreurs lists a number of them: “Soil erosion, burrowing animals, roots of trees and reeds, desiccation, nature managers who remove litter layers too deep, mountain bikers who cross burial mounds, farmers who plow too deep, and robbers, with or without metal detectors.”

A form of destruction

In some cases, a threat can easily be prevented, says Broers. “Through consultation with an expert, we now know that wild boars mainly root in humus-rich soil. So when we restore a burial mound, we make sure to only use clean soil.” And damage caused by human activities can be prevented through enforcement and awareness. “For example, we ask boas to pay extra attention. We had children who had dug a hut in a burial mound give a lecture about archeology at school. And at Staatsbosbeheer, among others, which manages many areas with archaeological monuments, we discuss how nature can be restored without affecting archaeological monuments.”

It will come as a surprise to the general public that at most archaeological national monuments it is not exactly known what is preserved in the soil. Archaeologists do know that the remains of a Roman villa are located near Meerssen in Limburg, but the exact layout of the villa grounds is not known. This is because monument status is not granted after large-scale excavations, but on the basis of exploratory research including drilling and test trenches.

Digging up is a form of destruction. They prefer to leave a special site in the ground, pending research methods that do not damage a monument. Such methods and techniques do exist – magnetometers can be used to detect wall remnants in the soil, laser equipment can record the smallest height differences and thus all kinds of patterns from the air – but excavation is still the only way to find out what is really inside. the bottom is.

Important information

Given the damage that has now been established at more than four hundred monuments, the question is whether storage in situ is always useful. Will important information not be lost this way? Three years ago, the RCE published a study into the degradation processes on the Aartswoud national monument, with traces of habitation from the Single Grave culture (2500-2000 BC). “A key site that can potentially provide new insights for our image of the late New Stone Age,” says Mauro. The research showed that a great deal of botanical information has been lost due to desiccation and that plowing has removed half of the culture layer containing remains such as animal bones and pottery in some places. However, there is no question of excavation yet, says Mauro.

When? “A good question that I can’t answer.” He does emphasize, however, that preserving archaeological monuments in situ is not for eternity. You can compare it to a wine cellar. If you wait too long to open a bottle, it will become sour.”

Archaeologist Heleen van London of the University of Amsterdam, who specializes in archaeological monument care, among other things, has therefore allowed excavation in an archaeological monument now and then. “Simply put, archaeological monuments should be preserved as long as necessary. That may be until there is a good research question.”

Universal value

She does have an important addition: “As far as I’m concerned, such a question does not only have to come from researchers, but can also be asked by a group of residents, for example.”

In doing so, she refers to international changes in thinking about who is responsible for preserving heritage and who determines what heritage is. “The designation of archaeological national monuments revolved around preserving the intrinsic value of a site. And that universal value has been determined by experts. This also applies, for example, to the Unesco World Heritage List.”

Australian archaeologist Laurajane Smith introduced the concept in 2006 authorized heritage discourse, to describe this mainly Western way of heritage care. In the meantime, according to Van London, there are three schools of thought when it comes to the question of who should determine what heritage worth preserving is: 1) a school that adheres to the experts and the intrinsic value of, in this case, an archaeological site, 2) a school that mainly looks at potential stakeholders and the economic and experiential value of a site, 3) a school that pays attention to those involved and the relational and emotional value of a site.

Imaginary future friend

Within the RCE, too, an eye has come to see a different perspective on archaeological monuments. In 2020, José Schreurs published in a personal capacity (and with Monique van den Dries of Leiden University) an article in a scientific volume about how archaeological monuments could be selected in the future. “We introduced an imaginary future friend to whom we were going to bequeath archaeological monuments based on our choices and which he would probably have to take care of. We conclude that the future boyfriend would appreciate our choices if they were made by as many people as possible and not just experts.

“That probably results in different choices for monuments, according to a trial with Natuurmonumenten. When asked which archaeological sites on their grounds they would designate as monuments, they came to very different choices. They mainly opted for monuments from the Middle Ages and modern times related to craft, industry and defence. Precisely elements that are missing or in the minority on the current list of monuments.”

“When allocating archaeological monuments, it is not necessary to choose a specific heritage school,” adds Van London. You can use all three. What worries me is that soon there will be no more academics for research into the monuments with specific knowledge of the Dutch sites. Due to internationalization, there are hardly any professors at the universities who specialize in the archeology of the Netherlands.”