Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside
Farming in a country like the Netherlands, which has a limited surface area, high land value and critical customers, is like walking a tightrope: a farmer is always the scapegoat when it comes to the societal consequences of the job. Archaeologists, for example, have problems with modern cultivation...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of York
2019-02-01
|
| Series: | Internet Archaeology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue51/1/index.html |
| _version_ | 1797369798628212736 |
|---|---|
| author | Henny A. Groenendijk |
| author_facet | Henny A. Groenendijk |
| author_sort | Henny A. Groenendijk |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Farming in a country like the Netherlands, which has a limited surface area, high land value and critical customers, is like walking a tightrope: a farmer is always the scapegoat when it comes to the societal consequences of the job. Archaeologists, for example, have problems with modern cultivation techniques, because they can demonstrably harm archaeological sites, yet the farming community can be reluctant to accede to the archaeologists' requests, since it has many more (larger) issues to overcome.
Predictive modelling as part of the development-led Dutch archaeology has not contributed to the desired mutual understanding. Yet there are signs of a growing willingness to listen to each other's needs, paralleled by developments in the environmental sector and the management of natural resources. Tentative projects to create a win-win situation for both farmers and archaeologists have been launched and even successfully carried out, but that is not enough. Archaeological heritage management requires permanent provisions, because the loss of information from the soil archive is irreversible. Attempts are being made to re-open the dialogue between farmers and archaeologists and bring about a more positive attitude on both sides. It is argued that severe actions are not effective in the Dutch polder. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T17:52:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5d152f53adb84bb79f987ada11f06472 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1363-5387 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T17:52:06Z |
| publishDate | 2019-02-01 |
| publisher | University of York |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Internet Archaeology |
| spelling | doaj.art-5d152f53adb84bb79f987ada11f064722024-01-02T07:01:59ZengUniversity of YorkInternet Archaeology1363-53872019-02-015110.11141/ia.51.1Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countrysideHenny A. Groenendijk0University of GroningenFarming in a country like the Netherlands, which has a limited surface area, high land value and critical customers, is like walking a tightrope: a farmer is always the scapegoat when it comes to the societal consequences of the job. Archaeologists, for example, have problems with modern cultivation techniques, because they can demonstrably harm archaeological sites, yet the farming community can be reluctant to accede to the archaeologists' requests, since it has many more (larger) issues to overcome. Predictive modelling as part of the development-led Dutch archaeology has not contributed to the desired mutual understanding. Yet there are signs of a growing willingness to listen to each other's needs, paralleled by developments in the environmental sector and the management of natural resources. Tentative projects to create a win-win situation for both farmers and archaeologists have been launched and even successfully carried out, but that is not enough. Archaeological heritage management requires permanent provisions, because the loss of information from the soil archive is irreversible. Attempts are being made to re-open the dialogue between farmers and archaeologists and bring about a more positive attitude on both sides. It is argued that severe actions are not effective in the Dutch polder.http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue51/1/index.htmlarchaeologydevelopment-led archaeologypredictive modellingshared responsibilitiesexchange of benefitsdialoguebenefits |
| spellingShingle | Henny A. Groenendijk Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside Internet Archaeology archaeology development-led archaeology predictive modelling shared responsibilities exchange of benefits dialogue benefits |
| title | Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside |
| title_full | Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside |
| title_fullStr | Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside |
| title_full_unstemmed | Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside |
| title_short | Farmers and Archaeologists: any shared interests? Best practice from the Dutch countryside |
| title_sort | farmers and archaeologists any shared interests best practice from the dutch countryside |
| topic | archaeology development-led archaeology predictive modelling shared responsibilities exchange of benefits dialogue benefits |
| url | http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue51/1/index.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hennyagroenendijk farmersandarchaeologistsanysharedinterestsbestpracticefromthedutchcountryside |