Search

The immediate past has been of interest within Polish archaeology only very recently. Research was first undertaken in 1967 and was incidental, tending not to change the general view of archaeologists focused on periods spanning prehistory to the Middle Ages, and then gradually adding the 17th and 18th centuries. A permanent change came in the 1990s with the emergence of development-led archaeology in Poland. Excavations preceding construction of motorways and other infrastructure projects revealed relics dating back to 1800-1945 on an unprecedented scale. Initially, insufficient historical knowledge made archaeological research particularly difficult. Now, after a few decades, this pioneer era is coming to an end, and there are archaeologists focusing mainly on the contemporary period e.g. archaeology of armed conflicts in the broadest sense of the term or narrowly specialised forensic archaeology. Nevertheless, the challenges of contemporary archaeology still exist. They are related to the key heritage management issues and significant consequences (including financial consequences) of resulting administrative decisions with regard to archaeological heritage of the 18th-20th centuries. In this article, individual challenges are discussed with regard to archaeology and memory, systems of heritage protection as well as preservation and research. Selected case studies are used to illustrate them all. The omission of time boundaries in binding legal definitions of both monuments and archaeological monuments is perfectly fine, because this ensures that all the relatively new relics are, in theory, as protected as older ones regardless of their state of preservation. However, in practice, archaeological research of a 19th-20th century site can cause confusion, from the first application for a research permit up to choosing a storage facility for the finds and their proper permanent curation. In order to go beyond the state-of-the-art in Poland, this article presents several solutions consistent with the existing legal framework. However, a uniform approach is still to be developed, even within the archaeological community.

The Brandenburg State Archaeology Museum has been conserving and analysing relics of war and terror for 25 years, and as a result of this work, archaeology is now an integral part of Nazi camp research (Kersting et al. 2016a; Theune 2018). Many camp sites have been investigated, including concentration camps and their subcamps, forced labour camps, and prisoner-of-war camps (Kersting 2020; 2022). While most objects of an industrial culture of the 20th century can be quickly assigned a function, functions do change. Such a shift is a characteristic of Nazi camp finds and reflects their context of bondage and deprivation. The identification of the functions of material remains enables their association with different spheres of life in the camp so that both perpetrator and victim groups are documented archaeologically. Moreover, these finds serve as tangible evidence to refute any relativisation of the crimes.

Understanding the public by analysing the wants, interests and expectations regarding their involvement in archaeology is one of the strategic aims of Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC). Cultural heritage has been the topic of several public opinion polls in Poland over the past few years. In 2011 and 2015, the Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa (National Institute of Cultural Heritage) carried out two representative surveys. Subsequent polls focusing on more specific issues or groups of respondents were undertaken in 2015, 2017 and 2018. Other data from Poland come from the 2017 Special Eurobarometer survey on cultural heritage. They can be contrasted with archaeology-orientated opinion polls: a Europe-wide survey carried out within the NEARCH project led by Inrap (French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research) and several smaller-scale projects, which might be treated as starting points for more representative research.

This article is a follow-up to discussions held in the EAC Heritage Symposiums, and aims to answer one of the basic questions regarding the reasons for commencing any archaeological fieldwork. The subject is approached from the archaeological heritage manager's viewpoint, and question-driven fieldwork is understood here as scientific, as opposed to preventive and development-led archaeology. Basing my arguments mainly on the experiences of Polish archaeology, I argue in favour of the development-led research. It has been shaping European archaeology to the highest degree for several decades, and therefore should not be considered inferior or secondary. Considering the quality gap between purely scientific and development-led fieldwork, there is still a lot to be improved regarding the scope of research and its standards. Nevertheless, it still seems to have the highest potential for systemic heritage management consistent with the rules set out by the Valletta Convention and the Lausanne Charter (PDF), and for the development of archaeology as a science. Development-led archaeology is also the closest to the public and forces archaeologists to cooperate with various stakeholders.

With the aim of providing knowledge for informed choices, a series of tools have been developed for archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands. They include maps, datasets, methods, guidelines, best practice and web-based applications to facilitate the effective and efficient selection of valuable archaeological remains. The products relate to archaeological predictive modelling, disturbances by agriculture and other activities, archaeological heritage maps, prospection methods, research questions and scientific syntheses to close the archaeological heritage management cycle.