archaeology-minded spatial (site) development

1Archaeology-Minded Spatial (Site) Development

Archaeology-Minded Spatial (Site) Development

Code of Practice realized by the Master Class organized by the PORTICO project in 2010.

2 Archaeology-Minded Spatial (Site) Development

This project contributes to a more cohesive EU society because it is based on the cooperation of people from different countries to work on a common topic that touches the lives of EU-citizens.


Archaeology-Minded Spatial (Site) Development

Code of Practice realized by the Master Class organized by the PORTICO project in 2010.

Guy Dupont (ed.)

Astrid Bader

Tony Barton

Jolanda Bos

Stéphane Demeter

Anya Diekmann

Marianne Gechter

Jane Hebblewhite

Wim Hupperetz

Jaime Kaminski

Edsard Kylstra

Marie Christine Laleman

Barbara Marcotulli

David Masters

Bruno Minnebo

Daniel Pletinckx

Jan Stobbe

Gunter Stoops

Kurt Van Belle

Theo van Wijk

Marin Zegers

Ghent, February 2014


Table of Content

Context, Aim and Methodology 4

Four European Cases 7

Chester: Dee House site 7

Gent: Gerard de Duivelsteen site 9

Köln: Ubian Monument site 12

Utrecht: Vredenburg Castle site 14

Archaeological Heritage and Urban Development: Issues and Solutions 17

Multi-layered Sites 17

Values of an Archaeological Site 20

Intrinsic and Scientific Values 20

Experience Value 20

Social and Economic Values 21

Social and Cultural Values 21

Symbolic and Ideological Values 22

Balancing Values 23

Sustainable Development 27

Visitor centres 27

Outdoor heritage presentation and interpretation tools 27

Connectivity 28

Connecting to the urban surroundings 28

Connecting to the local and global communities 29

Connecting to the story of the city 30

About the authors 32


Context, Aim and Methodology

This Code of Practice is the result of a Master Class

on Archaeology Minded Spatial Development that was

organized by the PORTICO project in 2010.

PORTICO is a cooperative project (2009-2014)

between the cities of Chester (United Kingdom), Gent

(Belgium), Köln (Germany), Utrecht (the Netherlands)

and the Domplein Foundation in Utrecht, funded by

the European Union through the Interreg IVB-NWE

programme. The project’s goal was to make the partner

cities’ archaeological heritage more visible, accessible

and interpretable in order to enable the heritage to

be experienced. The overall aim of PORTICO was to

stimulate urban development of historic cities by linking

the knowledge economy to the experience economy,

developing and testing new techniques and carrying out

unconventional urban projects with mixed partnerships.

The project contributed to a more cohesive EU society

as it derives from a cooperation of people from different

countries working on common issues that touch the lives

of EU-citizens.

The Master Class on Archaeology Minded Spatial

Development was one of the actions in Work Package

3 which was dedicated to PORTICO’s objective of

connecting the project’s on-site investments to broader

urban development strategies and to strengthen

the reciprocity between urban heritage and urban

development in social, economic and spatial terms. The

terms of reference of the Master Class, as of other actions

in WP3, were reflected upon by PORTICO’s Community

of Practice 3 on Connecting. The CoP was a mixed group

of local experts from the partner cities and international

experts from different fields and professional horizons

that were relevant for the subjects discussed, including

archaeologists, cultural historians, heritage interpreters,

architects, urban planners, site developers, service

designers, and educationalists.

The Master Class was conceived as a transnational

and multidisciplinary workshop and discussion forum

in which participated a mixed group of experts from

different fields (archaeology, urban and cultural history,

architecture and engineering, urban planning, tourism

and city marketing, heritage management, heritage

interpretation, etcetera), from different professional

horizons (knowledge institutes, heritage sites, private

companies, local and regional governments, other public

bodies, etcetera), and from different cities and countries

in Europe (including the partner cities themselves). The

aim of the Master Class was to jointly develop a number

of business cases: future urban development projects,

located in the PORTICO partner cities (but not addressing

the project’s investment sites), in which archaeological

and built heritage and cultural history could play a

prominent role. The cases addressed all aspects of the

process: the joint development of creative concepts,

going through all stages of the planning process,

anticipating on possible barriers and discussing on ways

to overcome these barriers. Based on the presentations

and discussions held in the Master Class, case reports

were drawn up – one for each business case – and this

code of practice was developed. The aim of this code of

practice was to analyse and to discuss common issues

and challenges that are at stake in the cases studied

in the Master Class as well as in similar projects, also

discussed during the Master Class, in order to formulate

some general conclusions.

The Master Class comprised two two-day meetings

of which the first was held in Gent (13-14 September

2010) and the second in Utrecht (19-20 October 2010).

At both meetings some twenty experts from six

European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy,

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) participated, all

of them listed at the front page of this code of practice.

The coordination of the Master Class, including the

selection of the experts, the preparation of the content,

the presentation of the cases and the moderation of the

discussion, was commissioned by the PORTICO partners

to Visual Dimension, Belgium. Daniel Pletinckx of Visual

Dimension also presented the preliminary results of the

Master Class at the PORTICO Mid Term Conference in

Gent on 24 November 2010 and wrote draft versions of

the case study reports and the code of practice. These

drafts were finalized and edited by Guy Dupont on behalf

of the City of Gent as coordinator of WP3.

Meeting of the PORTICO Master Class in Gent, 13 September 2010. © Stad Gent.

Discussions at the meeting of the Master Class in Gent. © Stad Gent.


Chester: Dee House site

Dee House was built as a town house in the mid-18th

century, in the green area between the city walls

(Newgate) and the River Dee, but over the buried site

of Chester’s Roman Amphitheatre. In the 19th and 20th

centuries, when Dee House served as a convent and a

school, the building was enlarged with extensions in

varying styles including a Gothic Revival chapel. After

a short occupancy as offices, the building has been

unoccupied since the early 1990s, aside from the chapel

that is currently used as an archival and archaeological

storage facility. Recently, the interior of the building was

structurally damaged by fire.

At the Master Class the question was raised what

the potential future use of Dee House, now owned by

Cheshire West and Chester Council, could be. Should the

historical building be converted into a visitor centre run

by a public body or could it have a commercial function?

Or should it rather be demolished in order to make room

for the excavation and presentation of an archaeological

site? In this discussion three crucial elements were taken

into account.

The first and most important element was that Dee

House is built on top of the southern part of a Roman

amphitheatre, discovered during construction works

in 1929. This amphitheatre, of which only the northern

– and presumably the best preserved – part has been

excavated and presented, was the largest amphitheatre

of Roman Britain, used for entertainment and military

training by the Twentieth Legion (Valeria Victrix) based

at the fortress of Deva Victrix (Chester). Large-scale

re-excavations of this Scheduled Monument by English

Heritage and Cheshire West and Chester Council in 2004-

5 revealed two successive stone-built amphitheatres

with wooden seating of which the remains are now

displayed in an improved presentation. Public interest for

Chester’s most important Roman monument can hardly

be overestimated. The amphitheatre is cherished by the

city’s residents and attracts many thousands of visitors

including schoolchildren every year. Visitors come not

only for the ruins themselves, but also for the events and

outdoor theatre and cinema performances they host.

A second element in the discussion was Dee House’s legal

status as a Grade II listed building, meaning a building

of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve

it. Dee House is indeed one of the few remaining urban

mansions which characterized this part of the city in

Georgian times. Except for some extensions of later date

with no particular architectural value, English Heritage

advised that Dee House would be preserved.

Four European CasesAt the first session of the Master Class in Gent two case studies were discussed: the Dee House site in Chester and the

Gerard de Duivelsteen site in Gent. At the second session in Utrecht the third and the fourth use case were presented

and reflected upon: the Ubian Monument in Köln and the Vredenburg site in Utrecht. All four use cases were selected by

the partner cities themselves independently from each other. Although each use case has its own characteristics and

brings along its own challenges, there are many common questions about and problems with urban development projects

involving archaeological heritage in European cities endowed with an important Roman and/or medieval and early modern

past and thus with a multi-layered urban fabric – as is the case for all four partner cities and also the reason why they found

each other as partners in the PORTICO project. The Master Class offered the participants the opportunity to share and to

discuss these issues from a broader perspective and with a fresh look in order to inspire each other and to find solutions

that can be applied to more than one case.

The excavation of the Roman amphitheatre in Chester in 2005.

Aerial view of the surroundings of Dee House in Chester. Google maps 2011.


Chester amphitheatre wall mural with architectural lighting, creating the illusion of a complete arena, completed in August 2010. Designed and painted by Gary Drostle. Photo by David Heke, September 2012.

A third element was the urban setting of Dee House and

the Roman amphitheatre. The site is located in a green

environment and heritage area between the historic

city walls and the river side, boasting gardens and parks

and other historical monuments (Old Bishop’s Palace,

Church of St John the Baptist, St John’s Vicarage),

thus offering great potential as a leisure area. But the

neighbourhood has also less attractive sides. Chester’s

busy Inner Ring Road encircling the amphitheatre and

the many fences and walls fragmenting public space

disturb the experience of the heritage site. The most

problematic – from a heritage point of view – and also

less adaptable environmental element, however, is the

presence of a working Court House and its vast parking

lot, occupying the whole area between Dee House and

the river and partly built on top of the unexcavated

southern part of the amphitheatre, hence compromising

both its preservation and interpretation.

Dee House (right) and the reconstructed part of the Roman amphitheatre in Chester, June 2010. The retaining wall, painted in white, now has a mural. Photo by Visual Dimension.


Gent: Gerard de Duivelsteen site

The Gerard de Duivelsteen in Gent is a stone-built noble

mansion, located in the oldest part of the medieval city,

between St Bavo Cathedral and a branch of the River

Scheldt called Nederschelde or Reep. The urban mansion

is named after its 13th-century resident, a knight and a

younger son of the viscount of Gent, who might have built

one part of the building that possibly dates from this time

period. But the oldest part of the Gerard de Duivelsteen,

the donjon, is older, presumably 11th-century, and may

have had a protective function for the river port and

the portus or trade settlement. Between the 14th and

the 19th centuries the former noble residence had many

successive or simultaneous functions as a city weapon

arsenal, a convent school, a seminary for priests, an

orphanage, a correction house, a china factory, a

detention house for mentally disaffected, a conservatory

of music and finally a fire department station. Between

1898 and 1908 the Gerard de Duivelsteen was heavily

restored and transformed into a romantic interpretation

of a medieval noble mansion. The medieval building was

also extended in Gothic Revival style to host the State

Archives in the province of East Flanders.

As the Archives will move out in 2014 and will be

permanently relocated elsewhere in the city, the

question was raised as to what new function the Gerard

de Duivelsteen could have. One widely circulating idea

has been a visitor centre for the Ghent Altarpiece. The

famous 15th-century panel painting by the Van Eyck

brothers, normally displayed in St Bavo Cathedral but

currently under restoration, is a major tourist attraction

in Gent. But what are the other options, taking into

account the ownership of the building by the Federal

State (and not by the City of Gent, whose financial

resources are under pressure), the on-going and future

urban development projects involving the environment

of the Gerard de Duivelsteen, and the shifting character

of the neighbourhood towards an education campus?

The Gerard de Duivelsteen is located at the intersection

of two urban development areas in the historic city

centre of Gent. For both of them the City of Gent has

made or commissioned a Master Plan that includes the

re-design of the squares, greens, streets and quays in

the project area. The first (on-going) urban development

project is the re-opening of the stretches of the River

Scheldt that, from the 1880s onwards, have been filled

in to make room for new squares, greens and more

recently parking lots. The development project aims at

restoring the historical confluence of the Rivers Leie and

Scheldt and was supported by the European cooperation

project Water in Historic City Centres (2003-7) (www.

gent.be/nederschelde). The second Master Plan aims at

re-landscaping public space around the historic towers

in the city centre (St Nicolas Church, the Belfry, St Bavo

Cathedral). Of the whole project area that stretches from

the River Lys (or Leie) in the west to the River Scheldt

in the east, only the western part has been realized yet

as part of the KoBra project (the reconstruction of the

Korenmarkt, Emile Braunplein and adjacent streets)

including the construction of an architecturally acclaimed

city hall that hosts outdoor events at street level and

a restaurant at basement level (www.gent.be/kobra).

Both Master Plans include the re-landscaping of the

archaeologically sensitive squares, streets and greens

that are located west (Maaseikplein, Limburgstraat,

and Gerard de Duivelhof) or north (Bisdomplein) of the

Gerard de Duivelsteen. This is particularly true for the

area located west of the Gerard de Duivelsteen, where

excavations will possibly reveal the remains of the bailey

of the medieval noble mansion, but most certainly the

basements of housing blocks from later periods, now

buried under the pavement and the green. Previous

excavations in the northern area yielded interesting

information, but nothing about the presumed early

medieval river port.

Basements of houses revealed during excavations at Bisdomplein in 2006. © Stad Gent.

Video wall presentation of the Gerard de Duivelsteen site case during a meeting of the Master Class in Gent. Photo by Visual Dimension.


In recent years the State Archives in the Gerard de

Duivelsteen have got two new neighbours, who are

also housed in heritage buildings. The former Episcopal

Seminary at the Reep now hosts a business college and

the former building of the National Bank was purchased

by a university college. These two institutions of higher

education joined the existing primary and secondary

schools established along the Reep, strengthening

the character of the Gerard de Duivelsteen site as an

education campus and making colleges, schools and

their populations stakeholders in the future – heritage

minded – development of the site.

Gerard de Duivelsteen (foreground) and St Bavo cathedral (background, left) in Gent.

Site visit of the yard of the Gerard de Duivelsteen by the participants of the Master Class in Gent. Photo by Visual Dimension.

The Gerard de Duivelsteen at the Nederschelde (or Lower Scheldt) River, 19th century lithography, Gent City Archives (AG L 103-35b). © Stad Gent.


Köln: Ubian Monument site

The Ubian Monument is the oldest stone-built structure

in Köln and even the oldest monument north of the Alps

made from masonry building blocks. The monument

comprises the southeast corner tower of the first city

walls of Oppidum Ubiorum, the Ubian capital, of which

construction started in 4/5 AD. The Ubii were a Germanic

tribe, conquered by Rome and displaced from the right

bank of the River Rhine to the Cologne area (replacing

the Eburones who were annihilated by Julius Caesar).

This new city, on the left bank of the Rhine, was designed

as a civil city (and not as a military camp), serving as the

capital of Germania. One particular building phase, that

consists of earthen walls and timber palisades dated 9

AD, is linked to the hasty fortification of the early city

following the defeat of Varus in the Teutoburg Forest,

in which three Roman legions and their camp followers

were ambushed and annihilated by a confederation of

Germanic tribes under Arminius. In 50 AD the city was

renamed to Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (CCAA),

from which its current name has been derived. The city

walls were extended and the southeast area, which was

lower than the other parts of the city, was extensively

filled several metres. As a result, the southeast corner

tower almost completely disappeared below ground level

and needed to be built higher. Only a small part of this

new phase (the second city walls) has been preserved,

whereas a larger part of the oldest phase (the first city

walls) survived in an excellent state as it was protected

by being buried.

The Ubian monument was discovered in 1965 when

a house, destroyed in the Second World War, was

replaced by an apartment building. After excavation and

consolidation of the monument, the City of Köln sold

the parcel of land to private owners, securing however

the right to use the access area and the underground

space where the monument is presented in a concrete

enclosure.

The Ubian Monument is a unique heritage asset of Köln

with the intrinsic potential to be a surprising tourist

attraction as well as a landmark and a source of identity

for this part of the city and its residents. To achieve that

aim however some efforts need to be done by the City in

cooperation with the owner. The current interpretation

of the monument (and of the collection of Roman finds

displayed) needs improvement and more consistency.

The site needs the required functionalities of a heritage

site including buffering of the limited visitor capacity and

a more attractive and welcoming entrance. The outlook

of the currently undefined building could be enhanced to

create better street visibility and to contribute to a sense

of place. The somewhat sad surroundings could also

profit of some extra attention. A targeted communication

strategy and the creation of walking tours could bring

more visitors to the archaeological monument as well as

to other historic buildings in that (somewhat peripheral

and lesser known) neighbourhood. Finally, the Ubian

Monument as a small archaeological site annex museum

should find a way to create a profile different from but

complementary to that of the Archaeological Zone, the

much larger archaeological site annex city museum that

tells an encompassing story of Köln.

Cork model of the Ubian Monument with earthen and timber city walls (murus gallicus) on the right. Model by Dieter Cöllen, concept by Sven Schütte. © Stadt Köln.

Underground presentation of the Ubian Monument (left) and Roman finds from Köln. © Stadt Köln

The Ubian Monument is hidden in the basement of this anonymous, late 20th century apartment building, which is located at a busy road (An der Malzmühle 1) in Köln. Photo by Visual Dimension.

The Ubian Monument as part of the first city walls (right) and the second city walls with culvert outlet (left). © Stadt Köln.


Utrecht: Vredenburg Castle site

Between 1529 and 1532, Charles V, the Habsburg Emperor

and ruler of Utrecht since 1528, built a fortress or castle

called Vredenburg both to control and to protect his

newly won city. The construction of the castle was part

of the modernization of the city fortifications by adding

bastions, thus adapting them better to withstand a siege

with cannons. In order to make room for this new castle

a convent and hospital of Knights Hospitallers were

demolished.

In 1568 the Habsburg Netherlands rose up against

Spanish rule at which point the castle became a symbol

of political and military oppression by foreign powers.

After the signing of a peace treaty by the States General

of the Netherlands on 8 November 1576 in Gent, armed

hostilities broke out between the Spanish garrison in

Utrecht and the Dutch rebels. Finally, on 11 February

1577, the Spaniards abandoned Vredenburg Castle

following negotiations between the garrison commander

and the city magistrate. The citizens of Utrecht asked

to demolish of the castle in order to prevent Spanish

or other foreign troops from dominating the city ever

again. But in fear of offending the Spanish king Philips II,

who was still Utrecht’s legitimate ruler, the city council

opposed this request. Then the citizens took matters

into their own hands. On 2 May 1577, according to the

legend, an Utrecht woman called Trijn van Leemput gave

the signal to break down the castle walls by removing

the first brick with her own hands. The destruction of

the castle continued until 1581, when only the western

and southern towers and the south-western castle wall

remained standing as they were part of the city walls.

The ditch between the castle and the city was filled in

with the rubble and the empty space where formerly

stood the castle was turned into a square, the present-

day Vredenburgplein.

The foundations of Vredenburg Castle remained

undisturbed beneath the square until the 1970s, when

first the Hoog Catharijne shopping centre and then

the Vredenburg Music Hall was built during the large

scale development of the Utrecht railway station area.

Most of the archaeological remains of the castle, until

then preserved beneath ground level and revealed by

excavations in 1976, were ultimately destroyed by the

construction works. The few remaining parts are now

listed as a protected archaeological monument.

In 2002 a Master Plan was launched that aims to create

a more liveable, better connected and structured

Utrecht Station area (cu2030.nl). The Master Plan will

be implemented in the period until 2025, and includes

a facelift of the whole area, turning it into a safe and

lively new city centre, an expansion of the facilities

accommodating the city growth to the west, and the

construction of a new public transport terminal at

Utrecht Central Station.

The Vredenburg site, located in the north-eastern part

of the project area, is affected by the Master Plan in

multiple ways. The development of an underground

bicycle parking area beneath Vredenburgplein offers

the opportunity for a new presentation of the preserved

foundation of the Flemish Tower (north-eastern tower)

and of a visualization of the (not completely preserved)

eastern castle wall. The re-opening of the north-western

stretch of the city moat (Catharijnesingel) in front of

the Music Hall, that was filled in during the 1970s to

accommodate a (never completed) ring road, will expose

the remaining parts of the foundations of the north- and

south-western towers of Vredenburg Castle and will

allow the public to visualize the (not preserved) western

castle wall at the restored waterfront. The public will be

involved in the archaeological research preceding the

construction works by guided tours along the excavation

areas, outdoor information panels, an indoor exhibition

and history related events for different target groups.

A major challenge, both from a technical and a heritage-

philosophical point of view, will be the excavation, the

temporary relocation and finally the reintegration of

Remains of the principal, southern gate of Vredenburg Castle during excavations in 2010. © Gemeente Utrecht.

South view of Vredenburg Castle in Utrecht. Etching from 1656 after a painting from 1540. © Het Utrechts Archief.


the remains of the main gate of Vredenburg Castle,

located centrally in the southern castle wall, in the future

underground car parking.

The Vredenburg Castle case also raised more general

issues about predicting the cultural historical value of

buried archaeological remains on urban development

sites, where the possibilities for preliminary

archaeological investigation are limited. Archaeologists

identified this lack of evidence as a structural problem

in convincing developers, architects, urban planners and

authorities to take archaeological assets into account in

an early stage of the planning process.

Foundations of Vredenburg Castle revealed during excavations in 1976 prior to the construction of the Music Hall.

© Gemeente Utrecht.

Projection of preserved (in green), not preserved (in red) and possibly not preserved (in purple) remains of Vredenburg Castle on current city map

and recent constructions (in orange).


Portrait of Trijn van Leemput (? – 1606-7) by an anonymous artist. © Centraal Museum Utrecht.


Multi-layered Sites

Important archaeological sites in historic city centres

are typically multi-layered and complex. Buried

archaeological and built remains find themselves

stratified in layers dating back to different periods of

time, usually – but not necessarily – the oldest layer being

at the bottom and the most recent at the top. One reason

for this rising ground level is that the foundations of

ancient buildings were often re-used when constructing

new buildings on the same site. Existing structures were

usually only demolished down to ground level, leaving

the foundations relatively undisturbed. This can leave

a rich and fascinating archaeological legacy, but which

can be challenging to interpret and to communicate,

both to site developers and to the public. How to deal

with a – listed but abandoned – 18th-century urban

mansion and with a working 20th-century court house

and a concrete parking lot all built on top of a unique

Roman amphitheatre, as is the case in Chester? How to

understand a Roman castellum that is buried under the

remaining parts of a gothic cathedral – that has its own

building history – and the surrounding housing blocks, as

is the case with Domplein in Utrecht? These questions

have both a technical and a communicative side.

Firstly, the technical aspect. Even if buried archaeological

remains happen to be relatively undisturbed by more

recent developments, they are often not accessible or

visible at ground level unless excavated – which is not

always possible for practical and financial reasons.

Besides, excavation is itself a destructive process: in order

to expose what is perceived to be the most interesting

layer of an archaeological site – which is not necessarily

the bottom layer – all other layers have either to be

removed or to remain covered. Of course, for educational

purposes one or more windows can be created that allow

a framed look into a deeper archaeological layer, but in

doing so the site may become less easily ‘readable’ for

a non-expert visitor, or to put it differently, by losing

the holistic view on the site the experience value of the

site may be diminished. Also, the preserved remains

may be related to one particular historical period only

and not to others (that are equally interesting for telling

the history of the site). Here, the use of multimedia and

information technologies offers new opportunities for

interpretation. Short movies that make use of historical

images and sound along with digital 3D reconstructions

and animations can tell a compelling and comprehensible

Archaeological Heritage and Urban Development: Issues and SolutionsIn all four use cases studied by the Master Class, as in other cases of urban development involving archaeologically

valuable sites, similar issues can be observed regarding among others the interpretation of multi-layered heritage sites,

the assessment of (the different types of) archaeological values, the roles played by and the communication between the

archaeologists and the other groups of stakeholders in the development process, the balance of interests between the

different groups of users of the public domain, the need for spatial, social and virtual connectivity between heritage sites

and their urban environment, the sustainable development of heritage sites and monuments, and the communication

and marketing strategies regarding archaeological assets. These issues were discussed on several occasions and from

different perspectives during the Master Class, generating the exchange of ideas, experiences and knowledge, and the

identification of best practices. These best practices, presented below, have come not only from the four case studies

summarized above, but also from the assimilated knowledge of the entire project as well as from other projects and

cases known and cited by the experts. For the sake of consistency, most of the examples cited below are related to one

of the PORTICO partner cities, as each of these four cities present the specific urban (social, political, economic, cultural,

geographical) context in which the use cases are situated.

Schatkamer Domplein was the first underground visitor centre built under Domplein, Utrecht. Photo Tiecelin, 2012.


story of the site. These movies can be used as an

interpretational tool in museums or visitor centres as well

as on online platforms. Schatkamer Domplein in Utrecht,

for example, offers both (www.schatkamerdomplein.

nl). In the underground interpretation centres visitors

come into contact with the building history of the site

both virtually and physically (peep holes in the wall offer

a glimpse of the tuff (tufa) stone built foundations of the

Roman castellum, while a walking circuit allows visitors

to explore the nave of the Dom Church, devastated by

a tornado in 1674, at foundation level). An example of

a fixed outdoor system that uses computer generated

images and sound for ‘time-travelling’ are the digital

binoculars developed by Imagemakers in Chester that

allow visitors to experience the transformation over time

of the (extra muros) site of the Roman and medieval port

and the 16th-century racecourse, known as the Roodee,

that is still in use today.

Secondly, the communicative side. From a (city)

marketing and tourism perspective it may be tempting to

narrow down the complex story of an archaeological site

to just one (popular) period of time, historical theme or

story line. If a city wants to be strongly connected with its

Roman past, as is the case for Chester, Köln or Utrecht,

for local politicians, (city)marketers or site developers,

but also for the local residents, it may be problematic to

have this clear cut image ‘complicated’ by archaeological

assets from other time periods. Take the case of Köln,

for example. The Ubian Monument, that is preserved in

a concrete ‘time capsule’ excluding interference with

other heritage assets in the neighbourhood and hidden

in a 20th-century built environment without particular

architectural merit, fits very well in the image of an

underground Roman city beneath the streets of present-

day Köln. But the excavation and in situ presentation

of a medieval Jewish bathhouse (mikveh) and housing

block next to the City Hall and connected with the

Archaeological Zone – that displays only Roman remains

– may become at some point politically controversial

in Köln, as some have argued (www.museenkoeln.de/

archaeologische-zone). In Chester some have raised

the question whether Dee House, albeit a listed heritage

building, though unfortunately dating back to a less

’glamorous’ time period, should be demolished in order to

fully excavate the Roman amphitheatre. In this way the

whole environment of the site including the neighbouring

Roman gardens and the city walls – that are Roman, too,

in origin – could be conveniently ‘homogenized’ cultural

historically speaking. Archaeologists and heritage

interpreters have an important role to play in informing

the other stakeholders about the various heritage and

cultural history values at stake as well as about creative

interpretational solutions including the use of multimedia

technologies. At the same time, they will need to select

consistent and appealing story lines in order to make

the narrative of the site better understandable by

experts from other fields, decision makers and the

public. Local governments and site developers in turn

must be convinced of their responsibility and interests

in safeguarding the various archaeological assets and

cultural historical aspects of the site.

Diorama of Roman Chester (Deva Victrix) in Grosvenor Museum, Chester. The amphitheatre is displayed central in the foreground. Photo Łukasz Nurczyński, 2006.

Re-enactment of Roman legionaries in Chester amphitheatre, June 2012. © CWCC.

Excavations of the medieval Jewish quarter in Köln, next to the Rathaus, in 2010. © Stadt Köln.

Digital binocular system overlooking the Roodee in Chester. Photo Take 27 Ltd, 2013.


Values of an Archaeological Site

Any development project that affects an archaeologically

sensitive site has to include an archaeological

assessment that entails the identification and appraisal

of the archaeological values of the site and an evaluation

of the effects of the development on the archaeological

integrity of the site. The assessment, which is based

on the results of previous or new archaeological and

historical research, is preferably done in the early stages

of the planning process in order to avoid or minimize

extra costs for adapting the building plan as to protect

the archaeological values present. Next to archaeological

values, however, there are also other heritage values

attached to archaeological sites that need to be

considered. Besides, archaeological values themselves

have different aspects, too. These other values and

in particular the experience value of archaeological

heritage have to also be taken into account, especially

in the early stages of the planning process, in order to

avoid that insufficient budget or even no budget at all is

allocated.

Intrinsic and Scientific Values

Archaeological remains are in the first place valued

because of their intrinsic value (meaning literally a value

that an object or a remain has in itself – which in reality

cannot exist, one may argue, since all values are by

definition attributed) as historical objects-in-context and

finite resources of our cultural history, and in the second

place because of their scientific value as material sources

for our scientific knowledge of the past. Hence the focus

of the European Convention on the Protection of the

Archaeological Heritage or Malta Convention (1992) on

the preservation in situ of archaeological remains as the

most preferable solution – from an archaeologist’s point

of view – and the preservation by record (excavation or

other invasive techniques of archaeological research in

advance of development) as ‘only’ the second best. So

the requirement in a developer’s brief that the design of

the development should have regard to the desirability

of minimising the disturbance of the archaeological

remains, would be in line with the Malta Convention and

applauded by archaeologists.

The first question is, however, whether all concerned,

in particular the developers and architects, are well

aware of the required physical and climate conditions of

(long term) preservation. Covering buried archaeology

with a large concrete slab might be at first sight a

convenient solution for reconciling the (legally) required

protection of the remains with the developer’s aim

to make economical and practical use of the ground

surface, for example as was the case in Chester with

the Court House and its car park that was partly built on

top of an unexcavated part of the amphitheatre south

of Dee House. However, such a construction can have

unintended but harmful effects, such as changes to the

soil moisture content, which causes the relatively rapid

decay of organic remains. Also when the archaeological

remains are excavated and presented in an underground

space, that is made either accessible for visitors (which

is technically only possible if the historical ground level

is sufficiently low and the ceiling of the underground

space is sufficiently high) or only visible, the appropriate

climate (temperature and humidity) and light conditions

need to be set out in the developers’ brief as well as the

requirement of a monitoring system and a maintenance

plan to prevent or to cure natural degradation of the

remains by dehydration, salts or algae. Archaeological

remains that are preserved in situ in open air face similar

problems of degradation by plant growth and varying

weather conditions.

Experience Value

The second question is whether the point of view

of the Malta Convention, privileging the intrinsic

value of archaeological remains, is shared by all

heritage experts and other stakeholders concerned.

Heritage interpreters, for example, may argue that

the experience value of archaeological heritage is

important, too, in order to appreciate their aesthetic,

informational, educational, entertainment and social

values, in short their meaningfulness, both for visitors

and the local community. In their view, archaeological

sites become interesting in particular once they are

excavated. Heritage interpreters would advocate that

the excavated remains, if possible, are made publicly

visible, accessible and even touchable, and are enhanced

with interpretational tools in order to maximize the

historical sensation of getting in touch with the past.

The use of innovative technologies, in particular in the

Entrance of the parking lot in front of the Court House next to Dee House in Chester. Photo by Visual Dimension, 2010.


field of virtual and augmented reality, and social media

facilitate more immersive and participatory experiences.

Also, architects may agree that the experience of

archaeological heritage and cultural history in public

space can be an important quality-adding element to the

experience of historic cities in general.

Social and Economic Values

As archaeological assets add up to the cultural-

historical and heritage character of a city and hence

to its authenticity (‘sense of place’), attracting not only

visitors but also residents and businesses who value this

inspiring and enjoyable atmosphere, the interpretation

and presentation of archaeological remains are likely

to indirectly increase their social and economic value.

Archaeologists have to realise that these arguments,

even if they think they are not their concern, are the

kind of arguments that tourism and city marketers and

local governments like to hear and that can convince

them to invest – or to make developers invest – in the

preservation and presentation of archaeological remains

revealed on a development site. Moreover, these kinds

of investments have also direct economic benefits

for developers and owners, as they can potentially

increase house prices and rents and attract residents

and businesses who particularly value the heritage

character of the buildings or sites they live or work in

and who are also ready to pay extra for them. As the

integration and presentation of archaeological remains

in a site development project is not legally enforceable –

unlike the execution of archaeological research prior to

development, that has to be paid for by the developer, at

least in those countries that have implemented ‘Malta’ in

their legislation – and entails financial risks and efforts,

the return on investment, that has been proven by many

economic impact studies (among others those conducted

within the framework of the Dutch Belvedere program

1999-2009, www.belvedere.nu) can be a powerful

argument for archaeologists and heritage care takers.

Social and Cultural Values

The social and cultural value of an archaeological

monument or site is also expressed in other ways. Firstly,

it can be an important source for the construction of a

local identity (on the level of the site, the neighbourhood,

the entire city or even beyond), community building,

cultural participation and civic involvement. Many of

these benefits are addressed in what may be considered

as a model case, the Hallenhuis project in Brugge

(Belgium). The name is derived from the Merovingian

halls (of the 6th-7th centuries) that were excavated prior

to the development of a housing estate, service flats and

a care home by the City’s Social Services Department.

The early medieval hall not only gave its name to the

new care home, one building was actually reconstructed

in the yard of the care home as part of an alternative

social employment project but with expert supervision.

Also the material finds were permanently put on display

inside the care home and inspired even its interior

Reconstruction of one of the Merovingian halls found by the Hallenhuis archeological project in Brugge. Photo September 2010, Raakvlak.

Illustrated timeline of Vredenburg Castle in the underground bicycle parking garage. Photo 2014. © Gemeente Utrecht.

Integration of the preserved foundations of the Flemish (north-eastern) tower of Vredenburg Castle in the newly developed underground bicycle parking garage. Photo 2014. © Gemeente Utrecht.


decoration. A fine example of civic involvement around

an archaeological monument in Gent is the ‘Neighbours

of the abbey’ (Buren van de abdij), a charity founded by a

group of residents living around the medieval ruins of St

Bavo Abbey, who run the archaeological site as a visitor

attraction and a social venue, organising concerts,

guiding tours and other activities, with the support of

the City Council (www.burenvandeabdij.be). Another

example of neighbourhood involvement in Utrecht is

the online community My Domplein launched by the

Domplein Foundation with the double aim of crowd

funding their projects and of collecting personal stories,

images from private collections as well as short films

based on these stories, all linked to the history of the

Dom Church square (www.mijndomplein.nl).

Secondly, large scale excavations in a historic city

centre, like the PORTICO funded KoBra-project in Gent,

that included the full excavation of two medieval housing

blocks at Emile Braunplein, or around an urban public

transport hub, like the current reconstruction of the

main train station area in Utrecht, have in spite of – or

perhaps thanks to – their temporary nature typically a

high potential in reaching a numerous public of visitors,

some of them passing by every day in order to follow the

works in process. This public interest is an opportunity

to inform a large public about the aims, methods and

results of urban archaeology and the historic information

yielded by the excavations, and to get support from the

local community for investments in archaeology. At the

same time, the excavations at Emile Braunplein, of which

one part revealed a block that was demolished as late as

in 1960, became a place of collective cultural memory

(lieu de mémoire) for former residents or visitors. A

selection of the personal histories and image archives

that were generated were used as story lines for short

movies created as part of the PORTICO digital story

telling project Ave Civitas (www.youtube.com/user/

avecivitas1).

Symbolic and Ideological Values

Finally, archaeological heritage can also have an

important symbolic and ideological value at a supra-local

level, as is the case, one may argue, with the Vredenburg

Castle in Utrecht. Although the 16th-century fortress only

lasted for less than fifty years, nearly half a millennium

ago, and although – or is it, because? – only minor parts

of the remains are preserved, the building has left deep

traces in the collective memory of the Utrecht people,

and its name still is (or until now was) connected to a

Music Hall, a shopping centre and a square on that site.

The reason why is clear: the heroic story of Trijn van

Leemput, leading the Utrecht citizens in breaking down

the castle with their own hands, is both a record of early

feminist activity and an expression of Dutch ‘national

values’ such as patriotism, liberty and self-determination

at a turning point in the nation’s history, the birth of the

Republic.

Balancing Values

So when considering or studying the integration of

archaeological remains or the historical information

they contain in a new development, there are a range

of potential values that need to be taken into account.

Whatever solution chosen should be the result of a

carefully balanced appraisal of the values at stake by

experts and all stakeholders involved.

The archaeologist, by mission, should be the first to

defend the intrinsic value of archaeological remains

as a finite and irreplaceable resource of our cultural

history. If the archaeologist does not, then no other

stakeholder can be expected defend it in their place.

The developer may need to be made aware of the

benefits of archaeological heritage and convinced of

designing or adapting the building plans according to

the specific requirements of appropriate preservation

of the remains. But if preliminary research of the

archaeological values points out that little is to be gained

Book presentation organized by the Buren van de abdij in the refectory of the medieval St Bavo Abbey in Gent, 17 April 2011.

Information panel on the excavation at Emile Braunplein in Gent, September 2010. Photo Gentblogt.


Visualisation of the foundations of the north-western tower and the wall of Vredenburg Castle in the underground car park.

from an excavation, as is the case for example for most

of the unexcavated part of the Chester amphitheatre,

then the archaeologist has to communicate this

message, too, to all stakeholders concerned. Therefore

predictions about the results to be expected from

excavations should neither be unreasonably optimistic,

resulting in unmet expectations, unnecessary cost and

a loss of time, but neither too pessimistic, causing the

irreversible destruction of unique remains that perhaps

also could have been saved. Existing survey techniques

such as drilling and geophysical prospection techniques

(geo-radar, magnetometer prospection, earth

resistance survey, prospection with sensors based on

electromagnetic induction measurements) can in some

cases, but sometimes at high costs, help to prove that

certain archaeological assets are present.

Aside from assessing the intrinsic and scientific

archaeological values of a site, carrying out

archaeological research and analysing and publishing

the results, archaeologists have also an important, yet

sometimes underestimated – even by the archaeologists

themselves – role to play in the process of interpretation

and presentation of the archaeological remains in the

newly developed site. As contract archaeologists are

often under time and budget pressure and have often a

less extensive knowledge of the specific site and urban

context under investigation, city archaeologists can play

a guiding role. Some archaeologists would perhaps not

consider the enhancement of the experience value of

archaeology as their core task. Yet they may be wrong,

not only because of the importance of experience as a

means of giving significance to archaeological heritage,

but also because it generates a set of other social,

cultural and economic benefits, as argued before,

that can potentially strengthen the public support for

funding archaeology. Therefore, archaeologists need,

firstly, to be involved in multidisciplinary research

teams along with historians and building historians in

order to jointly reconstruct the site’s history based on

all available written and material sources. Secondly,

archaeologists need to seek a common language and

for appropriate information processing tools (including

mapping and geo-referencing of the archaeological

values) and communication formats in order to share

the accumulated historical and heritage knowledge with

architects, engineers, developers and other stakeholders.

This knowledge must be understandable and useful to

them in order to be adequately and effectively used in the

design process of the development, taking into account

what is technically and financially feasible, but also

what are the values for society. Heritage interpretation

and public history professionals, who are trained and

experienced in translating and visualizing historical and

heritage knowledge both to the public and to experts of

other fields, can play here a supportive role.

A problem with the different values that can be attributed

to archaeological heritage is that they are sometimes

conflicting. The paradox with the construction of

an underground car park, like for instance under

Vredenburgplein in Utrecht, is that on one hand most

of the archaeological features are destroyed by the

construction of the garage, but on the other hand this

destruction makes also room for the public presentation

of some selected archaeological remains that have been

saved and – temporarily or permanently – relocated. So

while the intrinsic value of the archaeological assets may

have been severely diminished, this loss can be partially

balanced by the educational, social and experience value

of the interpreted remains. Besides, this interpretation

Digital reconstruction of the northern Harbour Gate of Roman Köln. © Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Stadt Köln and www.colonia3d.de.


can take different forms, varying from an exhibition of

the building remains, over an artistic transformation of

the preserved building materials by a sculptor, to an artist

interpretation of the material founds and the historical

information yielded by the archaeological research.

An example of the former is the planned underground

exhibition of the Roman Rhine harbour gate in Köln,

that was excavated during subway works in the

neighbourhood of the cathedral. The monument will be

relocated as a whole and made publicly accessible under

Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz. The lessons learned from this

technical feat can be useful for the execution of a similar

operation with the main gate of Vredenburg Castle in

Utrecht, which will be also excavated, and integrated

in the future underground car parking. Aside from the

technical challenge, however, some questions remain.

Firstly, to what extent the relocation of building remains,

even only over a small distance, does harm their integrity

and authenticity that are part of their intrinsic value as

heritage assets. Secondly, to what extent the isolation of

16th-century remains from their original archaeological

context and their presentation in a newly developed,

concrete, purely functional space with a low ceiling (that

hampers the overview of the site) and a low quality of

the surroundings for people typical for the average car

parking affects the experience value of the heritage

assets and their ability of creating or contributing to a

sense of place. The same objection applies to a certain

extent to the Ubian Monument and the Archaeological

Zone in Köln, that is also isolated both from its urban

context and the open air by a concrete underground

enclosure of limited height – but with the important

difference that here the archaeological remains have not

been removed from their original location.

An example of the latter kind of archaeological heritage

interpretation is the construction of a coin trail in

the medieval city centre of Gent as part of the KoBra

project (aimed at the reconstruction of the central city

squares) and funded by PORTICO. The aim of the Coin

Trail is both to visualize a stretch of the medieval trade

route between Brugge and Köln, of which archaeological

evidence was found in the form of a wooden street, and

to present aspects of the history and built heritage of

the locations along the coin trail by means of historical

images engraved in the ‘coins’ (medals). This heritage

investment was meant as a compensation for the loss

of archaeological assets due to the destruction of the

building remains of two medieval housing blocks. At the

same time, the results of the historical information and

the material founds yielded by the excavations prior to

the development were used among other sources as

content for the Coin Trail.

Start of the Coin Trail (Muntenroute), which visualizes the medieval trade route from Brugge to Köln, at the Grasbrug in Gent, 2010. © Stad Gent.


Impression of Domunder, the second underground visitor center being developed at Domplein, Utrecht, 2011.


Visitor centres

One of the most evident (non-commercial) functions for an

abandoned monument located at an archaeological site,

like Dee House in Chester or the Gerard de Duivelsteen

in Gent, is that of a visitor centre. The first objective

of such a visitor centre would be the interpretation of

both the monument and the archaeological site, that can

be two different stories, as is the case with Dee House

(considering Roman amphitheatres and Georgian town

houses) or rather one interconnected story, as is the case

with the Gerard de Duivelsteen (on the early stages of the

city’s medieval history). The Ubian Monument in Köln,

that already has a purpose built interpretation facility,

would need a more consistent interpretational scheme

(centred around the story of the founding of Roman

Köln) and improved presentation, public accessibility

and street visibility in order to assume, too, the function

of a visitor centre. The specific location of these three

monuments – just outside but still in walking distance

from the commercial city center and its historical

monuments – offers also the opportunity for the future

or existing visitor centre to serve as a starting point for

visitors to explore a lesser known part of the city, thus

revitalizing sometimes underestimated cultural heritage

assets in this area and spreading visitors (and the city’s

visitor economy) over a larger part of the city. Such a

visitor centre can complement the general story of the

city (or more specifically of its Roman past, as in the case

of Köln) told in a city museum like STAM City Museum in

Gent, Grosvenor Museum in Chester or the Archaeological

Zone and the Roman-Germanic Museum in Köln. Utrecht,

whose city’s history is told not in a city museum but in

a permanent exhibition in the Utrecht Archives, already

has with Schatkamer Domplein a vibrant and still

expanding underground visitor centre at an important

archaeological site, located not at the periphery but in the

heart of the city, that aims to tell the successive stories

of both the Roman castellum and the medieval cathedral.

Next to the physical visitor centre is an accessible and

attractive online platform that shares regularly updated

historical and practical information, images, virtual

reconstructions, short movies, publications, and apps

(www.schatkamerdomplein.nl). This platform can be

used both as a powerful communication and marketing

tool and as a virtual visitor centre.

Outdoor heritage presentation and interpretation tools

The experience and educational values of an

archaeological or built heritage site can be enhanced by

interpretational tools, varying from simple interpretation

panels and walking circuits to more sophisticated, fixed

or mobile ‘time travel machines’ – mostly digital devices

and applications that make use of images, movies, sound,

3D reconstructions, virtual reality and augmented reality.

But fixed interpretational tools that are used in outdoor

conditions are vulnerable to both wear and vandalism,

in particular if they are publicly accessible at all times

and not under permanent surveillance. Therefore, the

search for or the development of sustainable solutions

as well as the willingness to allocate the required budget

are crucial factors contributing to the quality and the

success of the interpretational scheme. The recently

designed suite of lava stone interpretation panels for

Chester’s City Walls is just one example of a successful

result. Fixed interpretation tools that make use of

information technologies – to digitally depict historical

images or movies, 3D reconstructions or virtual or

augmented reality scenes – have supplementary

vulnerabilities such as the higher risk of material damage

and technical failure, but also the rapid evolution

of technologies, software and user experiences by

which they become easily outdated. Therefore, the

use of those IT-tools not only requires a solid product

design, but also a maintenance and upgrade plan. An

widely applied solution to this problem is to make use

of user-owned mobile devices, such as smartphones,

tablets or digital glasses, that run applications and offer

interpretational content via wireless connections with

the internet. Also traditional presentation methods used

for archaeological heritage, such as viewing windows

that make excavated archaeological remains visible at

street level or underground visitor centres that make

them physically accessible, need if applied a sustainable

design, implementation and maintenance plan, as argued

before.

Sustainable Development

Chester City Walls interpretation panel at The Water Tower. Photo 2012.


Impression of the reopened Catharijnesingel along Vredenburg Castle in Utrecht. The preserved remains of the north-western tower emerge above the water’s surface.

Connecting to the urban surroundings

Better spatial connection of an archaeological site to

its urban surroundings, including the built environment,

streets, squares, green spaces, waterways, and

other archaeological and built heritage assets in the

neighbourhood, can make the archaeological site more

attractive, convenient and accessible. The Dee House

site in Chester, for instance, is currently surrounded

by roads, walls and fences. This could be considerably

improved, in particular for pedestrians and cyclists, by

the (re)construction of slow routes and bridges linking

the site to the commercial city centre, the City Walls,

the Roman Gardens and the river Dee, and the other

historical monuments located in the surrounding parks,

such as the Old Bishop’s Palace, the Church of St John

Connectivity

An urban (site) development project affecting an archaeological site or monument offers the opportunity to connect

the site or monument better to its urban and social surroundings, both physically and virtually (online), as well as to the

(marketing) story of the city. Connectivity is indeed considered as an important quality of both the development process

and its final results, and a key element contributing to their success. Besides, connection was also the central theme of

the PORTICO work package as part of which this code of practice on archaeology-minded spatial (site) development was

produced.

Roads, walls and fences surrounding the amphitheatre and Dee House in Chester. Photo by Visual Dimension, 2010.


the Baptist and St John’s Vicarage. Moreover within Dee

House site itself spatial connections should be realized,

by real or virtual means, between the different, excavated

or buried, parts of the amphitheatre on the one hand and

the Georgian town house on the other hand, thus inviting

visitors to explore the heritage site. In Gent, the location

of the Gerard the Duivelsteen site at the banks of the

River Scheldt offers the opportunity of connecting the

medieval noble mansion and its surrounding (currently

buried) archaeology via the reopened waterway to

the ruins of St Bavo’s Abbey located a little further

downstream. This would re-create a historical link

between two successive settlements, the first monastic

and pre-urban and the second urban, in early and high

medieval Gent. In Köln, a walking circuit could connect

the Ubian Monument to other heritage buildings in the

neighbourhood, such as Overstolzenhaus and Sankt

Maria im Kapitol, both dating from the Romanesque

period, and to the archaeological sites and museums

in the city centre. In Utrecht, a more connective and

structured station area is a main target of the currently

implemented master plan for the reconstruction of the

whole area, affecting also the site of Vredenburg Castle.

As in Gent, the reopening of a previously filled in stretch

of a waterway (in this case, a part of the city moat) along

the monument, will allow the historical waterfront to be

restored along the western castle wall and connect the

site to other parts of the city via the water. Speaking of

connection, the biggest challenge for Utrecht will be to

design and to implement an interpretational scheme that

connects the scattered remaining or re-created parts of

Vredenburg Castle and that allows visitors to visualize

the 16th-century fortification in its (short-lived) heyday.

Connecting to the local and global communities

Because an archaeological site can have important social

values, as argued before, for instance as a source of

identity, pride or perhaps curiosity or genuine interest for

the local community, as a pivot of civic involvement and

volunteering, or as a social venue for the neighbourhood,

any site development project must be concerned with

connecting the site to its surroundings, not only in

spatial but also in social terms, and not only physically,

but also virtually (online). Large-scale excavations and

construction works do affect and actually interest a

large group of people that is living, working, studying,

shopping, taking lunch, visiting, passing by or simply

enjoying themselves in the neighbourhood. As people

are often curious about what is going on, they may stop

and have a look, read an information or interpretation

panel, ask a few questions to an archaeologist at work

and join perhaps an occasional guiding tour on the site.

The organization of guiding tours on the excavation

site is a classic public communication format for

archaeologists and popular among (senior) residents

– who often happen to be engaged themselves in local

history associations or in city guiding – and groups of

schoolchildren. Newsletters, which can be distributed on

paper or via e-mail, are another classic communication

tool. Social media and the internet offer new

opportunities for archaeologists to connect with an even

wider public and feed their interest by posting blogs,

The reopened Nederschelde River in Gent will link the Gerard de Duivelsteen (marked A) to the yards and ruins of St Bavo Abbey (marked B, at the right). © Stad Gent.

Guided tour by city archaeologist Geert Vermeiren at the excavation of a housing block at Emile Braunplein in Gent, September 2009. © Stad Gent.

The Gerard de Duivelsteen seen from the Wijdenaard bridge crossing the Nederschelde (or Lower Scheldt) River in 2005.


images and short movies that document the successive

stages of the archaeological research. The long-term

archaeological research project in Gent at The Loop, a

suburban development site that used to be an airfield,

for instance, has its own website (www.archeotheloop.

be) on which not only research reports and photos are

posted, but recently also a regularly updated video blog.

In Utrecht, the construction of the second ‘treasure

room’ or underground visitor centre at Domplein could

be followed online via newsletters and the website. As

argued before, these communication actions contribute

not only to informing and educating the public, but also to

getting the public involved and fostering public support

for archaeology. The role of the social neighbourhood

of an excavation site should, however, not be limited to

that of recipient of new archaeological knowledge and

of moral supporter. Residents, businesses, schools and

institutions who are the neighbours of a development

site (or of the wider Master Plan area) should also be

involved as stakeholders in the decision process of

the development project. Their opinion needs to be

heard about the impact of the building plans on their

surroundings and they need to be consulted about the

important decisions to be made. They may, for instance,

have clear ideas about the possible new function(s) that

an abandoned listed monument, such as Dee House in

Chester or the Gerard de Duivelsteen in Gent, could be

given. It would be no surprise, then, if these citizens

would suggest a function that they value themselves

most on a heritage site that is also a leisure area, such as

a nice social venue.

Connecting to the story of the city

In order to make an archaeological site better known

and accessible to the residents and visitors of a city,

the story of the site needs to be told, both on the site

itself and online, and to be connected to the story of the

city. In that perspective, turning an abandoned heritage

building located at an archaeological site (such as

Dee House in Chester or the Gerard de Duivelsteen in

Gent) into a visitor centre for interpreting the site and

connecting with the story of the city is a logical choice.

An existing indoor exhibit (such as the Ubian Monument)

can also be reconstructed for that purpose. Because of

their peripheral location, these visitor centres would

need to be promoted among tourists and residents

with an interest in history and heritage, for instance by

encouraging city guides and tourist agencies to include

the site in their tours. Combination tickets that give

visitors entrance to both the archaeological site annex

visitor centre and the city museum(s) and facilitating the

use of public transport or walking routes that connect

the two (or more) locations in the city can help more

visitors to find their way to the site. A visible, attractive,

accessible and content-rich website is of course also a

must in this digital era. In any case, a good marketing

plan for the site would be needed and this marketing plan

would also need to be connected to the tourism plan and

the marketing plan for the city as a whole.

Temporary exhibition on the archaeological research in Utrecht’s Station Area. Photo by Visual Dimension, 2010.


About the authors

Astrid Bader is Director of the Communication Agency B&T, based in Vienna (Austria).

Tony Barton is an Architect specialising in the conservation and reuse of historic sites and is Chairman of Donald Insall

Associates, based in Chester and London (UK).

Jolanda Bos is an Archaeologist and a Senior Heritage Consultant at BLKVLD&Bos (The Netherlands).

Stéphane Demeter is a Senior Staff Member at the Ministry of the Brussels-Capital Region, Direction des Monuments et

Sites (Belgium) and is vice-president of ICOMOS Belgium.

Dr. Anya Diekmann holds a PhD in Tourism and is Head of IGEAT at the Free University of Brussels (ULB) (Belgium).

Guy Dupont is a Historian and an Archivist at the City of Ghent, Department of Urban Archaeology and City Archives

(Belgium).

Dr. Marianne Gechter holds a PhD in History and worked at the Archaeological Zone of the City of Cologne (Germany).

Jane Hebblewhite is Senior Archaeologist (Heritage Assets and Community Archaeology) at Cheshire West and Chester

Council (UK).

Dr. Wim Hupperetz holds a PhD in History and Sociology and is Director of Allard Pierson Museum, University of Amsterdam

(The Netherlands).

Dr. Jaime Kaminski holds a PhD in Archaeology and is a Research Fellow at Brighton Business School, University of

Brighton (UK).

Edsard Kylstra is Senior Advisor Cultural History at the City of Utrecht (The Netherlands).

Marie Christine Laleman is Director at the City of Ghent, Department of Urban Archaeology and City Archives (Belgium).

Barbara Marcotulli is Tourism and Culture Development Manager at Promoroma, based in Rome, and Consultant in

Communication and Service Design for Tourism at TrentoRISE, Trento (Italy).

David Masters is Lead Heritage Interpretation Consultant with Imagemakers, based in Birmingham (UK), and is Creative

Director at King Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester (United Kingdom).

Bruno Minnebo is an Architect and an Urban Planner at the City of Ghent, Department of Urban Planning, Mobility and

Public Domain (Belgium).

Daniel Pletinckx is an Engineer specialising in digital heritage presentation and is Director of Visual Dimension BVBA,

based in Ename (Belgium).

Jan Stobbe is a Solicitor and a Consultant for Tourism and Heritage, Haarlem (The Netherlands).

Gunter Stoops is an Archaeologist at the City of Ghent, Department of Urban Archaeology and City Archives (Belgium).

Kurt Van Belle is a Staff Member at the City of Ghent, Department of Tourism (Belgium).

Theo van Wijk is Director at the Domplein Foundation in Utrecht and is owner of TransFORMotion BV (The Netherlands).

Marin Zegers is project leader Cultural History at the City of Utrecht (The Netherlands).

ColophonEdited and published by the City of Ghent, Department of Strategy and Co-ordination and Department of Urban Archaeology and City Archivescontact: Botermarkt 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium, e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected], tel. +32 9 266 82 25 and +32 9 266 57 64

Copyright texts by the authors.Authorship and copyright images as indicated in the captions.Pre-press by the City of Ghent, Department of Communication and Promotion.Printed by Stevens Print nvPublished February 2014Legal depot number: D/2014/0341/4

Cover image:

Bird’s-eye view of the green site of the former St Bavo Abbey in Gent. The abbey was demolished in 1540 by

Charles V in order to make room for a fortress, similar to Vredenburg Castle in Utrecht. Between 1853 and

1991 the site was occupied by the municipal Cattle Market and Slaughterhouse, of which only the entrance

gate (the small white building on the left) has been preserved. Excavations of the foundations of the abbey

church, located south of the preserved refectory (building on the right) and the ruins of the cloisters, revealed

the ground plan of the church. In 2006 hornbeam trees, trimmed to resemble columns, were planted on the

site of the pillars of the demolished church, giving visitors a unique perspective of its original structure. In

order to enable the construction of this ‘green church’, the City Council decided to permanently interrupt the

street along the former slaughterhouse that joined the bridge over the Scheldt River. © Filip Martin / Fijne

Beeldwaren.

What is PORTICO?

PORTICO is a cooperative project of the cities of Chester (United Kingdom), Gent (Belgium), Köln

(Germany), Utrecht (the Netherlands) and Initiatief Domplein in Utrecht. The project’s goal is to

make the partner cities’ archaeological heritage visible by developing new methods, techniques

and ways of thinking about urban development - above and below surface.

PORTICO is sponsored by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg IVB NWE

programme. The city of Utrecht is lead partner.

More information www.portico.nu

archaeology-minded spatial (site) development

Documents