The study examines the Italian legislation on the cultural heritage and the environment, and points out the cultural gaps from the point of view of the definition and comprehension of these matters, and the delays surrounding the management of the cultural heritage in the territory. While theoretical debate on the environment in Italy has received a strong impulse in recent years, the cultural heritage continues to be governed by generally outdated laws of an essentially restrictive and punitive nature. The environment and cultural heritage are also seen by the Italian legislation as two separate entities, with negative consequences at the level of the protection, safeguarding and evaluation of the heritage. The study also puts forward a unified, dynamic view of the human environment (the interaction between human beings and the environment), which includes both the visible and invisible landscapes, the latter existing concealed beneath the surface. The proposed concept of the subsoil is that of a structured universe, in whose understanding and interpretation archaeology plays a determining role. By protecting and safeguarding only what ‘we can see’, i.e. the environmental and historic landscape above the soil, the law forgets that this is nothing other than the product of a series of partial landscapes fossilized and stratified in the course of time. By seeking out a new definition of the human environment, the study advances a conception that takes into account continuing transformations while not excluding an intuitive and emotional approach.

Significance evaluation plays a central role in archaeological heritage management. In this paper, a practical approach is presented based on experiences and recent discussions in the Netherlands. A restricted number of values (perception, physical quality and intrinsic quality) are operationalized as criteria in order to evaluate archaeological phenomena. In this manner, a more transparent framework is created to help determine if a monument is worth preserving. In the process of selection, monuments worth preserving are scrutinized from the viewpoints of policy considerations and priorities in archaeological heritage management in order to select monuments deserving of sustained preservation. The form of this system of significance evaluation is such that it can be used by all government levels, that the process is understandable for non-archaeologists, and that its results remain relevant from a research perspective.

Although much has been written about the use of information technologies for the management of archaeological resources at a national level, there has been little published discussion of the problems and opportunities that are apparent at the supra-national scale. In this paper, we consider the historical development and current state of database management systems and, more recently, geographic information systems in the management of archaeological information at a European scale. We review the development of archaeological inventories, from paper-based records to complex computer-based systems, and then consider the situation throughout Europe, taking account of archaeological needs as well as the administrative, social and political context. Our study reveals that, despite widespread acknowledgement of the advantages of such technologies, GIS has not been rapidly or consistently deployed. A very wide variety of systems and standards currently exists throughout the community, a situation which is explained through reference to the separate historical development of archaeological management structures in the different countries. We identify a number of common issues that recur wherever GIS has been applied to the management of archaeological inventories. Particular attention is drawn to historical and logistical issues, the availability of technological skills, geo-referencing, the spatial definition of the archaeological evidence and the definition of analytical concepts within archaeological management.

Authenticity is frequently seen as crucial in archaeology. In this paper, we examine the nature of authenticity and question by implication whether so much attention should be given to determining the actual age and thus the genuineness of archaeological objects. We show that numbers of authenticated objects are potentially fakes. There is an acceptance that many archaeological sites and reconstructions are not actually really old, although the acceptability of this view depends on one's flexibility towards the concept of authenticity. It is clear that the public does not necessarily put the same value on genuineness as do archaeologists. We suggest that certain aspects of the past have always been a potentially renewable resource. We suggest that a more relaxed approach to genuineness and authenticity is acceptable today and is already accepted by the public as consumers of the past.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the neglected role of archaeological archives in Cultural Resource Management in particular and in the discipline of archaeology in general. Through reference to a major recent survey of the size, condition, usage and future prospects of archaeological archives in England, it is argued that the neglect of archives leads to fundamental questions regarding the purpose of archaeology in general. Why are archaeological archives generated and kept ‘for posterity’? If they are worthy of retention, how can they be better used and integrated into the discipline? It is argued that there is a need to recognize the ‘ex situ’ archaeological resource as a concept and that archaeology should recognize that the study of this resource should be a major area of activity alongside the generation of new information through fieldwork.