Operationalisation of the valuation

Operationalisation of the valuation criteria
This paragraph explains the operationalisation of the approach shown in the above diagram. All the criteria are defined and discussed in more detail. Thereafter, attention is focused on the valuation, implemented by means of a valuation system. To achieve this, a measurement value is assigned to most of the criteria. In order for an assessment to be made, an interval scale is used whereby measurement values (scores 1, 2 or 3) are assigned to the scores ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’.

Valuation on the basis of perception aspects
The perception value of an archaeological monument can be divided into two criteria: ‘aesthetic value’ and ‘historical value’. Both apply primarily to visible monuments.

Aesthetic value The aesthetic-landscape value of an archaeological monument, expressed as the visibility of the monument.
Parameters
• Visibility from the ground level as landscape element.
• Form and structure.
• Relationship with the environment.
Operationalisation
The focus of this criterion is the outward appearance, aspects such as visibility, landscape element, cohesion with other (visible) monuments or landscape elements and the landscape entourage.
In historical town centres, this can be interpreted as structures which form an aboveground reflection of the structure in the ‘soil archive’ and in effect can be regarded as aboveground archaeology (history of building construction). Examples are historical parcellation, street patterns, etc.
This valuation criterion is especially important because it, in effect, has to do with the visual representation of the otherwise invisible archaeological evidence.
Visually perceptible monuments are a visible reminder of the past and must therefore be preserved wherever possible, even if, in certain cases, the scientific importance is minor. In the Netherlands, visible archaeological monuments, both in the form of ‘positive’ (above the ground) and ‘negative’ (dug out) relief, are relatively scarce.
Despite the fact that these monuments should be preserved, it is essential, particularly with a view of making the right decisions, to score the following valuation criteria as well.

Historical value
The ‘recollection’ of the past that an archaeological monument invokes.
Parameters
• Connection with actual historical occurrence.
• Association with attributed quality or meaning.
Operationalisation
There are monuments which are linked to a living memory of the past. The fact that these exist usually indicates that the monument is visible, but this is not, by definition, essential. A location without visible remains can also continue to exist as ‘lieu de memoire’. There are a number of different forms:
• There is a category that is directly linked to historical events. These are usually monuments that are not that old, the memory of which is still alive. In a number of cases, these are monuments whose links with earlier historical events have been established through excavation and/or other research.
• A second category concerns monuments that are not linked with actual historical events but which are traditionally associated with folk tales and legends, to which a religious significance is assigned or which, for other reasons, play a role in people’s perception of the landscape.
Both categories relate to monuments with regard to which the historical value can be determined explicitly. This can be an argument for preservation. These monuments are also subjected to the various valuation steps during which the physical and intrinsic quality is assessed.
In urban areas, the monuments are valued in the same way.
The creation of public support for the protection of archaeological monuments is generally achieved in practice by presenting the monuments with a high perception value as examples. These monuments are then also symbolic for the many invisible archaeological monuments.

Valuation on the basis of physical criteria

Physical quality The extent to which archaeological remains are still intact and present in their original position. Within this value, a distinction is made between the criteria integrity and preservation. In the case of the criterion of integrity, the stability of the physical environment also has to be clarified. In particular under water, the integrity of a find-spot can change rapidly due to natural processes (principally currents).

Integrity The extent to which the monument has been disturbed and the stability of the physical environment.

Preservation The extent to which archaeological find material has been preserved.
Parameters
Criteria applicable to integrity:
• Presence of features.
• Integrity of features.
• Spatial integrity.
• Stratigraphy intact.
• Mobilia in situ.
• Spatial relationship between mobilia themselves.
• Spatial relationship between mobilia and contexts.
• Presence of anthropogenic biochemical residue.
• Stability of the natural environment.
Criteria applicable to preservation:
• Preservation of artefacts (metal/other).
• Preservation of organic material.
Operationalisation
An archaeological field evaluation enables data to be collected on the physical condition of monuments. In the process an insight is acquired, on the one hand, into the quality-determining preconditions (for example soil structure, groundwater level, etc.) while, on the other hand, concrete information is acquired on the presence, quantity and quality of archaeological information sources and the size of the monuments concerned.