What is left of the past today? This question is a question that all
archaeologists, she also went through my work as a documentary filmmaker and
filmmaker on “shattered destinies”. The past disintegrated, its
materiality has sometimes vanished, there are often only fingerprints,
somewhat risky results of destruction. Hence the fact that it exists,
since the beginning of archaeology, a strong link between archaeology and
images, first in the nineteenth century with photography, in the twentieth century with
the film and today with internet and digital tool.
From the excavations of Zeugma in Anatolia to the work of underwater archaeology
in the port of Marseille, the cameras examined the
most remarkable archaeological discoveries. I also think
to the specific revelations that archaeological news reserves for us
each year in France, such as the unexpected discovery
last year furniture related to a cult dedicated to Mithra in Angers, but also
to the works inscribed in the duration in the image of the exceptional study
driven since 1992 in Aix en Provence, on the ZAC Sextius
Mirabeau. Sixteen successive preventive excavations upset the state
knowledge of the ancient agglomeration, to the largest
satisfaction of researchers and the general public, but also – the
highlight – local elected officials and developers who have been associated with
intelligence in the process and have accepted its benefits and
constraints.
An archaeological investigation is indeed a counter-dive in the
the bowels of an often distant past, it is a close-up observation,
as in the best police films, traces of human occupation
for which written sources are absent, mute or lacking.
Media discipline, sometimes nourishing mythologies
Archaeology is also a complex practice,
demanding, highly technical.
Archaeology certainly fascinates; the general public’s enthusiasm for its
discoveries do not go away. Archaeology can also generate
questions and this for at least three reasons, that I would like you
present quickly.
First, archaeology confines itself to metaphysics, insofar as
it questions the place of man in the universe and where it is inscribed
in the long time of the trace. Now our society of «hyper-present»
(François Hartog) little appreciates those who dare to question the relativity of
its ephemeral values.
Because it sometimes upsets the truths that seem best established,
archaeology can create disorder within the social consensus. This is not
not recent, it is almost a consubstantial choice to the invention of the
discipline. From the beginning, in 1723, Antoine de Jussieu – in full
quarrel between Jesuits and Jansenists – took the risk of reconciling the
against him by demonstrating that until now each
agreed to refer to as "lightning stones" corresponding
cut stones, used by civilizations that may be more
old as those mentioned in the Bible.
Finally, archaeology, this «conquest of the past» of which Alain Schnapp speaks,
sometimes borders on moral prohibitions, for example by opening graves and
by disturbing an established order for eternal rest. The social body
can consent to it when it comes to «Gaulish chariot graves», but we
know very well that this fragile consensus can crack if it is
example of soldiers who died during the First World War. When
goes from the memory of the most recent conflicts, when the objects expertized
engage living descendants, the choice is more complex,
the most powerful forbidden.
At least for these three reasons, such a science of the past must be
supervised, regulated and subject to sustained attention by public authorities.
We do not improvise archaeologist, we become it after a long
formation. Far from the image shaped by some fictional heroes,
contemporary archaeologist is no longer a passionate and volunteer scholar. He
is no more a distracted scholar guided in his research and
conclusions by anachronistic ethnocentrism or a thirst for possession:
in other words, neither the antipathic Dr Müller of the 'Crab with Claws
Hergé, nor the adventurous collector Indiana Jones! More
and in no way should this discipline be left between the
hands of metal detector users acting in
outside of any official authorization.
Far from the fictions and myths of the 7th art, but well in touch with reality
of territories, the archaeologist is a high-level scientist whose
skills have been recognised and validated by a university curriculum
then confirmed by a demanding continuing education. Moreover, its
scientific approach must have received the prior consent of your
colleges of experts.
By organizing the functioning of your discipline and setting these rules,
the legislator exercised prudence and wisdom in allocating
of the roles.
To the State the responsibility to prescribe. It is a strong act, it is a choice that
is in the public interest and it is normal that public authorities, in
through its representatives in the regions, takes responsibility for it.
To the administration the care of the stewardship: it is the mission of the
Directorate General for Heritage in my Ministry. Its mission,
as you know, is to ensure legislative and regulatory balances
and ensure that they meet the expectations of the discipline. Its mission
is also to check that the different stages – of the development
from the national archaeological map to the dissemination of knowledge
acquired, including carrying out diagnostics and excavations.
smooth and timely operations. The
generally, I ask my services and the regional distributed network
within the RDCA, ensure the relevance of social spending
granted by the national community to finance archaeology.
Finally, to the scientific community, the most delicate role
credibility of the whole. Because scientific control cannot be
subject to no supervision other than that of his peers: there are spaces where
the administration – even with the best of intentions - cannot
not and must not venture.
This guarantee of scientific supervision of the various operations is the
pillar of the archaeology system in France, whether it is archaeology
planned or preventive archaeology. This is the exercise you
have agreed to dedicate yourselves through your participation in
Interregional Commissions for Archaeological Research (CIRA) and
National Council for Archaeology Research (CNRA). I wanted you
gather, on the one hand, to thank those who come
to complete a four-year mandate, and to welcome those
those who have agreed to succeed them in this task.
I thought it was important that both met and could
discuss their practices and their profession, in the presence of
regional curators of archaeology whose action they will enlighten but
also members of the National Research Council
Archaeological (CNRA) for which they will provide information.
I emphasize that the credibility of the entire legislative framework
2003 is essentially based on the mission of expertise that is
entrusted and so valuable to our heritage mission.
Indeed, it is up to you to build the safeguards in a reasoned way
scientific interests in the face of social, moral or economic
are never opposed to a diagnostic or excavation project. And
among them, economic interests are undoubtedly those that are
the best structured, the best organized, and the best defended of our
era. Who among you has never heard that archaeology costs
too expensive? Who has never seen a categorical rejection of an elected official
waiting for a major development project for his city or for
his region?
It is therefore up to you - I stress - to establish a constructive dialogue in order to
to reconcile different logics, and to bring to bear
we can understand, all the weight of your demonstration
scientific. It is on this basis alone that you must confirm
or to invalidate - in complete independence - the projects of diagnostics and
excavations submitted to you, and then evaluate the quality of their
implementation and compliance with the objectives set.
It is up to you to establish that the cost remains modest compared to the wealth of
knowledge thus updated, it is up to you to convince that the scale -
that your opponents will not fail to weigh - remains well
and that, finally, these seemingly distant interests are
not so contradictory. You know, I pay close attention
to make our country’s heritage an asset for the territory.
The archaeological discoveries you dedicate your career to
are part of this ambition, and it is also up to you, my administration
- both at central and decentralised levels - that it is up to the
reassure our interlocutors. Through its value, through its
interpretation, archaeology, must be throughout the territory, an asset
tourism, heritage, but also a tool of intelligence of the past of all
first order.
In two recent cases, one in Toulouse, the other in Ingrandes in the
Vienna, I recently had the opportunity to assert these principles forcefully. A
Toulouse, it was out of the question for me to consider that the search
The Court of First Instance
the occupation of a district from antiquity until the end of the Middle Ages,
that some describe as the cradle of the Merovingian Toulouse. In Ingrandes,
I have not for a moment imagined that, for economic reasons, the
scientific research could be deprived of studying two habitats
successive protohistoric, an ancient necropolis and a
atypical medieval rural. In both cases, my determination was total
and this is based in particular on the opinions of the two Commissions
that I have managed to convince all parties to the
the appropriateness of the established requirements.
As part of this mission that I know is difficult, I ask you to
keep in mind that you have been chosen with regard to
your scientific skills and only according to them.
Some of you come from the CNRS or the University, others are
employed by private operators, INRAP, local authorities
by decentralized services of the State. During the time that
you will devote to this work, you have no mandate other than that
your scientific competence: it is an asset
This is a guarantee of independence.
The work you will be reviewing must be done outside of any other
consideration: it will be up to you to judge a scientific work. The case
then it is up to the administration to assume the consequences
of your judgment. Of course, these may be considerable: I
would never rejoice in the need to withdraw the approval of a
operator. But if your scientific assessment of its
work must lead to it, I will fully and without hesitation assume such
decision.
Some will object that the incumbent operator – the Inrap – escapes a
such threat since he does not have to ask for the renewal of his
agreement. I want to clear up any ambiguity about this. Because it is the
first operator, the one in whom the State, by its double supervision, places all its
trust, I expect this institution to be exemplary, and I know
that it is. The results of the assessments made by the Commissions
interregional archaeological research (CIRA) concerning the Inrap
must be the object of a permanent dialogue between its trusteeship, its management
scientific direction to ensure a level of
excellence and to correct any anomaly. One principle guides me: that of
equal treatment between operators in the face of your judgments.
But your task – those who have just done so can witness it -
will not be limited to this fundamental exercise. You must also
investment of other lands. I also expect from you the critical balance of the
archaeological operations carried out and evaluated so that the National Council
of archaeological research (CNRA) sets new priorities
to inform the choice of future prescriptions. I
know how to count on Professor Baratte, who assumes the vice presidency
of the CNRA, to carry out this mission.
I will close by emphasizing the uniqueness of our
device: there is no comparable model nor in other
disciplines, neither in Europe nor in the world. We must draw a great
pride in the existence of your commissions composed solely of
scientists and who are making their way back to Paris – not the other way around
as is too often the case – instructions and directions
It is not just a question of the European Parliament, but of the European Parliament.
The task you have just accepted - and for some of you
to accomplish - is exhilarating but it is demanding. I can
challenges and constraints. I wanted to bring you together – and I
know this is a first - to testify to you all my
recognition and recognition of the entire archaeological community,
but also that of the Ministry of Culture and Communication, which
do not forget, is also the ministry of transmission and memory.
When archaeologists look at the earth, they perceive continuities,
strata, they also observe breaks, ditches. They also see
that at certain times these ditches ceased to exist, that at others
moments they were completely blocked. Walter Benjamin says that the
things of the past can sometimes make a «tiger jump» in time.
Because the events of the past, the things of the past that are written in
matter, can jump through time, can replay remotely.
Faced with the imperative of urgency, faced with the powerful interests that
it is up to you to describe, to speak these truths, without forgetting
never that the past always has something to tell us. Reopening the
that is to reactivate the voices of the past to the present, as
when you open a box of films or discover photos of
family that are dear to us.
Thank you.