This paper explores how creative professionals—such as artists, writers, and architects—engage with digital archaeological and heritage data. Through a quality-in-use framework, the study examines the motivations, access methods, and barriers encountered by non-archaeology professionals' audiences. The research combined interviews, eye-tracking experiments, and post-experiment questionnaires. Findings reveal three levels of interest in archaeological data within the creative industries: inspiration, improvisation, and reconstruction—each requiring varying information behaviour and degrees of data accuracy. At the heart of the study is the inspirational use of data, highlighting how non-specialists seek archaeological resources for creative purposes. Creative industries professionals were chosen as the study group because understanding their methods of accessing digital archaeological data and the barriers they face is not only relevant to the creative industries but also contributes to broader knowledge about how non-archaeology professionals engage with data and information produced by professional archaeologists in archaeology data archives, and how such data can be understood and accessed by broader audiences. The study identifies four key barriers: (i) professional archaeological terminology, (ii) search behaviours shaped by simple keyword search, (iii) lack of interpretive context, and (iv) a predominance of text over visuals—factors that limit the reuse of archaeological data in creative and public-facing contexts. These challenges limit the accessibility and creative reuse of archaeological data. The research emphasises the need for more user-friendly, visually-rich, and interpretative resources to foster engagement between archaeology and broader creative communities. This research was conducted as part of the TETRARCHs (Transforming Data Re-use in Archaeology) project.

Introduction to theme containing papers presented during the 26th EAC Heritage Symposium held on 27–28 March 2025 in Gdańsk, Poland, where heritage managers gathered to discuss 'Life after life of archaeological archives – accessibility and re-use of archaeological collections in heritage management'. On a general level, the topics included the 'FAIRness' of archaeological data, the role of modern archaeological repositories, and the value of archaeological archives taking a wider perspective of science and innovation, medicine, education, health and well-being.

Archaeology, a discipline devoted to reconstructing the past through meticulous study of fragmented evidence, paradoxically often neglects its own history. The evolution of archaeology as a field remains largely overlooked, dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant. This attitude extends beyond academia into public policy, where previous policies and their original objectives are seldom examined. Instead, policies tend to evolve gradually, with minor amendments and adjustments, while their foundational goals fade into obscurity. For archaeology, a discipline shaped by social and political contexts, this oversight is particularly problematic. Many of the challenges archaeologists face today were recognised over a century ago, yet they persist, largely because past experiences are ignored. In Poland, archaeological policies have been heavily influenced by shifting political landscapes, often in response to dramatic historical events. These influences have shaped not only the discipline itself but also public perceptions of archaeology, affecting its status and societal value. Understanding how these policies emerged, adapted, and sometimes lost their original intent, is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of archaeology. By revisiting the history of archaeological policy, we can gain valuable insights into contemporary challenges and ensure that policymaking is based on knowledge rather than inertia. A critical assessment of archival records and past decisions can help refine current approaches, leading to a more sustainable and well-integrated role for archaeology in society. Recognising where we come from is essential to shaping where we go next.

During the European Archaeological Council (EAC)’s 26th Annual Meeting in Gdańsk, Poland, in March 2025, workshops were held to explore four key heritage management priorities identified by members in a survey conducted in Brussels, Belgium, the previous year, namely: the potential of citizen science; the challenge of heritage crime; the role of heritage and archaeology in landscape management processes; and the issues posed by climate change and the need for sector sustainability. The priorities and key points raised in the workshops are reported here, with reflections regarding the future actions that EAC might take to support its members in addressing them.

The 19th century was a formative period for archaeology, which wanted to define itself as a credible, scientific subject distinct from antiquarianism. It remained, however, an amateur pursuit with no available official training or qualifications and standards of work varied enormously. How, then, did practitioners prove their credentials, forge their reputations and become established as an 'expert'? Without governmental or institutional support, British archaeologists had to be enterprising, to rally public support and raise subscriptions for their projects, and this included utilising the opportunities offered by the new phenomenon of ‘mass print’. During the early part of the century, a reduction in production costs meant that the market became flooded with titles (Turner 2010). Book reviews were one way of dealing with so much information and review journals became popular and influential (Miller 2016, 627). This article will consider reviews published between 1840 and 1860, focusing on Romano-British archaeology, and in particular the case study of Charles Roach Smith, a leading figure in this field. It will show that reviewing was an activity central to the archaeological scene, which offered various opportunities for authors to 'get ahead'. It will also reveal that, as both a reviewer and a reviewee, Smith was able to use the book review system as part of his wider strategies to achieve his aims.

This article presents the results of a cooperation between conservators and archaeologists in the study of a large assemblage of broken ceramic vessels from a communal tomb, which had multiple episodes of mortuary activity as well as later disturbances. The data collected by the conservators was used with open access software to create a network visualisation of the joins between the pottery sherds found in the tomb. This contributed to the understanding of the formation of the deposits.

The regional authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia supervise the legal application of monument law, with a hierarchical structure comprising supreme, higher and lower monument heritage authorities. The supreme monument heritage authorities form part of the Ministry for Regional Identity and are responsible for the implementation of the Monument Protection Act. Higher authorities supervise the lower monument heritage authorities at the municipal level, while urban archaeology units act as executive bodies for these lower authorities in historically significant cities. The current Monument Protection Act, enacted on 13 April 2022, outlines the responsibilities for preserving monuments in the region. As the example of the excavation at the St Stephanus church square in Beckum, Warendorf district (Germany) shows, the organisation of monument heritage management in North Rhine-Westphalia ensures effective oversight and implementation of the Monument Protection Act. Increased construction activities, particularly related to energy projects, pose challenges to heritage conservation, necessitating improved communication and collaboration between the various authorities and stakeholders. The experiences in Beckum emphasise the importance of balancing urban development with the preservation of cultural heritage by smart, communicative and persistent heritage management.

Sparta stands out as a prominent city-state of ancient Greece, renowned for its significant historical impact. Its legacy is marked not only by its involvement in major historical events but also by the ‘peculiarities’ attributed to the constitution and societal life of the Classical city. Ancient written sources often portrayed Sparta as a militaristic and patriotic model of severity, discipline and austerity, crafting narratives that emphasized these traits. Over time, these narratives have fascinated various audiences and frequently been used for ideological and political purposes. Locally, these historical narratives have affected aspects of the contemporary Spartan society and the expectations of visitors and scholars. Projects for the enhancement of Spartan archaeological sites were systematically implemented rather late, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. This article discusses this development and explores the ways in which organized and accessible archaeological sites and their narratives can engage diverse audiences. It also considers how such efforts can challenge and revise established narratives, impacting local identity and regional development.

In recent years, an historical reappraisal by one of us (MW) has been carried out on one of the worst crimes outside of prisons and concentration camps committed in Germany by the SS and Wehrmacht in the final months of the Second World War. In the Arnsberg Forest near Warstein and Meschede (southern Westphalia, western Germany), 208 forced labourers were massacred by the 'Division for Vengeance' (Division zur Vergeltung) of SS General Hans Kammler in March 1945. In the course of this joint project, archaeological research conducted by the Olpe Department of the LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen (Westphalian Archaeological Heritage Service) has pinpointed the exact location of the crime scenes and provided clues for the reconstruction of the course of events in the field (Warstein Langenbachtal, Suttrop, Meschede-Eversberg). It has also enabled the recovery of finds belonging to both the victims and perpetrators. We have also been able to locate and examine the two temporary cemeteries (Warstein Melkeplätzchen, Suttrop). This has provided information about the history of exhumation of the victims in 1964, as well as clarifying the whereabouts of the Soviet obelisk from the Melkeplätzchen, the provisional cemetery of the Langenbach victims located close to the crime scene. This work has also allowed a follow-up search in the temporary cemetery in Suttrop for seven victims who, according to the exhumation documents of 1964, are presumably still lying there. Between 2018 and 2021, almost all of aspects addressed above could be clarified with new insights gained. Our results were summarised at the EAC conference in Bonn 2023 (although not published in this theme). Several publications already report on them and they are listed below. In addition to several German language publications, there is also an extensive English language publication (Baales et al. 2022) where the essential aspects of the interdisciplinary project are presented. In addition, the historical context, research project and numerous images are presented on several websites listed below.

This essay proposes that a pragmatic approach be taken towards Holocaust heritage in the 21st century and beyond. Its point of departure is the recognition that it is now nearly 80 years since the end of the war and we are not making heritage decisions today about such sites based on inheriting them 'untouched' in 1945 and dictating their future role as sites of education, remembrance and pilgrimage. Rather, in acknowledgement that many decades have passed and that buildings from many sites of Holocaust heritage have been put to other uses, I argue that a pragmatic solution is required rather than an insistence that Holocaust heritage must have no function today other than one based solely on remembrance and memorialisation. This essay discusses whether we should be prepared to accept compromises and give up idealistic perceptions of a single 'right' solution that dictates the heritage futures of such sites. The research for this discussion is based upon the 2019-24 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) project Safeguarding Sites, chaired by the author. This essay thus prizes an approach that safeguards Holocaust sites, but questions what we mean by 'safeguarding', arguing that Holocaust heritage is not like the archaeological site of Pompeii; we have not inherited it untouched and preserved in volcanic ash, nor have we had ownership of it continuously since the end of the war.