All,

In reference to the point raised in the ARCH-L exchange between Karlis Karklins and the Latvian War Museum about the dates to which heritage protection law applies in Latvia (as kindly forwarded by Bob Skiles)...

I'm not without sympathy for the point that heritage protection in Latvia ends at 1699.  This is not uncommon in central and eastern Europe.  In Hungary, for example, legal protection for archaeological antiquities apparently ends in 1711.  Those interested in the struggles our colleagues in these countries sometimes face might want to read the opening chapters of (SHA publication plug!) the brand new SHA special publication "Historical Archaeology in Central Europe" (available here:  http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/shabookstore).*

I even have some sympathy for Legenda (though I remain appalled at their methods), who seem to be a group of well-intentioned amateurs who were acting entirely within the legal framework of their country, and are likely feeling betrayed by the programme-makers for exposing them to this level of international ridicule, and confused over what they're supposed to have done wrong.

We can perhaps hope that this fiasco will give impetus to later post-medieval archaeology (or at least WWII archaeology) along the southeastern Baltic, but while I think it's fairly clear that I was deeply critical of NatGeo TV's decision to show the programme (and in turn pleased by the decision to pull said programme), I'm much less inclined to directly criticise the Latvians - and not just because my father-in-law was born in Riga between the Wars (and was then caught in the Courland Pocket in the closing months of WWII).

The Latvians were working entirely within the context of their relevant heritage legislation and their understanding of the archaeological value of the period after 1699AD, and they are by no means unique in Europe in their chosen cut-off date.  While robust expressions of polite but strong disapproval were entirely appropriate for the US-based NatGeo, with our central and eastern European colleagues a process of steady engagement (as done independently by Karlis Karklins here, and by SHA via the new Central Europe publication) will likely serve us better in the long term than directly attacking law-abiding local institutions and groups on the basis that they don't share US, Canadian, British, Australian, or New Zealand standards towards the archaeology of the Second World War.

Alasdair Brooks


*Truth in advertising - I recently reviewed the volume for the European Association of Archaeologists' journal