| Editorial Statement |
results convincingly show that developments in
to detect cases of osteoporosis in the archaeological
record and that osteoporosis ratios seem to have
to criticise earlier work and to demonstrate that
biology, social conditions and lifestyle represent
deeply entangled variables. Van Heekeren’s paper
issues an important research mandate and adds
critical insights to better understand the relationship
between the social organisation of life and human
health in more recent history.
In the last contribution, Amsing addresses the
question of heritage in the context of Dutch society
and stakeholder interests. This is an important paper
since it touches upon one of the central mission
statements of Leiden’s Faculty of Archaeology
in recent years, namely to render the relationship
between past and present a society-wide undertaking
again. That Amsing’s paper deals with two Dutch
heritage projects, the Archaeological Park Matilo in
Leiden and the Castellum Hoge Woerd in Utrecht,
the ground’ and in a more ‘bottom-up’ fashion.
Her results indicate that small-scale strategies of
community engagement, which pay attention to
regional and local particularities, seem to achieve
the most satisfying outcomes for all participants.
This, in turn, suggests that processes of identity-
formation and ‘shared-ownership’ based on
heritage can be actively stimulated. Amsing’s paper
thus once again demonstrates that heritage cannot
be adequately protected when local communities
are excluded from the equation.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, we would like to thank our
contributing authors, Kim Deckers, Bo Schubert,
Nienke Verstraaten, Vivian van Heekeren, and
Eline Amsing, for their enthusiasm, motivation,
persistence and willingness to shar e their ideas
INTER-SECTION. This is also the place to thank
the faculty staff who acted as referees for these
authors. They have demonstrated our invariable
commitment and it cannot be stressed enough that
INTER-SECTION would not be possible without
their invaluable and indispensible support. We
are grateful to all anonymous reviewers who
participated in the review process and provided
comments and constructive criticism to improve
There are many more people, of course, who
have contributed in one way or another to the
successful publication of this volume and it goes
without saying that we are thankful to all of them
even though they cannot be named individually
here. As always, a special word of gratitude goes
to the members of the Board of the Faculty of
Archaeology, Leiden University, to our Editorial
Advisory Committee and to all others who support
our work in Leiden and beyond. Furthermore,
we are indebted to Dr. Geeske Langejans and Dr.
Gerrit Dusseldorp who generously agreed to direct
this volume’s skill-course for academic writing,
certainly enhancing the quality of the present
collection of papers. We thank Andrew Sorensen
for proof-reading and revising this Editorial
Statement.
Additionally, we are grateful to our new Editorial
Board members, Yannick Boswinkel and Shumon
Hussain, to take up the challenge and join our effort.
The increasing number of applications demonstrates
the added value of INTER-SECTION, but at the
same time asks more and more of its Editorial Board
members.
our deepest gratitude to Dean Peeters, one of the
founding members of our journal and a strong asset
over the years. Unfortunately, the publication of
this volume marks the end of Dean’s editorial board
membership. We thank him for his dedicated work,
his great eye for details, his constructive feedback
and his continuous support.
1
‘Education’ (Bildung) pursues a holistic
goal; it is a value itself since education affects the entire
(educated) person; it is something that people might
want to do for themselves and it will ideally change their
being-in-the-world (Humboldian ideal) (e.g. Scheler
1947). ‘Training’ (Ausbildung), to the contrary, is much
stronger oriented towards utility; its value is measured in
its effectiveness; training results in the ability and/or the
know-how to do something.
2
Another more recent Dutch example for
a funding policy that supports the few rather than
the many is the 18,8 million Euro grant given to the
10-year project ‘Anchoring innovation’ headed by
“leading scholars” of the Classical World; the project
is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education and one
of the six research projects that received a so-called
Zwaartekrachtpremie in 2017 (Gravitation programme
(NWO)). ‘Anchoring innovation’ researches innovation
processes in Graeco-Roman society.
2017 | INTER-SECTION | VOL III | p.5