ABSTRACT
In 1968, UNESCO advised their member states to give responsibility for in situ preservation of endangered cultural property, to a representatively composed consultative body. Indeed, several countries had and have advisory institutions for immovable heritage (e.g. the British Council for British Archaeology, the French Commission interrégionale de la recherche archéologique, and the Dutch Monumentencommissies). The Belgian regions (Flanders, Brussels, and Wallonia) all have commissions charged with archaeology and excavations. This is no coincidence, seeing that Belgium has much experience with and a strong tradition of consultative commissions for the preservation of cultural resources. However, as I will show, the Belgian commissions for archaeology nevertheless knew a diffi cult genesis. Furthermore, for a number of reasons, these commissions struggled to fulfi l their quest for the preservation in situ of archaeological heritage. This paper will explore why. In addition, I will study the commissions’ success and failure. Finally, I will refl ect on why consultative bodies for archaeology do make sense within the Belgian context.
