 Department of Archaeology of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. This paper is also on behalf of Eva Kars from Earth Integrated Archaeology. But she is a medical treatment, so she can't be here. But she sends her greetings to all of you. The projection of knowledge within Dutch contract archaeology. The long tradition of craftsmanship as a dominant paradigm. The purpose of this brief presentation is the identification of an important feature of the Dutch archaeological research practice, which we believe is detrimental to the coherence and the iterative complexity of the archaeological research practice. It is also a serious obstacle to the development of a research practice dat wishes to pay tribute to public demands, the accumulation of knowledge and the development of a selective and affordable approach. After all, archaeological representations of the past to the general public are closely linked to the quality of the archaeological research process. De characteristic we want to address is that in Dutch archaeology fieldwork is primarily seen as a craft, that is as a routine. This tradition goes back to the work of the work done by the Groningen archaeologist Albert Eggers van Giffen in the early 20th century. He was educated as a biologist. En dat is important for a good understanding of his fieldwork practice. His fieldwork model was modeled on the research practices of biology. The laboratory itself and the hierarchical distribution of research roles in the laboratory is characteristic in this biological research context. De scientist is the leader in formulating research goals and analyzing and interpreting the data. However, data collection itself is delegated to a technical assistant or labyrinth. This assistant also plays a major role in the construction and perfection of instruments. This image shows you how this looked like in the field at the famous Dwellingmount excavations at Asingen in the early 30s. We recognized three groups. At the front you see the laborers who perform all the burdensome excavating work. To the left you see the so-called voorgravers or principal laborers. Literally those who are in front of digging. They are responsible for daily management of the excavation and they were responsible for documentation. And finally the excavation leader and scientist van Giffen to the right. He is on visits guiding the excavation in principle. The high level of trust in unskilled excavators was possible because van Giffen believed that most of the work being done consisted of repeated activities that could be accurately defined. It involved craft that is routine skills. The strict separation between the articulation of scientific questions and data analysis on the one hand and the collection of data on the other hand had its base in van Giffen's clear opinions on science as evidenced by his personal self-invented motto die taatsachen blijven de interpretation zwangt. Throughout the 20th century van Giffen's definition of the archaeological research process was dominant in Dutch archaeology up until today. All universities and at the most important institution doing excavations the national service for archaeological research. In the 90s Dutch archaeology developed at a rapid pace due to the introduction of the developer pace principle and the inclusion of archaeology in the spatial planning process. This emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of new social demands especially with regards to the predictability in terms of time and money. Under a red liberal coalition market forces in archaeology were introduced. Within this framework the fieldwork practice of the national service so the fieldwork practices which had their roots in this practice of van Giffen was codified in a quality standard en a business repertoire was taken over from construction businesses. Not an openly formulated research plan but a closed program of requirements a so-called PVA programma van IJsse got a key position in the archaeological process. Research questions are part of this program of requirements die are not embedded in a more integrated theoretically inspired program. The quality standard in the Netherlands do not focus on best practices but on the use of the proper crafts operations by the right actors. PVA review has no role in the system but certification as we know it from the world of the production of goods and the provision of services to consumers. In its form, content, staffing and jargon Dutch research practice is thus modeled on archaeology as a craft. It's isolated from an integral, regional, supra-regional theoretically motivated and substantive approach. This poses the danger of carrying out many research of similar phenomena to the state of knowledge of many years back. We had often those of the years of training of the people in the field. The question is how to reconnect science and practice in Dutch archaeology. We, both authors, are not very hopeful because a separation of practice and science is in the veins of the Dutch archaeological system. It's staffing and it's deep history as we try to show. PVA shows that any research agenda is not the only answer. Thank you for your attention.