This contribution describes societies and institutes in the Netherlands that played key roles in scholarly research on the Ancient Near East and Egypt. Public interest followed academic... Show moreThis contribution describes societies and institutes in the Netherlands that played key roles in scholarly research on the Ancient Near East and Egypt. Public interest followed academic developments at a distance. Leading figures, almost all academics, are briefly discussed.After a promising start in the 19th century, development in Dutch Egyptology was mostly limited to religious studies. Assyriology was largely a side-interest for theologians. While other European countries founded national scholarly societies and financed grand expeditions, attention in the Netherland was mainly directed to the Dutch East-Indies, with Oriental studies mostly a function of colonial administration, in combination with Semitic languages (connected to Bible studies).During the first quarter of the 20th century, Oriental studies in the Netherlands were marked by proliferation and specialisation – albeit with a continued emphasis on language studies, and usually from a biblical perspective. The general public was not yet involved. The second quarter of the 20th century saw further diversification of the field, a failed marriage between Ancient Near Eastern and Classical studies, and a broadening audience.After World War II, the range of history, language studies, and archaeology fully developed in the Netherlands. Internationalisation, rising population and student numbers, and economic growth were instrumental. The fourth quarter of the 20th century was characterised by the definitive division between Middle and Far Eastern versus Ancient Near Eastern studies. State-funded research was the norm; the popular audience increased.In the first quarter of the 21st century (not comprehensively addressed in this contribution) state-funded research declined while modest private initiatives (societies of museum and excavation “friends”) can be observed. Show less
Delle Donne, F.; Pavoni, M.; Amendola, C.; Cosco, A. 2024
Business concentration matters for European social democracy because it has been correlated with increased income inequality, a declining income share for labour and increased corporate lobbying.... Show moreBusiness concentration matters for European social democracy because it has been correlated with increased income inequality, a declining income share for labour and increased corporate lobbying. Drawing inspiration from the history of social-democratic competition policy and from renewed interest in antitrust in the USA, this contribution calls for a revival of social-democratic ideas of mobilising competition policy in service of environmental, regional and social goals. As industrial policy experiences a comeback in the EU and abroad, it will be essential to ensure greater conditionality and accountability for private businesses that receive exemptions from competition policy. What is at stake is not only the protection of workers, consumers, and small and medium enterprises from monopolies and oligopolies, but the protection of democracy itself from concentrated private economic power. Show less
This chapter introduces the reader to the repertoire of personal names recorded in cuneiform texts from Babylonia in the first millennium BCE. It offers a historical introduction to the text corpus... Show moreThis chapter introduces the reader to the repertoire of personal names recorded in cuneiform texts from Babylonia in the first millennium BCE. It offers a historical introduction to the text corpus and outlines the aims and limitations of the present volume within the current state of research. Show less
It is difficult to imagine contemporary heritage protection without the numerous international heritage conventions that have proliferated over the course of the twentieth century. Although these... Show moreIt is difficult to imagine contemporary heritage protection without the numerous international heritage conventions that have proliferated over the course of the twentieth century. Although these instruments are governed by the rules of international law, they are reliant upon the actions of individual states in order to ensure their implementation at the domestic level. It is precisely this process of translation to the domestic legal sphere which remains invisible within many discussions surrounding international heritage law. Yet these modes of translation can facilitate – or, conversely, silence – opportunities for actors other than the state to shape cultural heritage law. As such, they can play a critical role in many of the current debates surrounding heritage governance. It is thus important that those working and living in, with or around heritage are aware of the legal techniques through which international heritage standards find their expression in domestic law. In order to elucidate these techniques, this chapter will touch upon a range of core legal concepts related to the implementation of international law in domestic legal settings, such as the distinctions between common and civil law and monist and dualist legal systems. While the focus of the chapter is on the international treaties adopted within the scope of UNESCO, it will also discuss how so-called ‘soft law’ heritage standards can play a role in domestic legal settings despite their formally non-binding nature. This chapter argues that the apparent universality of rules relating to the protection of cultural heritage at an international level belies the diversity of methods through which they are implemented at the national level, the actors involved in this process, and the interaction of international standards with existing domestic legal traditions aimed at the protection of cultural heritage. Moreover, given that many of the norms established by international heritage conventions do not have a ‘self-executing’ character, they remain beyond the reach of domestic legal actors. In many cases it is thus more illuminating to interrogate precisely which elements of cultural heritage law are commonly not translated into domestic law and why. Show less