| 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