EAC Symposium – Setting the Agenda: Giving new meaning to European archaeological heritage
Break-out session 2
Dare to choose
Group 2
Woudagemaal room
Chair: Roel Lauwerier
Minutes: Esther Christis
Three main themes came from the break-out session on the topic ‘Dare to choose’. The first was
responsibility towards our sources, the archaeological record. The bias that comes with deciding on
the importance of sites and material beforehand was stressed. As yet there are no reliable methods
to make such selections and we have a responsibility to future generations. It is better to make a
choice when confronted with the archaeological record than dismiss it in advance. It was also
pointed out that archaeologists always make choices as part of their scientific work and we need to
be aware of the responsibility that comes with making these choices. The importance of a framework
was also raised.
One question raised was ‘Who are we doing it for?’ This led to the second theme: the importance of
combining academic issues with social benefits and needs. These two values should be taken as a
starting point for research in order to do justice to all heritage layers and stakeholders.
The third theme was the need for collaboration between all stakeholders, such as consultants, local
authorities and academics.
List of themes and statements
1. Responsibility towards sources








The selection of archaeological monuments to be respected in planning processes should
actually be done.
Make the selection before the rescue excavation (to excavate or not). Do we know any reliable
methods? (No)
Selecting monuments to be preserved in situ – is this always possible before an excavation?
We need to be cautious about dismissing material as not significant. Being cautious and
conservative is sometimes the brave thing to do.
We need to dare to argue for the long-term nature of archaeological research. It may take time
for significance to become clear.
Choice/selection: it is part of our daily work. But we must be aware of our great responsibility
towards future generations.
Don’t establish criteria and evaluate monuments in advance (before development plans). Do so
when they are threatened by construction, etc.
Don’t dare to choose because we don’t know today what will be considered important
tomorrow. All layers are important.
2. Combining academic issues and social benefits


Start with the scientific/academic questions and the social needs/benefits. Then combine them
with the monument’s potential.
Who are we doing it for? One person’s mundane is another’s important site. Local contexts.
Local community interest.
1




Keep all heritage users and stakeholders in mind and make choices on the basis of all these
values.
Tell stories better. Will that affect the selection process? Answer research questions.
Even for watching-brief work, we need to point out the research aim. We have to be able to
say what we are looking/investing for.
It sometimes seems that heritage management is a step ahead of academic archaeology.
3. Collaboration



If shown to exist, we may have to dare to confront the academic bias against rescue
archaeology.
Collaboration between academic consultants + national authorities for understanding.
Network of academics, heritage + commercial archaeology has to be established at the
local/regional level.
Discussion on frameworks


Dare to choose. Yes, when it comes to sampling and academic investigation, no for
excavations.
Excavation methods have to be adapted to scientific questions; there is no single technique for
every kind of site.
The need to choose




The belief in total documentation is dangerous. There are always choices being made.
We are not independent of the economic cycle. In very specific threatened areas like the
brown coal mining in the Rhineland, we are losing approximately 400 ha annually. Only 5% is
being researched through rescue excavation. We therefore need a scientific approach to
choosing.
Dare to not choose between quantity and quality.
We have to constantly test our system of choosing and be wary of hobby horses. If you are in
charge of decision-making, there is a risk that you will give preference to special periods or
types of sites.
Are we scientists or just technicians?



Archaeologically assisted destruction.
Digging holes in the past or planning archaeology.
Can we do more with less? Application of scientific techniques. Better understanding of site
2

taphonomy.
Targeted research appropriate to context and local interest.
Other statements




Informing and educating industrial companies.
Special archaeological education of the local people (village/municipality).
Consider some isolated finds + sources of raw material + in situ archaeological sites as one big
archaeological site/complex in the region.
Be kinder across sectors. Most of us are doing our best in the profession.
3