EAC Symposium – Setting the Agenda: Giving new meaning to European archaeological heritage
Break-out session 2
Dare to choose
Group 3
Stelling van Amsterdam room
Chair: Jos Bazelmans
Minutes: Charlotte de Hoogd
The main theme of this break-out session was Dare to Choose. The session was a start of a great
discussion, but there was no real consensus on the conclusions.
First of all, it is important to think about how you phrase the question. Is it really about making
choices or is it a discussion about the need for criteria? It needs to be more of a decision-making
process in which we evaluate and redesign. Second, there needs to be greater focus on how we
conduct research. Which sites do we choose and how do we excavate and preserve them? We should
also bear in mind the post-excavation stage and the question of the relevance of depots versus
quality research. The next issue is the design of the decision-making process. It is relevant at different
levels (local, regional, national, European, world/humankind). We should be explicit about our
decision-making and be aware of all kinds of bias. Our final conclusion is that thinking about making
choices is thinking about archaeology and the best practice in our field – not just for future
generations but for the here and now.
List of themes and statements
1. The need for criteria








How do we define objective choices?
Who is qualified/has the mandate to make choices?
First define your goals (what do we want?).
Why are we so afraid of choosing?
How much choice should be exercised on site? Where and when to be selective.
Criteria for choosing: cannot be solely academic/scientific, serendipity, where does the
interest lie?
Choice is obligatory in any research, including of course archaeological research. Make
conscious choices. Reflect on what to do and what not to do.
The terms of the choice are often: social/economic sustainability, intellectual capacity to
process the data collected and communicate the results to society (education), difficult to
decide what would be useful for the future.
2. How we research (including pre- and post-excavation)






Integrated projects with regard to research and preservation.
Let's not quit Valletta. Excavate what is endangered, using scientific research only in
exceptional cases.
Choosing between sites distorts the picture of the past.
Contextualisation and synthesis, periodic updates on the state of knowledge and review.
Publication of reports after the project is completed.
The archive problem: we need very robust policies for selection/retention/dispersal. How
1





much reinterpretation can we do anyway?
Flanders’ new cultural heritage legislation stipulates an archaeological solidarity fund, making
choosing a real option.
It is more complicated: the possibility to choose exists – not only in relation to which sites to
rescue, but also through analytical methods to apply to data, how scientific it should be, can
research data define?
Judging the value of a site before excavation is tantamount to guesswork.
Our choices must be based on a proper evaluation of our knowledge and a definition of the
impending questions.
We need to understand the ‘typical’ as much as, or more than, the ‘special’, both for
protection and exploitation for evidential value.
3. Levels and biases of the decision-making process









Adapt and evolve: decision-making, preservation through education, reflexive.
Challenge orthodoxies: a finite, non-renewable resource. Preservation by broadening
perspectives, accepting other values, context, political/economic realities.
An independent agency that can make the decision and argue it as a knowledge question, as
well as set the standard for the excavation.
The local community can make the choice of what they do if people are interested.
3 levels of choosing/valuation: European, national, local.
Is it about effect and efficiency? Is the ideal world a world without choices? Are choices
money-related?
How do we set the parameters of choice? Can they be set, if so by whom and for whom? Sites,
monuments, records, artefacts, samples.
What we know about the resource is biased through past academic predictions. Do we
therefore always know how to choose? Developer-funded archaeology shows how wrong
previous academic models were.
Choices are already made, but now by contractors, developers and private individuals.
4. The need to think about archaeology and its best practice




Preserving a resource for the future, not simply a choice to dig and record or not dig and let
go.
Be realistic, don’t increase bureaucracy.
Learn how to not excavate and not destroy.
Archaeology as the management of cultural heritage and cultural tourism.
2