EAC Symposium – Setting the Agenda: Giving new meaning to European archaeological heritage
Break-out session 2
Dare to choose
Group 1
Rietveld-Schröderhuis room
Chair: Willem Willems
Minutes: Lara Elemans
The theme for the break-out session was 'Dare to choose'. Many subjects were discussed, and the
first of the three key themes was: What is our basic point of departure when making choices? We
have to realise that whatever we choose, we are making a choice now. We are relying on the
situation as it is today, and we need to be aware of this fact. Choosing what should be excavated
depends on our knowledge, but there are gaps in this knowledge. And what message are we trying to
deliver to future generations through excavations? Can we know what future generations will need?
The second theme was: How can we make choices? The discussion covered two points. First, choices
are always being made, you have a vision of where you start and the excavation is a process involving
lots of choices. Second, what approaches can be used and how can we choose what to excavate if we
don't know what we have? Should an inventory be made of the archaeological potential? Also, when
we make choices we have to bear in mind our storage capacity; we can't store everything. Why
excavate if we throw it away afterwards? Management should include the ‘afterlife’.
Our third theme was: Who should choose? The community needs to be involved in making choices,
but the question is how can we do that, what should the community’s role be? Perhaps local
authorities should be more involved. Society also needs proper delivery. Content should be returned
to society, and of course developers, through proper publication and dissemination.
List of themes and statements
1. What is our basic point of departure when making choices?





Never believe you are excavating everything!
Choosing what should be excavated depends on our knowledge, but there are gaps in this
knowledge that can influence our choices.
What message are we trying to deliver through excavation to future generations?
How can we know what future generations will need?
Heritage is for those that value heritage, now and in the future.
2. How can we make choices?







It’s not about ‘scale’. It’s about how we explore the research questions we have when starting
the excavations and that arise during excavations.
Questioning the written report as the end product.
Inventories of archeological potential. How can we choose what we excavate if we don’t know
what we have. ‘Known potential’ versus ‘unknown potential’ (this is not no potential).
How much should we excavate? What period?
Choices should relate to what we keep forever (storage issue).
Vision (positive).
Setting up criteria is not the way to go. We need to find a ‘model’ for how to re-establish a site’s
1





values.
Have available what we already know so that we can make choices.
Excavating a site is a journey/process involving many choices.
Consider the costs of your choices (added value).
Why should we ‘select’? Financial problem, re-interpretation must be possible. Why excavate if
we throw it away afterwards’; management must include the ‘afterlife’. If you have a selection
procedure, then describe it, keep track of it.
Make a good inventory of what is known/unknown in the archaeological landscape.
3. Who should choose?










Society needs delivery. Content should be returned to society, and of course developers,
through proper publication, proper dissemination, more concentration on the dissemination of
information.
Greater participation by society in decisions about preserving archaeological sites.
Public engagement involves choosing and valuing.
Is commercial archaeology that bad? Ensuring critical and strict criteria when choosing team
experts and register methodology is the key to objective data. Rise of new technology can also
produce a good register, with proper inspections and surveillance from state authorities.
Who should choose?
Are scientific methods always best? Can we include the social sciences?
Who should choose the sites? Archaeologists alone or together with other groups in society?
Are we ready to transfer selection rights to society, for example the local community?
If archaeologists don’t make choices, choices will be made for them.
Selection by local authorities ensures that it is not only the scientific agenda that decides.
‘Feel good’ archaeology and local patriotism are legitimate reasons for non-scientific selection.
Other statements




We may dare to choose only if archaeology is and remains an important priority for national
agencies.
In the relationship between politics and developers, money interests affect the political vision.
The European financial crisis will have a negative impact on already excavated sites.
There needs to be discussion between universities and archaeologists about research results.
2