Dare to Choose Making Choices in Archaeological Heritage Management

The archaeological discipline puts eff ort into achieving the greatest possible scientifi c added value and supporting the potential values of archaeological heritage for society. However, choices have to be made at diff erent stages and levels of the archaeological heritage management process. Several interests are at play when making these choices: science, society, fi nancial, legal and logistical possibilities, public support. Choices are based on the weighing up of diff erent factors such as values, interests and practical opportunity.


Introduction
In the Amersfoort Agenda -a call to action for Europe's archaeology -the subject of 'decision-making' (Dare to Choose) was identifi ed as one of the three key themes in meeting the current challenges facing archaeological heritage management in Europe. It is not more than logic that as an off spring of this agenda EAC dedicated an annual symposium to the theme of making choices. I would very much like to thank EAC board member Ann Degraeve, who took up the scientifi c coordination of the symposium and this publication. It needs a lot of hard work and stamina to put in this eff ort besides a busy job as head of the Archaeological Department of the Brussels region. Chapeau! As the symposium was held in Athens I am very much tempted to take a philosophical angle to the making choices discussion as well.
In the philosophical debate many conceive the concept of 'free will' to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Others suggest that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived. This topical problem has already been identifi ed in ancient times. The topic of determinism and freedom lies at the very heart of Stoic philosophy in that it provides an essential link between its three basic parts: ethics, physics, and logic. The study of the Stoic position on determinism and freedom thus leads to a more profound understanding of the interconnection between these three areas, all relevant to our modern discussions on making choices.
Off course the focus of the Athens symposium and this publication is not so much on philosophy. But it is good to notice that we are standing in a still relevant and lively tradition, which started with Zeno of Citium walking and talking through the Stoa colonnade. This being a feature that has been reconstructed based on the thorough work of archaeologists, making lots of choices along the way.

Leonard de Wit President Europea Archaeologiae Consilium
Thomas Roland 5 developed the diffi culties and challenges when developing national strategies for archaeology in Denmark: the introduction of the "polluter pays" principle with a free initial evaluation made by the museums, the ensuing prioritising processes keeping in mind to establish a fair system not only for the archaeologists but also for the developers, and the creation of a national research strategy.
Franco Nicolis outlined the decision-making processes for the Autonomous Province of Trento, Northern Italy, the infl uence of the economic crisis on the existing mechanisms and the more important role given to private stakeholders in the decision-making processes relating to archaeological heritage management after the excavation.
Agnes Stefánsdóttir & Kristín Huld Sigurđardóttir explained, via the case study of Austurbakki, how, during the past two years, the Cultural Heritage Agency of Iceland received a number of claims for what developers consider damages, due to conditions imposed by the Agency in relation to the preservation of cultural heritage. The resulting court decision will test whether the Cultural Heritage Act is clear regarding the authority of the Cultural Heritage Agency to impose requirements and/or restrictions on developers.
Bernhard Hebert (Bundesdenkmalamt, Austria) (see p. 37) developed the thrilling question of our own role in the decision-making process, addressing the question of which (archaeological) monuments should survive and in which form.
Gábor Virágos 6 expressed a critical view on the Hungarian situation and decision making processes in relation to a globalised world: when, why, by whom, and for whom, are the decisions made and in order to reach a balance if standards are needed or rather some form of fl exibility.
Ulla Kadakas (see p. 41) described the heritage management system in Estonia and the role of the National Heritage Board. She questioned the lack of resources and of interest by the larger public concluding that redefi ning the role of the archaeological heritage for the public should be placed in the centre of the decision-making process.

Research frameworks
The second session concerned the development of research frameworks and criteria. Is question-driven fi eldwork vital or not? How do we identify research frameworks in order to make the necessary choices? What questions need to be answered and subsequently what methods / fi eld strategies do they require? How do we develop criteria and standards for assessing the signifi cance of the archaeological sites? Which political/economical/social realities do we take into account in the creation of our selection criteria? 5 Internet Archaeology 49. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.49.5 6 Internet Archaeology 49. https://doi.org/10. 11141/ia.49.6 Mariglen Meshini, by the voice of Berbis Islami, described the archaeological processes in Albania and how the actual research framework is usually based on ancient sources and fi eld observations as a National Archaeological Map is lacking. Between 1950 and1990, due to strong nationalist infl uences, the political orientation had a massive infl uence in defi ning criteria for the selection of archaeological sites and research was orientated towards the discovery of archaeological sites dating back to the Bronze and Iron Ages, related to the Illyrian ethnogenesis.
John O'Keeff e [see p. 49] considers the informed choices made in development-led archaeological excavations in Northern Ireland: the legal context, the building up of the documentation, the unexpected consequences with the discovery of previously unknown sites and the more nuanced approach between historic city centres and rural areas. A fl ow-chart of consideration guides the decision makers through the thought processes involved in evaluating the sites. He includes some considerations on the perspectives changing in result of the development-led archaeology.
During the symposium, Bert Groenewoudt (Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands -RCE) showed the Dutch new national archaeological research agenda (NOaA 2.0) stating the necessity of the creation of tools to facilitate the decision-making processes. R. Lauwerier et al. [see p. 55] frame the place of this research agenda within the wellinformed and transparent decision making processes at the base of the archaeological management cycle. Various projects have been developed within this approach: predictive modelling, disturbances, archaeological heritage maps, best practices guides to prospecting, the national research agenda and the necessary syntheses.
Matija Črešnar described the creation of the Centre for Preventive Archaeology as a new operational body of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia and the important paradigm shift this occasioned: the focus shifted from a 'classical' siteoriented archaeology to whole landscapes, initiated by technological and methodological changes, and from chronologically fi rmly defi ned frameworks to an understanding of the archaeological remains as a fl uid and ever changing part of our environment.
Peter Schut (see p. 63) critically considered the huge pile of archaeological reports (mostly surveys) published in the Netherlands following the implementation of the new Heritage Act in 2007 in relation to the eff ective covering of the surface with excavations. After having analysed this situation, he proposes some guidelines, e.g. integration of historical information, and freeing sites which are not valuable to professional archaeology to the public for volunteer research.
Agnieszka Oniszczuk (see p. 69) develops the necessity of question-driven fi eldwork from the perspective of the archaeological heritage manager: question-driven fi eldwork is too often considered as the sole form of scientifi c research with preventive and development-led fi eldwork being described as secondary or inferior. Through numerous Polish examples she dresses the case for the development-led fi eldwork as it delivers massive amounts of data, and thus is also crucial for the development of archaeology as a science.
Ann Degraeve and Jef Pinceel (see p. 71) deliver some insights in the strategic decision making in the Archaeological Conservation and Restauration Laboratory of the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium, an extensive and complete active conservation and restoration of every object found during an archaeological excavation being often neither realistically possible nor necessarily useful. While the principal goal of archaeological conservation is the retrieval of information held by the objects to further our understanding of the past, it is important to try and minimize the input of resources while attempting to maximize the informational output and to preserve the future informational potential of the artefacts.

The involvement of society
This session gave an overview of the choices operated concerning public participation and publicity and the question of how we can make informed choices allowing us to achieve not only the greatest possible scientifi c value but also to support the potential value of the archaeological heritage to society. The practice of 'embedding archaeology in society' through public participation is still in its infancy, but basic questions already appear: What does the public/society want from archaeologists? Which choices do we make regarding public engagement and public awareness? How can/should the various stakeholders and their interests be involved in the archaeological heritage management process? How can we adopt a broader perspective and explore ways of involving others in making our choices?
Elena Kountouri et al. (see p. 79) highlight the way in which a management plan could contribute to the creation of a common understanding for the protection and presentation of monuments among stakeholders and to the joint setting of targets among all competent services in Greece for the protection of cultural heritage, both at central and regional level, other competent state or local government bodies as well as civil society organizations with an active role in this context. They specifi cally focus on the preparation of management plans for the Greek World Heritage monuments.
Mary Teehan, Rebecca Jones and Mike Heyworth 7 analysed various approaches to developing an archaeology strategy in Ireland, Scotland and England, each having varied stakeholder engagement focuses. They gave an overview of the various strategies and contexts, the various European and national drivers and discussed the choices made in stakeholder involvement, the outcomes, challenges and eff ects on implementation plans. João Marques and Filippa Neto (see p. 83) give some Portuguese examples of the multiple steps organized towards a public engagement with archaeological heritage. They start with the public's fi rst awareness of the impact on archaeological heritage during dam construction in the Cõa valley, renowned for its rock art, and the ensuing creation of important legal mechanisms and the development of preventive archaeology and monitoring, to today's continuous interaction with the public on the various levels of archaeological research. 7 Internet Archaeology 49. https://doi.org/10. 11141/ia.49.12 Eva Skyllberg (see p. 89) developed the topic of the diffi cult task of disseminating the archaeological results to the general public, especially as public archaeology is often to a large extent carried out during fi eldwork with the phase after the excavation remaining largely unexplored. The Swedish answer to this problem is the introduction in the Historic Environment Act of the provision to ensure that the transmission of the results to the general public is included in the excavation project and that it is the developer's responsibility to pay for this.
And last but not least, Sandra Zirne (see p. 93) discussed the subject of the relevance of professional ethics for archaeologists in relation to the general public in Latvia. She gives an overview on how the public opinion was formed on archaeological excavations and some answers to the various problems encountered such as the development of a Code of Ethics for Latvian archaeologists.

Acknowledgments
Throughout the European Archaeological Council's 18 th Heritage Management Symposium a number of issues were presented that were shared by many participants from the various member states. Lively discussions surrounded the numerous solutions that were presented, refl ecting the diffi culties the national/regional archaeological management bodies encounter in making well-informed choices. This year's theme 'Dare to choose' has given us a lot to think about, to reconsider, change and/or adapt in our day-to-day activities and responsibilities. I therefore want to thank all participants for this very fruitful experience, bringing us together around what we cherish most profoundly: our archaeological heritage.
I also want to thank the EAC's president, Leonard de Wit, for giving me the opportunity to organize the scientifi c part of the Symposium -a grand challenge, and the EAC's assistant Djurra Scharff for her never ending energy whenever a helping hand was needed.
Many thanks to Elena Korka and her team, Sofi a Spyropoulou, Angeliki Poulou and Thibaut Noyelle, of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports) who hosted the Annual Meeting at this most wonderful location of the Acropolis Museum in Athens, for organizing in such a perfect way the always huge amount of practical tasks that accompany a symposium.

Introduction
The annual symposium of the European Archaeological Council (EAC) took place in Amersfoort in March 2014. The theme was Setting the Agenda: Giving new meaning to the European archaeological heritage. One of the three themes considered was 'dare to choose' -decision-making in archaeological heritage management. This priority responded to the recognition that, in terms of archaeological sites, there is a growing acceptance that not everything necessarily has the same value and signifi cance (even in strictly academic terms); that not everything can (or should) be protected or conserved (there's simply too much); and that not everything can (or should) be recorded/excavated (there are insuffi cient resources). 1 This is a hugely important observation, since there may be circumstances (such as in the operation of a state's spatial planning policy) where decisions may be challenged for a variety of 'non-heritage' related reasons, or where the consequences and impacts of those decisions may be unpopular in a social context, or even fi nancially unsustainable. For obvious reasons, it is then vital that the decision-making process, and the evidence on which those decisions are based, are clear, transparent, and open to public scrutiny.
The outcome of the symposium was published in the Amersfoort Agenda in 2015, 2 and challenged archaeologists to consider how we might best begin to tackle a transformation in the way we approach our archaeological heritage management and, at the same time, the increasing external pressures on resources we have to undertake that management. The proposed transformation was framed within three key objectives: Following the publication of the Amersfoort Agenda, the Board of the EAC worked to develop an action plan through which it would be possible to translate these objectives into reality. The mechanism was the setting up of an EAC Working Group on 'Making Choices'. The working group's fi rst objective was to understand better the context in which archaeological choices are made and, crucially, the current level of application of any clear criteria for making such choices.
The importance of choice in the management of development-led archaeology 3 was considered to be a vital component of this, attracting as it does both public and private funding in the majority and bringing signifi cant concerns from a wide variety of stakeholders regarding such matters as funding, timing and the design of the investigation. To gather suitable evidence, a survey of member states was undertaken.
It should be noted that the relationship between the individual legal frameworks governing the protection and investigation of archaeological heritage in each state and the professional judgements reached by those charged with managing and undertaking investigation and research is very important. In some states any archaeological site which is older than a particular date is automatically given legal protection. In others, there are criteria enshrined in law about what kinds of remains are 'monuments' which can be given legal protection. Whatever the legal structure, choices and the criteria informing them are a key part of archaeological heritage management.

The survey
Between December 15 th 2016 and February 14 th 2017, EAC member states were invited to complete a survey which was designed around the relevant key articles in the Valletta and Faro Conventions. The survey 4 asked 23 questions about the way in which decision makers for archaeological heritage management make their choices. A total of 22 substantive responses were received (fi gure 1). This included regional responses as follows: one Italian region (Trento), one Swiss canton (Berne), and two German Länder (Baaden-Württemberg, Bavaria).
The structure of the survey focused on four key areas, namely: characterisation, inventorisation and protection; investigation and proportionality, research and skills; legacy, dissemination and archives; and funding and public involvement. It further asked for views from each state as to how the EAC might be able to help in developing guidance or support tools.
The results provided a fascinating insight into the application of Valletta across much of Europe. Unsurprisingly, there was more that united state approaches than divided them, but the variety of policies and practices adopted is signifi cant. The full report of the working group will be published on the EAC website 5 in spring 2018. This paper provides a quick summary of the key fi ndings.

Classifi cation, inventorisation and protection
The most fundamental choice that any state must make is what archaeological heritage is protected by its laws. Here, member states divide broadly into two camps. 6 The fi rst group protects all archaeological remains whatever their nature -there is no choice in this matter. The second group applies certain criteria to protect the archaeology of greater importance. The most common criterion was the age or date of the site -with more than half of states setting a general expectation that archaeological remains must be older than a certain date, and others requiring the remains to be more than a century old (for example). However, other criteria were identifi ed, including symbolic value; aesthetic, technical or intrinsic value; architectural design, urban design and landscape context; intangible value/collective memory; research and scientifi c historic value; and condition. Here, there is clearly choice and, consequently, the exercise of professional, informed judgement. All respondents recognise the particular signifi cance of World Heritage Sites in addition to their own list of protected archaeological monuments.
Inventorisation of these sites is increasingly managed through a form of archaeological atlas, where the sites are located on a map (often now digital), and some of their attributes recorded (often now in a database). Further levels of professional judgement (informed also by practical considerations) are required to determine what exactly is being protected. This may be fairly clear in the case of a Roman fort or medieval castle, but is much less clear in the case of a prehistoric fi eld system. Some states have more than the one 'list' of protected sites. This allows for the classifi cation of sites which are not immediately judged as so important that they receive full legal protection, but which still have evident value and signifi cance. The management of change of these sites (such as through the impact of land development) can therefore take this signifi cance into account.
Beyond these broad frameworks, no states operate any explicit ranking of comparative signifi cance for archaeological sites. By this we mean that the basis for legal protection of, for example, an early medieval graveyard may simply be that (a) it is early medieval and (b) that it is a graveyard. This clearly makes for a simpler legal framework but is an important factor when decisions about change management are required, and a subject upon which fully 50% of the survey respondents wanted guidance or support.

Sensitivity to change: what to keep and what to lose
Whether the state legal system protects all archaeology automatically or whether only some identifi ed sites meet the grade required by the criteria, for most states there will be decisions to make when a proposal is made to change the nature of that site. This is most often a result of land development, although other activities -pure research, erosion or agricultural activity -may trigger management decisions. Such management decisions revolve around two basic questions: • How signifi cant or important is the site?
• How much of this signifi cance will be lost through the proposed change?
And, underpinning both, • Who has a stake in the decision?
This approach to choice should result in a decision which is proportionate and reasonable. It could range from a decision to keep the site unchanged completely, through to the lightest of investigative responses. It should take into account the practicalities of the case (such as physical accessibility, ability to fund, urgency of the change and so on). Critically, a framework for such decisions can be developed well in advance of any particular proposal meaning that all stakeholders can work from the same starting point.
The assessment of signifi cance requires some form of benchmarking capability to provide appropriate context. A number of mechanisms for creating this capability can be envisaged: direct professional knowledge of the decision-makers; access to distributed expertise (such as through experts in universities, museums and/or archaeological units, or through knowledge in libraries, on the web, etc.); or more formal priority-focused research frameworks. It can be inferred from the survey results that the fi rst two approaches are the most commonly used. Only four states have a published national framework of scientifi c or research objectives for archaeological work. In three further states, there are some regional frameworks, or ones concerned with particular sites, areas or themes (such as World Heritage Sites). The remaining 15 states do not have any formal framework. In some cases, work towards producing a national framework is taking place. The absence of a framework, emphatically, does not mean that there is no understanding. It does however mean that there is no formal national research agenda and, without this, (especially to those outside the archaeological community) there may be a perceived lack of transparency in the decision-making process. This may be why 27% of responding states specifi cally requested guidance on setting up research frameworks or eff ectively synthesising the results of past investigations.
In contrast, all 22 states seek a clear understanding of the physical impact of proposed change, at least where human agency is involved. Almost all surveyed states choose to require the excavation only of the portion of a site that will be removed or impacted by the change. But this focus appears primarily to be on the physical nature of the impact (how much physically will be lost) rather than a more nuanced assessment of the impact on the site's signifi cance (what knowledge or value will be lost).
As far as stakeholder representation in such decision-making is concerned, the key players appear to be the state representatives, the archaeologists and the funders (if diff erent from the fi rst). Public involvement in the process is seen as occurring earlier in the sequence, during the decision-making about any planning application. Once that decision has been made, few states see any potential (and possibly have little appetite) for meaningful public engagement. Experimental new models here may provide new ways of compliance with the Faro Convention.
Overall, there is a clear opportunity for the expression of choice to be more clearly informed by current knowledge; for research priorities at a national, regional and local scale to be considered; and for more nuanced approaches to decision-making on each site to be articulated to non-specialist stakeholders at a point well before any specifi c change is proposed. Setting an early framework for such decisions will be of great benefi t when, for example, a new development scheme is introduced.

Designing the investigation
The third key area where choice and professional judgement is regularly exercised by decision makers is in the designing of the specifi c archaeological project. Here, decisions focus around linked issues of the practicalities and intellectual thrust and legacy of the investigation. In development-led archaeology, this is perhaps the most frequent focus for debate, negotiation (and possibly dispute) as it is where the full economic cost -measured both in fi nancial impact and indirect impacts of time (often characterised as 'delay') -becomes clear. Choices at this stage can be used as powerful illustrations of cause and eff ect, giving transparency to the stakeholders in the process and justifi cation for resources required.
The survey showed (above) that almost all states consider the physical impact on a site. So stakeholders can agree how much and which parts of a site will be disturbed or removed as part of the proposed change. Less clear are the criteria used to assess the signifi cance of what will be lost in terms of the importance or signifi cance of the site.
One key to this is the articulation of a research design, which sets out the objectives of the investigation in archaeological terms and prescribes the methods to be used to achieve them. Most, but not all, states (n=15) require some kind of written proposal or project design for archaeological investigations, but this obligation varies depending on the type of the excavated site and the causes of archaeological fi eldwork: in a number of cases this is related only to formally protected sites. In some states, the research design is preceded by an assessment of the importance of the site regarding territorial planning and present knowledge of the site obtained by archival research.
In the Baltic countries, the research design is also submitted to the owner or investor and may even be subject to their approval. In these cases, the research design is not exclusively a means of ensuring the quality and scientifi c level of archaeological fi eldwork. Such communication with the investor also allows basic control of the intended fi eldwork, and promotes transparency of the decision-making process.
However, there seems to be a signifi cant contrast between the fairly widespread use of research designs for individual investigations and the relative absence of wider national frameworks of objectives noted above. For 10 of the 15 states which require a research design, there is no national framework to which these might be linked. This suggests that the development of research goals is arrived at through a less formal intellectual process, perhaps combining personal knowledge, library use and peer advice.
For the fi ve states that neither used research frameworks nor required research designs, oversight of the scientifi c outcomes was obtained in a number of ways. In some cases 'quality assurance' was the objective, achieved through review of proposals and licences before work starts. In other cases the mechanism was the monitoring of work as it is undertaken, and/or through formal review of completed reports. Some states simply required that a report must be published (which makes the results open to the normal processes of academic review and criticism).
The scientifi c legacy of investigations is also of central importance in considering the future of the resulting archives. Only one state specifi cally referenced the need for a formal archive strategy in the project design for an investigation, and only four states specifi ed any limitations on what should be selected on-site for retention. For the remainder, the assumption was that everything the archaeologists deemed worthy of keeping ought to be kept. Despite the existence of an EAC standard and guidance for archaeological archives, only six states specifi ed the use of any standard or policy. This is against a background of known pressure on storage space across member states. More judicious selection and retention would be benefi cial, linked to the signifi cance of the site and the artefacts.
In terms of 'making choices' the approach to a more rigorous design, with a focus on what is signifi cant, is an aspect of archaeological conduct that is of central importance.
Without being explicit about what we set out to do, how can we know afterwards how well we have succeeded? Guidance about linking research designs to perceived signifi cance may be very valuable.

Public value
Wider public involvement in development-led archaeology is a complex area. The survey suggested that states do welcome the involvement of the public as recipients of knowledge. Common themes were: • The encouragement of developers to share the discoveries with the general public through press coverage, open days and tours; and • The encouragement of archaeologists to share their discoveries through tours, presentations and lectures.
As far as participation is concerned a number of practical barriers were noted: commercial arrangements that require the excavation, time constraints, health and safety constraints, and the management/supervision of people on site. This last appears to be seen as an important aspect of ensuring the remains are being investigated by people who are qualifi ed and experienced in the activity, and who can be relied upon to do the work to a good professional standard.
There is an evident tension here between what seems to be right for the professional conduct of archaeology, often on busy and dangerous development sites, and the objective in Article 12 a of the Faro Convention which asks signatories to 'encourage everyone to participate in the process of identifi cation, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage'. Two philosophical directions are possible: to accept that there are practical limits to public participation in some aspects of cultural heritage, or to think more creatively (and perhaps more bravely) about how such barriers could be set aside.
In thinking more creatively about engagement and participation, one aspect of the survey which was not the subject of a formal question seems to be highly relevant. About a third of respondents, when asked how EAC could help them perform their role as archaeological heritage managers, expressed a desire for support in advocating the value of development-led archaeology better. The Working Group considered this through the lens of what public value or benefi ts archaeology brought to society and it became clear that there are multiple benefi ts. Central of course is the reason which Valletta recognised -to enhance our knowledge of the history of mankind and its relation with the natural environment. But there are others, all interlocking of course, whose impacts have not been properly explored. These include: Bequest of artistic and cultural treasures. The most frequent archaeological stories in the media, and the most often-asked questions by members of the public, revolve around the unearthing of wonderful cultural objects. Such fi nds can draw international interest to a site and to an investor and can, occasionally, act as dramatic catalysts for inward economic investment to an area.
Enhancement of local pride. People often express pride or value in the archaeology on their doorsteps, even if that archaeology may not be so important as to make the national media headlines. An investigation which is alive to this local pride is one which may help the investor or developer engage local support.
Aid in social cohesion. Archaeology has powerful messages to send about the changeability of societies over time, about the mobility of people, and about the ways in which cultural values can be adopted and shared. Such stories shared as part of investigations can provide a catalyst for understanding new community perspectives and open doors to disadvantaged groups.
Support for education. Linked to the above, but wider in impact, this recognises that archaeology can generate specifi c educational benefi ts. For example, certain kinds of archaeological sites may shed light on past adaptation to climate change. While these rarely provide practical answers to the issues facing 21st-century Europe, they can be remarkable educational tools. Suitably planned investigations can feed such information to school children and colleges.
Innovation in other sectors. An often-forgotten benefi t of investment in archaeological investigation is the impact on wider scientifi c research. For example, the recovery of ancient plant remains can provide very important information about past species and variants (and even, on occasion, viable seeds); ancient DNA techniques have permitted the study of epidemics; and recovery of human skeletal remains have informed our understanding of the causes and eff ects of disease.
When considering these, it will be evident that both the investor (state or private) paying for the investigation and the society in receipt of its results and outcomes will be able to share benefi ts. How we attempt to measure the benefi ts is something that could fruitfully be discussed further. In terms of the public at large, it may be equally true that participation in realising these benefi ts will be as inspiring as any opportunity to take up a trowel and dig.
The key points in the report upon which this article is based will feed into the EAC forward strategy and, it is hoped, to changes in the manner in which we all make choices for our shared archaeological heritage. The full Working Group report can be found on the EAC website. recover, what to analyse) but in recent times there has been an increasing emphasis on the need to be more selective in determining what should be retained for long-term curation. This is driven by the pressure on archive repositories, or museum stores, where space is at a premium and archaeological projects are seen to be producing more material than can, or should, be submitted for curation. The reasoning is that if selection is more rigorous then the size of an archive would be smaller and thus more manageable. Such a choice-making exercise requires guidance and, in line with this EAC project, the process of selection for archive has become the subject of the latest initiative to be undertaken by the EAC Working Group for Archaeological Archives (EACWGAA). This paper is based on a fi fteen-minute presentation made to the EAC symposium in 2017. As such, it is a very brief exploration of the theme of selection, in terms of existing guidance, and the aims and methods of selection. It also presents the terms of the new EACWGAA project that will examine how selection is carried out across Europe.

Selection guidance
EAC Guideline 1, 'A Standard and Guide to Best Practice in Archaeological Archiving in Europe' (Perrin et al 2014) was produced by the EACWGAA within the EU funded project 'Archaeological Resources in Cultural Heritage: a European Standard', otherwise known as ARCHES. This is currently available in nine European languages, with two more, Portuguese and Polish, soon also to be produced. The Standard was created to engender a common approach to archaeological archiving across Europe but it has attracted attention from elsewhere in the world, as shown in fi gure 1. This demonstrates the extent of concerns about archiving issues globally and emphasises the importance of both the ARCHES project and the work of the EAC.
The Standard includes a brief section on selection that covers how the process should be managed during the course of a project, from the development of a selection strategy as part of project planning, to archive compilation prior to deposition. That is largely based on an extended section on selection that was introduced in 2011 into the 2007 publication from the Archaeological Archives Forum (AAF) in the United Kingdom, 'Archaeological Archives' (Brown 2011). That document describes the selection process and attributes particular tasks to specifi c individuals throughout the course of an archaeological project. Both the AAF and ARCHES promote the development of a selection strategy at the outset of a project but there are very few existing examples of a selection strategy that has been produced during a project, and equally few instances of selection being updated as work progresses. One overall aim of the EACWGAA is to produce guidance for the production and management of archaeological archive selection strategies and their latest project is aimed at informing how that could be framed within the various ways archaeology is organised across Europe. This initiative may be viewed as a logical next step in the development of guidance for archive selection.
It may be worth stating at this point that the term 'selection' makes the creation of a project archive into a positive act and that existing guidance is not predicated on the assumption that some objects, materials or records will inevitably be 'de-selected', or in common parlance 'discarded'. It is possible to develop a selection strategy that results in every record and object being compiled into the fi nal project archive, and there is therefore no imperative to reduce the size of the archive simply for the sake of doing so. This may become clear in the subsequent section.

The selection process
What are the reasons for selecting for archive? As stated above, selection is seen as a way of reducing the size of the archives submitted for long-term curation, thus reducing the rate at which storage space is being fi lled. A survey funded by Historic England and conducted by the Society for Museum Archaeology (SMA; formerly the Society of Museum Archaeologists) in 2016 shows the state of museum collecting in England and points up the pressure on current storage provision (SMA 2016). The project consisted of a survey of all museums with archaeology collections in England, seeking to establish if they are still collecting archaeological archives and if so, on the basis of the space remaining in their stores, how much longer they might continue to do so. The overall response, from a sample of 154 museums, shows that out of that number, 35 have stopped collecting archaeological archives, while 61 estimate that existing space in their stores will have been fi lled within fi ve years. A further sixteen museums estimate that their stores will be full within ten years. The conclusion is that by 2027, 112 museums out of 154 will no longer be able to collect archaeological archives unless new storage provision is made. The scale of the problem in England illustrates why selecting for archive is now being actively considered as a way of at least slowing the rate at which storage space is fi lling up.
A reason however, is not an objective, and a more archaeologically rigorous approach to selection may be found in what is now a somewhat dated guideline document, 'Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections' (SMA 1993): The purpose of selection should be: • to enable a mass of fi nds and data to be quantifi ed and interrogated more eff ectively; • to remove material of no perceivable information value and/or intrinsic interest; • to distil the information, research and utility values of an archive into a manageable and cost-effi cient archive, without compromising the archive's integrity.
A further objective is set out in the forthcoming international archaeological archive standard written by the Archaeological Sites Working Group of CIDOC, the International Committee for Documentation of ICOM, the International Council of Museums (CIDOC, forthcoming). The Working Group has established a distinction between a working project archive and the preserved archive: • Working Project Archive: all the documentation and physical items gathered during an archaeological project. • Preserved Archive: elements selected from the working project archive for curation beyond the duration of a project.
If this distinction becomes accepted then it is clear that one purpose of selection is to produce the Preserved Archive. The value of the Preserved Archive is that it comprises everything that has the potential to inform future academic research and public enquiry. Potential, therefore, is what should govern the selection process.
The EAC Standard describes when the selection process is implemented and how it should be managed. The fi rst step is to produce a selection strategy during project planning: • A selection strategy should set out the criteria for selecting records, documents, data fi les and materials (fi nds) for inclusion in the project archive. It should also set out how things that have not been selected for archive will be dispersed or discarded. • A selection strategy should be drawn up with input from all the relevant members of the project team, including specialists and the curator of the repository or repositories into which the fi nal archive will be received.
The Standard also makes provision for reviewing the selection strategy through the data-gathering and analysis stages of a project:

• The selection and retention strategy should be fl exible and open to amendment; for example the discovery of unexpected fi nds or stratigraphy may aff ect the decision about what was previously identifi ed for dispersal. • It is important that the selection and retention strategy is reviewed against the project research or management objectives as the project progresses and that any changes to the selection and retention strategy are recorded and agreed by all concerned, including the recipient repository. Selection and discard should not lead to any substantial loss of information which detracts from the project research or management objectives.
Selection is therefore an ongoing process throughout the course of a project. This is the most eff ective way of establishing potential and ensuring that selection leads to the creation of the Preserved Archive.
Methods of selection were set out in the SMA guidelines (SMA, 1993), where selection must be based upon: • the prioritisation of key fi nds assemblages • context and context documentation • methods of retrieval • statistical viability • specialist advice.
The SMA document was originally aimed at museum curators who hoped to reduce the quantities of archaeological archive material they already held in store and it largely consists of guidance related to various types of fi nds, such as pottery, clay tobacco pipes and glass. In the absence of any document tailored specifi cally to archaeological projects, the SMA guidance is currently being viewed as a useful basis for the implementation of selection during a project and prior to archive transfer. The use of these guidelines beyond their original scope may be risky however, because archaeological project management is not often aligned with the ethical codes of museum practice. If the principles set out above are followed, however, then it may be possible to achieve the fundamental aim of selection during a project; the production of a Preserved Archive that has the potential to inform future use.

Making choices
The EACWGAA is contributing to the Making Choices initiative by investigating how selection for archive is approached, or managed, in participating states across Europe. The fi rst stage in this project is to conduct a questionnaire survey that seeks to cover the following issues relating to selection : ownership, storage conventions, rationale, methodology and sustainability. Ownership is important because selection can only take place if it is legally permissible to dispose of archive materials. The survey will therefore begin by investigating the variety of archive ownership structures currently in place. Through an examination of storage conventions, such as what types of repository curate archaeological archives and how it is decided which stores will collect an archive, the survey will consider how selection is related to the aims of curatorial institutions. Once the framework for selection is understood, the rationale can be considered, and the survey will put forward questions concerning the reasons for selection and the ways in which selection strategies are developed. The methodology of the selection process, in terms of who develops selection strategies and how they are created and carried out will also be covered by the survey. The fi nal theme is that of sustainability and the questionnaire will seek to establish if anyone has conducted research into the impact of selection. Has there been, for instance, any research into how a properly selected archive might be used for academic or curatorial purposes?
The aim of the survey is to gain an insight into how selection is organised and understood, with the hope that this will help the EACWGAA to produce guidance as a supplement to the EAC/ARCHES standard. All of this is underpinned by a shared recognition that archaeology is as much about preserving the results of all research as it is about the gathering of information in the fi rst place. In order to avoid any doubts about archaeological budgets (especially for rescue excavations) prices for archaeological fi eld work were published in the State Gazette in 2012. 5 It helps largely the relations between investors and archaeologists.
• A fragile balance between the interests of archaeology and those of the investors Despite the offi cial archaeological prices, tension has not been completely eased. In 2013-2014, NAIM went to court and won against the State Road Agency. In addition, attempts to change the part on Heritage in the Culture Law in favour of the investors have been blocked with diffi culty as well.
• A great popularity of archaeology in the society, but also a persisting problem with illegal excavations Trying to be transparent as much as possible, NAIM presents every 14 th February (holiday for Bulgarian archaeologists) the major archaeological achievements of the previous year (fi gure 2). During the opening of the exhibition, supported by many 5 http://dv.parliament.bg/DVWeb/showMaterialDV. jsp;jsessionid=FC955F02322DFD40DACAF6ACA1C9A29F?idMat=63396 other museums in the country, journalists are rewarded for their contribution to the archaeological heritage. There are three categories -radios/televisions, websites, and printed media. Indeed, national media annually conduct open e-consultations about archaeological sites and artifacts.
As for the illegal excavations, they are still the biggest problem for the archaeological heritage in Bulgaria. However, a positive trend towards a decrease of this public evil could be noticed during the last decade but the process still runs slowly.
• The unity of archaeologists, regardless of their workplace, under the umbrella of the National Archaeological Institute with Museum and the Association of Bulgarian Archaeologists (ABA) 6 Sometimes contractors and even ministries exercised the Roman device 'divide et impera' but to no success. The clue to archaeological unity in Bulgaria consists of reasonable mutual compromises (not to the detriment of archaeological heritage) and clear responsibilities before the law (fi gure 1).
The current main choices of Bulgarian archaeology are: • The preservation of the adequate and offi cially recognized funding of fi eld research, and especially of rescue excavations; no private units! Bulgarian archaeology will keep as long as possible its favourable position in the state just in the event it gains more public support. This means, it has to be transparent both regarding the expenses and the results. Active collaboration with the media and a wider accessibility of the national digital information system Archaeological Map of Bulgaria, 7 created and maintained by NAIM, should be accomplished.
It is helpful that the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture can verify any archaeological proposal for rescue excavations. It also conducts joint committees that check every fi eld operation (rescue or scientifi c), at the end of each archaeological season.
• Continuous improvement of the quality of fi eld archaeological work The NAIM and ABA constantly impose higher requirements towards Bulgarian archaeologists. This ambition however faced a certain decline of Bulgarian education during the last two decades. It has been suggested that appointments at the archaeological departments of provincial museums should follow better rules securing as such educated and trained staff .
Our proposals are: • Mutualisation of the actions by European archaeologists through national and European archaeological organizations in regard to the European Commission. This will restore the balance between the interests of archaeology and those of the investors, nowadays badly upset in favour of the latter in almost the whole of Europe. The Acropolis of Athens is a real monument, an archaeological monument, an international and of course also a national one. When Greece became independent in the 19 th century and later a monarchy, this undoubted monument passed through a lot of changes, most of them trying to achieve an original impression by tearing down buildings of later times as you know.
In a painting by Ludwig Lange (around 1835) (fi gure 1) you can see the Acropolis with some medieval structures, esp. the mosque in the Parthenon and how the German artist imagines the Acropolis looking like in the times of Perikles (fi gure 2).
But one can also go the other way round: not restoring the original but using the national monument for a new national purpose: for the residence of the Greek kings. Both Klenze and Schinkel, famous architects of the classicistic style, made plans in the 1830ies for this royal palace, which were never executed. Luckily perhaps one would say. It would take us too far to argue why this did not happen, but let me say that it never came to a point where a real decision about the reuse or not had to be made.
What does this prominent example tell us? If we suppose that monuments themselves are having a desire to survive -and I am apologizing for the Darwinist title of my lecture -then there are several ways of doing so, several habitats, several ecological niches.
And let us be doubtful about the extent of human decision-making being responsible for this survival over hundreds and thousands of years.
Let us look at possible strategies and now I am restricting myself to examples from Austria: • You hide yourself. Don't be as well-known and as prominently situated as the Acropolis. For example: a small Bronze Age building in the Alps, high in the mountains, where there was and is some seasonal pasturing but nothing else.
Men have to walk for many hours to get there. No streets at all. • If you are a Roman street, you perhaps will chose another tactic: keeping the same use as before. For 2000 years men, animals and smaller vehicles have been making use of it. Farmers are still using the cleverly built street which needs almost no maintenance. • If there is a densely used street and you are a baroque church in Vienna, be aware of a high danger. You will be pulled down (1965) to enable private and public traffi c to have a better fl ow. You have been an obstacle. If you have a lit bit more luck, you may survive hidden and almost forgotten by people besides a main traffi c route. • If you manage to be an obstacle in a place where nobody will take the costs to pull you down, you can be quite successful: you will remain unused as a huge mass in an agricultural surrounding, as e.g. the late antique monument at Carnuntum known as the 'Heidentor', which means pagan gate. • To be pagan and not Christian can help you: many of the burial mounds in Austria bear crosses, which seems to be a method to banish the spirits or whatever is thought of as being pagan -local people will mostly think of burial mounds as pagan hills ('Heidenkögerl'). The really huge 'Großmugl' ('big heap') combines being an obstacle and showing its pagan origin by bearing an antidemonising cross. • Of course you can also change the confession, as e.g. the Pantheon in Rome with the help of the early Popes. If you don't, you may be decapitated, as e.g. a couple of Roman votive statuettes in a sanctuary of a mother goddess at Frauenberg, where nowadays a pilgrimage church of Maria is awaiting the processions. • More often you change the use, as e.g. many relicts of Roman military architecture along the Danube did: one can make a fi ne granary out of a porta principalis as seen in Zeiselmauer. The walls are Roman up to the roof, but the function as a gate is lost. • It can also be good not to be alone but to be in a swarm, as burial mounds often do: In Scharndorf there are so many that there has been almost no damage to the ensemble since the Early Iron Age -besides legal and illegal archaeology. And in the second half of the 20 th century the Iron Curtain passed right there, preventing as such any investment in this region. If the swarm is not big enough, one single monument after the other will disappear.
So what now? No archaeology, no heritage management, no decision making by experts? Of course we must look at this too. Did the Arcus Titi in the Forum Romanum survive because it was restored as one of the fi rst monuments in the early 19 th century? Or because for centuries it was a little bit diffi cult to pull it down without getting killed and because it bravely served as a medieval fortifi cation?
Did the walls and the gate of Aguntum survive because they were integrated in an archaeological park? Or because they had been buried under sand and rubble of an Alpine river thus forbidding any later settlement?
Is it wiser for a Roman Villa to stay under ground than to be excavated (e.g. in Deutschkreutz)?
You could go on collecting more or less curious examples. And nevertheless you will fi nd that, in our modernised and technical world, we have more and more the duty to substantially protect our archaeological monuments. At the same time we also must try to understand the strategies the monuments choose for themselves. Monuments are older than we are and if they survived up to our times, they have a better experience with surviving.

Introduction
The fi rst Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) in Estonia was adopted in 1925. The main principles -the process of listing archaeological sites, the requirements for the researchers, notifying of the fi nds -were similar to the current law that follows the Malta Convention.
Estonia has a national list of protected sites, amongst which places that have some kind of cultural value, archaeological among others (architectural, historical, artistic, etc.). All types of monuments are listed in the National Registry of Cultural Monuments linked with the Land Cadastre -both digital. In the fi eld, the sites are marked with a board or a sign.
All monuments are considered to be equal. To be listed as an archaeological monument the site must have an archaeological cultural layer. The scientifi c value of an archaeological site is always unique. Although the convention doesn't give any dates, there is a tradition in Estonia to consider all remains of human activity older than 18 th century as elements of archaeological heritage. The more recent sites can be part of historical or architectural heritage. Of course, in order to understand the whole sequence of stratigraphy, the archaeologist has also to turn some attention to later layers as well, not only the layers of the 17 th century and older.
There are more than 6600 archaeological monuments listed in Estonia today. In addition to these, archaeological heritage is protected also under other types of monuments (architectural or historic monuments) which include archaeological values, for example historic (medieval) churches, castles, manors or towns. Approximately 1200 archaeological sites are known in addition to the listed monuments and are waiting to be listed.

Archaeological monuments
A place on the landscape where it is possible to fi nd a sign of an archaeological cultural layer, including building remains, layers, archaeological arte-and ecofacts, can be considered an archaeological site. The state of preservation is not relevant for listing; even poorly preserved sites where the cultural layer has been almost entirely ploughed or contain mixed layers with archaeological fi nds will still be protected.
For example, approx. 1000 settlement sites are listed from diff erent periods and about 100 strongholds, in addition to about 50 medieval castles. Almost half of the archaeological monuments are burial places. Throughout history, there have been a lot of diff erent burial traditions: the dead were buried or burnt, there are graves with stone or soil structure above the surface and simple graves under it. We also have some fi eld systems belonging to the Bronze Age or later periods, iron smelting places and bog roads. Besides traditional archaeological sites, there are also natural sacred places listed as archaeological monuments. The criteria for this kind of monuments is the existence of written sources about the place.

Protection mechanisms
Protected areas in Estonia consist of the monuments and protection zones around them. According to law, by default the protection zone extends 50 m from the border of the monument, but it could be diminished or enlarged; it can also include more than one monument.
The protection zone around a monument is a measure for preserving the views towards the monument, and to protect the structural elements surrounding the monument. It depends on the type of archaeological monument and which values are considered to be relevant. Archaeological settlement sites usually don't need the views, but in some cases the protection zone covers the area where the existence or lack of archaeological layers is not yet clear. On the other hand, the views are very important for preserving e.g. ancient strongholds or burial places.

The requirements for research
In order to be qualifi ed to do surveys, a Master's degree in archaeology is required. In addition, at least four years of experience as a fi eld archaeologist is needed in order to obtain a licence to supervise. The requirements for decision-makers at the National Heritage Board (NHB) are the same as for the researchers who can apply to obtain the license for archaeological excavations.
It is decided case by case which research questions have to be solved during specifi c excavations. Researchers must, for each site, present a specifi c work plan or research design to get the research permit from the NHB. In the research design, the monument, the planned fi eld locations and methods must be described. The aim of the research design is to prove the competence of the researcher for excavating this type of archaeological element, and also to inform the owner or client about the details of the monument and the planned research.
The developer asks for cost proposals from diff erent companies having an archaeological licence and normally chooses the cheapest and/or quickest one to excavate. The NHB is only able to accept or decline the research design, to monitor the process of fi eldwork and its correspondence to the research design but has no possibility to question the budget or the timeline.
There is a regulation by the ministry of culture about the requirements for fi eld study of monuments, including archaeological research. It describes the general aims of archaeological fi eld research and lists the obligatory parts of a research design and a fi eldwork report.
The NHB verifi es all the research reports, gives feedback, and, if needed, asks to improve or revise the report. Nevertheless, the level of the research-quality still varies, but if the minimum is completed, there are no legal opportunities to disqualify the researcher.
To improve the quality of the fi eld work, the NHB is planning to distribute certain guidelines to the researchers, e.g. the requirements for excavating human skeletons, or when and how to take and conserve natural samples, etc.

Planning and archaeological heritage
According to the Estonian planning law, every planning proposal is made available to the public, who can comment on it. Mostly, archaeological values are generally not discussed by the larger public, their interest lying in other issues of the plans.
The NHB is the party who coordinates the plans and projects concerning the monuments, and issues special conditions whether to conserve and preserve the archaeological monument in situ or to carry out rescue excavations. The decision how much will be excavated depends on the type of archaeological monument. The basic principle is that if there is a possibility to preserve archaeological layers in situ, it will be preferred. If there is no other option, then as little as necessary will be excavated to make room for new buildings. However, mostly former (medieval) stone building remains are sought to preserve to their maximum extent.
All comprehensive plans for larger areas have to be submitted for review to the NHB. If the decision-making authorities (NHB) fi nd it necessary, a preliminary survey will be demanded to fi nd out if there are any archaeological elements preserved or not. E.g. in 2015 a survey was carried out for 'Rail Baltic', a big railway project. The new line for the railway was chosen outside the listed cultural monuments and natural areas. The results of the archaeological survey were positively modest -only some fi eld systems from the Middle Ages and some former farm places were found.
For the smaller plans, the NHB reviews only those in which a listed monument is concerned. According to the law, there is also the possibility to demand a survey for the areas where some archaeological evidence exists, e.g. some artefacts or a written source giving information about some archaeological fi nd (e.g. a human skeleton found 100 years ago) or the extension of a protected monument is to be expected. The problem is that the planners usually do not ask advice from the NHB unless the monument is in the Registry.
The state does not pay for the archaeology costs: the developers have to fi nd resources for archaeological research in the development costs. Only for the private owners of long-existing single-family homes (no recent developments), both in towns and rural areas, there is a compensation measure for archaeological excavation, e.g. when a modern communication line like electricity, water or sewage is to be installed.

Archaeological fi nds and metal detectors
Archaeological fi nds belong to the state and are kept in scientifi c collections of universities and museums. The decision what will be collected and what not is normally made by the archaeologist responsible for the excavation. It is not allowed to choose items according to the material: all items with cultural value have to be collected, even items of poor preservation condition must be collected and conserved.
There has been no substantial change in the last 15 years about the management of archaeological research led by archaeologists, but there was a big change concerning hobby-detectorism. Since 2011, the HCA regulates the use of metal detectors: persons using a device to fi nd items of cultural value must have completed a specifi c training and act lawfully. They may receive a reward. There is also a possibility to waive the ownership of the fi nd to the fi nder.
The general public wanting to use metal detectors to look for items with cultural value, has to -after the course -apply for a permit with the NHB. They are obliged to give reports about their searches and hand over all the archaeological artefacts they fi nd. The amount of the fee is decided by the NHB.
The idea of the law is to comprise positively the people who have a detecting hobby albeit are interested in local history as well. There are about fi ve hundred licenced detectorists and the Estonian archaeology has received approximately 25,000 artefacts during last fi ve years. However, time has showed that the management works but has its shortages. The main problem is the lack or scarcity of sanctions for non-compliance. Based on experience, amendments have been prepared to balance the rights, commitments and sanctions of the HCA.

Publishing the results and synthesis of archaeological research
In Estonia, there is no specifi c state policy on what is published and where. However, since 1997, two universities (Tartu and Tallinn) together with the NHB publish the journal 'Archaeological fi eldwork in Estonia' (AFE). Before 1997, the tradition was to publish excavations results in the publication series of the Academy of Sciences. One can fi nd here, on a yearly basis, a description of all archaeological research (as well research related as development-led excavations). The journal has not only a book publication but also a website. 1 The articles are in English with a summary in Estonian. Some researchers, mostly archaeologists of private companies, don't write articles, but their work is summarized in the fi rst article of the book where a short overview of all excavations is given. The authors do not need to pay for the possibility to publish but are not paid for writing an article. In addition, there is a yearly popular journal named Tutulus. 2 There are no special guidelines for private companies if or how to publish ongoing excavations, but Estonian media are generally very keen to highlight archaeology and any bigger excavation will be reported in news or newspapers. Besides the publication, most of the reports from the last years (since 2013) are available as fi les in the register of national monuments on the internet page of the monument that was excavated.

Conclusion
The system of heritage management is good, but it does not always work, as it should. The main problem is the lack of resources and a disinterested public. E.g., we have to improve cooperation with the Police regarding the inspection work in the fi eld in order to discover illegal activities on the Estonian heritage.
The Convention defi nes archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientifi c study. The truth is that the practice of the management of archaeological heritage in Estonia has always been focused too much on research (i.e. the second part of the defi nition of archaeological heritage in the convention) and less on preservation (i.e. the collective memory part in the defi nition). Of course, in reality there are traditions which will guide the preservation decisions in a case by case confi guration, but there is no general plan or agenda based on academic discussion. Almost every time we experience the same diffi culties when explaining the value of archaeological heritage to the planners and landowners, especially when there is question about preserving something in situ. The answer is often that if it is source for scientifi c study then it is meant to be excavated. Part of the public is inclined to see archaeology as something valuable only to the researchers and is not encouraged to feel a connection with the monuments of their past themselves.
In the fi eld of landscape research, including landscape archaeology, the landscape is defi ned as a mixture of nature, culture and time. Among other things, the Malta convention also mentions that the landscape carries the memory. It is therefore necessary to redefi ne the role of archaeological heritage for the public, sometimes even for archaeologists and heritage managers, and help them (or us) to appreciate it as one layer of a diversifi ed cultural landscape. The aim of this session was to go into the choice of having research questions in relation to excavations. Is question-driven fi eldwork vital or not? What questions need to be answered and subsequently what methods / fi eld strategies do they require? And how do we develop criteria and standards for assessing the signifi cance of the archaeological sites?
In Northern Ireland, any search for archaeological material that involves excavation must, by law, be conducted under and in accordance with a licence issued by the Department for Communities under the provisions of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. This is a statutory control on how excavations are conducted and, through conditions that are normally attached to this permission, a licence is normally issued to a specifi ed individual, to conduct their work at a specifi c location, at a specifi ed time, and for a specifi ed purpose. In practice it is the lead archaeologist for a project who is issued with this licence, and in most instances licences are granted for the following kinds of works: • To search for, excavate and document archaeological remains in advance of development or land-use change at a parcel of land or buildings • To inform or as part of conservation works to an historic monument • For the purposes of research into a particular type of monument or material (including artefacts and ecofacts) related to a particular type of monument or time period As is the case elsewhere, development-led interventions and excavations are the most common form of archaeological work in Northern Ireland. It is important to note that the requirement for the excavation in the fi rst instance will normally be determined through the spatial development planning process. So, while there are still some research-driven excavations (most commonly conducted by academic institutions), and investigations as part of conservation work at major historic monuments (usually monuments in State Care, and conducted by government bodies), the vast majority of excavations are now conducted as part of the spatial planning process, and as such they are normally: • Projects that arise from development proposals or land-use change • Funded by the project sponsors (public and private bodies) • Specifi c to the development or land-use change These excavations are conducted by archaeologists under the legal requirements, operating in a commercial capacity. One could, perhaps, describe this form of archaeological work as a by-product or service element of the construction industry, one that has in Northern Ireland received substantial public and private funding. It is led by the archaeology being uncovered in the course of development work and while it is informed by earlier research and knowledge about the historic environment in its widest context, it is still a very reactive work activity, dealing with each set of remains as they are encountered.
All decision-making processes require a point of commencement. For developmentled work this may be considered to be when someone decides to build something. As part of the normal planning process the proposal will be considered against a wide range of policies and considerations, from road safety to urban density, impacts on fl ora and fauna to land-use designation, and including the historic environment. The triggers for any of these considerations will include local development plans and designations. For archaeological fi eld monuments, it was a major -and ongoingcorpus of research-driven fi eldwork that gathered information which is now being used in the planning process. The primary trigger for consideration of archaeology in the context of new development will normally be the proximity of a development site to a feature of interest that has been included in the Northern Ireland Sites and Monuments Record (referred to hereafter as the NISMR).
Northern Ireland is not a large territory, comprising some 1.4 million hectares, with a population of some 1.8 million people. In terms of its archaeology, the earliest remains identifi ed to date are from the Mesolithic period (Mallory and McNeill 1991, 11), and so our archaeological record extends back a mere 10,000 years. However, it has some16,500 known or suspected sites of archaeological interest, ranging from fi ndspots of artefacts through to complete castle complexes and post-medieval towns, as well as some 17,000 sites of industrial heritage interest and hundreds of designed estate landscapes, battle sites and shipwrecks.
Development-led works have, however, revealed large numbers of sub-surface sites that had no upstanding features and which had not been identifi ed from previous surveys. These are often features which are only identifi ed once the process of site development works begin. Anecdotally, development-led interventions have revealed somewhere in the order of one new site of archaeological interest for every 3 to 5 hectares of land, while the whole landscape is criss-crossed by fi eld boundaries and routeways that are many hundreds if not thousands of years old. As one may appreciate, if the estimate of the numbers of previously unrecorded sites was in line with the anecdotes of discovery to date, then the landscape of Northern Ireland is very rich in archaeological remains indeed.
Our growing awareness of how much archaeological material still survives and which has not yet been recorded means, in practice, that where signifi cant areas of previously undeveloped land is used for new building, there is a great likelihood that choices will need to be made about the protection or excavations of sites that were otherwise unknown.
The use of computerised data now makes it a lot easier to establish when a proposal is going to be considered vis-à-vis impacts on archaeology and ultimately, in most cases, whether or not an archaeological excavation is going to be required. At this point a series of professionally informed and evidence-based judgements are needed to advise the process, as in many cases it is the development proposal that will spark discussion about what might be encountered in excavating the site -what might be found and also what might be lost. This has been informed largely by the working practice of a generation of archaeologists for whom dealing with the development process is a normal activity, rather than earlier times of research or rescue interventions (fi gure 1).
Formulating advice for the decision-making process is usually part of an iterative process, assembling facts and understanding about a site or monument, ascribing values to aspects of these, and justifying the advice in terms of policy and process. fi gures 1 and 2 are used here as tools to articulate some of the thought processes involved. One must emphasise just how important the NISMR is as a resource to inform the management of archaeological fi eld monuments and guiding archaeological excavation. It needs to be augmented by sound working knowledge of what the outcomes were of previous interventions, if the outcome is likely to be the same or not, and how that might aff ect the next choice. The NISMR remains a living record, it is being added to all the time, and is the primary source of evidence that is used in all management decisions about any archaeological site or fi eld monument. There is also an onus on archaeologists to refresh their knowledge-base, making use of the new information that is brought to the NISMR.
In making choices about whether or not a site will require to be excavated, and also in the course of the excavation itself, it is not possible to have a simple binary response of 'yes' or 'no'. The process is more nuanced, since it will depend upon ones knowledge of the remains in question, the impacts that would otherwise happen to those remains, and the relative importance ascribed to them. Ironically, a set of remains may be excavated because they are very rare and important, or because they are more common, fragmentary and vulnerable at a site. In both instances the imperative to excavate is their impending destruction. There are, however, key 'check-points' in the process, required in order that a statutory obligation is met and a decision to provide certainty in the development process is achieved. In those instances the questions can normally only have a yes/no response. It is possible that a computerised system could be invented to take care of this process, but it would require constant feeding -just as a human being does -to receive and process new information about signifi cance, discovery and impacts (fi gure 2).
A process of evaluation can assist in determining the extent of an excavation requirement. If, for example, the imperative is to record remains in advance of their destruction, one may ask 'How much?' 'Does the totality of a site need to be recorded, or is it suffi cient to record enough information to reveal the nature, extent, character, composition, origin and evolution of a specifi c site?' 'If only samples are to be taken, what should happen to the remainder if it is not preserved in situ?'  However, where a planning requirement seeks to ensure remains that would otherwise be destroyed will be recorded, then it is frequently assumed that all of the remains are to be fully recorded. Through the process of monitoring compliance with planning requirements and especially licence requirements, discussions continue throughout a project between the developers, the archaeologists 'on the ground', and the regulators to reach pragmatic agreement about the treatment of remains, usually on a case-bycase basis, utilising the professional judgement of all concerned.
It is understood that, if the development site is what is subject to the requirement for an excavation, then works will normally be tightly confi ned to the development area. This is not to say that the archaeological remains encountered are wholly contained within such a development footprint, but it does mean that one cannot 'chase' remains outside of the development area without good reason and, in particular, the agreement of the project sponsors. In reality, any remains that extend outside of a development area may either be preserved pending any future decision about that land or, in some cases, may become the focus of a research-led intervention at a later date.
Clearly there has been extensive discovery as a result of development-led work. Unfortunately, however, there have been issues with the wider dissemination of information that arises from the excavations. In Northern Ireland we are fortunate that the licence requirements oblige the archaeologist to submit a report of their works for inclusion in the NISMR. This means, at least, that the data is being gathered and, through the NISMR, is made publicly accessible. The processes of synthesising the results from multiple excavations has been slower, and putting the new discoveries in a wider context has not kept pace with the rate of discovery.
Looking to the future, there is clearly a need for greater civic involvement in the work of archaeologists, from participation in the excavations to the analysis of results, from exploring in new ways our rich archaeological heritage through to advocacy of why archaeology is important. The growing number of interventions means that we may need to think about widening the fi eld for those who take part. The technical processes of excavation and analysis cannot happen without the thoughtful processes of developing ideas and knowledge. Perhaps we need to consider preparing the way for professional career paths that are not just through universities in the context of development-led investigations, but it will be a challenge to ensure that the sound academic foundations are still there for conducting the work.
There is the ongoing need for greater engagement within the sector, especially in the context of continued professional development and lifelong learning for archaeologists. In particular, there is a growing need for periodic review, gathering together and debating what we understand about the past that makes use of newlyrevealed information.
Archaeological heritage management benefi ts from well-informed and transparent decision-making. With the aim of providing 'knowledge for informed choices', a series of tools have been developed for archaeological heritage management in the Netherlands (Lauwerier et al. 2017). They include digital maps, datasets, methods, guidelines, best practice and web-based applications and relate to archaeological predictions, disturbances by agriculture and other activities, archaeological heritage maps, prospection methods, research questions, and scientifi c syntheses. The tools were developed as part of the Cultural Heritage Agency's 'Archaeology Knowledge Kit' programme, in response to an evaluation of archaeology legislation, implementing the Valletta Convention (Lauwerier 2017). The programme aimed to provide knowledge to facilitate the eff ective, effi cient and transparent selection of valuable archaeological remains in the process of archaeological heritage management. Much of this knowledge is particularly important for local authorities, as it enables them to take archaeological interests more fully into account in spatial planning and development. It fi ts in theme 2 'Dare to choose' of the EAC's Amersfoort Agenda, in particular the items about being conscious, explicit and transparent about choices, and about the development of a sound infrastructure to support the making of informed choices (EAC 2015). A more extensive impression of the products developed is given in Lauwerier et al. 2018, a full report on the backgrounds, aims, methods, results and products in Lauwerier et al. 2017. Most products are available online through the portal www.archeologieinnederland.nl.
Six themes relating to the various parts of the archaeological heritage management cycle were the focus of the programme (fi gure 1):

Predictive modelling
Part of the Netherlands archaeological remains can lie as deep as 15-20 m below the surface. To provide an insight into the depth of these remains, categorised by period and landscape zone, a web-based application 'Landgebruik in Lagen' (Land Use in Layers) has been developed . It presents information about diff erent types of land use in the four periods of a simplifi ed period system (Groenewoudt and Smit 2017) on the basis of four themes: settlement, burial customs, ritual practices, and economy and infrastructure .
To relate land use models to the landscape an 'Archeologische landschappenkaart' (Archaeological Landscapes Map) was made (Rensink et al. 2017a). To locate diff erent kinds of past land use buried landscape units were also mapped (Cohen et al. 2017). By zooming in on the map and ticking options about period and theme, the user gets information on land use, depth and references to further information.
Related products are palaeogeographical maps of the Netherlands (Vos and De Vries 2017), regional vegetation maps constructed by analysing relationships between pollen data, soil data and topography (Van Beek et al. 2017), and a predictive archaeological model for the urban periphery based on 16 th century town maps (Bouwmeester 2017).

Mapping Disturbances
Past soil disturbances may have been that serious that the intactness and information value of any archaeological remains have become very low. In cases like this developers may be exempted from the obligation to perform an archaeological investigation.
Research was carried out on soil disturbance by agricultural and horticultural activities (Van Reuler 2017), and an inventory of national and regional datasets containing information on (possible) soil disturbance was compiled (De Vries and Maas 2017). This resulted in a digital 'Verstoringsbronnenkaart' (Sources of Disturbance Map).
A study to map disturbances caused by agricultural land use produced insights for the further development of methods for assessing the probability of soil disturbance (Lascaris and Huisman 2017). Bouwmeester, Abrahamse and Blom (2017) investigated disturbances in urban expansion projects since 1875.

Prospection best practice
To help choosing appropriate prospection methods a digital information system 'Prospectie op Maat' (Prospection Made-to-Measure) was created (Rensink et al. 2017b). After ticking some characteristics of the landscape (like surface visibility) and the predicted archaeological remains (like period and site type) the application recommends the most appropriate method (or combination of methods) for locating and assessing archaeological sites. In addition, the user gets information about the methods, things to be considered, references and practical examples.

Local authority maps
Local authorities (390 municipalities) are responsible for archaeological heritage management. Virtually all will use archaeological resource maps, predictive maps and policy maps for making choices. However, the decentralised responsibility also has led to major diff erences between these maps (fi gure 2). A study was conducted to identify and analyse the problems associated with these diff erences. Recommendations were made as to how they can be better coordinated and adjust to one another in the future (Van Doesburg et al. 2017a;b). All maps were made accessible online via links on a map of the Netherlands and overviews of each type of map were produced.

National archaeological research agenda
Archaeological investigations require focus. The new National Archaeological Research Agenda 2.0 provides a current overview of the most important national (supraregional) archaeological questions, focusing specifi cally on fi eld archaeology . It has the form of an online search engine (fi gure 3). The system has a layer with research fi elds (like 'social diff erentiation' or 'neolithisation'), a layer with research questions, and guidelines for translating questions into fi eldwork, including references that relate to the underlying theory or inspiring practical examples and methods. The questions can be accessed via four search fi lters: place, period, subject, and site type.

Synthesising reports
The evaluation of Dutch archaeology revealed that there are steadily growing stacks of reports of development-led research, but insuffi cient interpretation and scientifi c synthesis, resulting in a lack of new insight into the past and thereby obstructing the archaeological management cycle. It was examined which areas, themes and periods were the subject of most reports. Questions from the national research agenda were then selected that could potentially be answered on the basis of these reports. Finally universities, agencies or other research units were commissioned to make syntheses on the basis of the reports to answer these questions ). There are, however, possibilities for local councils to give more sense to the research by investing in specifi ed predictive maps and research agendas. The common sense that making choices based on the principle that each research project should contribute to answering our questions and improve our knowledge should be leading. Most municipalities in the Netherlands have their own predictive or policy maps which give more or less an indication whether there should be research or not. Unfortunately, they are mostly based on non-defi ned expert judgement. The maps, often ten years old, are unfortunately not always updated because of fi nancial reasons. It is peculiar that there is hardly any synthetic analysis of negative and positive research results. In the region of 200 km² where I am working, more than 350 reports have been published covering more than 5% of the surface. A spatial analysis of these reports in an area of 170 km² made it possible to give the expert judgement a fi rmer and acceptable base. However, the maps are based on a model with its inherent inaccuracy and local expertise is still a must.
Archaeologists tend to keep strictly to the legislation and the available predictive maps (figure 1); it is, however, necessary to use all the up-to-date research information and  analysing the landscape in more detail (fi gure 2). Continuity, detailed knowledge and fi eld experience in the working area is a precondition. In my presentation, I gave some suggestions of which some seem to be obvious, but are still worth to be mentioned. Archaeologists should look over the edge of their excavation pit. Historical research by historians should be integrated, and perhaps even be leading for the recent periods, in their decision-making, also in regard whether there will be an excavation or not. There is a world to discover when e.g. an inventory of farmsteads before 1700 is integrated in the policy maps and is leading the research agenda for the countryside) (fi gure 3). This will reduce the number of locations of interest and surveys drastically but will benefi t the support from the people involved.
If there are no convincing arguments that relevant archaeological remains can be expected or better be discovered with the suitable methods, think twice before you spend time and money looking for artifi cial arguments to survey the planning area.
Theoretical questions are important for a better understanding of past societies. However, in the daily practice we should ask ourselves whether we can really answer these questions given the limitations of present methods and techniques. Perhaps we should in some cases refrain from further detailed excavations until the moment we know which data should be collected to answer these questions. Should we excavate Figure 3. Distribution of historical farmsteads (1300-1700) in the municipality of Barneveld against an altitude map (AHN). The landscape is characterized by ice-pushed ridges in the east (56 meter above NAP) and in the western part a low-situated cover sand area (6 meter above NAP).
in detail number X of an Iron Age farm which is already quiet well known and where new information is hardly to be expected (fi gure 4)?
In situations were too much of a site is lost, do not spend time on it. It is very unlikely that the surplus value for reconstructing the past will be convincing. In the end, not choosing will result in a loss of support from society. In case of the medieval or younger farmsteads mentioned earlier, we should be focused on well-preserved situations where the complete history of the farm as an agricultural, economic and social unit can be documented instead of some scattered postholes and an isolated ditch between all the recent disturbances. In case the farm has been replaced by a modern private residence and the farmyard is fragmented by disturbances for more than 50%, the information value is too limited to excavate it apart from some test pits for dating goals. Of course it is desirable that excavations take place in combination with a historical study of a site. Local authorities should be aware of the necessity of investing in the products mentioned above and in developing and maintain (local) knowledge, which in the end results also in saving money. In the present situation the focus is too much on permits and their necessary research obligations. If we want to keep and grow support from society, we have to be explicit and transparent in our decisions what we want to research and why. In the end it is advisable to give all the sites which are not of professional value free to the public for volunteer research. This will raise public interest and allow archaeologists to focus on relevant sites.
The paper aims to answer one of the basic questions regarding the reasons for starting any archaeological fi eldwork. Question-driven fi eldwork is understood in the paper as scientifi c, as opposed to preventive and development-led archaeology. The division is based on the fi rst impulse that drives archaeologists in the fi eld, be it a need for knowledge or a need for clearing the land for future development. Research questions are of course posed also in the case of the latter; the truth is, however, that some data and resulting knowledge may be obtained even if archaeologists confi ne to pure recording of the site without in-depth consideration. To summarize, in the development-led archaeology, regardless of the quality of the research and of our wishes and preferences, questions are secondary and the necessity comes fi rst.
The subject is approached from the perspective of the archaeological heritage manager. Basing her arguments mainly on the experiences of Polish archaeology, the author argues in favour of the development-led research. Two major preventive archaeology projects in Poland are: the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline excavations (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) and motorway preventive research (from 1996 onwards). The former was carried out after the Valletta Convention had been signed and the latter after it was ratifi ed by Poland in 1996.
Considering the title question the author believes that development-led archaeology is vital, fi rst of all because it is predominant. It has been shaping European archaeology to the highest degree for several decades now, and therefore should be considered central, and not inferior or secondary. In Poland in recent years only 1.5-3% of all fi eldwork was question-driven. Owing to its scale, development-led archaeology is also crucial for the development of archaeology as a science. In Poland, where all sites located on future roads and motorway routes are excavated, it provides us with a statistical sample of the past. Comparison of bulk data from motorway research with smaller-scale heritage management projects allows verifi cation of the effi ciency of existing methods of site evaluation, such as fi eld-walking or test excavations. Considering the quality gap between purely scientifi c and development-led fi eldwork, there is still a lot to be improved in the latter, regarding the scope of the research and its standards. To support her argument the author quotes a recent study by A. Olech-Śliż and M. Wiśniewski (2016), who have analyzed the content of archaeological fi eldwork reports from Central Masovia in search for the use of modern technologies. The numbers they have gathered are not overwhelming; it has to be noted, however, that legal requirements concerning the reports still focus on paper documentation.
The archaeological community in Poland is relatively big (over 900 persons reported within the DISCO project) and so divided that it might be questioned if it can be perceived as a uniform heritage community whatsoever, as it is defi ned by the Faro Convention (Art. 2b). Nevertheless, the author attempts to sketch an ideal picture in which commercial archaeologists, scholars and heritage managers all fi nd their own place in the system shaped by the development-led archaeology. As she fi rmly believes, the potential is there. Referring to the Faro Convention, development-led archaeology, being literally the closest to the people, is also crucial for public outreach. Sending a proper message as to its meaning and value could help to overcome negative attitudes towards archaeology and raise people's appreciation for archaeological heritage in general.
Finally, regardless of all its limitations and drawbacks, development-led archaeology still seems to have the highest potential for systematic and systemic heritage management functioning within the framework of the Valletta Convention and the Lausanne Charter. Firstly, it ensures fuller spatial and chronological coverage than question-driven fi eldwork. Secondly, it delivers bulk data which are indispensable in everyday practice of heritage management.
The full text of this paper with bibliography is available at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.49.9 However, the volume of artefacts harvested drastically increased over the years following the systematic organization of the preventive archaeological research. Since the introduction of the law on archaeology in 2004, an evolution has been noticed from 3 to 6 archaeological excavations per year to between 40 and 50 excavations and building research projects per year, and this for a territory of a mere 165 km², albeit the capital of Belgium and of the European Union, increasing thus the construction pressure on the city. The parallel growth of the number of artefacts made it soon clear that in order to make the best use of available resources, strategic decisions would have to be made. Indeed, the huge amount of material made it impossible or not realistically possible to organize an extensive and complete detailed active conservation and restoration treatment for each object found during an archaeological excavation. Neither is it necessarily useful. Making rational and well-founded choices is thus of the utmost importance.
The principal goal of archaeological conservation is the retrieval of information held by the objects to further our understanding of the past. During this process it is important to try and minimize the input of resources while attempting to maximize the informational output and to preserve the future informational potential of the artefacts. Protocols for treatment should be developed for the diff erent types of materials encountered, clearly defi ning diff erent possible levels of preventive conservation, active conservation and restoration. These levels can range from strictly passive or preventive conservation to highly complex active conservation or restoration treatments. The choice for one of these levels of treatment should be determined by the informational potential of an object and therefore the resources invested should be always in balance with the results that could be predicted to be obtained. While in this way an irrationally extensive conservation and restoration treatment can often be avoided, it does require careful and professional assessment of all archaeological fi nds by a conservator, in order to recognize the informational potential of each object and to correctly apply the established protocol. In addition to the informational potential, be it present or future, other valid arguments can also exist to motivate the choice for a higher level of treatment.
To reach the goals of making the information potential of the archaeological objects accessible and conserving this information potential as long as possible, four golden rules must be observed: • 'minimal intervention': only those interventions necessary for the long term conservation and readability of the objects for further study and analysis are legitimate; • the use of inert materials as well for the intervention on the fi nds as for their packing and storing; • reversibility: every conservation and restoration act should as much as possible be reversible without damaging the fi nd; • the authenticity of the archaeological object: any restoration should always be clearly visible.
All archaeological fi nds and samples should undergo at least a preventive conservation adapted to the kind of material it consists of, safeguarding as much as possible the yet unknown information potential. When there are not enough means available for the preventive conservation of all fi nds, be it temporary or for a longer period of time, one can use the principle of 'predictive conservation'. A selection is made of the most fragile and most threatened artefacts carrying the highest possible level of information -this selection undergoes then preventive conservation. The rest has to wait for the means to be organized. A full risk analysis is, however, needed to balance the pros and cons of this predictive conservation.
The various levels of conservation and restoration of the archaeological artefacts and samples are: • A fi rst phase of passive conservation, i.e. preventing the degradation of the object by conditioning its environment. Therefore optimal preservation conditions should be created right from the moment the object is unearthed on site.
• Selective disposal/full discarding, i.e. full documentation and registration eventually followed by discarding or selective disposal based on an expert assessment (fi gure 1). • Preventive conservation or passive conservation (2 nd phase), i.e. documentation and registration of the artefacts, but on the contrary to the previous level they will not be discarded afterwards and a preventive conservation has to be organized. E.g. in the case of metal artefacts, to avoid the so-called postexcavation corrosion while awaiting an assessment of their potential, they will be separated immediately from other fi nds and stored in a stable environment (fi gure 2). • Active conservation or remedial conservation: a direct intervention on the object is organized in order to stop, or slow down, current active degradation processes, e.g. in case of glass, a material extremely sensitive to physical and chemical degradation. • Restoration: in addition to the active conservation; the level of treatment will be determined by the reason for which the objects are being restored, e.g. in case of a museum exhibit (fi gure 3).
In conclusion, the choice of the conservation, the choice of treatment, the intensity of the treatment, everything has to be proportionate to the archaeological information potential hidden in the material. In the absence of an ideal world with lots of money and personnel, the ultimate goal should be minimizing the input of energy and means together with the maximizing of the information output. New laboratory techniques used in medicine and chemistry should be explored. Choices have to be made on a daily basis. A professional assessment of the information potential of the various materials that are found on an archaeological site is of the utmost importance in order to be able to take these rational and strategic decisions.
Estimating this potential and the ensuing decisions on what to keep and treat cannot be done by the archaeologist in the fi eld. The time pressure, the often limited resources and the specialists not necessarily being present in the fi eld do not enable the archaeologists to take these important decisions: a lump is a lump until it arrives at the laboratory. We therefore rather recommend to gather a little bit too much then not enough because we can always discard later on in the process. During the excavation process it is probably often better to err on the side of caution. The assessment in the laboratory, however, cannot be done without the archaeologist's excavation information, because he/she is the only one having insight into the fi nds context that in its own right determines the archaeological information potential of the artefact. The circle is round… The full text of this paper is available at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.49.10

Session 3
The choice concerning the involvement of society Groups of students participating in educational tours in Cabeço Pé da Erra, Coruche, Portugal (photo Victor Gonçalves).
The aim of this session was to give an overview of the choices operated concerning public participation and publicity. Informed choices should allow us not only to achieve the greatest possible scientifi c value but also support the potential value of the archaeological heritage to society, taking into account the various stakeholders and their interest. The involvement of more and more stakeholders in decision-making processes is a demand of our societies and an element of their democratization. Cultural heritage is a fi eld where we can -and in several cases we must -develop a collective decisionmaking process because it refers to goods that people feel as their common heritage and participation in it is perceived as a democratic right.
The above general principle of inclusivity is integrated in diff erent institutional and heritage management systems in which the degree of involvement of the diff erent stakeholders may vary. The example of Greece demonstrates that, even in cases of exclusive jurisdiction or State ownership on cultural heritage, it is possible to develop a framework for broader participation in the decision-making process for the strategic planning for monuments.
The need for integrated management plans is increasingly acknowledged by heritage sector practitioners who recognize on the one hand the necessity to adopt new approaches and practices for the conservation of monuments and on the other the demand to interact with the broader environment, taking into account natural, social and economic parameters. In this context, the World Heritage Convention has played a pioneering role and has largely contributed to building a culture of openness towards society and to promoting participatory processes in the decisionmaking for the management of cultural and natural properties. The methodology developed within this framework, both by institutional and advisory bodies of the Convention regarding the integrated management plans, investigates the possible ways of involvement in decision-making of a wide range of stakeholders. Thus, the identifi cation of stakeholders and the comprehension of the ways their wishes and attitudes aff ect the monument, as well as the opportunities and challenges linked to their possible involvement in the various phases of preparing and implementing a management plan, are deemed as key issues for its eff ectiveness.
Today, many citizens groups have a role in the management of cultural heritage depending on the type of the monument and its environment. This is because the concept of cultural heritage itself is increasingly broadening. At the same time cultural heritage interaction with its external environment is more and more recognized. Therefore, taking into account and balancing the stakeholders' views is an important part of the management planning process in order for it to be applicable and eff ective and also a prerequisite for the plan to gain the necessary institutional, political, social and economic support for its implementation.
In the case of Greece and according to its legislation and administrative system, the State through the Ministry of Culture and Sports is the main stakeholder. Subsequently it is responsible for the identifi cation and coordination of the others, which according to their competence and role may be divided into the following categories: • competent central agencies (ministries) • local government • the Orthodox Church and representatives of other religions and doctrines • institutions of civil society, NGOs, research and educational institutions, etc.
• professionals acting in the region • owners and users of monuments If the offi cial involvement of the fi rst two groups in the decision-making process is provided for by the institutional framework, the involvement of the wider group of stakeholders of the rest of the categories requires a new administrative culture and practice and constitutes the main element that will render a management system more open and democratic.
Although the involvement of other stakeholders can cause increased complexity when setting participatory consultation processes, the benefi ts that can arise are numerous: developing a common understanding of the values of the monuments, balancing opposing views and addressing confl icts of interest, joint shaping of a vision for the protection and enhancement of monuments, introducing new management concepts into practice, raising awareness and commitment on the part of the stakeholders, deploying the experience and concerns of the local community on matters related to their cultural heritage, particularly in urban areas, developing a collaborative culture, creating relations of trust among actors and, fi nally, rationalizing the management resources.
However, it should be noted that the participatory consultation process may also involve certain risks or negative aspects that should be taken into account, such as the increasing cost of the whole endeavour, diff erent levels of understanding of the various stakeholders, increase of expectations, possibly beyond the feasible and desirable limits, as well as exclusion of certain citizen groups with limited intervention capacity or knowledge.
In the case of Greece, the participatory process in decision-making concerning cultural heritage requires a dynamic opening of the Ministry of Culture and Sports towards the other stakeholders, according to the specifi c characteristics, needs and environment of every property. In this context, various committees and working groups can be established and workshops, individual meetings with stakeholders, meetings for recording opinions and public hearings can be organized. Websites and social media can also be important tools for gathering input from a wide range of citizen groups through public consultation processes. Finally, when it comes to World Heritage sites, we should also consider the parameter of the international community's interest, and the role of the World Heritage Convention bodies, whose participation may turn out to be essential in the process. In any case, the procedures to be selected must be well planned, realistic and manageable and they must clearly defi ne roles and levels of responsibility at all stages of drawing up and implementing the management plan.
In Greece, steps have been taken recently to explore the width, the potential and the challenges of such a participatory framework in the fi eld of cultural heritage management. The experience to date is very positive. The procedure adopted for the compilation of the Archaeological Site of Philippi management plan in view of its nomination to the World Heritage List is a good example of addressing obstacles and opposing views among stakeholders towards a strong common perspective, namely the inscription of the site on the List.
In addition, the experience of the cooperation between the Ministry of Culture and Sports and the Foreign Archaeological Schools for the management of archaeological sites in areas where the latter conduct large-scale excavations is equally positive. An integrated management plan gives a new perspective within this context, and encourages a shift from the concept of collaboration based on the legal obligations of the foreign institutions to a participatory procedure that leads to a more coordinated and target-oriented planning for the benefi t of monuments.
Based on the positive assessment of these eff orts to date, we intend to proceed to the preparation of management plans for the World Heritage Sites in all cases where this has not already been done. Moreover, we seek further cooperation with the scientifi c institutions, such as archaeological schools and universities, and the involvement of more stakeholders in line with the spirit of the World Heritage Convention, thus taking advantage of the shared interest for the study, conservation and enhancement of our cultural property. Regarding public participation (and concern) there is an important national milestone in the 1990's: with the discovery of rock engravings in the Côa valley, which were to be submerged by a dam under construction, archaeology entered the public domain.
This fact raised widely a debate about the preservation of these rock art sites and their incompatibility with the dam leading to the public's general awareness of the impact of public works on archaeological heritage (fi gure 1).
During this time, the media also played an important role following every step forward or backward in the evolution of the process, giving voice to the public, and, especially, covering the scientifi c explanations and points of views discussed by several archaeologists (national and international) who joined the cause of Côa rock art. Taking into account the huge number of public defenders of the Côa valley rock art, well informed of all the implications of losing such a remarkable and unique heritage, this movement (composed of scientists, archaeologists, local high school students, associations for cultural heritage protection, and the general public) was the driving force behind the shift of the process that led to the abandoning of this project. Since then (1998) the Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley are inscribed on the World Heritage list and in 2000 the inscription was extended to the sites in Siega Verde, Spain.
The 1990s were a crucial period for archaeology in Portugal since it coincided with the implementation of the Valletta Convention in Europe and its ratifi cation by the Portuguese government. This resulted in the creation of important national legal mechanisms and the development of preventive archaeology and monitoring.
Since then, the developers of large public construction projects feel the need to coordinate with the authorities responsible for cultural heritage. An example of this, in the late 1990s, is the impact minimization plan of the Alqueva Dam, currently one of the largest artifi cial lakes and the largest strategic water reserve in Europe, which is an early case study of a 'dare to choose' archaeological management. Within the scope of this project, several stakeholders (developers, heritage guardianship and archaeologists) participated in the defi nition of safeguarding strategies, supported by informed choices regarding the archaeological heritage, including listed heritage located in the area aff ected by the reservoir.
The known sites were partially excavated -only some were completely excavated; some monuments were prepared to be drowned, e.g. a republican roman fortress (Castelo da Lousa). Even a listed cromlech was removed and reassembled elsewhere (Cromeleque dos Almendres).
With regard to large development projects with signifi cant eff ects on the environment, citizen participation is usually ensured by a mechanism of public consultation in order to guarantee that decisions on the feasibility of the project are supported not only by public entities but also by the community, thus contributing to the protection of archaeological heritage and the regional and local identity. An example of this is the subsequent Alqueva general irrigation system. The project, still in progress, serves an area of around 120,000 hectares, consists of 380 km of primary network and 1620 km of pipes in the secondary network. Some of the choices where to avoid direct impacts, e.g. on the listed Pisões Roman villa, or to completely excavate an Iron Age necropolis, aff ected by a reservoir, choosing to safeguard it by the archaeological record, assuring the future production of knowledge and its dissemination.
In order to guide the public in supporting the potential value of the archaeological heritage, allowing us to make informed choices, the main focus should be on a democratic cultural heritage education. During the last two decades, there have been national, regional and local initiatives destined to engage public awareness regarding the safeguarding of the archaeological heritage and the archaeological activities in general. Some initiatives are implemented by the cultural heritage tutelage, the archaeologists themselves, in order to encourage public interaction with the archaeological heritage. an area dedicated to the citizens: the Archaeologist's Portal arises in the international context as an innovative and practically unparalleled platform regarding its functionality as a tool for submission and consultation of documentation by heritage professionals. This project places Portugal at the forefront of e-services for the archaeology sector. Structurally the Archaeologist's Portal is composed of two distinct environments, one dedicated to the management of the processes of licensing of the archaeological activity and another dedicated to information on the archaeological heritage, being the visible interface of the national database of archaeological heritage -Endovélico. Access to information takes place through diff erent levels of access, depending on the diff erent audiences. At present the general public can access the generic information of archaeological heritage, based on technical reports and specialized bibliography. However, DGPC decided to exclude the geographical location of the sites to protect them from eventual acts of vandalism. In summation, the Archaeologist's Portal reinforces behaviours of social cohesion and a shared sense of responsibility in the safeguarding and valorization of archaeological assets. • A new project approved for the 2017-2018 biennium -named ARQUEOSIA project -will allow the Archaeologist's Portal to be optimized, with a major objective of improving citizen participation and interaction. It is expected to: › Optimize the area dedicated to citizens with the aim of strengthening civil society involvement in the conservation and protection of archaeological heritage. › Create an app for mobile devices that will allow the reporting of archaeological fi nds and their geographic location, irregular situations, and information concerning the conservation status of monuments or sites. › These give the public the possibility to have a more active role in the process of managing archaeological heritage.
Such practices (and the accompanying raised publicity) are positive ways of 'embedding archaeology in society' as well as understanding the social role of archaeology and of the 'potential value of the archaeological heritage to society'.
'The waters around us have grown.' DGPC and several stakeholders concerned with cultural heritage safeguarding have continuously been making eff orts to engage the public in archaeological heritage information, fruition and management. This growing movement has been accomplished through several initiatives, such as: › public consultation in the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures › NGOs involvement in informal discussions aiming at institutional pressure › visits to archaeological sites during excavations › exhibitions and conferences › radio programmes › development of the Archaeologist's Web Portal with open access information.
'You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.' To paraphrase the words of the Bob Dylan, it is vital to continue the movement and go beyond, searching to implement new models and ways for a more active public engagement. To start we need to: › reach 'new audiences' and promote archaeological literacy › reinforce public awareness on national and local mechanisms for decisions concerning the safeguarding and conservation of the archaeological heritage › use Information Communication and Technologies (ICT) tools to foster the public engagement with archaeological heritage › encourage and cooperate with local authorities and municipalities for the promotion of public involvement with archaeological heritage › boost cooperation with private companies and archaeologists to promote public awareness and access to information › promote a greater number of dissemination activities The full text of this paper is available at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.49.13 An urgent but diffi cult task: communicating archaeological results to the general public

EVA SKYLLBERG
Senior Advisor, Department for Cultural Environment, National Heritage Board, Sweden. eva.skyllberg@raa.se Keywords: archaeological communication, scientifi c summaries, development-led archaeology, Sweden The results of many archaeological excavations are worthy of attention from the general public. There is also an increasing demand from society to gain knowledge and to be able to participate. Many eff orts to involve the general public have been made within development-led archaeology. Archaeologists often present their excavations to the public during fi eldwork. School classes are welcome and sometimes children are invited to participate in the dig. Information about the excavations is often published on the Internet, on websites and on Facebook. But, who should pay for these eff orts? Can we expect the developer to pay for the distribution of the results, and if so, to what extent? When choosing what to do, what is most important for society? How can we monitor the results of public involvement? Public archaeology is to a large extent carried out during fi eldwork, but what is left for the general public after the excavation? In this presentation the eff orts to enhance the communication of archaeological results in Sweden are described.

Archaeological communication in the Historic Environment Act and regulations
In the 90's conservation of artefacts and research became part of the developmentled archaeology in Sweden. Steps towards the communication of the archaeological results to the general public were taken thereafter. In 2014 we introduced in the Historic Environment Act that the communication of results from development-led archaeology to the general public is included in the excavation project and is the developer's responsibility to pay for. Results from archaeological excavations have of course been communicated before 2014 but on a more voluntary basis. The communication was subject to agreement between the developer and the archaeologists and not a matter for an authority to decide according to the Historic Environment Act.
The new Regulations for development-led archaeology state that results of importance shall be communicated. The concept of communication is defi ned as communication with the general public, not communication between archaeologists or authorities. The regulations set requirements for written communication. Oral communication such as guided tours and lectures are not regulated in detail but are to be covered by the budget from the developer.
In the Regulations for development-led archaeology we have stated that postexcavation work from all larger excavations should include a summary for the general public. And for the most important excavations a publication for the general public should be considered. All excavation reports, scientifi c articles and books, as well as summaries and publications for the general public, are made available on-line at the website of the National Heritage Board. An ongoing development project, the Digital Archaeological Process (DAP), will create a new digital platform for reports, documentation and registration of archaeological sites.

Challenges in the communication work
Archaeologists are producing large amounts of excellent communication for the general public in blogs, web-diaries, brochures, guided tours, lectures, exhibitions, school projects and participation in fi eldwork, etc. But the majority of the communication consists of preliminary results that are not quality assured. Another problem is that after the excavation much of the communication disappears and what is left is shattered among the excavators' websites. If for example a teacher is searching for facts about an excavation that was carried out a few years ago near the school, it is very diffi cult to fi nd anything. The results are not presented to the general public in a consistent way and they are not aggregated. There is a big demand from society for permanent and searchable information concerning archaeological results.
There are several crucial factors that determine if, what, and how much, communicationwork is carried out. The specifi cation from the decision-making authority, in Sweden the Regional Administrative boards, is of decisive importance. The size of the excavation, budget and point of time are equally important. The archaeologist's interests, ideas and contacts with target groups and museums are also key factors. If there are connections to earlier excavations, there are usually already established contacts, which is a good starting point for the communication eff ort. To be able to relate to earlier results is an easy way of making something more interesting. For reaching large groups Social Media are of course of vital importance, although they tend to show the most interest when something is new, spectacular or contains confl icts.

Popular scientifi c summaries
To create customized information for the general public the new regulations in Sweden on development-led archaeology state that popular scientifi c summaries shall be made for all excavations where the results are of interest or relevance for the general public. During 2016 we were working on defi ning the concept for popular scientifi c summaries.
There are several target groups for the popular scientifi c summaries with diff erent fi elds of application. The general public may want knowledge about the excavations. They can use the summary as a tool to fi nd more information about the excavation itself, the excavation reports, the fi nds and how to know more about a theme, for example Iron Age houses. Schools can use the summaries to get facts for teaching and for students' essays. In the municipality administration the summaries can be used as a basis for culture environment programmes and comprehensive planning, as well as cultural activities and tourism. For science journalists the summaries can be used as facts for articles and also as tools for fi nding archaeologists to interview. For the developer the summary can give an understanding of what he or she has paid for. And for archaeologists the summary can provide a general overview of the excavation results.
Writing for the general public has challenges, such as writing comprehensively without becoming banal. It is also diffi cult to make the results from the excavation interesting so that they entice further reading without turning into sensationalism. It can be diffi cult to include the necessary information in a limited text. Therefore, the popular scientifi c summary should not be a short version of the report, but should instead focus on the most important results. It should focus on a theme rather than attempt to describe everything. Illustrations, photos, links and references are essential. Administrative information is also important as it helps the reader fi nd further reading and to understand in which museum the fi nds are stored. The popular scientifi c summary presents the fi nal results from the excavation. It is written up after the report as the last step in post-excavation work, when all analysis and fi nal scientifi c interpretations have been made.  The issues of the archaeological heritage importance, preservation and protection in Latvia became topical with the amendments to the Law 'On Protection of Cultural Monuments' in 2013. The amendments in the law were put forward due to the critical situation in the country in connection with the use of metal detectors in the search for archaeological antiquities and the resulting damage to state-protected archaeological monuments. According to these amendments, artefacts found in archaeological sites (dating from 17 th century or earlier) belong to the state, and they must be stored by public museums. Also the notifi cation period is shortened -the State Inspection for Heritage Protection must be informed about a fi nd not later than fi ve days after the fi nding instead of 10 days in the preceding version. The Law prohibits the removal of artefacts outside the Republic of Latvia and restricts the use of metal detectors in cultural monuments and their protection zones. The amendments to the Law also focus on the broader engagement of cultural monuments owners and on their responsibility for the protection of archaeological sites located on their property. Discussions that arose before and also after the amendments to the Law were attracting a great deal of public interest towards the archaeological heritage preservation pro blems, at the same time refl ecting the prejudices of a large part of society towards the work of archaeologists. In many cases this was not particularly fl attering for the professional activities of the archaeologists and points to the incomprehension of the archaeological study, methods, process and results.
At the start of 2016 Latvia had a population of 1,969,000. During the period of 2008-2016 archaeological research management licences were issued to 48 persons, which in this context can be regarded as the total number of specialists/archaeologists in Latvia. Mathematically this means that a single archaeologist has to capture the interest of 41,021 persons in the according fi eld; furthermore, it also means that this many persons can oversee, observe and evaluate the work of a single archaeologist. Any unethical or contradictory action can be easily spotted by society, thus shaping the overall perception of the work of a numerically small amount of professionals.
While acknowledging that comments on the internet are not an objective source for research, they cannot be ignored completely in a refl ection on the attitude of a part of society. By critically assessing the commentary of more than 30 published articles on the internet, it is possible to identify some of the problems connected to the professional ethical issues of the archaeologists' work, the main one being insuffi cient communication and lack of information to the public on the goals, discoveries and results of archaeological research. The most widespread comments were that archaeological antiquities are the main and most signifi cant research subject in archaeology and that the work of archaeologists is related to jobs in offi ces, and that they are not doing any fi eldwork. The public is interested in their past and people are naturally attracted to adventures and discoveries, but the archaeologists themselves are in the best place to introduce society to archaeology.
Despite the Code of Practice of the European Association of Archaeologists, which states that 'archaeologists will take active steps to inform the general public at all levels of the objectives and methods of archaeology in general and of individual projects in particular, using all the communication techniques at their disposal', the communication of the archaeologists with the broader public in Latvia has been neglected for a long time. Most often it happened by off ering the scientifi c publication as the main result of their fi eld activities, at the same time not ensuring enough information on the research methods and analysing process after the fi eld work. It remained an unsolved issue how to explain to the public the process of analysing archaeological data. This process often takes a long time and requires careful archaeologist's work.
The situation regarding the communication with the public has been changing in the last few years and operations of archaeologists are becoming more visible. It is partially connected to changes in the generations of Latvian archaeologists and the broader technological opportunities that allow the use of social media to publicise topical information on archaeological discoveries, research and problems in the fi eld. Also meetings between archaeologists and the public are becoming increasingly common in territories where archaeological fi eldwork has taken place and where information on major discoveries are exchanged, highlighting thus the relevance of archaeological heritage and the necessity of these studies.
From 2015 onwards, the Latvian History Institute of the University of Latvia carried out a project titled 'Archaeological excavations and history teacher fi eld workshops', during which history teachers had the opportunity to participate in archaeological excavations as well as attend a series of lectures on various theoretical archaeological subjects. Both seminars were held in ancient burial places.
During early 2015, extensive damage was discovered in the Eastern part of Latvia, at the late Iron Age ancient burial mounds. Looters had destroyed more than 300 burial mounds. News about the destruction had been published in mass media and social networks. Unlike the period before 2013, almost all comments about the damage that was discovered in 2015 were condemning. The majority of the condemnation pointed at befouling graves and less at destroying an archaeological monument. This gives reason to refl ect on whether society is ready to accept the fact that archaeologists are the only part of society that has the right to perform discoveries and move burial grounds for scientifi c research. From the point of professional ethics, archaeologists should seriously clarify that the ancient burial grounds are a source of history. The archaeologist's choice is about whether it is ethical to involve the general public and teach it about archaeology in ancient burial grounds or it could be more ethical to do fi eld studies in ancient settlements or other types of archaeological monuments where one will not discover and study human remains, but the data are instead obtained from studying cultural layers, constructions or other proof of history.
During the last years archaeologists in diff erent countries have developed or reviewed Codes of Ethics indicating the topical issues that are connected to the general public's perceptions of archaeological heritage, archaeology, and the work of archaeologists.
Formulating ethical values and setting up unifi ed professional ethics standards could become a signifi cant factor for shaping perceptions by society.