 All right, dear colleagues, I'm Inge van de Aft from the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, and I'm the project leader of the Dutch National Archaeological Research Agency. This was recently updated in the framework of the Knowledge for Informed Choices program. The complete program consisted of several projects that together intended to develop tools for effective, efficient, and transparent selection of variable arneology. This program was set up in response to an evaluation of archaeology legislation that entered into force in the Netherlands in 2007, implementing the Valetta Convention. While the care of archaeological heritage is primarily the responsibility of local authorities in the Netherlands, it was clear that there was much to be gained by developing tools for these authorities and the agencies working on their behalf. In my presentation, I will tell you all about one of these developed tools, namely the Dutch National Archaeological Research Agency. I will say something about how it came into existence with the first version, why it was necessary to renew the agenda, how the 2.0 version looks like, and what the choices were that we have made in the process of the making, and I will end up with some concluding remarks. I will start at the beginning with our first National Archaeological Research Agenda. From 2001 onwards, there was a growing awareness that a more question-driven approach to development-led archaeology was vital, both for scientific gain and for public sport. This led to the first National Archaeological Research Agenda of the Netherlands between 2005 and 2008. It consisted of three volumes, you can see here, with a total of 14 chapters, focused on a combination of specific archaeological region and specific period. And there were also 10 thematic chapters on subjects like urban archaeology, archaeological perspection, archaeological botany, archaeology, and absolutely dating methods. Many of those pages were devoted to descriptions of the current state of knowledge and detailed explanations of the research themes. The Research Agenda was therefore clearly intended as an inspiring reference work. The first version of the Research Agenda did, however, not fully achieve the intended goal that is providing building blocks for answers to national research questions. That was because it was not selective, containing no fewer than 1,508 research questions. It was difficult to search through and distill the relevant questions. I'll go through the books. The level of abstraction also varied sharply. Some questions were too complex or detailed, while others were fairly general. An important step was the absence of maritime archaeology, but most important was the direction from the practice. Because there were no suggestions as to how the questions should be translated into fieldwork. This needed to change. And in 2012, we started the project to transform our National Research Agenda. The project finished four years later, in April 2016. And this is how it looks like, like a web-based information system. It was also intentioned. And it's accessible through www.noah.nl. NOAH, so that's how we call it in the Netherlands, is the abbreviation of the Dutch word for National Research Agenda. NOAH 2.0 is designed to feed and guide development-led archaeology. That's an important aspect. It is user-friendly, so the non-specialists should be able to use it to a certain extent. The research questions can be accessed via four search filters, one in place, period, subject, and site type. The more search options are used, the more specific the results of the search. This makes the search process quick and efficient, and leads to customized search results. Important is also that the agenda is easy to update, so that questions can be renewed without much effort. The questions are archaeological, meaning that they are focused on cultural history and address main issues from a national and international perspective. An agenda, in our opinion, is about making choices about what we, as Dutch archaeological work field, feel is important. So we initially only put 117 questions in the list, some, but not unlimited room for a few extra to add in the future. At the end of 2017, we made some additions, mainly based on the outcome of our synthesis project, called Valetta Harvest. So the NOAA now contains 134 questions. The questions are not accompanied with a detailed description of the current state of knowledge anymore. Instead, a short explanation of the question is added, and every question is supplied with a practical guidance for use in the field. You can see it here. When you click on the research agenda, it looks like this. On top of the screen, you see the question, followed by a short description, explanation about the question, then the operationalization, how to work with this question in the field, and some references to it. The downsizing of the initial 1508 questions in First NOAA to the 117 in the NOAA 2.0 was a careful process. First of all, all archaeological research questions were systematically extracted from the first national archaeological research agenda, which in itself is still available work on knowledge gaps. Then the most prominent questions were identified. These are questions that are frequently and explicitly raised. Then we looked at which of these questions had already been answered. We did this by systematically analyzing PhD thesis, scientific papers, and other synthesis that were produced during the past years. Some of the questions needed to be reformulated on the basis of some basic principles that we had agreed upon in advance. One of the most important of these principles was that a question should strike balance between national significance and scientific ambition on the one hand and practicability on the other. The results of this exercise were discussed with the archaeological community at an open discussion meeting. This resulted in an initial draft list of questions which was then screened by the cultural heritage agencies archeology, archeology department, and then again discussed with the archaeological community. I've already mentioned that we used a list of basic principles to select and define the questions. This is the complete list, which you can also read in the article I will refer to on the last slide. So please don't try to read it all now. You can read it back. And if this turns up in the discussion again, I will put it on again. Yeah, fine. Because of time, I will not discuss it. And I've already mentioned some of them already in my presentation so far, but I want to refer to one other important principle not yet mentioned. That is that we decided that no individual specialist questions, for instance, relating to bio-archology, physical geography, microbiology, and absolute dating, and so on, should be included in our agenda. We did this because we feel that in this specific ideological research agenda, which mainly is a cultural heritage instrument, specialists play an instrumental role and this relate largely to the operationalization of the cultural heritage research questions. The idea is that this will firmly associate specialist input, good quality archeological fieldwork, making it less easy to omit it for budgetary reasons or other reasons. This does not mean that our agenda lacks environmental archeology related questions. I count that of the initial 117 questions, 68 are in some way related to environmental archeology or bio-arguology, meaning that environmental archeology or bio-arguology contributes heavily to cultural historical issues. To conclude, I want to encourage everyone to make research agendas, to stimulate and give direction to archeological research in the future because a successful research agenda contributes to good and useful archeological investigations. And when doing so, I can tell you from my own experience that it is important to determine your target group and the goals you want to achieve and make guidelines for adding data and new questions and most important, set limits to the amount of questions with which I want to say dare to choose. And some last remarks, this is the article I referred to and you can freely access it on this website. So that was my presentation, thank you for listening.