John Robb (Cambridge University, UK)

Discussion of "archaeological ontologies" involves several possible moments or directions. One is simply the discovery that the categories and
entities which seem obvious to archaeologists may not be universal, and thus require critical examination. This discussion has been conducted

Zeynep Aktüre (Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey)

At the archaeological museum in Selçuk, Turkey, the most popular displays are the two Ephesian Artemis statues that stand in niches at the longitudinal ends of a hall, in such a way as to invite Carol Duncan’s analysis of the modern museum as a ‘ritual space’ for aesthetic contemplation. However, Artemis Ephesia would not always seem to allow such a distanced encounter, at least not for those who are willing to perceive its simultaneous strangeness and familiarity.

Karen Ruebens (University of Southampton, UK)

During the later phase of the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5-3, 125-30kyaBP) a change can be noted in the Neanderthal archaeological record, with the reoccurrence of handaxe-dominated assemblages in large parts of Europe. Within these handaxes, regional differences occur, both in the technological and typological characteristics. These differences will form the topic of this paper and will be looked at from three different perspectives:

Fotini Kofidou (University of Southampton, UK)

This paper offers the theoretical background to the potential issues a session on the archaeology of choice can raise. It aims to highlight what various theoretical strands (cognitive theory, social theory, agency theory etc) offer to the discussion, suggest the potential points where different bodies of theory intersect, and discuss the ways these intersections can be useful in considering archaeological data:

- Technological choice and social choice
- Choice and transmission of knowledge
- Individual and group choice

Fotini Kofidou (University of Southampton; fk1@soton.ac.uk) and Babis Garefalakis (University of Southampton; cg5@soton.ac.uk)