Introduction
Members of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) Committee on Ethics held their first face-to-face working meeting April 19-21, 2007 at Stanford University as guests of the Stanford Archaeology Center. Among other business, the committee began a process of identifying a general framework for thinking through the often complex ethics issues that face archaeologists, heritage practitioners, and those affected by decisions of these fields. Attending were (L to R in the photo below, taken by Aileen Augustin): (back row) Audie Huber (Umatilla Tribe, USA), Alejandro Haber (Argentina), Ian Hodder (USA), Ian Lilley (Australia); Julie Hollowell (Canada); Anne Pyburn (USA); Joan Gero (USA); Sean Ulm (Australia); Alexander Herrera (Colombia); (front) - Margaret Rika-Heke (Tainui-Waikato and Ngapuhi, New Zealand); Lynn Meskell (USA); Jill Reid (Australia), Makoto Tomii (Japan). Other members of the committee include: Obare Bagodo (Benin); Lawrence Foa’na’ota (Solomon Islands); Nick Shepherd (South Africa); and Rasmi Shoocongdej (Thailand). A report of the meeting will follow, and the committee will be seeking input from all WAC members and others as their work progresses.
Here is a link to a description of the Committee on Ethics on the WAC website. (You must scroll down to find it)
and this link will take you to the existing WAC Codes of Ethics: the WAC First Code of Ethics, the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains, and the Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects
Rationale for A General Code of Ethics
Contradictions and Controversies
Circling Chart: Transformational Ethics/Responsibilities
The Matrix: Our comments on statements compiled from other Codes of Ethics
The Process of Thinking Through Ethical Dilemmas
Case Studies: examples to learn from
Draft WAC General Code of Ethics
Draft Ethics Thinking Matrix.doc
Material and immaterial presences, marked or unmarked Objects, contexts of objects and webs of human relations surrounding objects and their contexts
RESPECT Data, the dead, local practices and beliefs.
HONESTY Accurately record and preserve the archaeological record in all of its ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty
MINDFULNESS Discuss interpretations.
• Problem of legality (considerations of potential conflicts with various legal requirements) (laws can be unethical)
Conducting scholarly research • Believe this is covered by responsibilities to People
Records and Preservation • Publication, dot point one, responsibility to People to disseminate the finding, not to the archaeological record.
Trading of artefacts (immaterial v. material value of artifacts) (commercialization is complex) • What is the real issue here • Commodification by putting a price tag on artifacts • In some countries, land owners have complete rights to archaeological record IF it is located on their private property • Poverty is not a good enough reason to justify looting, this needs to be considered more in light of a last resort, desperation (point out the problems pro and con; diverse perspectives on relating to "artefacts" • Community in Egypt has been looting from around the Valley of the Kings for hundreds of years and the act is part of their culture, where do we stand on their actions?
War Zones (defer to Task Forceon Archaeologists and War) • WAC should ultimately say something • Should look to UN Hague 1954 convention of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, second protocol of 1999, not been signed by USA, statements and ask for comments from the WAC taskforce
Commercialization • artifact dealing (privatising artifacts) (does this include the trade in geodata?) • tourism • careerism • CRM • intellectual property issues
Commercialization
Commercialization of an archaeological context is an extremely complex issue, and many facets of any situation must be carefully considered before any course of action is chosen. Not all commercialization is detrimental to the archaeological record, but the potential for profit may come into conflict with other goals, especially archaeological integrity and human rights. Short term solutions to economic problems and the desire for international visibility may have profound negative results in the long run. Commercialization’s effect on the archaeological record can be either positive or negative, and the line is not always easy to determine. Often positive and negative consequences both attend a commercial enterprise and it become necessary to weigh alternatives and accept compromise.
Artifact Market
The loss of individual items from the archaeologist’s stockpile of data may be less significant than loss of context that results from the fact that this practice encourages looting. Such activity adds to the commercial value of artifacts and therefore the incentive given to people who might be tempted to “loot” from the archaeological record for questonable gain. Also the privatization of artifacts is destructive to the public benefit that Archeology provides. For the most part, the art market runs counter to democratic values, since it places control and access to cultural resources in the hands of the wealthy through practices that endanger local populations while directing the profits away from those most in need.
Tourism
Another issue pertinent to commercialization of the archaeological record is tourism. Tourism is often promoted as a sustainable use of the archaeological record that has economic benefits that can reach broadly across many sectors of society and that can serve the important function of educating the public. However, opening sites to tourism increases the opportunity for damage from the people who come to appreciate the sites and the cost of site protection can be burdensome for small communities. Proper training of docents and guides in the context of careful consideration of what will be presented to the public (i.e. the educational goals) can also be costly, and multinational corporations with the capital to handle the costs of developing tourism may turn local communities into service populations and garner the bulk of the profits. When profit is the motive for public presentations, the political and sociocultural repercussions of pandering to popular tastes may not be adequately addressed. The promotion of tourism can also promote an increase in the commercial value of artifacts related to a site, and consequently, increase looting.
Careerism
Academic and museum based archaeologists receive salary for their research so they are profiting from the archaeological record; this entails responsibilities that may conflict with intellectual freedom as broadly defined. Careerism, (promotion of career at the expense of personal integrity), has generally negative consequences for the archeological record itself and various interested parties. We favor avoiding activities that sensationalize archaeologists’ work or that create a false or unnecessary implication of importance. Archaeologists who court media attention should avoid personal aggrandizement as the sort of “personality cults” that result take away from the image of archaeology as a public resource and promote exploitative ideas about the archaeological record.
Contract archeology must profit in order to secure contracts. While this is frequently an invaluable service to the discipline and to the public, there is serious potential for abuse. We believe some danger can be eliminated through stipulation that to conduct excavation without a research design or adequate methods and equipment in order to fit a budget or a schedule is unacceptable. Shortcuts that allow the archaeologist to “get it first” takes an “artifact oriented” view that runs counter to the disciplinary priority on context and meaning.
| Hints on Getting Started |
