27th April 2011, 11:57 AM
Interesting and profound question.......
On a political level, our collective and shared past should be exactly that. On a moral and ethical level, archaeologists work towards the recovery of fact in order to provide the structured narrative of our histories. Of course in current British legal parlence, the landowners own the archaeology. The currently accepted view is that the compromise is in the form of dissemination. That dissemination is the thorny issue in my view. In the current state of play- most grey literature languishes upon the shelves of over-worked curators and upon the desks of minimally interested clients. The latter are obliged to comply with planning constraints and for the most part-that is where their interests lay. There is the dodgy issue of un-published sites that are decades behind schedule too-often confounding and skewing current research agendas nationwide. This scenario is now further aggravated by the removal of EH funds.
I have suggested elsewhere on this forum that in an ideal world, grey literature need not be restricted to the storage facilities of curators or clients or indeed within the obscure websites of recent years. Placing the results of fieldwork and research on the web is a good start but in my view is a bit of a cop-out and doesn`t really embrace the potential. It would require a minimum level of effort to place a copy of the grey literature into local libraries and further- to write reports specifically pitched to key-stage levels and deposited within local schools (the local LEA could receive one copy and pitch to the required levels and disseminate themselves). In this way, archaeologists would proactively be contributing to local society up and down the country. A desirable by-product of this would be an included, informed and aware society that would better appreciate the value of the finite resource. If we are to raise the value of what we do, surely we need to be proactive in that endeavour rather than allow mainstream media and television programs to sensationalise to the point of absurdity.
Most people have never met an archaeologist, most are unaware that archaeology is a "real" job and sadly-most are unaware of the shared histories embedded within their own areas. It has to be said that this is a failure on our part. Whilst we have been far too busy maintaining client confidentiality and satisfied that our grey literature deposits and web-posting has completed our responsibilities to the world at large, we have forgotten the potential for archaeology as a social tool and our moral and ethical obligations to the public at large.
The question of "ownership" is a thorny one. Ownership suggests to me at least that whatever is "owned" has an intrinsic value. In terms of archaeology-ownership for landowners can be seen as a burden of stewardship, for clients-the burden of financial outlay in order to unlock fiscal potential. For archaeologists, ownership is rarely relevent (unless you are Martin Green-luckiest man on earth!) but we are pre-eminent in applying "value". That can be economic in business terms, research potential or tourism to name but a few. We have made businesses out of our collectively owned pasts but seem to have nudged aside the potential value of archaeology in societal terms. "Ownership" of archaeology then, in blunt terms-is ethically owned by the majority but used by the minority.
On a political level, our collective and shared past should be exactly that. On a moral and ethical level, archaeologists work towards the recovery of fact in order to provide the structured narrative of our histories. Of course in current British legal parlence, the landowners own the archaeology. The currently accepted view is that the compromise is in the form of dissemination. That dissemination is the thorny issue in my view. In the current state of play- most grey literature languishes upon the shelves of over-worked curators and upon the desks of minimally interested clients. The latter are obliged to comply with planning constraints and for the most part-that is where their interests lay. There is the dodgy issue of un-published sites that are decades behind schedule too-often confounding and skewing current research agendas nationwide. This scenario is now further aggravated by the removal of EH funds.
I have suggested elsewhere on this forum that in an ideal world, grey literature need not be restricted to the storage facilities of curators or clients or indeed within the obscure websites of recent years. Placing the results of fieldwork and research on the web is a good start but in my view is a bit of a cop-out and doesn`t really embrace the potential. It would require a minimum level of effort to place a copy of the grey literature into local libraries and further- to write reports specifically pitched to key-stage levels and deposited within local schools (the local LEA could receive one copy and pitch to the required levels and disseminate themselves). In this way, archaeologists would proactively be contributing to local society up and down the country. A desirable by-product of this would be an included, informed and aware society that would better appreciate the value of the finite resource. If we are to raise the value of what we do, surely we need to be proactive in that endeavour rather than allow mainstream media and television programs to sensationalise to the point of absurdity.
Most people have never met an archaeologist, most are unaware that archaeology is a "real" job and sadly-most are unaware of the shared histories embedded within their own areas. It has to be said that this is a failure on our part. Whilst we have been far too busy maintaining client confidentiality and satisfied that our grey literature deposits and web-posting has completed our responsibilities to the world at large, we have forgotten the potential for archaeology as a social tool and our moral and ethical obligations to the public at large.
The question of "ownership" is a thorny one. Ownership suggests to me at least that whatever is "owned" has an intrinsic value. In terms of archaeology-ownership for landowners can be seen as a burden of stewardship, for clients-the burden of financial outlay in order to unlock fiscal potential. For archaeologists, ownership is rarely relevent (unless you are Martin Green-luckiest man on earth!) but we are pre-eminent in applying "value". That can be economic in business terms, research potential or tourism to name but a few. We have made businesses out of our collectively owned pasts but seem to have nudged aside the potential value of archaeology in societal terms. "Ownership" of archaeology then, in blunt terms-is ethically owned by the majority but used by the minority.