I don`t remember ever being exposed to lectures on ethics written by anyone relating to some of the issues we have discussed recently. I suppose we are drifting into the shadowy realms of politically correct archaeology? Does anyone know of any relevant texts on the subject? Indeed-are there any? There are plenty of ethics and guidelines penned with Human remains in mind, and I`m sure that by now, there must be plenty in relation to Indigenous Americans and indigenous Australians for the guidence of archaeologists working in those fields. Where are the ethical standards written that relate to places like Turkey or Israel or the state of Mugabe or whitehall for that matter?[?]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Ethics..... as someone on this forum said once... because most of the people who we dig up are long gone.. and the closest we have to living relatives that can object are people who wear sheets at teh weekend and claim they are the reincarnation of Am-hotep... we are side-stepping this issue. This is OUR past... our collective identity...
I agree that ethics should be up there with standards of sampling the enviromental deposits.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Ethics ith in the thouth-eatht of England!
The question then BAJR is who do you mean by "our"?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
anybody have time for ethics in commercial archaeology?
Ha! I wish.
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
OUR means a big inclusive everyone... so that ranges from the chav in teh street to the lord in his castle... the developer who uses heritage to sell his flats at a higher price and the local who gets to enjoy walks with points of interest, from the detectorist to the amatuer, from the professor to teh student... etc etc... oh... and my mum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
The issue in Australian archaeology/anthropology is that you are dealing in the most with other, existing cultures archaeology. Sites and artefacts can still retain signifigant and sacred meaning to a people. Ethics is a major issue in this area and insensitive attitudes can start big problems. My very first paper for Anthropology required me to identify that 'I am Eurocentric because..'.
We also did a large colonial/Victorian burial ground (no IDs on the burials. The council at one stage decided they would eventually cremate the remains. This was vetoed by the archaeologists as cremation was not an option during the period and therefore not the wish of the relatives AT THAT TIME. Aboriginal burials were handed over to the community representatives without study.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
When wondering who "our" meant I was really referring to "cultures" rather than socio-economic groups. Can we really divide humanity up into neatly labelled groups? Even if this was a legitimate philosophy (which I do not believe it is) the groups that are perceived today, or that perceive themselves (not always the same) are not the same as they were in the past. By pretending that they are are we not legitimising those that seek to misuse "archaeology" for theor own political or economic ends? This is of course more of an obvious question in Eurasia - ultimately we are all more or less Eurasians, but have divided up and wandered around a bit throughout human existence in the continent(s). So who owns, say, a kurgan?
The American Indian question is rather different (I am informed btw that the term is now back in favour). Of course there are numerous nations or peoples - but presumably they see us all as Europeans! But there are important archaeological questions to be asked about the peopling of the Americas - it seems very possible that the vernerated ancestors may not be ancestors at all. There is therefore a political motive at work.
I would suggest that I am Eurocentric, or rather culturally, European, because science, or the pusuit of knowledge, is effectively my religion (as well as Tottenham Hotspur...) as opposed to a supernatural mythology.
Then again I wouldn't like to upset anyone...
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
There in lies the problem. The realisation that for yourself that you look for a scientific truth compared to what other cultures spiritual beliefs are. Eg. that 'our evidence of your culture suggest that you arrived in this country x thousands of years ago' to which is replied 'you're wrong as our stories tell us we have been here fore ever'. Ethically do you have the right to destroy others belief systems? Worst case of unethecal behaviour was a anthro couple working in Vietnam (just pre-war). He was studying how the weapons trade affected local tibes and their economies (tribal gun running).
He woke one morning to find all the men and boys had disappeared as well as his girlfriend (latter found executed in paddy field). Turns out that not only was she an anthro but also moonlighting for CIA. No ethical issues for her as she was doing what was best, in her eyes, for her country.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Whoops that souded like she was also shot!! They found all the MEN in the field. Damn! new I should have previewed
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Absolutely. I fear that we can all pose questions on this issue but can provide no answers, because there are none. Or maybe there are too many..... Do I have the right to withhold knowledge from others? Would that be patronising in the extreme? (you can't handle the truth...)
I am not one to go all dewy-eyed over traditional cultures or marvel at their ways of life and so on over my breakfast meusli, to me they're just another bunch of guys.
Every case has to be looked at on its own, there can be no blanket policy. Even the divisions between "cultures" are blurred - how often do you see tribal people on the telly, all wearing T-shirts and shorts, spectacles and baseball caps, most wanting to be teachers?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
