Who owns our archaeology?

[P Prentice]

I submit that the historic environment which includes the resource we call archaeology belongs to all of us, shared in kind. In law the crown and the landowner may have stitched up ownership of the material remains but can the same be said for the information and knowledge contained therein?
As archaeologists shouldn't we undertake to disseminate the information and knowledge we uncover without prejudice?
So how long can we legitimately sit on the information we have uncovered, thereby depriving everyone else of its value, before allowing another archaeologist to disseminate in our stead?

[Martin Locock]

On a related note, I think that organisations that are keen to issue press releases about the latest "amazing discovery that transforms our understanding of the past" from an excavation ought to do something about providing the substantive evidence as soon as practicable.

[pdurdin]

But we must protect our copyright! !

[Unitof1]

Is it starting to sink in?

[BAJR]

:face-topic: Stay on topic... or deletion will take place.


As archaeologists shouldn't we undertake to disseminate the information and knowledge we uncover without prejudice?

This is indeed my mantra, my guiding light, my raison d'etre why else would I do it? Navel gazing? acade-onanistic gratification nope... I do it for those that want to know. OFten it becomes soemthing else and I get stoned out of teh village... but hey.... Proving the Templars did not sacrifice Arthur at a Druid Stone and in fact it is an 18th century Folly just adds to the mix.

It belongs to us all... it needs help to guide it.

[troll]

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.

[ShadowJack]

A well said and thought provoking post.....

[the invisible man]

Broadly, I would agree with Troll, especially on the issue of public access to grey lit - but in principle it is in the public domain anyway: this just needs to be more the fact than the principle. I wouldn't be that keen on keeping it in schools, for all sorts of reasons, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to write in a key-stage manner. The main thing is that it is somewhere and available. Libraries (assuming we'll still have them........) are fine, but the Local History Units/HER seem the logical place to me. Err, assuming we'll still have them...). What is to be done with pre-planning stuff is theproblem of course. Maybe there could be a stipulation for it to become public after say one year? But how does it differ from a hypothetical person, a landowner, who decides to pay for an excavation, or perhaps geophysics, in his extensive grounds? It's not really practical to enforce publication.

Strictly speaking nobody owns or can own archaeology, as archaeology is a study, a practice, not a physical entity. If we are referring to archaeological remains, the physical remains, the contexts and layers, the finds etc, which can be physically owned. Whether it ought to be is another matter: ideally any artefacts over, I don't know, say 500 years perhaps, should be publicly owned, but that'll never happen. It could at least be mandatory to make finds publicly accessible. But how do you insist upon access to or public ownership of below-ground remains?

There is also the non-physical stuff, the knowledge, the data (dangerously close to you-know-what here!) call it what you will, which most certainly can - and should - be publicly owned and available and I believe is what Troll is referring to.

[Unitof1]

:face-topicdangerously close to you-know-what here!):face-topic:

[Marcus Brody]

Whether it ought to be is another matter: ideally any artefacts over, I don't know, say 500 years perhaps, should be publicly owned, but that'll never happen.

This is already the case in Scotland, where objects found during excavation or while metal detecting belong not to the landowner or the finder, but to the Crown (there is of course an argument to be made as to whether these objects should belong to the Crown, or rather should be deemed the property of the Scottish nation, but I don't intend to address the pros and cons of a republic here). The finder of a valuable item may (and usually does) receive an ex gratia payment, but this system does at least mean that the state should have first refusal on finds, hopefully resulting in the ability to prevent the export of interesting or valuable items to private collections