Search

Comanche scholar and activist LaDonna Harris strongly advocates the recognition and promotion of the four Rs Core Cultural Values: relationships, responsibility, reciprocity, and redistribution. Our contribution discusses the specific forms of each of the four Rs in ᎠᏂᎦᏚᏩᎩ Ani-Kitu Hwagi (Cherokee) practices and ethics of ᎦᏓᎱ (gadahu), ᎦᏚᎩ (gadugi), ᏙᎯ (tõhi), and ᎣᏏ (osi). We present a case study of elements of the history one settlement, ᏅᏅᏁᏱ (Nvnvnyi), as a way to discuss the contemporary reality of heritage management and archaeology's role within that management. Archaeology in Native American communities is oft en associated with destruction and disruption, so a critical framework that evaluates obliteration is crucial for this specifi c topic. With the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and Final Rule in 1995, Ani-Kitu Hwagi people had more say in archaeological activities. Despite this direct oversight, destructive actions to the past and historic resources continues. The countervailing forces to gadahu, gadugi, tõhi, and osi can be summarized as disturbance, including violent erasure, of the past that create historical ruptures. Archaeological work at Nvnvnyi in some cases commits and in others, exposes episodes of rupture of the four Rs for Ani-Kitu Hwagi communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archaeological research has traditionally been a top-down scientific process of knowledge production with little involvement from the descendant communities whose cultural resources and heritage are under investigation. The analysis of collections resulting from archaeological research and the empirical data that it provides can legitimate settler scientists' claims to know and revise Indigenous histories and eliminate the legitimacy of Indigenous claims about these histories from the standpoint of traditional knowledges. Despite these settler colonial tendencies within the discipline of archaeology, decolonizing archaeological practices and narratives and making space for Native American peoples is possible when research is refocused on the desires of descendent communities. Using a framework of responsive justice in working with communities to co-develop questions, methodologies and interpretations, the physical and intellectual heritage and histories of Indigenous communities can be maintained. This article will discuss one case from the Tolay Valley in which Indigenous archaeological research in collaboration with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has been leveraged to support the tribe's goals of environmental and cultural restoration at this place and has also revised and enriched the history that can be told about Coast Miwok people's long-term engagement with the Tolay Valley. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophical archaeology, which was first developed into a workable formulation by Michel Foucault (1966), is a method of modern historiography that engages the production of its own origin (and destiny). For this reason, however, the manner in which the figure of "man" is inscribed by a thinker upon its episteme is never ethically neutral. Giorgio Agamben's production of a figure without speech, homo sacer, delivers the Western political subject into a powerless political destiny, leaving thinkers who accept this paradigm to grope blindly after a rarified concept of "whatever" community. We must give an alternative archaeology of political speech to avoid this fate. Thus, I propose an archaeological account of a figure that is in essential possession of its own speech. This paradigmatic figure is what I call the magician, or homo magus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on Liv Nilsson-Stutz's article, published within the issue, concerning methodological, practical, ethical and theoretical developments in contemporary burial archaeology. Topics discussed include the ethical challenges relating to the archaeology of death and trans-disciplinarity, archaeologists' approaches to death and the human remains, and the social role of death.

In 2012 the ancient city of Petra celebrated the 200th anniversary of its Western re-identification The Brown University Petra Archaeological Project (BUPAP) has sought to document the northern hinterland of Petra through a multi-component methodology that includes intensive field survey, feature documentation and limited test excavations. The iconic site of Petra has a long and storied history, and it is a site that presents many challenges to archaeologists and cultural heritage managers. During a series of test excavations meant to ground truth locations earmarked by the overlapping intensive field survey and feature documentation, several patterns of looting were identified. These instances of looting were often paralleled by observed vandalism that defaced archaeological heritage, within and outside the Petra Archaeological Park, with archaeological artifacts being sold to tourists at nearby shops. This study provides crucial documentation of these processes of vandalism and looting recorded over the last three years We propose that only through continued monitoring can local authorities be provided with ample evidence calling for additional cultural heritage protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented to an editorial about the ethical issues surrounding salvage archaeology and underwater heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editors discuss ethical approach to African archaeology.

Archaeological tourism and ethics are two fields that, with exceptions, scholars have been reluctant to combine. There is, however, an increasing concern on the general subject of tourism and ethics and this article will draw examples from Latin America to explore the intersection between both. An overview of the history of archaeological tourism in Latin America will be provided. A growing number of archaeologists all over Latin America are becoming active in promoting or assisting the conversion of sites into tourist attractions. For some, it is a way of protecting sites in the face of the dangers brought about by uncontrolled tourism and for others helping locals to earn a living is a humanitarian question. Yet, archaeological remains are not neutral, but powerful means of creating historical memory and identity. Tourism becomes a means of advertising and even of legitimizing the existence of groups and that politicizes archaeologists' engagement with tourism. This politicization represents an ethical challenge for the profession. Also, the conversion of archaeological ruins into tourist attractions can only be made through the commodification of culture. This has been denounced by some scholars as another postcolonial appropriation and neoliberal method of controlling indigenous groups, but hailed by others as a good thing for indigenous communities as it provides them with a living. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is motivated by the recent proposal of a ‘symmetrical’ approach in archaeology. Symmetrical archaeology takes its starting point in Bruno Latour's contention that we have – paradoxically – always been able to practice a symmetry between humans and non-humans, and that we have, simultaneously, also always been able to distinguish humans from non-humans. It has been argued by its proponents that symmetrical archaeology has ethical ramifications, yet this dimension remains only vaguely described in the current literature. This article seeks to explore what it might mean to extend ethics from humans to non-humans, and it contends that such a relationship is already being practised. Archaeological practice and heritage management are salient examples of how the ability to distinguish and conflate humans and non-humans frequently occurs along the lines of a number of undeclared and un-critiqued political and ethical logics. In effect, some things and some people are embraced by an empathetic embroidery, while others are disenfranchised. The article contends that a symmetrical principle in archaeology and heritage poses central ethical challenges to the ways in which the archaeological Other is defined and identified. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, the author explores ethical, legal and policy questions regarding the practices of burial archaeology and research on human remains. Particular focus is paid to the processes by which human remains have ended up in the collections of museums. In addition, the author discusses how the law, archaeologists and the general public seem to differentiate between the ethical treatment of the recently dead and the ethical treatment of more ancient human remains.

Landscape has emerged as a significant site for archaeological practice: for our explorations of the past, our contributions to heritage conservation, management and planning and our interventions in the lives of others. Given this, it is imperative that we – archaeological researchers and practitioners, heritage managers and professionals – engage in an ongoing ethical discourse concerning our landscape work. In this article, I aim to contribute to that process. I present a thematic review of developments in theory, ethics and practice across the landscape disciplines and provide a selective analysis of archaeological positions on these matters. From there, and drawing in particular on work in the recently emerged field of ‘landscape ethics’, I develop principles for a relational ethics of archaeological landscape practice. I suggest that these principles provide an explicit ethical platform for engaging with the circumstances of archaeological practice as they are emerging in the twenty-first century, not least as defined by widely relevant supranational landscape policies. More than that, these principles provide a basis for archaeologists to contribute, through their work, to the attainment of landscape justice, i.e. fairness and due reward in relation to landscape matters. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses scientists' responses to section 10.11 of the U.S. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs the repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains to Native tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. According to the author, scientists' critiques of this rule are part of a larger political and public relations strategy developed in the 1980s and 1990s to resist NAGPRA and use it for the purposes of archaeological, anthropological, and museum institutions rather than for the benefit of deceased Native peoples and their descendants. Topics discussed include funerary objects, racism, colonialism, and legislative history.

In this paper I argue that although stewardship has been criticized for its failure to provide archaeologists with morally relevant advice, it can still provide ethical guidance. This is possible if we shift our attention to those ethical values which form the normative framework, such as care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which became law on November 16, 1990, and possible contributions the scientific and tribal communities can make to the other. The author explains that NAGPRA was passed in response to national concern regarding the handling of Native American archaeological remains. The author argues that to address contemporary Native American issues concerning the environmental impact on population health and the increase of coronary heart disease among Native Americans, the biological data of Native remains must be examined. The article also discusses the conflict over culturally unidentifiable human remains.

The article explores some aspects of the forging of "cultural heritage" as a European and Western concept. By analyzing the travel reports and memoirs of two pioneers of the oriental archaeology - H. Layard and C. Fellows -, it debates issues and questions raised in the archaeological literature developed in Great Britain and in other European countries in the second half of the Nineteenth century, a time when European excavations spread throughout the Mediterranean regions. Using specific images and representations, this literature described the relationship between local populations and antiques as completely negative. Destructions, manipulations, ignorance and indifference to the past were constantly stressed on, as much as the idea of a supposed "oriental inability" to transform the documents of the past into an heritage to be preserved and handed down to later generations. Perceptions and uses of antiquities in the Levant contributed to shape concepts of superiority and inferiority, civilization and barbarism and to develop the discourse about civilization and its fixed borders. The idea of a Mediterranean otherness outlined on the past and on its relics - the concept of heritage - provided further arguments to the legitimacy of imperialism.

'Anasazi', the term archaeologists have used since the 1930S to describe the ancient Pueblo inhabitants of the American Southwest, is today a contested word — contested for misconstruing the Navajo concept of Anaasází, misrepresenting the Pueblo past, misleading the public, and misdirecting archaeological research. This essay examines how this single word, when unpacked, can provide insights into the larger issues of identity, affinity, and authority infused in archaeological practice. I argue that the fundamental questions about archaeology's operation in the world are prompted by — and perhaps ultimately can be resolved by — collaborating with descendant communities through methods that move across anthropology's disciplinary boundaries, from archaeology to ethnography. Who is — and who should be — empowered to interpret the ancient past? This is the tangled question at the heart of the controversy over 'Anasazi'. Its answer will help not only elucidate archaeology's labyrinthine past with Native peoples, but also illuminate the potential for the discipline's engaged and ethical future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People care about archaeology for a variety of competing reasons. Archaeologists no longer ignore this as they once did, but few have come to terms on a pragmatic level with their responsibility to the public. Here I outline my own ideas about public engagement and the place of ethnography in the archaeologist's professional practice. While long-term collaborations between archaeologists and others are almost always preferable, they are rarely feasible, and lofty ideals can have negative repercussions for daily practice and political action. I advocate Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a method that archaeologists untrained in ethnography can use to expediently develop ethnographically sensitive and respectful relationships. I also advocate that archaeologists be honest about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how it relates to what they are actually trained to do. This is an important step since archaeologists need to be able to see themselves as one group of stakeholders with a right to advocate their position, but no right to ultimate control of the resources that they use to create an archaeological record. PAR is structured to ensure that project outcomes are not determined in advance. This means that the perspectives and objectives of archaeologists, even when they are allied with political and economic power, will not always prevail. I conclude with a description of a current community museums project I am supporting in Kyrgyzstan where I have put as much energy into transparency as into ethnography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory paper reviews recent writings on archaeology and conflict, setting the other contributions to this volume into context. We draw attention to the political nature of archaeological work, and to the problems of reconciling professional interest in the protection and management of cultural property with needs of communities affected by war. We focus on two areas of current concern — the ethical and moral dimension to professional conduct, and the need to reconcile post-processual critiques of practice with the need to draw on empirical science in the competent conduct of work — finding middle ground in both areas of debate. We also conclude that heritage management and archaeological practice have an important contribution to make in the rehabilitation of war-torn societies, but that the top-down approaches that are most widely favoured can fail to meet the needs of local communities. Best archaeological practice should build from an understanding of local socio-political and cultural power structures, draw on assessments of need, and build upon a notion of heritage that moves beyond the purely materialistic. The concept of heritage as 'care' is perhaps more important to our work than that of 'curation'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is envisaged as a 'thought piece' that provides a critical introduction to what emerged as the organising motif of the Archaeology in Conflict conference's particular exploration of Palestinian heritage and identity: that of thinking more broadly in terms of the archive — or, more critically still, in terms of archival memory. As such, this paper seeks to uncover the specific operational, conceptual and moral-ethical issues at stake in terms of the repositioning of such archival memory resources in the representation of heritage in conflict. It continues to explore how conflict, trauma, dislocation and violence are the destroyers not only of physical landscapes (homes and heritage) but also of human lives; they are responsible for the death of possible futures, and as such the very capacity to articulate, transmit and re-present such experiences and events. A means to address this traumatic impasse is, however, captured in the late Palestinian academic-activist Edward Said's vision of a 'right to a remembered presence'. This vision also captures another motif central to the theme of heritage and archaeology in conflict — the 'healing mode' of thought and aspiration, that is neither naive or uncritical, but bound up in a belief in the capacity of heritage and certain modes of memory-work to bring comfort, cure, care and healing to situations of conflict, containment, displacement and exile. As such, this paper explores the creation of archival memory resources in order to address this aspect of conflicted heritage and the imperatives of restoring wellbeing. The final contention of the paper is that a further operational model is located in Said's strategy vis-à-vis 'writing to the moment'; the concept and practice of apprehending heritage 'to the moment' therefore requires a certain duty and responsibility towards contextualisation in terms of the 'worldliness' of heritage domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A long series of excavations has been carried out since 1967 by Israeli archaeologists in 'unified' Jerusalem. Proponents have characterised this work as revolutionary and inspired by 'a free academic spirit'; critics have viewed it as part of the 'Jewish-colonial-nationalist project'. The truth of these views, which are not mutually exclusive, lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Despite the unified legal framework governing the excavation of Jerusalem, there is neither a single outlook nor an overarching plan in its conduct. Different excavators — and perhaps more significantly, different development agencies — have worked to different ends in Jerusalem, using a wide variety of means. Three stages may be discerned in the conduct of archaeological work in Jerusalem since 1967. The first two, spanning the first three decades or so of Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, may be characterised, by and large, as 'official' in outlook, i.e., governed by concerns of the central government and by the municipal leadership; the third, spanning the recent decade, is highly factional in outlook, i.e., governed by the pressures exerted on an increasingly decentralised authority by special interest groups, primarily those of the ideological-religious right. The conclusion of this paper puts forward some ideas for alternative action by archaeologists in Jerusalem, based on current concepts of best archaeological practice and on a proactive stance on archaeological ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The institution of maritime archaeology in 2007 stands in a privileged position, uniquely placed to comment upon and engage in 'live' contemporary debates such as the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, and particularly responsible for comment upon the broader cultural impact of pending global risks such as climate change. With reference to such debates, this paper considers some possible short- and medium-term priorities for maritime archaeology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author explores issues raised at the European Association of Archaeologists' 2006 Annual Meeting in Krakow, Poland. Topics discussed include the background and evolution of ethics in archaeology, the nature of professional archaeology and why ethical questions arise within archaeological business, and ethics and globalization.

Archaeologists have yet to fully appreciate the complex interactions between archaeological practice and contemporary responses towards death and commemoration in the UK. The paper reflects upon the experience of working with the local community during archaeological fieldwork in and around an English country churchyard at Stokenham in the South Hams district of Devon in southwest England during 2005 and 2006. Using this case study, it is argued that the current theories and parameters of both mortuary archaeology and public archaeology fail to adequately engage with the diverse community perceptions and concerns over mortality and commemoration. At Stokenham, the archaeological research and student-training programme engaged local people in the discovery of their past but (more importantly for the local community) also helped to secure an acceptable commemorative future. It is argued that this provides a case study of how archaeological practice can interact with community attitudes to death and memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The repatriation of human remains in New Zealand is occurring today in a co-operative, low-profile manner, while in most other parts of the world it attracts high publicity, debate and antagonism. It is shown that the situation in New Zealand is fundamentally different because aspects of Maori culture influenced the kind of remains sought, the way they were collected and also the political and cultural development of the country, so that today Maori are in a much stronger position in their own country than are other indigenous populations around the world. The repatriation movement is thus to a large degree controlled by Maori, whereas other indigenous peoples often require media attention and government intervention in order to achieve their aims, if they are able to at all. It is argued that other colonial countries and their museums first need to solve fundamental issues involving internal inter-cultural relations before they will be able to move forward in a positive, co-operative manner with repatriation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the issues affecting the ethics and value conflicts in archaeology in the United States. Role of land ownership in archeological investigations; Relationship of tribal groups to archaeological material; Conflict between different cultures over cultural materials and between scientific and humanistic views.

Argues that a genealogy of the relations between archaeology and hegemonic identity formations demonstrates that archaeology's position as arbiter is problematic in certain ethical terms. Ways in which ethics has become topical within the discipline of archaeology; Object/subject divide's perpetuation of an inside/outside dichotomy in archaeology; Examination of the work of feminist philosophers.

Elaborates the analysis of issues related to the disciplinary identity that underlie the ethics debate in North American archaeology. Response that is emerging from the Society for American Archaeology; History of programmatic debates; Conflicts pushing the limits of the disciplinary identity.

The last few decades have brought changes to bioarchaeology through the establishment of ethics codes, repatriation laws, and community-based, participatory research practices. However, ethical codes are often unfamiliar to researchers and the treatment of human remains continues to be unequal. Temporal or geographic contexts, among others, should not dictate the ethical standards employed by researchers. Based on previous advocacy efforts and international ethics policies, we suggest six levels of consideration for scientists intending to develop bioarchaeological research projects, using case studies to support the implementation of these steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author responds to comments made by archaeologist Kenneth Aitchison in a previous article in the journal. The author situates himself as a postcolonial archaeologist and expresses concern from that context that the ethical codes called for by Aitchison in his article may prove exclusionary. He suggests replacing the archaeologist-client binary indicated in Aitchison's work with a model where archaeological record is archaeology's end.

An editorial is presented in which author discusses about modern anthropological aspects. Topics discussed include explore scientific approach of the human behavior; talks about participation in American Archaeology meetings which named "Archaeology Is Archaeology"; and mention about cultural archeological perception of anthropology.

Comments on `Seeking an Ethical Balance in Archaeological Practice in Ecuador,' by Michael A. Morse. Governmental misuse of minority; Situation of the Agua Blanca.

The authors respond to comments made by archaeologist Kenneth Aitchison in a previous article in the journal. Disagreement with Aitchison's application of business ethics to archaeological study is expressed. The authors also take issue with Aitchison's definition of what constitutes a professional and professional ethics. It is also suggested that Aitchison's portrayal of ethics as a fixed and unambiguous concept is flawed.

The article focuses on Southeast Asian maritime archaeology and the moral and ethical aspects of salvaging shipwrecks within the region. The author discusses the importance of protecting cultural heritage, including the 2001 UNESCO Convection for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, explores wreck-site management within the Gulf of Thailand, and examines how excavations have contributed to the study of ceramic maritime trade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the Principles of Archaeological Ethics adopted by the Society for American Archaeology. Includes stewardship; Accountability; Denouncement of commercialization of archaeological objects; Public education and outreach; Intellectual property created through study of archaeological resources as part of the archaeological record.