Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T23:16:35.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborate, Condemn, or Ignore? Responding to Non-Archaeological Approaches to Archaeological Heritage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Suzie Thomas
Suzie Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland
*
[email: suzie.e.thomas@helsinki.fi]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What do archaeologists do when approached by groups or individuals with unorthodox, or even simply inappropriate, approaches to, and ideas about the past? What should they do? While much guidance and literature points to education and engagement, in some of the more sensitive or difficult cases it is often more appealing, and simpler, to ignore the issue, in the hopes that it will simply go away. Similarly, on occasions when archaeologists step forward to criticize alternative approaches to archaeological heritage, this does not always meet with positive or desired results. In this paper, in light of recent personal experience with a controversial piece of television programming, I discuss different approaches to responding to challenges to the expertise (and authority) of archaeologists by problematic encounters with concepts of the past. I suggest that while there are arguments in support of (and against) all three of the approaches that I identify (collaboration, condemnation, or ignoring), none provide an absolute solution. In order to discuss these approaches, I draw upon key cases from the literature, as well as personal reflection.

Que font les archéologues lorsqu'ils sont abordés par des groupes ou individus avec des approches et idées peu orthodoxes, ou même carrément inappropriées par rapport au passé? Comment devraient-ils réagir? Tandis que conseils et littérature prônent le plus souvent éducation et engagement, dans des cas plus délicats ou difficiles il peut s'avérer plus simple et attrayant d'ignorer le problème en espérant qu'il va tout simplement disparaître. De même, quand les archéologues s'avancent pour critiquer des approches ‘différentes’ vis-à-vis du patrimoine archéologique, les résultats sont loin d'être toujours positifs ou tels qu'on les avait souhaités. Dans cet article, et suite à mes récentes expériences personnelles avec une émission télévisée controversée, j'examine plusieurs approches différentes répondant aux défis posés aux compétences (et à l'autorité) des archéologues par des confrontations problématiques avec les concepts du passé. Tandis qu'il existe des arguments pour (et contre) les trois approches que j'ai identifiées (collaborer, condamner ou ignorer), je suggère qu'aucune d'entre elles ne procure une solution parfaite. Je me réfère à des cas exemplaires de la littérature ainsi qu'à ma réflexion personnelle pour analyser ces démarches. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Was tun Archäologen, wenn Gruppen oder Einzelpersonen mit unorthodoxen oder schlichtweg unzutreffenden Deutungen und Ideen zur Vergangenheit an sie herantreten? Was sollten sie tun? Während viele Hinweise und Literatur Bildung und Engagement hervorheben, ist es bei manchen der sensibleren oder schwierigeren Fälle verlockender und einfacher, das Problem in der Hoffnung, es möge einfach verschwinden, zu ignorieren. Gleichermaßen führt es, wenn Archäologen sich exponieren, um „andere’ Ansätze zum archäologischen Erbe kritisch zu werten, nicht immer zu positiven oder gewünschten Resultaten. In diesem Beitrag diskutiert die Autorin vor dem Hintergrund persönlicher Erfahrungen mit einem kontroversen Beitrag eines Fernsehprogrammes verschiedene Ansätze, um Infragestellungen der Expertise (und Autorität) von Archäologen bei problematischen Auseinandersetzungen mit Konzepten der Vergangenheit zu begegnen. Die Verfasserin führt aus, dass, obwohl es Argumente für (und wider) alle drei Möglichkeiten, nämlich Zusammenarbeit, Verurteilung und Ignorierung gibt, keine von ihnen eine absolute Lösung darstellt. Um diese Ansätze zu diskutieren, werden Fallstudien aus der Literatur sowie auch persönliche Erlebnisse herangezogen. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Keywords

mediaalternative archaeologynon-archaeologistsmetal detectingethicsmédiaarchéologie alternativenon-archéologuesdétection de métauxéthiqueMedienalternative ArchäologieNicht-ArchäologenSuche mit MetalldetektorenEthik
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , 2015 , pp. 312 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 the European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addyman, P. & Brodie, N. 2002. Metal Detecting in Britain: Catastrophe or Compromise? In: Brodie, N. & Tubb, K.W., eds. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. London: Routledge, pp. 179–84.Google Scholar
Aldeman, K. 2008. Ethical Issues in Cultural Property Law Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. Idaho Law Review, 45:515–38.Google Scholar
Aston, M. 2012. Publicizing Archaeology in Britain in the Late Twentieth Century. In: Skeates, R., McDavid, C. & Carman, J., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 442–60.Google Scholar
Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R. 2014. Transforming Archaeology. In: Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R., eds. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 7–28.Google Scholar
Balme, J. & Wilson, M. 2004. Perceptions of Archaeology in Australia amongst Educated Young Australians. Australian Archaeology, 58:19–24.Google Scholar
Bland, R. 2005. A Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Portable Antiquities: The Experience of England and Wales. Antiquity, 79 (304): 440–47.Google Scholar
Boardman, J. 2007. Archaeologists, Collectors and Museums. In: Robson, E., Treadwell, L. & Gosden, C., eds. Who Owns Objects? The Ethics and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
Brockman, A. 2014. Springtime for Hitler and Nazi War [Death Porn] Diggers. Heritage Daily [blog; online]. March 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.heritagedaily.com/2014/03/springtime-for-hitler-and-nazi-war-death-porn-diggers/102632>>Google Scholar
Brodie, N. & Proulx, B.B. 2014. Museum Malpractice as Corporate Crime? The Case of the J. Paul Getty Museum. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37 (3): 399–421, (ahead of print):1–23. DOI:10.1080/0735648X.2013.819785.Google Scholar
Clauss, L.R. 2014. Betwixt and Between: Archaeology's Liminality and Activism's Transformative Promise. In: Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R., eds. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
Cooper, D.E. 2006. Truthfulness and ‘Inclusion’ in Archaeology. In: Scarre, C. & Scarre, G., eds. The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–45.Google Scholar
Corbishley, M. 2011. Pinning Down the Past: Archaeology, Heritage, and Education Today. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 1996. Portable Antiquities Scheme. [online] March 1996 [accessed 24 July 2014]. Available at: <http://finds.org.uk>>Google Scholar
Diggers. 2012. National Geographic Channel. [online] [accessed 4 May 2014] Available at: <http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/diggers>>Google Scholar
Dobat, A.S. 2013. Between Rescue and Research: An Evaluation after 30 Years of Liberal Metal Detecting in Archaeological Research and Heritage Practice in Denmark. European Journal of Archaeology, 16 (4): 704–25.Google Scholar
European Association of Archaeologists. 2009. The EAA Code of Practice [online] [accessed 19 April 2014]. Available at: <http://e-a-a.org/EAA_Code_of_Practice.pdf>>Google Scholar
Ewen, C. 2014. Nazis, Ethics and Tolerance. Society of Historical Archaeology Blog [online] April 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2014/04/nazis-ethics-and-tolerance>Google Scholar
Fagan, B. & Rose, M. 2003. Ethics and the Media. In: Zimmerman, L.J., Vitelly, K.D. & Hollowell-Zimmer, J., eds. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Altamira, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar
Fagan, G.G. 2006. Diagnosing Pseudoarchaeology. In: Fagan, G.G., ed. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. London: Routledge, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Fagan, G.G. & Feder, K.L. 2006. Crusading Against Straw Men: An Alternative View of Alternative Archaeologies: Response to Holtorf (2005). World Archaeology, 38 (4): 718–29.Google Scholar
Ferris, N. & Welch, J.R. 2014. Beyond Archaeological Agendas: In the Service of a Sustainable Archaeology. In: Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R., eds. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 215–37.Google Scholar
Flatman, J., Chidester, R.C. & Gadsby, D.A. 2012. What Public Engagement in Archaeology Really Means. In: Rockman, M. & Flatman, J., eds. Archaeology in Society: Its Relevance in the Modern World. New York: Springer, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Flemming, N.C. 2006. The Attraction of Non-Rational Archaeological Hypotheses: The Individual and Sociological Factors. In: Fagan, G.G., ed. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. London: Routledge, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
Goddard, J. 2011. Anticipated Impact of the 2009 Four Corners Raid and Arrests. Crime Law and Social Change, 56 (2): 175–88.Google Scholar
Greer, S. 2014. The Janus View: Reflections, Relationships and a Community-Based Approach to Indigenous Archaeology and Heritage in Northern Australia. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 1 (1): 56–68.Google Scholar
Gregory, T. 1986. Whose Fault is Treasure-Hunting? In: Dobinson, C. & Gilchrist, R., eds. Archaeology Politics and the Public. York: York University Archaeological Publications, pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. 2009. The ‘War on Terror’ and the Military–Archaeology Complex: Iraq, Ethics, and Neo-Colonialism. Archaeologies, 5 (1): 39–65.Google Scholar
Hardy, S. 2014a. National Geographic's Preparing a Q&A on Nazi War Diggers. It Can Use Mine. Conflict Antiquities [blog; online] 27 March 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://conflictantiquities.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/national-geographic-clearstory-nazi-war-diggers-q-and-a>Google Scholar
Hardy, S. 2014b. The Latvian War Museum Does Not Approve of Nazi War Diggers. Conflict Antiquities [blog; online] 31 March 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://conflictantiquities.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/national-geographic-clearstory-nazi-war-diggers-latvian-war-museum-contact>Google Scholar
Hart, S.M. & Chilton, E.S. 2014. Digging and Destruction: Artifact Collecting as Meaningful Social Practice. International Journal of Heritage Studies, DOI:10.1080/13527258.2014.934267.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2004. Doing Archaeology in Popular Culture. In: Bolin, H., ed. The Interplay of Past and Present. Hiddinge: Södertörns högskola, pp. 42–49.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2005. Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies. World Archaeology, 37 (4): 544–51.Google Scholar
King, T.F. 1983. Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12:143–64.Google Scholar
Lynott, M.J. 1997. Ethical Principles of Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity, 62 (4): 589–99.Google Scholar
Mashberg, T. 2014. National Geographic Channel Pulls ‘Nazi War Diggers’ Series. The New York Times [online] 31 March 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/national-geographic-channel-pulls-nazi-war-diggers-series/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0,>Google Scholar
McLung De Tapia, E. 2002. A First Look at Public Outreach in Mexican and Guatemalan Archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record, 2 (2): 27–29.Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. 2011. ‘Impudent Lies': Rhetoric and Reality in Wartime Heritage Protection, 1943–2003. Present Pasts, 3 (1): 68–70, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.46.Google Scholar
Price, J. 2005. Orphan Heritage: Issues in Managing the Heritage of the Great War in Northern France and Belgium. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 1 (1): 181–96.Google Scholar
Pyburn, K.A. 2014. Activating Archaeology. In: Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R., eds. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 197–213.Google Scholar
Ramos, M. & Duganne, D. 2000. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes About Archaeology. Harris Interactive, Prepared for the Society of American Archaeologists [online] February 2000 [accessed 19 April 2014]. Available at: <http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/pubedu/nrptdraft4.pdf>>Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J.M. 2014. Securing Cultural Heritage Objects and Fencing Stolen Goods? A Case Study on Museums and Metal Detecting in Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47 (1): 83–107.Google Scholar
Reece, K. 2006. Memoirs of a True Believer. In: Fagan, G.G., ed. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. London: Routledge, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Reid, P. 2012. Performance or Participation: The Relationship between Local Communities and the Archaeological Domain. In: Moshenska, G. & Dhanjal, S., eds. Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Richards, J.D. & Naylor, J. 2009. The Real Value of Buried Treasure. VASLE: The Viking and Anglo-Saxon Landscape and Economy Project. In: Thomas, S. & Stone, P.G., eds. Metal Detecting and Archaeology. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 167–79.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. 2013. A Digital Public Archaeology? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 23 (1): 10.Google Scholar
Scarre, G. 2006. Can Archaeology Harm the Dead? In: Scarre, C. & Scarre, G., eds. The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–98.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.R. 2014. Rediscovering Community Archaeology in Africa and Reframing its Practice. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 1 (1): 37–55.Google Scholar
Seitsonen, O. & Herva, V-P. 2011. Forgotten in the Wilderness: WWII GermanPoW Camps in Finnish Lapland. In: Myers, A. & Moshenska, G., eds. Archaeologies of Internment. New York: Springer, pp. 171–90.Google Scholar
Smith, L. & Waterton, E. 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Society of American Archaeology. 1996. Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Society of American Archaeology [online] [accessed 19 April 2014]. Available at: <http://saa.org/AbouttheSociety/PrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/203/Default.aspx>>Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2005. The Identification and Protection of Cultural Heritage During the Iraq Conflict: A Peculiarly English Tale. Antiquity, 79 (306): 933–43.Google Scholar
Tarlow, S. 2006. Archaeological Ethics and the People of the Past. In: Scarre, C. & Scarre, G., eds. The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. 2012. How STOP Started: Early Approaches to the Metal Detecting Community by Archaeologists and Others. In: Moshenska, G. & Dhanjal, S., eds. Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 42–57.Google Scholar
Wallwork, A. 2014. The Archaeology Paradox: More Laws, Less Treasure. Los Angeles Times [online] 7 April 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wallwork-antiquities-law-downside-20140407,0,2487941.story#axzz30luESvKt>Google Scholar
Walters, G. & Kisiel, R. 2014. Fury Over the National Geographic Channel Historians Digging Up Second World War Graves. The Daily Mail [online] 28 March 2014 [accessed 4 May 2014]. Available at: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2591894/Fury-National-Geographic-channel-historians-digging-Second-World-War-graves.html>>Google Scholar
Wilson, J.A. 2012. The Cave Who Never Was: Outsider Archaeology and Failed Collaboration in the USA. Public Archaeology, 11 (2): 73–95.Google Scholar