Hi everyone,
I received a message from Maggie Ronayne asking me to forward a request for
signatures to this letter to the Irish Times. It's in response to a challenge
by Margaret Gowan that was published in the Irish Times on th 22nd July, the
debate so far can be seen at the end of this email.
If you want to sign this letter please email Maggie directly at
[log in to unmask], and if possible include your position and
affiliation.
Any professional or academic from any country can sign, not only archaeologists.
All sectors of archaeologists also welcome to sign. The timescale for adding
names is quite short as the letter needs to be submitted soon.
Thanks,
Sarah
Madam,
Margaret Gowen ('Archaeology in Ireland can be proud of its standards', 22nd
July) was responding to the latest protest from professionals internationally
against the Market's domination ('Archaeology needs to recover its core
principles and ethics', 15th July). The general public understands that to be
'market-led,' as Ms Gowen justifies, is to undermine a 'deep and genuine
interest' in principles and public accountability.
Yes, colleagues in the private sector struggle to care for cultural heritage and
uphold standards, but those whom Ms Gowen represents have hardly supported such
efforts. We agree that archaeological landscapes need to be protected and we
wish that for Tara's landscape. That's why we call for a halt to construction
work on the M3 motorway and an enquiry into all the circumstances that brought
it about. We regret that Ms Gowen's company did not defend Tara's landscape in
the same way during the M3 planning process and that work and testimony by her
company, particularly the reversal in the later stages of their earlier
warnings on the high significance of this area, facilitated this motorway going
ahead.
'Minimising the impact of a development' is hardly a standard for
archaeologists, but a compromise with their fundamental ethic: preservation of
cultural heritage. We aim far higher, towards the prevention of any destructive
development. Much money goes into dressing up development to make cultural
destruction palatable. As professionals we must say no deal. There has been
an international debate on ethics in many other professions for years.
Independent regulation, or returning archaeology to the public sector, are
practical and ethical. In France, the profession refused privatisation.
We understand there is currently a debate within the Irish Minister for the
Environment's heritage advisory committee about changing the structures of the
profession to try to address recent problems: the public must be told what
exactly is being considered.
Professionals are trying to figure out how best to work with the public: it's a
crucial question. Countries have passed laws and many professional bodies have
codes of ethics requiring archaeologists for example to take account of
community concerns. Tara does not belong to archaeologists, still less to one
sector of the profession or to the NRA and other developers. It belongs to the
people of Ireland and the world.
These archaeology debates have found parallels in all professions. There is for
example a trend away from the great misery caused to communities, culture and
the environment by privatisation. Communities and professionals accountable to
them rather than any developer must determine what happens to every culture and
every heritage. The hope is for professionals to stick to principles and to
refuse to serve mammon.
Yours,
Maggie Ronayne, Lecturer in Archaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway
Archaeology needs to recover its core principles and ethics
Irish Times July 15th 2008
<http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0715/1215940932567.html>
OPINION: There was lively debate on the M3 motorway at the recent World
Archaeological Congress in Dublin but also disturbing developments about the
congress itself, writes Maggie Ronayne .
The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) was founded in 1986 when archaeologists
decided to implement the UN-sanctioned cultural boycott of apartheid South
Africa.
Yet at the congress that concluded in Dublin on July 4th, there was an attempt
to co-opt the profession to serve development by multinationals. The presence
of the US military shocked many, as did sponsorship by Rio Tinto, the mining
and exploration company.
The programme for the Dublin congress intended to ignore Tara and the M3, the
biggest controversy in Irish archaeology since Wood Quay in 1979 - not
surprising given that the National Roads Authority (NRA) was one of its
sponsors. I pressed for debate and campaigners urged me on.
A Tara panel, scene of stormy presentations from various sides, did eventually
occur. A good precedent was set: campaigners participated and proposed
resolutions. Voting on resolutions opposing cultural destruction by the M3 was
too close to call more than once and they were forwarded to the WAC's assembly
for discussion. On July 11th, the WAC issued a press release on Tara and the M3
which said: "We do not question the validity of the planning process undertaken
in Ireland."
Many of us clearly do.
My article in Public Archaeology about road development in Ireland and
corruption in development planning processes was widely circulated. Most
archaeologists are now employed by private companies on temporary, short-term
contracts. As in other countries, this has gone in tandem with increasingly
bureaucratic, corporate control of universities and pressure on academics to
orient our teaching to prioritise the needs of industry.
Crucial questions of professional ethics and standards, particularly our
accountability to the community, are sidelined. Colleagues in the private
sector give regular reports of bad practice and cutting corners on roads
projects, including the M3. I quoted an archaeologist who directed
test-trenching on the M3 route: "A number of times, I was told to change an
interpretation which served to lessen the potential or numbers of sites."
Reports from this fieldwork informed the Minister for the Environment's decision
on salvage excavation licences for the M3.
The article provoked international debate and an outpouring via e-mail and
phone; people seemed to need to get out of their system what they had swallowed
for years.
Field colleagues contacted me to confirm they also had experienced bad practices
on the road projects but, for the most part, those on precarious, temporary
contracts don't come forward; they fear being sacked, blacklisted or bullied
out of their profession.
There is lip service to heritage but the Government tends to protect the roads
industry while archaeologists are used to destroy archaeology - not only
physical remains but also our profession's core principles.
There are new structures in place that invite us to contravene basic standards
and enable bad practice. For example, a developer's archaeologists oversee
those doing the testing for potential archaeology on a road route; they have
sight of, and admit they may comment on or edit, test-trenching reports.
Notwithstanding the best intentions of the NRA's archaeologists, the developer
employs them and there is a built-in conflict of interest. This needs
changing.
Much is made of whether archaeology could stop projects like the M3. My
experience working with communities in campaigns against cultural destruction
in various countries is that archaeology alone rarely stops developers.
Problems with archaeology on the M3 should surely be investigated but by a
people's inquiry (facilitated by academia perhaps) also looking at reported
land speculation and toll profits, failure to consider cheaper and more
effective public transport or energy provision, the circumstances surrounding
the sale of national resources to the private sector, attempts to divide local
communities and failure to properly consult and inform them, involvement of
multinationals with links to corrupt development elsewhere or profiteering in
war zones, and an investigation of all the professional structures and the
often strange planning decisions that permit disputed developments.
These are issues that communities all over Ireland and worldwide struggle with
as they fight for their lives, livelihoods, land and culture. The M3
construction and indeed other disputed developments such as Shell's pipeline
and refinery in Mayo, must stop while this inquiry happens; we have won the
battle to halt far bigger developments - it is never too late.
The Tara debate was the talk of the congress; many international colleagues
expressed shock at the remarks of Brian Duffy, the State's chief archaeologist:
"I don't care where the money comes from if it pays for good archaeological
work."
Many felt that the partisan nature of the State sector indicated that few field
colleagues in the private sector would consider reporting instances of bad
practice. Following the debate on Tara and several similar cases from other
countries, WAC's final plenary passed the following resolution: "Noting the
increasing role of the private sector/cultural resource management in the
profession, the World Archaeological Congress expresses serious concern at the
potential for erosion of standards and professional ethics. The congress calls
for explicit inclusion of these concerns in its Code of Ethics. The congress
calls on all colleagues to support those field archaeologists working in the
private sector, who are striving to maintain professional standards in
difficult conditions."
There have been recent reports on the reversal of privatisation in New Zealand,
reflecting a growing trend. There is a similar feeling in archaeology that
independent regulation of this sector is needed with some advocating a return
to archaeology as a wholly public sector service. Others besides me think that
Ireland might provide a model.
As recession hits and the corporations seek others who will do the work for
less, who will defend our standards and values based on the autonomy of
professions? What will remain of our cultural roots, so vital to sustaining
this island's communities?
Those defending our heritage are not opposing development; rather, we support
communities pressing for development which meets their needs.
One thing is sure: embedding ourselves with destroyers of culture and
communities, with its brown envelope culture, supports neither professions, nor
communities, nor cultural heritage nor this island's future. Ireland and the
wider world are in a "state of chassis" once again, and it is time to speak
out.
* Maggie Ronayne is a lecturer in archaeology at NUI Galway
OPINION: Archaeology in Ireland can be Proud of Its Standards
Archaeologists are strictly regulated and are motivated by a deep and genuine
interest in the past and its remains, writes Margaret Gowen
Irish Times 22nd July 08
MAGGIE RONAYNE'S article (Archaeology needs to recover its core principles and
ethics, The Irish Times , July 15th) displays a remarkably inaccurate, wildly
biased, and completely unfounded perspective on the practice of archaeology,
and especially commercial archaeology, in Ireland.
In her article, Ronayne wrote that crucial questions of professional ethics and
standards, particularly archaeologists' accountability to the community, had
been sidelined. She claimed that lip service was paid to heritage but the
Government tended to protect the roads industry while archaeologists were used
to destroy archaeology.
In my view, all archaeologists are motivated by a deep and genuine interest in
the past and its material remains. The guiding influence of past generations
and the training that have shaped the development of modern archaeology embody
universally accepted ethical principles. These have been formulated over time
in relation to the preservation, study, excavation, analysis and dissemination
of professional work.
As someone who has spent over 25 years working in commercial archaeology and
developing standards of practice in that context, I and a great many of my
commercial archaeology colleagues take great offence at the accusation that
"archaeologists are used to destroy archaeology - not only physical remains but
also our profession's core principles".
Commercial archaeologists primarily mediate for the heritage resource in
development planning, using the policy presumption for preservation of
archaeological remains first and foremost. They engage in the scientific
excavation and recording of archaeological sites only where this is deemed, by
the State, to be appropriate.
Our work is underpinned by the European Convention on the Protection of
Archaeological Heritage (1992), which was ratified by Ireland in 1997. The
Irish National Monuments Acts (1930 - 2004), and their particular interface
with the Planning and Development Acts (1963, 2000, 2004 and 2006) embody a
rigorous regulatory system, considered to be one of the most strict in Europe.
Ronayne's campaign, extremely anti-development as it is, seeks to persuade the
public of her case by singling out the archaeological profession for her
extreme views.
Members of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland are drawn from all sectors
of the profession (academic, State sector heritage management, local
government, museums, State agencies and the private sector, from graduate level
to the most senior positions within the profession). The institute's members
all adhere to its code of practice and its guidelines on best practice, each of
which embody a range of fundamental ethical principles in relation to
professional conduct. The institute has received no complaints of malpractice
and no representation from site-based staff in relation to conditions of
employment or standards of practice.
Commercial (market-led) archaeology has been long established internationally.
The market is an artificial one, however, that exists only because State
legislation requires and upholds the protection and management of heritage and
the archaeological resource (a non-renewable resource).
As with other forms of environmental protection and control, the Irish State and
many other European states have adopted a "polluter pays" principle to the
payment for such protection and management. Commercial archaeologists therefore
serve a variety of State, community, professional and client stakeholders in a
highly regulated professional environment.
A fundamental error made by Ronayne is her premise that a commissioning client
for commercial archaeological work has an undue, if not sole, right of
influence on the nature and quality of the work undertaken. She also tries to
persuade her readers that the influence of a commissioning client will always
be negative for heritage. This is simply not supportable, nor is there any
evidence to back it up.
The role of archaeologists involved in development projects is a dual one.
Rather than taking the position of anti-development campaigners, they can and
do play an important constructive role in terms of protecting archaeological
heritage and minimising the impact of a development. They also maximise the
return to knowledge through archaeological discovery and research arising as a
consequence of development.
If mistakes have been made in the past, they have been made through a failure on
the part of the profession, generally, to communicate the case for archaeology
and for archaeological landscapes adequately within the due process of
planning.
What has been recognised, especially in recent years, is that the profession
must seek to assist in integrating archaeological practice more fully within
spatial planning and, more importantly, must seek to achieve the appropriate
weighting of their particular concerns, among a myriad of others, in that
context. This now, incontrovertibly, extends to a need for the statutory
designation and management of important archaeological landscapes.
What is so depressing about Ronayne's viewpoint is that it fails to acknowledge
that, in compliance with best international practice and standards, an
extraordinary amount of seriously good, highly regulated, successful, licensed
- and publicly presented - archaeological work has been undertaken and
underwritten by State agencies and private developers in Ireland over the past
20 years.
Delegates at the recent 6th World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in Dublin were
singularly impressed by what they heard and saw of Irish archaeology.
Of great importance was the well-considered statement from the congress,
reflecting the concern of the archaeological profession in Ireland, in
expressing opposition to any further concerted development along the route of
the M3 motorway, a position supported by Minister for the Environment, Heritage
and Local Government, John Gormley. Secondary development now poses a much
greater threat to the Tara landscape. Our efforts as archaeologists should
concentrate on convincing Government and all stakeholders to define, protect
and manage that landscape and others.
* Margaret Gowen is chairwoman of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland
© 2008 The Irish Times
----- End forwarded message -----
|
