Dear friends

I would just like to say that I think that this campaign is extremely important and that it is great that there is a discussion here (and in the Irish Times and within WAC) about the very significant issues that are involved. I am sure that a large number of archaeologists feels sympathetic to the cause championed by Maggie and others, and that they all would want to provide nothing less than high quality service to the various communities involved in the context of each project. When there is talk of bribery, speculation with land, and manipulated archaeological reports, I agree that there is reason to be concerned and a full investigation by an independent body seems more than appropriate. Maybe privatisation at large does need to be reconsidered too, but surely the old less efficient and less flexible state-run systems are no alternative either. 

But I disagree profoundly with sentences like this one: "We aim far higher, towards the prevention of any destructive development." To me, this reflects a kind of fundamentalism that is ultimately neither of benefit to archaeology nor to any community. It really is an aim 'far lower' than that of responsible development serving the needs of many people. Wanting to prevent development is to close the eyes to the fact that history is always moving on, and that that is also a source of opportunies for everybody incl local communities. Any development must be destructive to some extent, because otherwise you cannot create something new. In this way, destruction is unavoidable and not by necessity a Bad Thing or an equivalent to serving "mammon".

I cannot see either _why_ in principle archaeologists should try to save as much as possible from what is left from past times at all. Perhaps our most important task as archaeologists is to make sense of the past (and the present) based on available sources - not to stockpile stuff in museums or in the landscape. As I argued in a recent paper ("Can less be more? Heritage in the age of terrorism." Public Archaeology 5, 2006, 101-9), the fundamentalist preservationist view is theoretically flawed in many ways and should be abolished.

I also have difficulty that Maggie and others seem to think that only they themselves have the (moral) right to define a (singular) professional ethics and professional standards and principles against which every archaeologist's work is to be judged. I object to this sort of hybris, because I do not think that there can ever be any specific set of values and standards that must apply to every archaeologist (who has the authority to define this set?). Indeed, I thought that WAC is the place where multiple values and perspectives on the past and on archaeology can and should be brought out into the open in order to be discussed among colleagues of different backgrounds and evaluated in open exchange and discussion. Is it not that sort of ability to listen with an open mind that has made WAC sensitive to apartheid and various indigenous claims both in the past and now? The various bodies of WAC occasionally can (and should) take sides but surely it is not for individuals to pr
esent ready-made ethical and professional judgments about archaeology and archaeologists with the expectation that WAC or other archaeologists simply buy them just like that because they are somehow for everybody thought to be by default morally superior to alternative views. 

I think we should aim higher than that! But - let me repeat - at the end of the day I am not an opponent but rather a critical supporter of the Tara campaign even though my knowledge of that specific case is very limited (which is why my comments are more general). Precisely the cause of communities may not be best supported by some of the rhetorics I read in Maggie's reply and I am therefore not signing it myself.

Maybe others on this list wish to explore these issues somewhat further?

best, Cornelius


-----
Cornelius Holtorf
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FROM 1 SEPT 2008: [log in to unmask]
 

----- Original Message -----
From: S Viner <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:09 pm
Subject: [ARCH-JUSTICE] Fwd: sign letter to Irish Times?

> 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 
> internationallyagainst 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 
> genuineinterest' 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 
> constructionwork 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 
> earlierwarnings 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 
> culturaldestruction 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