I think that the issue that Sarah has raised (see below if you don't
remember)should help to highlight some of the key issues that we would like to
discuss as part of the WAC-6 rountable “Personal Ethics, Social Justice, and
the Practice of Archaeology in the World”.

There we can see an example of how people who work in heritage management may be
requested to support choices that are probably iniquitous. At a conference a
few years ago a colleague expressed his view that our political choices are
important but these should be made outside our profession. I disagree, as I
think that we are not archaeologists some of the time and citizens some other
time. The same responsibilities that we have as citizens apply to our role as
archaeologists.Probably many will agree with this statement of principle, but,
in reality how many times as citizen-archaeologists we are personally prepared
to query the wisdom of the actions that are taken in the name of  archaeology
and heritage management? And how many times we are then prepared to stand up to
our principles?

At the round table and even better in the next few days on this list it would be
interesting to hear of any examples of positive action taken by archaelogists
to oppose social injustice. It would also be interesting to hear of blatant
cases of lack of initiative.

All the best,
Umberto




-- 
Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield
Northgate House
West Street
Sheffield S1 4ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943 
Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563 
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html

"There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way".


Quoting S Viner <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear all,
> 
> Friday 4th June will see a session at WAC in Dublin under the title of
> ‘Personal
> Ethics and the Practice of Archaeology in the World’. As was described in a
> previous email the format of the session is a roundtable in which a number
> of
> short position papers will be followed by open discussion. In the run up to
> WAC
> we want to open discussion on the AGJ mailing list in order that the session
> can be as productive and positive as possible. We have three main themes for
> discussion so far:
> 
> The negative effects of the archaeologist-developer relationship
> Rebecca Roseff
> 
> Archaeology and negative responsibility: a consideration of Fuller's 
> 'critique of intellectuals' 
> Marcus Brittain
> 
> The glass ceiling in archaeology and our responsibility to equity 
> Sarah Viner
> 
> In turn, the abstract for each introduction will be circulated on the AGJ
> mailing list as a starting point for discussion. Although there will be no
> paper presented on this subject I would like to take the opportunity to
> begin
> the discussion with the subject of access to or exclusion from participation
> in
> heritage (see below). I’d also like to encourage others to introduce topics
> for
> discussion that are relevant to the WAC theme. Any comments that are
> particularly relevant to the session theme will be presented again in Dublin
> for further discussion. 
> 
> Many thanks,
> Sarah
> 
> 
> In the last few weeks a number of newspapers have reported that Bristol City
> Council removed ornate Victorian street lamps from suburban areas. Local
> people
> were angered to find that these lamps had been replaced with modern ones,
> and
> moved to a more ‘affluent’ part of the city. When challenged the council
> argued
> that street lighting is essential to prevent vandalism and crime. This
> episode
> raises many questions for archaeologists, among them:
> 1)	Is/should access to heritage/beauty be the preserve of the most affluent
> portions of society?
> 2)	Should preservation of heritage be more important than allowing access?
> 3)	If access is restricted what role does heritage have in society?
> 4)	Is it the job of archaeologists/councils/the public to decide the level
> of
> access that is allowed?
> 5)	Finally, as archaeologists is our responsibility to archaeology or to
> members
> of the public? Do we need to make such a distinction?
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4075908.ece
>