law, europe, responsibility,professional ethics

[troll]

Europe gets bigger every day.Each and every nation within it undoubtedly has its own unique approach to its heritage. There would be an argument for some sort of pan- european consistency in an ideal world.Particularly as the redevelopment of the newer and less affluent nations will be seen as assets by western businesses. The overall impact on the cultural and ecological landscapes of europe could be devastating. I`m sure there are people already thinking about this (I hope!) and planning as we speak! One of the saddest things I have seen in archaeology in recent years has been the treatment of Human remains from archaeological contexts abroad.Now before I go any further, this is not a rant at another nation! Of course, nations will have their own legislative and cultural frameworks in regards to Human remains. My point is that there are well funded western academic institutions excavating abroad who should know better. Yes, in an ideal world Human remains would enjoy agreed european legislative protection but that is simply not the case.There are some nations that simply discard Human remains from archaeological contexts.Often at source and en masse.I would argue that this practise is in need of discussion.Universities around the world are pro-actively involved in the research and excavation of foreign sites.Not all of them take their professional ethics with them when they go either.The treatment of Human remains and their fundamental value to the archaeological record is a concept in dire need of discussion in a european context.More pressing, is the need to encourage western institutions with academic interests abroad to bring their professionalism with them and where neccesary, lead by example.There are still examples of Human remains being either discarded, left in trays covered in rat droppings years after excavation or, twenty-odd individuals thrown into one wet cardboard box and left in the stores for years.Things are unlikely to change abroad if western academics adopt a similar approach to that of their host nations. I would argue that the majority of western academics are members or fellows of some institute or other and as such should behave accordingly.At home or abroad.How do we approach the issue of Human remains (archaeological) on an ethical and perhaps legislative level in a european context?:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Paul Belford]

Troll writes (after some preamble)...

Europe gets bigger every day.Each and every nation within it undoubtedly has its own unique approach to its heritage ... The overall impact on the cultural and ecological landscapes of europe could be devastating. I`m sure there are people already thinking about this (I hope!) and planning as we speak!

Yes indeed there are, and a number of legislative agreements have been signed to begin to attempt to regulate this (Valetta for example). Arguably the enlargement of the EU will improve matters for the historic environment. In examining the specific issue of human remains, Troll says...

My point is that there are well funded western academic institutions excavating abroad who should know better. Yes, in an ideal world Human remains would enjoy agreed european legislative protection but that is simply not the case.There are some nations that simply discard Human remains from archaeological contexts.Often at source and en masse.I would argue that this practise is in need of discussion.Universities around the world are pro-actively involved in the research and excavation of foreign sites.Not all of them take their professional ethics with them when they go either.The treatment of Human remains and their fundamental value to the archaeological record is a concept in dire need of discussion in a european context

There is indeed variation in the way different nations treat human remains, and indeed all archaeological remains. I would however be very very careful in being a kettle shouting at black pots, because I have seen all of these...

Human remains being either discarded, left in trays covered in rat droppings years after excavation or, twenty-odd individuals thrown into one wet cardboard box and left in the stores for years

...happening in the UK. Sadly the main culprits are often what you describe as 'western institutions with academic interests' (ie. Universities). In my view you are approaching this issue from a nationalist perspective which is quite erroneous and indeed arrogant. You appear to be implying that 'western institutions with academic interests' are unique in having 'professionalism' and a proper approach. In particular your phrase...

Things are unlikely to change abroad if western academics adopt a similar approach to that of their host nations.

...is at best patronising and at worst extremely offensive to the many hard-working professional archaeologists in other EU countries dealing with human remains. This issue is not a one way street, and I think there are many instances which we can all think of where work in the UK has been sloppy, unprofessional and ethically troubled.

Why don't you write a paper for the 'European Archaeologist' outlining your views? Or present a paper at the next EAA conference? I am sure our German, French, Croatian, Scandinavian and Dutch (etc.) colleagues would be delighted to hear how they are ethically unsound and how they can only be saved from professional damnation by the intervention of UK academics.


Engage brain before opening mouth?

[troll]

Please notice that I have avoided any mention of specific nations and am fully aware that bad practise happens at home too.My point was to argue for a fuller consensus on the status of Human remains in a european context.A secondary point is that when excavating abroad, some academic institutions waver far from their own agreed professional standards.We know that poor standards exist here and to some, poor standards can be endemic in a commercial environment. To work in someone elses country and not even grace them with the minimalist standards of ones own institute is a bit rude I think. Whilst I accept that taken out of context, you could construe some wierd empire trumpetting anti-europe plot on my part but, thats just not what its about so please, was a bit dramatic Paul.The Valetta Convention has been and will be interpreted in light of each nations cultural frameworks.As a result, europe has remained a network of different recording and curation systems so in a sense, Valetta has in fact doubled the presence of tiers instead of approaching the real issues. Valetta and ppgs.Legislation in clear and unabiguous terms would be an ideal but seems unwelcome in view of the many objections in signing up to a simple convention.In terms of Human remains, surely we should be updating how we value them or not within a legislative and ethical framework?Europe-wide at least.Yes there will be endless dialogue over the main thrust of Valetta but, I would argue that Human remains regardless of ancestry or faith, should be treated fairly across the board.Not lumped amongst the various meanings implicit within the varying manifestations of Valetta and ppg land.Do dead people have Human rights?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Paul Belford]

I am sorry for the dramatics Troll. However given your previously repeatedly stated strong anti-Labour position, support for right-wing newspaper editors such as Max Hastings, and the tone of some of the remarks in your opening post, I had perhaps assumed that you were also in the Eurosceptic camp. My apologies for making that assumption!

I agree with your point about the arrogance of many of our colleagues when working abroad. However it may be that in many cases the 'standards' of the UK institute are in fact lower than those of the host country? It is worth looking to see whether the visiting institution has produced a project design and what that document states. In my experience of overseas projects, a UK institution does not work in isolation but rather in co-operation with local bodies (both universities and local authorities) and the approaches and standards of these local bodies will of course be taken into account.

I also agree that there needs to be Europe-wide dialogue on this issue, hence my suggestion of coming to, and engaging with, existing European fora on this issue.

[troll]

Greetins Paul. I have to say that I`m not an anything "ist" and don`t ally myself to any political party or school of thought.I certainly don`t support any wing either and as I said, I don`t do newspapers and can tell you nothing about the man whose quote I offered either.I do however, agree totally with you when you suggest that Europe-wide dialogue is needed.Without much needed dialogue, heritage will be in danger of being submerged beneath endless strands of pseudo-law.No apologies needed sire,we on the same page!

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

In relation to Paul Belford's remarks, I note that Troll's inital post refers to 'Western' institutions, not UK ones. I interpreted that to mean Western European, so Troll's criticisms could be seen as directed towards the new, Eastern European members of the EU.

Having said that, there are two entirely different fields of ethics involved here, and it is important not to muddle them up because they have different implications.

Firstly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as such, irrespective of their archaeological importance. This is a matter of personal rather than professional ethics, but it is one that is culturally and religiously conditioned. Not all ethnic/religious groups even in the UK view human remains (even of the very newly-deceased) with the same degree of reverence that is assumed by the law, and it is possible that in some countries this (relative) lack of reverence is the dominant culture. In other places, reverence might be expressed differenly from the way we do it. For example, keeping bones of different individual separate is not important everywhere. We should not seek to impose our own cultural prejudices onto other peoples, but should in fact conform to local custom in these respects.

Secondly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as a source of archaeological evidence. That is a matter of professional ethics, and requires us to process, handle, record and archive human remains to the same standards wherever we are in the world.

The overlap between the two comes where the ideal way to treat/store human remains from an archaeological perspective conflicts with local mortuary custom, and that is where we need to find a workable and ethical accommodation between the two - as we do in the UK. However, we should not assume that the details of that accommodation will be the same abroad as in the UK.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sniffer]

In order to avoid waking up to an irate crowd waving AK47's, our practice (and I naively assumed it was standard elsewhere - shows how innocent I am) is to specify how anything brought out of the ground is treated in terms of stabilising, testing, evaluation and eventual disposal. This is generally what people would recognise as the UK approach to these things, but we leave scope for any special requirements that the overseas client may have; particularly in terms of spiritual beliefs. It ill befits archaeology to be either squeamish or show disrespect. It can be a really touchy subject at times where the locals believe the past should remain buried - particularly if it's their ancestors.

Establishing a massive international standard would be fraught with extra cares and attentions which may well cause delays and that's good neither for the project nor the finds/remains.

I think we have to trust the local client/consultant and our agent to make the right specification in these matters as a matter of common sense and good practice rather than establish 'practices'. Minimum standards insofar as having agreement on the ethical and legal treatment of material are essential and must surely form part of the contract entered into. I absolutely agree about making assumptions over local custom, and work overseas where there's a risk of actually disturbing anything shouldn't be lightly entered into.

The UK approaches do travel well. It's generally only comments on local sensitivities and faith we get back - along with the final resting place method which we clearly ask to be specified. We clearly state, for example, that we won't transport human remains off-site. They are to be collected by a local organisation.

If I express an opinion, shoot the boss. He's a bad man.

[beamo]

Troll wrote

'A secondary point is that when excavating abroad, some academic institutions waver far from their own agreed professional standards'.

This is a fair point and I have personally seen some p***-poor excavations overseas run by UK institutions, academic and otherwise. Whether or not these institutions have their 'own agreed professional standards' is debatable, but where these organisations are RAOs or where indviduals involved are IFA members, then it should be pointed out that the Codes of Conduct and the Standards apply outside the UK as well as inside.


Beamo

[troll]

Beamo- greetings.I may have been making an assumption but I believed that most U.K Institutions at least, would require Membership of a relevent professional Institute as part of an Archaeology/Classics type job.Particularly when representing a UK Institution abroad.You make the point that I was struggling to get across-Academic Institutions at least
(forget the cardinal points bit) seem to leave agreed professional Institute standards behind when working abroad.I think, I am in favour of a Europe-wide discussion on the treatment of Human remains.I do of course stress that I am aware of just how complex the associated issues could become but, as a small step, I do mean in the context of Human remains disturbed from an archaeological investigation. I have been lucky enough to work abroad a couple of times a year recently and have mooched in large storerooms full of horrors and taken part in interesting fieldwork and post-ex The poor treatment of any archive is in-excusable but my point here is that Human remains should/could be given different treatment from that of other "finds" groups.Some may argue that this could be seen as a basic Human right?As 1man1desk rightly says,there are both ethical and professional dimensions involved. Putting the ethical aspect aside for a minute, the sheer amount of data that is simply discarded or literally dumped in store-rooms is awe-inspiring.I recently had a conversation with a PhD student who retrieved pottery during the destruction of tombs abroad.The student told me that there was no time to retrieve bone as well. The PhD student is writing a thesis on pottery.Clearly, time was available to retrieve pottery.There is quite a scary trend of art historians and classics peeps excavating tombs particularly for ceramics abroad. The Human remains often don`t appear on a project design-the term "tomb" must surely be a bit of a give-away? I don`t want to witch-hunt institutions or PhD students
(lucky gits) but I hope you get the drift.I feel that at least professionally, a solid minimum standard across the board would`nt hurt.The ethical issues....well, theres aplenty. Who`s first?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad):face-huh:

[vulpes]

Troll in my (perhaps limited) experience of 2 academic archaeology depts in the UK I have observed that it is more of an exception than a rule that archaeologists are members of the IFA. Don't have the figures but would imagine that most IFA members come from the contracting, curating and consulting classes. Notable exceptions perhaps are Birmingham, Leicester, and Cambridge Unis. However, of these only Birmingham has registered as a department rather than just a contracting unit.