LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
In many countries, warfare destroys archaeological artifacts and current cultural sites by damaging and destroying important monuments as well as leaving museums and archaeological sites unprotected from looters. Globally, people generally agree that national and regional governments have a responsibility to protect cultural heritage sites and artifacts from being destroyed. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict was intended to protect and potentially prevent such destruction globally. While it took over 50 years, the United States finally signed onto the 1954 Hague Convention on March 13, 2009.
The United States and the Protection of Cultural Heritage
The United States has enacted several laws designed to allow for the protection of cultural artifacts, as you can see in the following table. However, the laws mostly do not establish any process for preservation and protection and, therefore, provide no clear consequences when resources are damaged or destroyed.
Legislation for Protection of Cultural Heritage
|
U.S. legislation
|
Acronym
|
Brief explanation
|
Other notes
|
|
Antiquities Act (1906)
|
none
|
Authorized the president to declare historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of scientific interest as national monuments, explicitly establishing the importance of archaeological sites on public land in the U.S. legal code.
|
|
|
National Historic Preservation Act (1966)
|
NHPA
|
Intended to preserve historic and archaeological sites on public lands.
|
Section 106: Main provisions for archaeology, basically stating that when any money for a project comes from the federal government, builders and developers must determine if old things (archaeological) are present at the building site. When archaeological remains are found, they must do something about them (survey, inventory, and/or preserve) to retain federal funding for the project.
Section 110: Individuals who work for federal agencies are responsible for checking for, evaluating, and protecting historic remains on the land they manage.
|
|
National Environmental Protection Act (1969)
|
NEPA
|
A national policy of protecting the environment that requires proposed actions funded by the federal government to evaluate both natural and cultural resources.
|
|
|
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (197n and R9)
|
ARPA
|
Enacted after the Antiquities Act of 1906 was determined to be unconstitutionally vague and requires that archaeological sites be protected.
|
Governs excavation of archaeological sites on federal and Native American lands, including requiring permits that protect cultural and historic resources, and prohibits interstate and international sales of artifacts.
|
|
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (1990)
|
NAGPRA
|
Established precise rules and responsibilities when Native American burials and other items associated with a Native American burial are found through excavation and are housed in museum and university collections.
|
|
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to numerous laws they must follow, archaeologists face many ethical dilemmas in their work. A code of ethics is a written statement of ethical guidelines for groups, organizations, and individuals in their professional occupations. The field of archaeology has established three primary levels of codes of ethics that have unique benefits and limitations. The highest-level codes are the ones adopted by professional organizations such as the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA). The RPA’s standards of conduct provide for a grievance process and clear ways of enforcing those standards within its ranks, including censure. The weakest level of codes are general statements of goals, principles, and responsibilities adopted by organizations such as the Society for American Archaeology (SAA). SAA has drafted sweeping principles of desired behavior by archaeologists that include things such as accountability and stewardship but do not establish consequences for individuals who do not follow the guidelines.
code of ethics
A written statement of ethical guidelines for groups, organizations, and individuals in their professional occupations.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
As you’ve learned through this course, archaeology is more than just digging holes and looking at the treasure discovered. An archaeologist’s job is to uncover patterns of human behavior by excavating and analyzing the archaeological record. Their explanations of these patterns of human behavior are strongly influenced by the paradigm under which they operate. Think of a paradigm as a pair of sunglasses you put on. Sunglasses cut through glare, making some areas easier to see, but also dim the light coming through the lenses, making other areas more difficult to see. Paradigms operate the same way—effectively dimming some aspects of a group and its culture while bringing others into focus.
Fundamental to all scientific work, and to archaeology in particular, is our innate tendency to be biased by our culture, knowledge, training, and experiences. Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, occurs when our perspectives prejudice or favor one explanation over another. We touched on bias briefly in our discussion of the history of archaeology; early on, for example, archaeologists from Europe presumed that all societies developed as theirs had and tried to apply the three-age system of stone, bronze, and iron to cultures that did not follow that line of development. They were influenced by their culture, limited knowledge of other cultures, training in the archaeological paradigm of the time, and experience. Archaeologists are now aware of the drawbacks and risks associated with their biases, but they still must actively work to avoid letting those innate tendencies influence their work.
bias
In archaeology, to favor one explanation over another based on personal culture and/or training.
Colleges and universities generally train their archaeology students in a particular paradigm, and that paradigm, while providing a useful framework for study, is also often a strong source of bias in that paradigms frame one’s research, including what qualifies as an acceptable explanation. Archaeologists don’t explicitly describe the paradigms that guide their work, but other archaeologists can usually figure this out based on the focus of their work, the types of research questions they ask, and the types of conclusions they draw.
Other sources of bias include the archaeologist’s age, biological sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity, and personal experiences, which have shaped who they are and, most importantly, how they see the world. This worldview influences all aspects of their lives, including their work. Education and training also bias research. Most scientists are strongly influenced by their faculty mentors and professors, especially in graduate degree programs. It is often quite easy to trace scientists’ influences back to their mentors, not unlike building a family tree, based on how they approach their work.
Cultural and current events can also bias scientific explanations. In the 1960s, for example, many archaeological explanations of people’s movements and the failure of societies were centered on warfare because of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict and what it suggested about cultures around the world. By the 1970s, explanations of social problems had shifted to ecological and environmental explanations in response to the environmental movement.
Finally, it is important to realize that the archaeological record is biased by what past people left behind and by which of those things were preserved. It seems like stone tools and ceramics played a dominant role in past human cultures based on the surviving evidence. It is important to remember that there likely were many other types of tools used by past cultures that did not survive.
