What Is Archaeology and Why Is It Important - Essay Example

The Ethical and Legal issues involved in an Archaeological Excavation and the Extent to which these are related to the Art Market Course: Tutor: Date: The Ethical and Legal issues involved in an Archaeological Excavation and the Extent to which these are related to the Art Market What is Archaeology and Why is it Important? The human species appears to have a deep-seated need to know about their predecessors and diverse matters pertaining to the past. It has widely been quoted that those persons that happen to either not understand or know their past are ultimately doomed to eventually repeat the mistakes that were made in the past. In the field of archaeology, archaeologists generally engage in activities such as the interpretation of material culture and the location, excavation and dating of various sites and the contents discovered within them. Archeology is primarily concerned with artifacts and the location of these artifacts (Gibbon 1984). The study of how past cultures lived help us in answering numerous questions on human interrelationships, behaviors and adaptations that would otherwise have been quite difficult to answer. In addition to helping the social scientists significantly increase their overall capacity to be able to encompass thousands of years of human experience, the examination of the past through archaeology helps these scientist in understanding the probably direction and nature of our current and future human activities (gibbons 1984). The accurate projection of future trends is seen to be highly dependent on the information derived from the archeological study of the past. Archaeology is a painstaking and meticulous science and fruitful evidence showing just how past cultures lived can only be obtain by the careful analysis of archeological objects (Mussett and Khan 2000). The process of archaeology is seen to require the surgical and extremely laborious process of site excavation, an in-depth analysis of the context in which the objects in question were found, whenever possible, in situ examination of the artifacts discovered, the decoding of the newly discovered artifacts in a laboratory environment, the well detailed publication of findings in various scholarly publications and the storage or curation of these objects for the purpose of better facilitating future studies. Of note is that although archeology might be conducted with extreme care, it is quite possible for it to at times violate both the existence and belief of the concerned cultural groups. Ethical Concerns in Archaeology The notion of archeological ethics is seen to have just started emerging in the nineteenth century when archaeologists were starting to excavate the Valley of Kings. The main ethical concern at the time was seen to pertain to potential unscientific excavation of these sites. There were no ethical concern raised on the question of marketing antiquities and the excavation of sites across the Valley of Kings was perceived to be a commercial enterprise in which collectors and dealers were in competition to hire Egyptian laborers as well as in the enlistment of suitable government officials who would be of help in the recovery of artifacts for their own use. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, numerous archaeological monuments are seen to have been unprofessionally removed from different sites around the world and then shipped to private collectors and museums in Europe (The Economist 2002). Ethics are seen to comprise of the various standards that are deemed to be applicable to the members of a given professional or trade group such as archeology by the mere virtue of their responsibilities, their special expertise, powers and authority that characterize their role or status in society. One of the ethical concerns in modern day archeology is seen to surround the question of exactly who owns the past? This question is seen to carry the notion that that any ancient site that is unearth generally has a number of other stakeholders apart from the archeologists who discovered and unearthed it. Some of these stakeholders variously include collectors, dealers and museums that may all wish to acquire the unearthed artifacts (Carver 2011). Stakeholders also include governments that have enacted a series of laws to effectively prevent the exportation of artifacts, nationalize archeological resources as well as greatly limit the private ownership of excavated material. Other stakeholders include the cultural groups that happen to have various cultural links to archeological sites as well as the cultural property that is excavated from these sites. One of the principal archeological concerns is seen to pertain to how to best address the various disparate concerns of those individuals whose ancestors have been buried in the archaeological sites, how to address the concerns of those objecting to any excavation based on group identity, religious or cultural grounds, as well as how to best address those concerns that are posed by persons wishing to sell or buy archaeological materials. Springer (2004) points out that archaeological ethics are developed around a set of three distinct overriding principles. These three principles are; Firstly archaeological sites should always be excavated in a professional manner and if possible be preserved in situ (Wendrich 2010). In the event that it is necessary to remove excavated materials, these materials should be conserved in an appropriate manner so as to facilitate future studies. It is important for data to be recorded in an appropriate manner after its recovery by well trained, discerning an knowledgeable individuals. The removal of cultural objects from their sites of origin generally results in the tainting of their archaeological integrity and a the loss of crucial knowledge. The tainting of evidence causes archaeological investigations to start resembling fanciful reconstructions as opposed to their being scientific explanations. Ideally archaeological material should always be examined in situ and then left to remain where they have originally been found for good. The second archaeological ethical concern is seen to emphasize that archaeological material should not be sold. The commercial trading of archaeological artifacts has been found to be ethically contentious (Vitelli and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006). This is seen to primarily be because of the fact that we live in a era that promotes global business free trade and as such, the commercial trading of various valuable artifacts has evolved to become a thriving international business. Archaeologists are unanimous in their objection to any commercial trading of archaeological materials and artifacts. It is argued that the commercialization of these valuable objects generally results in their unscientific removal from their sites of origin, a fact that results in the general destruction of their contextual information. The third archaeological ethical principle demands that it is important to first consult relevant groups such as biological descendants before the archaeological excavation of funeral objects, sacred and ceremonial objects, or dead bodies can be conducted. Archaeology often involves closely working with various cultural materials that other people have an interest in, have a right or a duty to. In this respect, it is often seen that dead bodies and tombs often present some of the most sensitive ethical concerns in archaeology (Williams 2003). The excavation of dead bodies provides archaeologists with the opportunity of being able to discover additional information about the times and societies that the people lived in. However, tombs are never built with the intention of being eventually opened and rummaged through. This raises the ethical question as to whether archaeological practices are important enough to outweigh the society’s general interest in attempting to avoid the desecration of their gravesites which can result in causing various degrees of spiritual trauma to cultural descendants. The ethical archaeological concerns that govern land-based archaeology are seen to uniquely be brought into sharp focus in underwater archaeology. The inherent difficulties unique to the underwater excavation process at times make it impossible to conduct a proper examination of material in situ. As a result of shipwrecks being located in sea beds and often at substantial depths, it is not always technologically possible to examine archaeological material on site and at best this can only be done with a lot of danger. Even if it is done in a careful manner, the excavation of a shipwreck inevitably results in the permanent change of a site and the destruction of any opportunity to collect material in future (Søreide 2011). There are a number of substantial costs that are normally associated with shipwreck archaeology. These costs are further compounded by the additional costs of litigating competing claims brought forth by other commercial salvagers, governments, the owners of the concerned shipwrecks, heirs of the persons that happened to perish in the shipwrecks and insurance underwriters. The high costs involved in shipwreck excavations necessitate that private investors be bought in to help in funding these costs (Hoffman 2006). Private investors usually agree to funding these excavations with the hope of making profits by selling any artifacts recovered from the wreckage. Despite opposition by archaeologists to the commercial marketing of underwater artifacts, any attempts aimed at limiting the marketing of archaeological material that is found underwater would have the effect of effectively putting an end to shipwreck excavations. This is because the private investors and salvage operators that back these very expensive undertakings will have lost the incentive to fund the excavations. By allowing archeologists to conduct research on the salvaged material for extended time periods, these investors suffer from increased costs and therefore tend to try and rush the studies so as to immediately sell the material to collectors at a profit (Babit and Tilburg 1998). Although funeral artifacts and dead bodies are usually not recovered when excavating shipwrecks, there is usually some opposition by people claiming that these sites are actually underwater graves and should therefore remain untouched. As compared to land sites, underwater archaeological sites are perceived by archaeologists to be unique because they have not been disturbed or touched by human beings and their remaining completely protected provides archaeologists with untouched storehouses of historical data. In response to claims that shipwrecks are underwater gravesites, it can be argued that those persons that perish in ship wrecks do not actually choose their burial site to be at sea; instead their bodies are often left to the mercies of the various underwater elements. In addition to this, archaeologists calling for the preservation of these underwater burial sites generally tend to appear to be contradictors in light of the widespread manner in which land-based archaeologists are seen to have desecrated burial sites in an attempt to unearth archaeological material (Cohan 2004). Conducting treasure salvages of deep-water shipwrecks is seen to be a relatively recent phenomenon that started with the 1985 recovery of gold silver and porcelain from the wreckages of Dutch and Spanish vessels that were located just outside the United States’ territorial waters. Legal Concerns in Archaeology Illegal excavation (Looting) According to Zimmerman (2003), most archeologists tend to have an idea of exactly what is meant by looting. Zimmerman further describes the term as inferring the taking of something that essentially does not belong to you and is based on the Hindi word lut that connotes illegally taking or pillage. Of note however, is that the actual meaning of the term largely depends on the context that the term is being used in, and the person that is using it. The term looting is seen to broadly cover everything ranging from cases of art theft from museums to the undocumented excavation of sites that are considered to have archeological significance and the illegal exportation of artifacts that are deemed to be having cultural significance across national borders. Archeological artifacts are only considered as being looted in the event that they have been acquired through the use of illegal means; otherwise these objects are simply referred to as being of unknown provenance. Archeologists often define looting in strict legal terms as illicitly conducted excavation or performing excavation without the acquisition of proper permits. Around the world, most countries such as Britain consider digging for artifacts without first having acquired proper permits as being illegal. In contrast to these countries, digging on privately owned lands is often viewed as being legal in the United States; this is however with the noted exception of sites that happen to be located within the few states that are seen to require the possession of excavation permits and the excavation of human burial sites. As a result of the rather upsetting nature of act and eventual consequences of site looting, archeologists have now redefined the term looting to refer to the removal of any artifacts or material deemed to be of an archeological nature from their context without the preparation of proper scientific documentation. This is regardless of whether it is done illegally or legally for either commercial purposes or otherwise. A commonly disputed ethical consideration is found to be in respect to land developers whose activities sometimes results in the destruction of artifacts (Das 2001). The activities of land developers are often not perceived as being akin to looting as a result of the fact that these activities are sanctioned by the government. It is argued that irrespective of when and where undocumented excavation occurs, there is always the effect of a destruction of the important information held by the earth about the past; and from both an ethical and scientific standpoint this damage is largely immeasurable and most certainly irreversible. The sanctity that should be afforded to gravesites had been construed as a common law principle by many courts. Nowadays however, the disposition and disinterment of human remains is now seen to be strictly governed by statue as opposed to its being governed by common law. Of note is that there appears to be no modern law that is seen to abrogate the common law principle that it is not allowed for one to acquire title to any interred human remains for commercial purposes. The law rarely perceives the remains of human beings as being archeological resources and in essence causing them to be regarded as being marketable property. Statutory law is often seen to respect a grave’s sanctity even after a cemetery has long been abandoned. According to Cohan (2004) the British government is currently reviewing burial laws in response to increasing scarcity of cemetery space. The British Home Office is proposing the use of the lift and deepen method in which the bodies are routinely exhumed and reburied in deeper graves so as to allow other coffins to be laid on top. An alternative method that is being proposed is for ancient remains to be taken and moved to some more distant sites (. The laws governing the recovery of artifacts that have been submerged in water is found to be a species o admiralty law and involves the law of finds and the law of salvage. These laws are seen to date back hundreds of years ago to the time of Hammurabi when they were established so as to provide adequate incentives to salvage operators in the form of compensation for their services. The laws see to it that the spoils of salvaging a shipwreck are shared by both the salvagers and the ship owners. In the event that one would wish to make any claim on a shipwreck and its associated artifacts, it is important to determine a court that has admiralty jurisdiction in the matter and proceed to file an in rem proceedings. A crucial threshold issue that is determined by this court is whether the ship owner has actually abandoned both the concerned ship and its contents, if this is established, the law of finds is seen to apply, otherwise in the event that it is determined that the owner has not abandoned the ship and its contents, the law of salvage is then seen to apply. According to the law of finds, if it is legally determined that the shipwreck and its cargo has been abandoned, the first person that finds the wreck with the aim of acquiring its ownership is legally entitled to gain ownership of the shipwreck, in the event that it is not abandoned the law of salvage requires that it cannot be savaged without permission from the owner who is often seen to be a government entity (Babits and Tilburg 1998). The Relationship between the Art market and Archaeological Ethical and Legal Concerns Archaeological sites and artifacts are commonly perceived as being a nonrenewable and finite cultural resource. Ethical concerns are raised in that the destruction of a site and any of contextualized information that to provide results in an irretrievable loss to all: It is important for buyers in art markets to ensure that they only purchase those artifacts that have fully documented provenience as this would aid in stopping looted objects from appearing in the art markets. This is because purchasing only fully documented artifacts would eliminate the incentive for the looting of sites a factor that would in turn lead to archeological context being well preserved for the future. The looting of archeological artifacts from their sites is considered by most countries to be theft. In the art markets, in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, it is not possible for a thief to legally transfer title to stolen property even if the archeological artifact’s buyer acts in good faith. Ethical and legal concerns are raised as this inevitably puts the purchaser at great risk of losing the property in question. Although the art markets serve to help art objects to easily move throughout the world enabling more people to learn from these art objects and enjoy them, the unregulated arts markets is seen to greatly impede archaeological scientific study. According to Passas and Goodwin (2004) this is evidenced in the case of a research conducted by that studied the 3 millennium B.C. Cycladic figurines, these figurines are highly prized among collectors due o their rather eerie resemblance to Brancusi sculptures. The study determined that about 90% of the known figurines do not have any documented provenience which means that we currently do not know about any of their actual archaeological contexts. Ethical concerns are raised in that the looting and illegal sale in the art markets of these figurines means that an entire field of connoisseurship has completely been distorted and it is now not possible to exactly determine the fake figurines from the genuine ones: An estimated over 85% of the Cycladic burial sites have also been destroyed in the process. Conclusion The importance of our trying to protect archaeological remains while advancing human knowledge on past societies cannot be over emphasized. Land-based and underwater archeological ethics are seen to be quite different as various land based ethics such as archeological artifacts should not be marketed for profit, artifacts should always be examined in situ and that it is first important to consult with relevant groups such as descendents before conducting excavations are seen to not be particularly applicable to underwater water archeological excavations. This is because of the complexities of underwater archeology demand for the disregard of these ethical guidelines in favor of legal guidelines such as the law of finds and the law of salvages. The relationship between art markets and archeological ethical and legal concerns is seen to be quite intricate as the activities of the art markets have a great impact on both of these legal and ethical concerns. Care should be taken to carefully regulate these concerns so as to ensure that art markets do not negatively impact archaeology and cause legal and ethical concerns to arise. Bibliography Babits, L. and Tilburg, H. 1998. Maritime archaeology: a reader of substantive and theoretical contributions. New York : Plenum Press. Carver, M. 2011. Making Archaeology Happen: Design Versus Dogma. Left Coast Press. Cohan A. 2004. An Examination of Archaeological Ethics and the Repatriation Movement Respecting Cultural Property (Part one). Retrieved from http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/27/2/cohan.pdf Connolly, P. et al. 2009. Ethics in action : a case-based approach. Malden, MA : Wiley -Blackwell. Das, J. 2001. Human rights and indigenous peoples. New Delhi A. P. H. Pub. Corp. Gibbon, G. 1984. Anthropological archaeology. New York : Columbia University Press. Hoffman, B. 2006. Art and cultural heritage: law, policy, and practice. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press. Mussett, A. and Khan M. 2000. Looking into the earth: an introduction to geological geophysics. Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press. Passas, N. and Goodwin, N. 2004. Its legal but it aint right : harmful social consequences of legal industries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Søreide, F. 2011. Ships from the depths : deepwater archaeology. College Station : Texas A&M University Press. The Economist. 2002. Ethics and Archaeology: Can you Dig it? Accessed from http://www.economist.com/node/1056932 Vitelli K. and Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2006. Archaeological ethics. Lanham, Md.; Oxford: AltaMira Press. Wendrich, W. 2010. Egyptian Archaeology. Chicester : Wiley. Williams, H. 2003. Archaeologies of remembrance: death and memory in past societies. New York: Kluwer Academic, cop. Zimmerman L. et al. 2003. Ethical issues in archaeology. Walnut Creek, Calif.; Oxford: AltaMira. Read More