Exam Questions and Concise Model Answers
Candidates should answer two questions, one from each section
Section A
- Colin Renfrew has recently argued that we should be more concerned with stopping the current trade in antiquities than haggling over who should get to keep antiquities that were acquired in the past. Do you agree with his assessment, and do we currently have the means to stop this trade? answer
- Since the National Trust has increased its membership to 2.7 million people, to what extent do you think they can be said to represent the interests of a national heritage? answer
- In September 2000, the Interior Secretary of the USA, Bruce Babbitt, declared that the skeletal remains of Kennewick Man were 'culturally-affiliated' with the five Native American groups who had asked to have then repatriated. Secretary Babbitt noted that he had based his decision on the geographical data and the tribes' oral histories. In the light of this ruling, has the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act outlived its usefulness? answer
Section B
- To what extent do you think that the scheduled monuments of England constitute an archaeological heritage of national significance? answer
- Martin Carver has argued that archaeological sites only have value in terms of their research potential. As a consequence, especially valuable sites should be excavated. On the other hand, Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (Archaeology and Planning) states that 'where nationally important remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation'. Does this mean the end of archaeological research in England? answer
- Is it appropriate that only people with professionally recognised archaeological skills should be allowed to undertake archaeological work in the UK? answer
Question 1
Colin Renfrew has recently argued that we should be more concerned with stopping the current trade in antiquities than haggling over who should get to keep antiquities that were acquired in the past.
Do you agree with his assessment, and do we currently have the means to stop this trade?
There is currently an enormous trade in illicit antiquities, derived from clandestine excavation of archaeological sites and theft from museum collections. Current estimates show that Turkey is losing more than £100 million of antiquities per year, and many of the developing countries in Africa and Asia are suffering especially badly. The national museum of Afghanistan has been effectively completely looted of all its collections during the civil wars of the 1980s. The major problems of this trade is that it removes finds from their context (archaeological / historical) and therefore deprives countries and interested individuals of the chance of reconstructing proper accounts of the (pre-)history of peoples and places.
These antiquities are being sold through the major auction houses and private agents. Illicit antiquities are currently being purchased by both major museums in the developed world (e.g. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York), and an increasing number of private wealthy individuals. The auction houses note that there are an ever increasing number of individuals, who have become wealthy through IT and the financial markets, who are prepared to purchase more than $50,000 of antiquities per year. Studies indicate that before the final purchase of antiquities, there may be an organised chain of individuals that range from organised criminal gangs (similar to those involved in the drugs trade) to small, poor farmers in Third World countries that desperately need to supplement their incomes to survive.
Although it is clear that many of the collections of the national and major museums themselves comprise looted pieces, the damage to their contexts has already been done.
The mechanisms for stopping this trade relate to the laws of individual countries (such as the Treasure Act in the UK), and which may also include parts of UNESCO conventions (1954, 1970 and 1995) prohibiting the export and import of illicit antiquities. But not all nations have signed up to the UNESCO conventions (for example: the UK).
It is clear that these laws have worked in certain cases, the Lydian Hoard, etc., but the majority of antiquities are getting through. With so much money to be made from the antiquities trade, there is little hope that current mechanisms will adequately stem the flow of these antiquities.
Question 2Since the National Trust has increased its membership to 2.7 million people, to what extent do you think they can be said to represent the interests of a national heritage?
The National Trust does not represent the government in any manner, and has no statutory powers or duties to preserve a national heritage. So from a technical point of view they cannot be said to represent the interests of a national heritage, nor, importantly, of all members of the population of the UK. This responsibility lies with English Heritage, Historic Scotland, CADW, etc. The government increasingly expects EH and other government funded organisations to appeal to all members of the national community in the way in which they present heritage issues.
It can also be argued that the acquisition and management policies of the National Trust have followed the ideas of a small number of people, such as the original founders and the subsequent members of the organising council. In this sense the heritage as presented by the National trust has changed radically over the last century from an emphasis on land and beautiful countryside, to the country way of life and the great houses, to the maritime heritage of the UK.
Where the case might be made is to show that they have as members most of those people who are interested in heritage &emdash; the well-educated middle classes &emdash; as revealed by frequent questionnaires. Therefore the National trust represents the interests of those interested in a national heritage.
Question 3In September 2000, the Interior Secretary of the USA, Bruce Babbitt, declared that the skeletal remains of Kennewick Man were 'culturally-affiliated' with the five Native American groups who had asked to have then repatriated. Secretary Babbitt noted that he had based his decision on the geographical data and the tribes' oral histories.
In the light of this ruling, has the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act outlived its usefulness?
NAGPRA was originally passed to ensure that the interests of native Americans were taken into account. This was both in terms of new archaeological work (the protection of native American sites and cemeteries) and also of the wrongs suffered by Native Americans in the past (the improper treatment of their remains), resolved by the repatriation of these remains back to Native American nations.
Whilst this has angered many archaeologists and osteologists, the consensus of opinion now argues that this was the appropriate course of action. As these tasks are not fully completed (especially in the case of the protection of Native American sites from future archaeological work), the law has not outlived its usefulness.
The Kennewick Man case, however, illustrates one of the pitfalls of the Act as currently drafted. The Act states that, all human remains older than 500 years are Native American remains. Moreover, Native American oral histories state that they have been present in the USA since time immemorial. As a result all human remains will be claimed for repatriation by Native American organisations. But the actual history of the first colonisation of the Americas is now a matter of great debate, and it is clear that a number of possible migrations may have led to the full colonisation of these continents.
NAGPRA as currently drafted cannot cope with this situation and needs some form of amendment. This might include an earlier start date for native American claims for repatriation without resistance (perhaps 8,000 years ago), allowing the study of earlier remains.
Question 4To what extent do you think that the scheduled monuments of England constitute an archaeological heritage of national significance?
By legal definition, all scheduled sites are sites of national significance. The question that needs addressing is whether the procedures for assessing whether sites should be scheduled will develop into a full list of sites of real national significance. The procedures in the UK ensure that if national significance can be determined dispassionately on the basis of period and characterisation of type and state of site, then the scheduled monuments will be those of national significance.
We might wish to argue, however, that there is no such thing as national interest, rather there are the interests of the constituent members of the population. In this case some procedure needs to be determined in which the divergent interests of the population might be reflected in the scheduling process. The system in the USA perhaps provides a model, in its use of thematic programmes and the ability of individuals to nominate sites to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Question 5Martin Carver has argued that archaeological sites only have value in terms of their research potential. As a consequence, especially valuable sites should be excavated. On the other hand, Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (Archaeology and Planning) states that 'where nationally important remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation'. Does this mean the end of archaeological research in England?
The crux of Martin Carver's argument is that PPG16 will stop future archaeological excavation in the UK of major sites that are considered to be of national significance. This is not absolutely true. There is currently the possibility for archaeologists to excavate scheduled sites of national significance through Scheduled Monument Consent. But he is addressing the problem that the management of archaeological sites must also involve managing the work of archaeologists on these sites, and he believes that the balance has been given more to the preservation of these sites than to doing archaeological research. This is perhaps true, but academics have a bad reputation for writing up sites.
English Heritage also believes that there is the possibility to do good research archaeology through the planning process if there is a proper framework of research agendas worked out at a national and local level. They are sponsoring work to produce these agendas. The problem with this approach is that they must insure that local curators are both aware of these agendas and that they can persuade developers that they should also be funding research archaeology, which might be more costly than otherwise.
So in both cases, there will not be an end to archaeological research through excavation in the UK.
Question 6Is it appropriate that only people with professionally recognised archaeological skills should be allowed to undertake archaeological work in the UK?
The Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) would like to ensure that people practising field archaeology in the UK are properly trained. To bring this about, the best route, from their perspective, is to ensure that fieldwork is undertaken by members of the IFA, and that they are working to guidelines of good practice as stipulated by the IFA. This is because the IFA sees itself at the professional body for managing archaeology.
The rationale behind this argument is that archaeological work is skilled work and cannot be undertaken by anyone without the requisite skills, qualifications or experience. This same principle is used to argue that people undertaking medical work need to be regulated. The same is the case for legal work, surveying and a host of other professions. So archaeology should be no different. However most manual skills are usually managed by non-exclusive trades organisations/ guilds.
In current practice, most archaeological work, undertaken in the UK, is already done by members of the IFA. The people usually put forward to developers to tender for projects will be drawn from the handbook of the IFA. However it is still possible for archaeologists who are not members of the IFA to practise archaeology. This is the case with most university archaeological work, where just a small number of university lecturers are members of the IFA.
This same principle is being applied in the USA where the once Society of Professional Archaeolgists has become the Register of Professional Archaeologists.