Tablet

Archaeology and Contemporary Society

January 2000




Exam Questions and Concise Model Answers

Candidates should answer two questions, one from each section

Section A

  1. The third principle of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Field Archaeologists states that 'The archaeologist shall conduct his or her work in such a way that reliable information about the past may be acquired, and shall ensure that the results be properly recorded' Do you think that the professional control of archaeology through such organisations as the IFA in the UK or the Register Of Professional Archaeologists in the USA represents an effective means of achieving this end? answer
  2. What have been the effects of the introduction of project funding on the practice of rescue archaeology in Britain? answer
  3. In light of the fact that the majority of archaeological fieldwork is now undertaken as part of the planning process, do you believe that the development of regional research agendas is the best way forward for ensuring that the understanding of Britains archaeological past continues to improve? answer

Section B

  1. Does the United Kingdom need a legal act to ensure the reburial of human remains as much as the Native American Protection and Repatriation Act was required in the USA? answer
  2. Does the existence of a shared European identity provide reasons for the British Museum to keep the Elgin Marbles more than the Benin Bronzes? answer
  3. 2.7 million members cannot be wrong. The functions of English Heritage would be in better hands if given to National Trust. Do you agree with this view? answer




Question 1

The third principle of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Field Archaeologists states that 'The archaeologist shall conduct his or her work in such a way that reliable information about the past may be acquired, and shall ensure that the results be properly recorded'

Do you think that the professional control of archaeology through such organisations as the IFA in the UK or the Register Of Professional Archaeologists in the USA represents an effective means of achieving this end?

The presence of Codes of Conduct for archaeological fieldwork, such as those of the IFA and the ROPA, shows that there is clearly an acknowledged need for standards of best practice in field archaeology. This is particularly true now, since most archaeological fieldwork is currently carried out by private archaeological contractors working to brief. It is also acknowledged that local authority archaeologists are too few in number to provide constant curatorial care over all privately contracted fieldwork. Rumours are also rife about the alleged poor quality of privately contracted fieldwork, and alleged 'cosy relationships' between archaeological contractors and developers.

The IFA and the ROPA both specify according to their Code of Conducts that members will act according to standards of best practice, and they publish technical documents detailing what best practice s in respects of archaeological work. In cases where IFA and ROPA members and member organisations are involved, these standards and guidelines will help. But membership of these organisations is voluntary, and it is still possible to practice archaeology in Britain and the USA without being members of the IFA or the ROPA respectively. National Standards such as the ISO series of standards employed in other private industries might be a better, more all encompassing, way forward.

Question 2
What have been the effects of the introduction of project funding on the practice of rescue archaeology in Britain?

The principle effect has been the change in the structure of funding from a position where there was both core and 'rescue work' funds existed to one where there are now just project funds. Core funding principally relates to the funding of the infrastructural costs of building maintenance, materials expenses, long term salaries; 'rescue work' funds here relate to specific expenses incurred during the undertaking of episodes of rescue archaeology - stationery expenses, analysis expenses, specialist report expenses, and properly publication expenses.

By the late 1980s it was argued that in the funding of regional archaeological units more than 70% of funds were used to cover core costs. There was not enough money to complete, and especially publish rescue excavations. Project funding has effectively abolished core funding. What were once core costs must now be calculated according to their real cost as part of the support of a piece of rescue excavation or fieldwork and then entered as part of the costs bid for in the successful completion of a specific project. Contracts of employment run now for the length of the project, not permanently. Project funding can be terminated if the project is not proceeding on schedule. This is meant to ensure the proper completion of work.

Question 3
In light of the fact that the majority of archaeological fieldwork is now undertaken as part of the planning process, do you believe that the development of regional research agendas is the best way forward for ensuring that the understanding of Britains archaeological past continues to improve?

Many commentators have argued that the effective result of the introduction of PPG 16 (Archaeology and Planning) has been the creation of large private archaeological contractors that tender for and undertake archaeological fieldwork (such as field-assessments) far from their home ground. As a result archaeological teams fielded by these organisations will not necessarily include staff who are familiar with the local archaeological record or the specific archaeological problems at a local level, even though they may be highly competent field archaeologists. Such local knowledge is thought by many to be important to the proper understanding of archaeological fieldwork. The absence of local knowledge will have a direct effect on the observations made and the evidence collected.

English Heritage has argued that PPG 16 archaeology is on the whole fine. Improvements need, however, to be made to the briefs against which archaeological work is contracted out. They have argued that if there were in existence a series of regional research frameworks detailing the state of the regional archaeological knowledge and the evidence that must be collected to answer specific questions, then briefs will be better phrased by local curators and all appropriate archaeological evidence will be collected even if the fieldwork is conducted by teams with no local specialists.

But a key problem that still remains is whether the type of archaeological fieldwork specified by field assessment briefs is ever going to be of sufficient extent / quality to recover sufficient information to answer critical archaeological questions. Moreover, should these questions only be answerable through the excavation of sites of national importance, then the presumption in PPG 16 is that such sites will be preserved in situ and not excavated.

Question 4
Does the United Kingdom need a legal act to ensure the reburial of human remains as much as the Native American Protection and Repatriation Act was required in the USA?

NAGPRA was introduced in the USA in 1991 to address biases in the excavation and subsequent treatment of human remains between Native Americans and white colonists and their descendants. NAGPRA forbids the excavation of Native American remains unless absolutely necessary, and demands that museums engage in a process of return of previously excavated human skeletal remains and associated grave goods. There has not been the same problem in the UK because of (1) the absence of a disparity in treatment between indigenous communities (due to the absence of distinct indigenous groups in the UK), and (2) the 19th century Act of Sepulchre, which means that skeletal remains excavated in the UK are usually reburried.

Both English Heritage and Historic Scotland, however, have felt it necessary to publish guidelines on the treatment of human remains (with proper respect during excavation and analysis), and the need for reburial within a reasonable period of time. This is to forestall any feeling by the public that archaeologists might behave disrespectfully in relation to the dead. There might, however, be a need to ensure the return of non UK derived skeletal remains to appropriate communities in other countries.

Question 5
Does the existence of a shared European identity provide reasons for the British Museum to keep the Elgin Marbles more than the Benin Bronzes?

The European Union has suggested that the cultural heritage of the Ancient Greece is now shared by all members of the Union. It would therefore be appropriate for all countries to be able to exhibit remains from Greece. This may indeed be the case. But this does not really address the major problem of the Elgin / Parthenon Marbles. Greece does not want back all of its treasures - just these marbles. The Greek governments arguments are;

  1. that these marbles, alone, are central to Greek identity. There is a parallel to be drawn with the renewal of Greek Democracy following the ousting of the Generals in 1974, and the birth of Greek democracy in 5th century BC classical Athens;
  2. these marbles have been taken from their rightful context on the Parthenon on the Acropolis which still stands.

The same arguments apply to the Benin Bronzes, so there is no real difference between the two cases, despite the fact that all of the European nations clearly share a greater degree of cultural continuity with Ancient Greece than with the Benin Kingdoms.

Question 6
2.7 million members cannot be wrong. The functions of English Heritage would be in better hands if given to National Trust. Do you agree with this view?

The National Trust and English Heritage in fact do quite different things. English Heritage is entrusted with the preservation and promotion of all of England's heritage. They have duties set for them by government, and they are responsible to government for their success in this matter. In preservation for example they must be impartial and inclusive. Moreover, English Heritage is entrusted with the preservation and conservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings; the National Trust's primary holdings are land. These require different approaches.

The National Trust has always been responsible to its members and has no statutory responsibility for the preservation of the heritage. Their main responsibilities are to their members, who provide the bulk of their funding. Since their foundation in 1895, their holdings have primarily been land, and not ancient monuments or listed buildings.

What is clear however, is that the National Trust has succeeded in making people feel involved in the care for the nation's heritage. English heritage might learn from the National Trust in terms of how they should market themselves and involve the public.