How Archaeologists Can Effectively and Ethically Cultivate Responsible and Responsive Stewards

The objective of this article is to share how professional archaeologists can leverage their knowledge and influence to develop collectors and amateur archaeologists into responsible and responsive stewards (RRS). This approach furthers the primary purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as the ethics of the Society for American Archaeology. I share my own journey about finding artifacts in the Texas Panhandle, yearning to understand more about them, and how a poster in a gas station led me to visiting a local Stone Age Fair where I met a professional archaeologist. This archaeologist mentor was willing to answer my questions and guide me to greater understanding of archaeological ethics and practice, which prompted me to document everything I had found. In turn, I have shared my experience with many other nonprofessionals. Archaeologist mentors can have great influence if they are willing to meet collectors and amateur archaeologists on their level. Ultimately, collectors and archaeologists share a love of artifacts and a passion for the history behind them.

PENGARUH ETIKA DAN KEBIJAKAN ARKEOLOGI TERHADAP KETIADAAN PERAN ARKEOLOGI DALAM DISKUSI KONFLIK PASCA G/30/S 1965 DI INDONESIA

Abstrak. Konflik pasca G/30/S tahun 1965 merupakan bagian dari sejarah Indonesia yang banyak menuai kontroversi di masyarakat luas bahkan hingga saat ini. Konflik ini menjadi perhatian luas bidang ilmu politik dan sejarah, namun dalam pengungkapannya dibutuhkan metode dan ilmu arkeologi untuk menjelaskan fenomena hasil konflik kontemporer di lapangan. Tiga permasalahan yang akan diajukan adalah sejauh mana keterlibatan arkeolog dalam konflik pascaG/30S, apakah etika dan kebijakan arkeologi menjadi pembatas keterlibatan arkeolog dalam kasus ini, dan bagaimana kebijakan serta etika arkeologi di luar negeri menanggapi kasus serupa. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat alasan ketiadaan peran arkeologi terhadap kasus ini dan keterkaitannya dengan etika dan kebijakan arkeologi di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang dikumpulkan dengan teknik dokumentasi dengan pengolahan data menggunakan analisis konten. Hasil yang diperoleh menunjukan bahwa ketiadaan peranan arkeologi dalam diskusi perkembangan narasi sejarah pascaG/30/S merupakan akibat dari kontradiksi kebijakan dan etika profesi arkeolog Indonesia dengan etika arkeologi secara luas. Penelitian ini berkesimpulan bahwa ketiadaan peran arkeolog dalam perkembangan diskusi narasi sejarah pascaG/30/S memiliki keterkaitan dengan penafsiran kebijakan dan etika profesi arkeologi di Indonesia yang dalam beberapa aspek bertolak belakang dengan etika ilmu arkeologi secara luas. Untuk mencapai peranan arkeologi yang diharapkan sebagaimana telah ditunjukan oleh negara lain dengan kasus serupa, dibutuhkan etika ilmu arkeologi yang lebih diprioritaskan dibandingkan kebijakan nasional dan etika profesi arkeologi. Abstract. The post-G/30/S conflict in 1965 is part of Indonesia's history, which has drawn a lot of controversy in the wide community even today. This conflict has received wide attention in the fields of political science and history. The disclosure requires archaeological methods and science to explain the phenomenon of contemporary conflict results in the field. this article will discuss the extent to which archaeologists are involved in the post-G/30S conflict, whether archaeology ethics and policies are a barrier to archaeologists' involvement in this case, and how foreign archaeological policies and ethics respond to a similar matter. This study aims to understand the reasons for the absence of archaeology's role in this case and its relationship to archaeology ethics and policies in Indonesia. This study uses library research methods collected through documentation techniques with content analysis data processing. The results obtained indicate that the absence of archaeology's role in the discussion of the development of post-G/30/S historical narratives is the result of the contradictions between the policies and ethics of the Indonesian archaeologist profession with archaeology ethics in general. Archaeological ethics need to be considered so that archaeology can play a better role in post-G/30/S historical narratives.

Getting It Right and Getting It Wrong in Digital Archaeological Ethics

Though the ethics of archaeological practice have changed over the life of the discipline (and have arguably become more robust), full consideration has not yet been given to how digital methodologies and the emergence of digital technologies have created new areas requiring ethical introspection. The pace of adoption of digitally centred archaeological data and digitally facilitated archaeological practice has not been met by the adoption of discipline-wide standards related to archaeological ethics. The result of this mismatch in ethics and practice is the creation of archaeologists who utilize digital forms, but whose archaeology is ungrounded in frameworks that specifically consider the ethical burdens of digital tools, methodology, and theory. This chapter details views of digital archaeological ethics related to digital archaeology as tools, digital archaeology as methodology, and digital archaeological pedagogy.

Views on the Nine Principles of Archaeological Ethics from the 2020 SAA Ethics Survey

In the spring of 2018, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) initiated the process of updating and revising the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics. As part of this process, the SAA created the Task Force on Revising the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics: Stage Two (TF-2), which would collect, organize, and analyze results from a survey (see Rakita and Gordon, this issue, for more details about the work of TF-2). This survey was available online between April and June of 2020 and was open to SAA members and non-members. Consisting of 31 questions, the survey received responses from 1,542 people (including 1,112 SAA members). A key objective was to gauge reactions and attitudes of respondents toward the current SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics. This article reports the survey results relevant to those principles, which can be found at https://www.saa.org/career-practice/ethics-in-professional-archaeology and which are reprinted in this issue of the Record. We first summarize the respondents’ demographics, and how they are using the principles. We then summarize reactions to each of the nine principles and responses to questions about how the principles address situations and concerns. These data provide an indication of the overall level of satisfaction with the current SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Finally, we conclude with some guidance for considering future revisions of the principles.

De la « professionalisation » à la « vassalisation ». L’archéologue entre « éthique professionnelle » et « responsabilité sociale d’entreprise »

Based on the observation of a loss of thickness in archaeological ethics – “ethical-washing” by which ethics is restricted to the production of records of archaeological data on the one hand, and to corporate social communication on the other – this article examines the evolution of the archaeological profession and its loss of subjective meaning. Based on a concrete case of contract work experience in rescue archaeology in the United Kingdom, and interviews with professionals in preventive archaeology in France, this article questions the influence on this dynamic of a managerial rhetoric linked to neocapitalism. It concludes by proposing for archaeology and archaeologists, some means to resist submission to the development imperatives of planners, discussed with the public at the “Archaeo-Ethics” conference.