Archaeological Ethics

Il contributo intende fornire una visione, parziale ma riteniamo almeno in parte rappresentativa ed emblematica, delle opportunità e delle problematiche dell'archeologia professionale in Italia in risposta agli anni della crisi. Lo facciamo presentando l'esperienza di Archeotipo srl, nata come spin-off dell'Università di Siena e oggi impegnata nell'ambizioso tentativo di mantenere in essere un gruppo di ricerca in grado di sperimentare nuovi percorsi disciplinari che sappiano proporsi come paralleli e complementari a quelli accademici ma sappiano al contempo replicarsi anche al di fuori dell'ambiente strettamente archeologico. Nuove opportunità, risorse e contaminazioni che non possono non destare interesse, a patto che si riesca a riconoscere la necessaria dignità alla figura professionale dell'archeologo, oggi umiliato da assurde dinamiche burocratiche pubbliche, bandi al ribasso e una concorrenza interna svilente e autolesionista.

We do not usually write an Editorial for a Special Issue. This, however, this is a ‘special editorial’ written in an emergency situation. As we are in global war with the invisible enemy of Covid-19 Coronavirus pandemic we face many restrictions and safety measures worldwide. For WAC the most painful consequence is the postponement of WAC-9 (see the announcement by the WAC President) that was supposed to be held in Prague July 5th – 10th 2020.
WAC as a global organization is responsible for the safety of its membership during the main congresses and inter-congresses. At the time of writing this Editorial the situation is not getting any better, just the opposite. While in China and South Korea we can see the first signs of successful quarantine, the pandemic reached Iran, Europe and North America in February, and decisively affected the lives of millions of people. The pandemic is still rising and one of the Archaeologies co-editors is currently in quarantine.

Concerning the prospect of WAC-9, we decided to postpone it by a whole year, so the current dates of the Prague congress are July 4th – 9th 2021. This wasn’t an easy solution but definitely the most safe and responsible one. Nobody knows how the pandemic is going to behave in the rest of this year, however some epidemiologists are warning that there may be an autumn recurrence of the virus. So we hope that July 2021 may be the time in which we either have the virus globally under control and/or have the vaccine and medication available. Then we could organize the meeting without stress and fear and make our global meeting even more successful.

Who owns the bequest?
The Destiny of the Archive of Deceased Archaeologists - The Case Vl.Milojcic

In Greece, the issue of excavators' obligations as to the publication and delivery of an archaeological excavation archive was previously regulated by the Presidential Decree of 1928 "On the Procedure of Archaeological Excavations". Its implementation, as I wrote in an article, has been frustrating. This issue has been regulated by the new Archaeological Law 3028/2002 (Article 39) [ANNEX II]. Particularly noteworthy is the case of the documentation of the excavations by Prof. Vl. Milojcic in Thessaly, which was dealt with by the German courts (ANNEX I).

ΣΕ ΠΟΙΟΝ ΑΝΗΚΟΥΝ ΤΑ ΚΑΤΑΛΟΙΠΑ;
H TYXH TOY AΡΧΕΙΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΒΙΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΩΝ – Η ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΙΣ Vl. Milojcic

Στην Ελλάδα το θέμα των υπoχρεώσεων των ανασκαφέων, ως πρός τις δημοσιεύσεις και την παράδοση του αρχείου μιάς αρχαιολογικής ανασκαφής, είχε ρυθμισθή στο παρελθόν με το Προεδρικό Διάταγμα του 1928 "Περί του τρόπου εκτελέσεως αρχαιολογικών ανασκαφών". Η εφαρμογή του, όπως έγραψα σε άρθρο μου, υπήρξε απογοητευτική. Το θέμα αυτό έχει ρυθμισθή εκ νέου με τον νέο αρχαιολογικό νόμο 3028/2002 (άρθρο 39) [ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ ΙΙ]. Ιδιαίτερη είναι η περίπτωσις του υλικού τεκμηριώσεως των ανασκαφών του καθ. Vl.Milojcic στην Θεσσαλία, η οποία απησχόλησε τα γερμανικά δικαστήρια (ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Ι).

The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity-how archaeologists conceptualize difference-and collaboration-how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.

La critique de l'archéologie dans une perspective autochtone et postcoloniale a été largement acceptée, du moins en théorie, dans de nombreuses colonies de colons, du Canada à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Dans le présent texte, j'aimerais développer cette critique de deux façons : d'une part, je soulignerai certaines questions qui n'ont pas été résolues ; d'autre part, j'aborderai les expériences autochtones et coloniales qui sont différentes de celles des colonies de colons britanniques, qui ont façonné massivement notre compréhension de l'indigénéité et de la relation entre l'archéologie et celle-ci. Je m'intéresse particulièrement à deux problèmes clés : l'altérité-comment les archéologues conçoivent la différence-et la collaboration-comment les archéologues imaginent leur relation avec des personnes d'un autre milieu culturel. Mes réflexions sont basées sur mes expériences personnelles de travail avec des communautés d'Europe du Sud, d'Afrique subsaharienne et d'Amérique du Sud qui diffèrent sensiblement de celles que l'on retrouve habituellement dans les archéologies autochtones.

Context Matters is based on the twenty essays contributed to the Journal of Art Crime over its first ten years of publication. The contributions are supplemented by articles and review articles that were published alongside them. The chapters were written as museums in Europe and North America were facing a series of claims on recently acquired objects in their collections in the light of the photographic dossiers that had been seized from dealers in Switzerland and Greece. They engage with some of the recent debates over cultural property that include the Ka Ka Nefer mummy mask currently in the St Louis Art Museum, and the Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art. Two of the essays reflect on the recent and controversial metal-detecting finds in England, the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the Lenborough Hoard. The volume contributes to the wider discussion about the appropriate due diligence process that should be conducted prior to the acquisition of archaeological material.

The Mexican state of Oaxaca is a tapestry of human diversity with varied traditions of language, belief, socioeconomic interaction, food, music, dance, subsistence, and ways of being. Census information records the state's impressive statistics for the over one million native language speakers. Among these sixteen officially recognized languages, numerous dialects, sometimes mutually unintelligible, add to the diversity. When this multiplicity is considered alongside that of Oaxaca's ancient past, the information offered to the student of humanity astounds the mind. It is therefore unfortunate that the archaeology and ethnography of Oaxaca have tended to focus on just a few of the region's many groups and geographical areas. The resulting literature might lead a casual reader to imagine that Oaxaca's cultural diversity is not so great, or that smaller ethnolinguistic groups outside regions of prime farmland played no significant role in its prehispanic history. A scholarly preoccupation with the Valley of Oaxaca, with the Mixteca Alta, and with sometimes conquest-minded complex polities seem to imply that only Zapotecs and Mixtecs ever tread in ancient Oaxaca. Economic implications of heritage-based tourism, including the annual Guelaguetza celebration and the endless stream of visitors to the UNESCO World Heritage site of Monte Albán, exacerbate this situation and leave some native peoples disadvantaged politically, economically, and in terms of cultural capital, sometimes to the very ethnic groups who colonized their communities in the ancient past. In such a context, what about the Mixe or the Chinantec of the mountains beyond the Valley? What about the Chatinos or the Chontales of the coast? My purpose here is not to produce a list of scholars or institutions who have "done wrong" by Oaxacans. Instead, I hope to draw from the literature on cultural heritage, as well as from my own travels and studies in Oaxaca, to explore the ways in which we all might benefit, indigenous communities and national and international visitors alike, from a more democratic approach to cultural diversity. Scholarship and heritage development dedicated to Oaxaca have been impressive but too narrow in their focus. Ironically, the resulting "cultural abridgment" undermines the very thing that has drawn so many to visit and to stay in Oaxaca, both physically and intellectually: its great mosaic of human variety.

El estado de Oaxaca es un mosaico humano con diferentes tipos de lenguaje, creencias, e interacciones socioeconómicas. Destaca también por la riqueza de su música, gastronomía, danza y formas de ser. Los censos dan cuenta de más de un millón de hablantes de lenguas indígenas en el estado. A estas 16 lenguas oficiales se suman algunos dialectos, muchos de los cuales resultan inclusive ininteligibles entre sí. Cuando esta multiplicidad se considera a la luz del pasado prehispánico de Oaxaca, la información ofrecida al investigador causa asombro. Por esta razón es lamentable que la arqueología y la etnografía de Oaxaca se hayan enfocado solamente en pocos de los muchos grupos y áreas geográficas de la región. La literatura resultante puede llevar a un lector principiante a imaginar que la diversidad cultural de Oaxaca no es tan grande, o que los grupos etnolingüísticos más pequeños, localizados fuera de las regiones centrales, no jugaron un papel significativo en la historia prehispánica del estado. La preocupación académica enfocada en el Valle de Oaxaca, en la Mixteca Alta y en los complejos políticos a veces de conquista parece implicar que solo los zapotecos y mixtecos pisaron alguna vez el suelo de la antigua Oaxaca. Las implicaciones económicas del turismo basado en el patrimonio, incluida la celebración anual de Guelaguetza y el flujo interminable de visitantes al sitio de Monte Albán, declarado Patrimonio de la Humanidad por la UNESCO, exacerban esta situación y llevan a algunos pueblos indígenas a estar en situación de desventaja política, económica y en términos de capital cultural. Muchas veces frente a los mismos grupos étnicos que colonizaron sus comunidades en el pasado antiguo. En tal contexto, ¿Qué pasa con el mixe o el chinanteco de las montañas más allá del Valle de Oaxaca? ¿Qué pasa con los chatinos o los chontales de la costa? Mi propósito aquí no es producir una lista de académicos o instituciones que han “hecho las cosas mal” en Oaxaca. En cambio, espero aprovechar la literatura sobre el patrimonio cultural, así como mis propias investigaciones y viajes en Oaxaca, para explorar las formas en que comunidades indígenas, habitantes locales y visitantes nacionales e internacionales podemos beneficiarnos por igual, a partir de un enfoque más democrático de la diversidad cultural. El financiamiento y el desarrollo del patrimonio dedicado (Scholarship and heritage) a Oaxaca han sido impresionantes, pero con un enfoque muy limitado. Irónicamente, la "abreviación cultural" resultante socava lo que ha atraído a muchos a visitar y quedarse en Oaxaca, tanto física como intelectualmente: su gran mosaico de variedades humanas.

Desde hace décadas un creciente número de arqueólogas han venido denunciando las situaciones sexistas y discriminatorias que han sufrido-y sufren-en el ejercicio de su profesión. A pesar del importante desarrollo de las teorías de género, feministas y queer dentro de la arqueología española, han sido escasos los estudios realizados sobre las conductas sexistas y la situación que ocupan las mujeres en una disciplina dominada por hombres. Se presenta un estudio realizado sobre las direcciones de intervenciones arqueológicas en Madrid y Granada de los años 2007, 2008, 2015 y 2016, con el fin de arrojar algo de luz sobre la configuración del sector, prestando especial interés al papel que juegan las arqueólogas en el mismo. Palabras Clave: Arqueología profesional, feminismo, sector, desigualdad, Madrid, Granada.

For decades a growing number of archaeologists have reported sexist behaviour and discriminatory practices while carrying out their work. Despite the development of gender, feminist and queer theories within Spanish Archaeology, few studies have focused on sexist behaviour and the situation of women in a male-dominated field. This paper examines the management of archaeological projects in Madrid and Granada during 2007, 2008, 2015 and 2016, in order to shed some light on the configuration of the sector. Specific attention is paid to the role women play in it.

In bioarchaeology, conversations surrounding the political, legal, and ethical dimensions of working with human remains have emerged since NAGPRA’s passing in 1990. Here, we focus on more intimate encounters with human remains to explore the emergent character of what it means to work with the dead. In doing so, we adapt the term “care-full acts” (Chua 2014, 2016), gestures that, out of care, enfold life and death. Our paper presents autoethnographic analyses from the field and lab, where we have worked with human remains, exploring moments where embodied and rote research practices were interrupted, and we were given pause. Warner-Smith describes her experience conducting osteological analysis on a curated anatomical collection. Chamoun describes working in Ecuador and Lebanon. Despite different locations, we both find ourselves carefully—and care-fully—navigating similar unruly politicoethical terrains. The political and ethical landscapes are particularly troubling when studying collections and
assemblages of individuals who were marginalized in life and/or death, imbuing researchers with particular responsibilities and “response-abilities” (Haraway 2016) to our research subjects. Thus, through our encounters with the dead, we engage ethics, care, and politics as intimately entangled domains. At stake is apprehending how intimate politics resonate with and through broader disciplinary histories. At the same
time, we are concerned with what it means to share space and time with the dead and living in research contexts. Reflecting on the relations between empathy and coloniality, love and abandonment, witnessing and silencing, we explore the (un)intended potentials and troubles of a care-full bioarchaeology.