New Code of Ethics for British Archaeologists

.
The Code of Conduct of the British Institute for Archaeology (former Institute of Field Archaeologists) amended at the EGM held during the IfA's Conference in Southport on 14 April 2010 and the revised version has been published. This is of interest as it was Rules 1.6 and 1.7 of Principle One which are those which were altered, and these refer to the sort of situations which arise when archaeologists are working with artefact collectors.

Anyway their original form [update of 10 February 2009] was as follows.

Principle 1
The member shall adhere to high standards of ethical and responsible behaviour in the conduct of archaeological affairs. [...]

1.6 A member shall know and comply with all laws applicable to his or her archaeological activities whether as employer or employee, and with national and international agreements relating to the illicit import, export or transfer of ownership of archaeological material. A member shall not engage in, and shall seek to discourage, illicit or unethical dealings in antiquities.

Note:
(a) The member should also consider his/her position in respect of seeking or accepting financial benefit on his/her own behalf or that of relatives in relation to the recovery or disposal of objects or materials recovered during archaeological work.
(b) A members (sic) must ensure that:
1) they do not knowingly permit their names or services to be used in a manner which may promote the recovery of archaeological material unless the primary objective of their work is to preserve the scientific integrity of the total site archive in a permanent professionally curated and publicly accessible collection, and unless provision is made for its study, interpretation and publication
2) they do not enter into any contract or agreement whereby archaeological or curatorial standards may be compromised in deference to commercial interests
3) so far as excavated material is concerned, they do not encourage the purchase of objects in any case where they have reasonable cause to believe that their recovery involved the deliberate unscientific destruction or damage of archaeological sites, and that they discourage the sale and consequent dispersal of excavated material
4) they do not encourage the purchase of objects where there is reasonable cause to believe that recovery involved the failure to disclose the finds to the proper legal or governmental authorities.

1.7 A member shall abstain from, and shall not sanction in others, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in archaeological matters, nor knowingly permit the use of his/her name in support of activities involving such conduct.

Note that 1.6 talks about encouraging the "purchase" of objects without mentioning "collecting" which surely is the point. This version of the Code seems to be still embedded in the 1970s when most artefact collecting was by purchase rather than going out in the muddy fields with a metal detector.

In the updated version some quite substantial changes have been made.

In place of the original text of 1.6 we now have:
1.6 A member shall know and comply with all laws applicable to his or her archaeological activities whether as employer or employee, and where appropriate with national and international treaties, conventions and charters including annexes and schedules [deleted: " and international agreements relating to the illicit import, export or transfer of ownership of archaeological material. A member shall not engage in, and shall seek to discourage, illicit or unethical dealings in antiquities"].

The notes have all been deleted and in part incorporated into principle 1.7. The new 1.6 now widens the scope of international charters, treaties and agreements, such as the 1954 Hague Convention, but also therefore the Valetta Convention - some of whose principles the UK has rejectd (Article 3 for example - but then "where appropriate", so you have to comply, but you don't really have to comply I suppose).

1.7 A member shall not knowingly be employed by, or contract with, an individual or entity whose purpose is the sale of items excavated and/or recovered from archaeological contexts and where such sale may lead to the irretrievable dispersal of the physical and/or intellectual archive, or where such sale may result in an undispersed archive to which public access is routinely denied.
Note: Members may be employed by or contract with, or participate in, projects approved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The bit from 1.7 about dishonesty/fraudulent claims (a la "Tomb of Jesus" type nonsense) deleted from the original text is now 1.8 ("A member shall abstain from, and shall not sanction in others, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in archaeological matters, nor knowingly permit the use of his/her name in support of
activities involving such conduct").

The new 1.7 puts the archaeologists who get involved with treasure hunting firms like Odyssey in their place. It also however is a real kick below the belt though for anyone else working with metal detectorists on commercial artefact-hunting rallies, where artefacts are sold off by the landowner to all comers. An archaeologist's agreement to come along and facilitate the legitimisation of this artefact hunting by recording the finds of any detectorist who feels like showing them is indeed "contracting with" the entity doing the commercial artefact hunting. The IFA code codifies what I have been saying for a long time, participation in this activity is against archaeological ethics. This seems to me likely to be a direct result of the fuss that blew up over the Water Newton rally, a dispute the IFA were called upon to adjudiate. I'd still like to see something more explicit about collecting of antiquities - can a British archaeologist legitimately be a collector (of dug-up ancient coins from Bulgaria bought on eBay for example)? In the current pro-collecting climate in the UK, this seems to me to be a question well overdue an answer.

But hey, what is this? If John Brown MIFA, fictional archaeologist from Newcastle polytechnic was to agree to go along to "record finds" on a metal detecting rally, he'd be unethical according to the IFA Code of ethics. But if he first signs a contract with the PAS (or participate in a "project approved by the PAS"), the same activity is somehow not as archaeologically unethical? What nonsense is this? This recognises that what the PAS does is de facto outside archaeological ethics.

This is very odd. In any case, what are these "projects approved by the PAS" and on what basis does the PAS suddenly become the arbiter (through approval or witholding approval) of ethics binding on IFA members although it is itself outside them? We seem to be coming close to that thorny question of so-called Responsible Artefact Hunting. Also, does this mean that the PAS should now be seen as arbitrating good practice of projects in Scotland and Northern Ireland or anywhere else an IFA archaeologist may be working, but where the PAS has not so far actually had a remit to cover?