Ethical Challenges and Principles in the Field of Archaeology

Ethical Challenges and Principles in the Field of Archaeology

By Stephanie Stambaugh

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

When the Society of American Archaeology adopted its Principles of Archaeological Ethics in 1996 it was obvious archaeologists everywhere would now have at their fingertips a prescribed guidelines in which to conduct each phase of their responsibilities. The principles outlined stewardship, accountability, commercialization as well as public reporting and preservation. Eight principles were adopted in total (SAAweb). Yet ten years later the archaeological field is still faced with a litany of ongoing ethical issues which encompass many of the principles outlined by the SAA, as well as others not included in their text. The critical task at hand is to uncover and define those issues which have been brought to light by scholars and journalists alike of which numerous examples have been published. Even with an increase in newly reported stories regarding museum scandals and relic hunters, it is evident that those who should be more keenly aware of the ethical pressures faced by archaeologist would be the public. Yet, it would seem it is not so relevant an issue in public forums unless that public forum is directly connected to an archaeological site. Instead it is the archeological community who is steadfastly aware of the constant need to improve their level of ethical standards as well as the daunting task of enforcing those standards.

Throughout my research I was able to identify a number of contemporary examples of challenges to the ethical principles outlined by the SAA. Those challenges are those imposed by members of the general public as well as those imposed by members of the archaeological community. The “Stewardship” principle promoted by the SAA discusses the importance of “in situ archaeological material and sites,” that archaeologists are “caretakers of and advocates” of the recording of archaeological data, as well as that archaeologists must use the knowledge they gain from sites in order to “promote public understanding and support (SAAweb par 3).” However, archaeologists themselves find that such work of stewardship goes completely without notice. Dr. Francis Pryor, an expert of Britain’s Iron and Bronze Age and who is the archaeologist that discovered Flag Fen in Peterborough, England (Flagfen.com), is one such archaeologist who has vocalized this point to the archaeological community. Pryor’s 1996 lecture at the British Archaeological awards details his frustration with contract archaeology in Britain and how the archaeological community as a whole has no means of knowing of or accessing a contractor’s work results (Pryor par. 3).

“Publication of developer-funded excavation generally consists of a few copies

of spirally-bound dry-as-dust reports where prose is replaced by numbered

paragraphs… It’s part of the contract: no publication – no report. But by the

same token… if you have no readers, in effect you have no publication. The

vast majority of these reports vanish into the contractor’s files and the County

Council’s archives where they are swamped by thousands of others like them

(Pryor par. 5).”

Such inability for the contractor’s archaeological work to see the light of day let alone a public forum seems in direct disagreement with the principle of stewardship. The projects maybe documented, but to what point that is beneficial to the public and to future researchers if archaeologists are restricted by their reporting methods and if their actual reports are not released to the public or the archaeological community in some researchable system. Even though this is a British example, such examples certainly exist throughout the archaeological contracting fields worldwide. Certainly the principle of the SAA describes as “Records and Preservation” of “long term access to…records, and reports” (SAAweb par 9) as well the principle of “Intellectual Property” where “materials and documents must be made available to others”(SAAweb par 7) and most importantly the principle of “Public Reporting and Publication” which states “knowledge gained from investigation of the archaeological record must be presented in accessible form” (SAAweb par 8) is severely hindered in Pryor’s example and ultimately mires the postprocessual concept of the scientific approach when it lacks the ability allow archaeologists to even access scientific data.

Yet even before publication and reporting is a factor in the ethical list of considerations, archaeologists must recruit public participation and promotion as a key issue to the success of their investigations. Another essential principle of SAA stated as “Public Education and Outreach” details that archaeologists must “enlist pubic support for the stewardship of the archaeological record” (SAAweb par 6). However the standard means in which that takes place in an America community, such as those detailed by Thomas and Kelly in the excavation of the African Burial Grounds of colonial New York, town meetings where the axis of the archaeologists success in gaining public support (419-421). But not all sites American archaeologists work on will be in America and when faced with communities in far off countries that have been ravaged by war or local infighting, obtaining public support may have to be acquired by unconventional means that do not include communities allowing the expert hands of an archaeologist to complete the investigative work and excavation.

One such unconventional means has been suggested by Neil Brodie, the coordinator of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre in Cambridge. Archaeologists on a daily basis are up increasing losses of archaeological context due to looting. Knowing that “in situ” is the ideal way to document their finds archaeologist must find ways to encourage communities that are poor or weekend from war to want to benefit from scientific archaeological excavations and not those excavations done by looters or by their own community in order to support themselves through illicit trading. In areas such as Peru and Ecuador those who find excavations sites first are the huaqueros, described by archaeologists Michael Snarksis as “treasure hunters, amateur excavators and tomb-robbers (Snarksis par 1)” The huaqueros are the ultimate in rejecting processual scientific methods and are the definitive example of wanting personal and individual gain. Yet it is Brodie’s standpoint that huaqueros can actually benefit the archaeological record when trained and employed by archaeologists. Brodie notes that in two instances, one in Blanca Ecuador where huaqueros were trained and another in Sipán, Peru where huaqueros were actually employed as excavators (Brodie 16). Such involvement by the huaqueros accomplished two important factors which are that patrimony is protected and the previously illegal work of the huaqueros now becomes legal since it is done under the supervision of the archaeological team (16). Ultimately this joining of forces, the legal and the illegal, is a good marriage of humanistic and scientific approach.

However carefully archaeologists publicly site their principles of outreach and preservation there are members of diverse communities who see the archaeologist as the enemy. Examples of this have been researched by Alison Wylee, of the University of Washington, who states on her website that she is “currently engaged in a study of feminist initiatives in Anglo-American archaeology that integrates feminist, philosophical and science studies perspectives (Wylie Homepage).” As a part of her studies of archaeology, which have a postprocessual / feminist perspective, she published in 1996 a detailed and for the most part balanced paper regarding the ethical difficulties of the practice of archaeology. One topic she discusses is the perceptions by what Wylie describes as “nonarchaeological interest groups” such as “First nations and aboriginal groups in America and elsewhere (Wylie 180).” Instead of embracing the archaeological community it sees archaeologists as “glorified looters” and archaeologists destroy the “sites and features investigated” (Wylie 181). On the other side she details that those against the view of archaeologists as looters would counter that argument by saying this is a “parochial concern” and that those opposed to native people perspectives would justify their point of view stating that “(if powerful) interest group…members have little connection to the cultural heritage they exploit” ultimately they “derive financial and other economic and social benefits… of the archaeological record” (Wylie 181).

These scientific versus conservationist views show another ongoing conflict that can ultimately interfere with the SAA’s principles of stewardship and preservation. The archaeological community loses its ability to come to a common ground when sacred sites have restrictions of accessibility and sites of rock art, like those in Australia, are considered by the aboriginal peoples as “alive” and must be repainted on regular basis even though archaeologists argue the rock art records the “dead” and should preserved as it is (180). Such clashes of the humanistic and scientific seem endless, yet it does seem the archaeological principle of recording is important here. A site may not be excavated or preserved, so it is imperative that at the very least a written documentation of the site, even at its most limited of notations is essential for future generations.

Wylie’s research is also mentioned by T.J. Ferguson in his article in the Annual Review of Anthropology. He outlines a number of what he describes as “new developments in archaeological theory and practice” (Ferguson 70). He states that those in the field of archaeology who understand that Native Americans and archaeologists (though the article does not say in all cases) “view the past in fundamentally different ways call for the application of cultural relativism” (70) in regards to the completion of archaeological research. Dr. Mark Glazer defines this obviously processual point of view of cultural relativism as “an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view” (Glazer par 1). Yet there is no such mention of “cultural relativism” or even the word “neutrality” or “neutral” within the outreach portion of the SAA principles. Ferguson even goes on to mention that those archaeologists of a postprocessual point of view “are working to develop a multitiered methodology that incorporates the use of several paradigms.” He goes on to warn that even as the postprocessual perspectives implement this they may ultimately create a greater back lash from the Native American community as they may not see archaeologists taking greater care to gain knowledge of “Native American religion, power, authority structures, gender roles and treatment of the dead” as even allowable areas of research (70).

Again, this humanistic type of consideration is not mentioned in the SAA principles and what is more troubling, neither is how or when archaeologists can ethically obtain financial gain from their archaeological work when it is connected directly to a Native American site. Ferguson states that many of the societies who issue rules and standards for archaeologists do have ethical codes, but it was difficult to find any that had clearly stated or categorized the definition of financial gain. The American Anthropological Association’s Code of Ethics does state “anthropologists may gain personally from their work” (AAAnet par 19) but it and the SAA do not define how. Ferguson does urge archaeologists to share their financial rewards from the work on Native American sites with the Native Americans themselves. He even appropriately notes that the SAA contributed royalties to the Native American Scholarship Fund (73). Albeit a more a clear and precise ethical principle should be considered for additional guidance as it beckons the question if whether the site itself (not just the interest group) should benefit by any gain received by the project as a whole.

Another ethical and more over moral issue in regards to First Nation or native archaeology that is not mentioned with the stewardship, preservation or outreach principles of the SAA is how should archaeologists assess and accept the religious freedoms and practices of native peoples? Dr. Geoffrey Scarre at the University of Durham charges that “academically-trained archaeologists” have been “guilty of neglect” because they do not recognize the religious significance of disturbing a burial place.

“Disturbing a corpse or removing if from its resting-place is often thought

to prevent the deceased person from finding rest. Many American Indians

look on death as a protracted journey to the spirit world (Scarre 239).”

Scarre also goes on to state that according to the organization American Indians Against Desecration (similar to others like the Indian Burial and Sacred Grounds Watch) that,

“any disruption, delay or halt in that journey is a violation of personal

religious beliefs to that individual, to his descendants who incorporate

and are responsible for his spirit in their daily lives and religious ceremonies,

and to those of the present and the future who will embark on that journey (239).”

Scarre contends that archaeologists have no respect for this belief and that their perspective on the subject is that one reported by Tim Mulgan in the Journal of Political Philosophy who states, “Those who are no longer living have nor morally relevant interest in the contemporary polity” (239).

Scarre’s viewpoint is obviously a strong and somewhat prejudice position. It is unfair of him to imply that all archaeologists are blatantly unaware or blind to the ethical issues surrounding Native American burials. Thomas and Kelly illustrate in great detail similar challenges on locations that have been ravaged by looters such as the ones described in Belgium and Flanders after World War I where thousands of soldiers died and are still interred where they fell in battle. Debates carry on whether the burials should stay or be removed. Yet many of the dead are now being carefully excavated but still protected from looters by licensed avocational “Diggers” and then the dead are given over to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for proper burials in dedicated military cemeteries (Thomas and Kelly 61).. Such actions of archaeologists are an obvious reflection of their respect for the dead.

Nevertheless there has been an outcry from the Native American community accusing just such an ethical lapse by archaeologist in regards to their ancestors. Jan Hamill discusses a much underreported fact. At the time of the April 1986 meeting of the SAA, which was a plenary session where archaeologist and representatives of the Indian community spoke to the controversial issues at hand such as human remains. Hamill detailed the possession of “some 500,000 American Indians [remains] currently stored in cardboard boxes, paper sacks and plastic bags in archaeological laboratories, museums and universities throughout the United States of America (Hamill par 1).” Unfortunately Hamill’s article does not clarify the percentage of those remains that are or were actually available for repatriation, but the number is astounding and can instantly solidify the reasons the Native peoples in America have had and are currently an ongoing battle to repatriate their ancestors.

Even the issue of gender has played a significant part in understanding the ethical challenges of archaeology. The SAA principles are devoid of any gender principles whether in relation to hiring practices and the encouragement for equal opportunities regardless of gender (or race for that matter), nor does it make reference for a balance in postprocessual or processual paradigms. The possibility of either happening is observably remote, but how does it affect the ethics of the archaeological community as whole when so many varying perspectives related to thousands of sites with inconsistent paradigms?

Many feminists see an extreme diversion between them and the postprocessual paradigm they are often connected to. This obvious divergence of the ability of the archaeological community to have cohesive paradigm or framework seems likely to allow for a greater separation of ethical perspectives. Rita P. Wright, an Associate Professor of Anthropology at New York University, states that there are “some serious differences between postprocessualists and feminists” which includes male biases even by postprocessualist archaeologists. Her example was “the characterization of archaeological excavations as “strip-tease (Wright par 5). Yet her writing takes on a more serious note when it comes to the inability for the archaeological community as whole have not encompassed a “stronger theoretical orientation” and that “research has more exclusively focused on women than on gender. While scholars have addressed questions of difference and questioned the effects of culturally prescribed gender, class, age and ethnic roles and ideologies, they have been slow to adopt queer or masculinist theory or reject gender dichotomies (par 16).” One example she gives in regards to the feminist perspective is that their scientific method is even more stringent than postprocessual. She discusses though the voluptuous European Paleolithic female figures that have been described as “mother goddesses” and thought to be worshiped by matriarchal societies of ancient communities; Wright says “feminist archaeologists have not been satisfied” with that “functional” explanation of the figurines (par 11). She states, “Feminist archaeologists are suspicious of the speculative an unprovable character of these accounts and their failure to challenge the present and to reconsider epistemologies of inequality, and their too narrow view of earlier societies (par 11).”

It is also important to note that many of us have established our views of early societies (and their relationship to male or females) based on how we viewed an artifact as it was presented to us in a museum. Seldom does the average American have the ability to view archaeological artifacts in situ, unless of course the artifacts in a museum such as The Mammoth Site in Hot Springs, South Dakota. Knowing that the large majority of archaeologists are employed by museums and universities (who often have museums) it would seem important to take note of what ethical principles museums have adopted especially since many archaeologists have accused major museums of being coconspirators to the looting trade. One such archaeologist is Professor Lord Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University who in 2003 admonished the museum community, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Getty Museum and Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts of “indirectly funding the looting of archaeological sites” by purchasing “unprovenanced antiquities” (Crim par 1-4). Renfrew has called for museums to “publish a code of ethics in regards to acquisitions…and follow it (par 13).” The American Association of Museums did adopt a code of ethics in 1991 which states that a museum’s “collection in its custody are lawfully held” and that the “acquisition … activities are conducted in a manner that respects the protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources and discourage illicit trade in such materials (AAM par 10)”. The question is - are museums taking Renfrew’s admonishment regarding a code of ethics to heart and doing what he has asked for? Simply put it would seem they need to “follow it” (Crim par 13).

It is hard though to force a museum to suddenly change its ethical point of view when its current perspective has held for centuries. One of the oldest examples was Lord Elgin’s removal of the numerous pedimental figures and frieze sections of the Parthenon in Greece. Elgin then in turn sold the artifacts to the British Museum in 1816 (Pedley 260). The controversy reigns on now, almost 200 years later with both sides taking the ethical and moral high ground on the subject. The British state that Elgin had a legal title to sell them and he was actually a hero for saving them from looters or vandals (260). Greece on the other hand says that Elgin inflicted irreparable damaged to the Parthenon by removing the artifacts and that the Turks had no “moral authorization” to give them to Elgin in the first place (260). The British Museum has other controversies which include Egyptian artifacts as well but invariably the issue of ethics eventually turns to a political bickering instead of a compromise and all scientific discussions at that point get push by the wayside.

The point of politics though should be a high priority on the code of ethics list. It may be that archaeologists are highly aware of political and government ethical issues, but the American public does not often worry about or for that matter likely consider whether archaeologists are truly completing their job of investigation. It is probable they never reflect on whether archaeologists in some instances may be working not for a museum or a university, but instead working as a spy. It is a grave and shocking ethical point that must be discussed considering neither code of ethics for museums or archaeologists address the ethical issues of archeologists doubling as spies.

David Price, an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Saint Martin’s College, details the ethical quagmire of covert missions taken on by archaeologists in his article “Cloak & Trowel.” Price details that through his use of the Freedom of Information Act he was able to research numerous cases of “relationships between archaeologists and intelligence agencies” (Price par 3). His article details using field work excavations in World War I by T.E. Lawrence and Leonard Woolley in Syria at Cachemish (par 6) and Slyvanus Morley in Central America, (par 8) all three of which spied on German interests and their troop presence in both countries. Even in World War II Price states that “American archaeologists joined other intellectuals in the ranks of newly formed wartime intelligence agencies, such as the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), where their linguistic expertise and geographical knowledge made valuable contributions to the war effort (par 11).

Even CIA agents during the Cold War had taken on the persona of archaeologists only later to have been found dead in the Motagua River in El Salvador (par 22). Even though the staunchest patriot would commend any person for putting their life on the line for their country, many archaeologists would immediately say any spying by their colleagues should immediately end. Price states, “Professional archaeology associations should insist that archaeologists forswear connections to intelligence agencies for the safety of both themselves and their colleagues (par 24).” He also states the same message that I have noted here that even though codes of ethics state that archaeologists uphold and obey the law, “they don’t condemn the mixing of archaeology and spying.” Thomas and Kelly detail that “postprocessual archaeology argues that all archaeology is political” (65) and yet this level of political connection, in the spy arena, seems obvious not to have been factored into their paradigm.

Finally, even with all these apparent misconceptions and varying view points of the ethical grounds in which the archaeological community should implement and adopt codes of ethics we should be thankful for the continued progressing work and ongoing discoveries that are reported to the public. Yet it would seem that what the archaeological community should also be asking themselves is why don’t members of the public embrace their own code of ethics which should inspire and engender a public sense of urgency to be more involved in the issues facing the archaeological community? Archaeologist should make an outcry of their own asking - Where is the public and why aren’t you more involved? Could such an outcry do any good? Only time will tell, but knowing the list of ethical issues detailed here that need immediate and focused attention, it certainly can not hurt.

Thomas and Kelly said it most eloquently that the role of archaeology in the future should be one of “knocking down the walls that often divide people of the world,” that “unilineal evolution and the racists assumptions that stand behind it are wrong,” and most importantly, “how it goes about” learning the past “the way in which it incorporates different perspectives, attitudes and concerns of descendant communities and other stakeholders” (491) is key to the future of archaeology.

Annotated Bibliography

AAAnet. “Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. American

Anthropological Association. 2 May 2006 <http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics

/ethcode.htm> The AAA’s code of ethics is a more detailed and instructive ethical code in

comparison to SAA’s. It details anthropology’s responsibilities to people, animals,

scholarship, science, the public, students, trainees as well as defines the application of the

codes

AAM. “Code of Ethics for Museums.” American Association of Museums. 4 May 2006.

<http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm> Accessed in order to make a

direct comparison of the SAA and the AAM code of ethics and to bring to light the similarities

or difference of the codes whichever the case may be. It is important to note that while

comparing both codes it is with the greatest of certainty one can ascertain that the codes are

needed to give the minimalist amount of working guidelines but refrain from too great of

specificity in order to protect the organizations of attempting to exact any undue control or to

protect from any possible legal ramifications.

Brodie, Neil. Stolen History: looting and illicit trade. Musuem International. December 2003. l

55 Nos 3-4. 10-22. Brodie’s journal article main focus is the ongoing looting and trade of

illicit artifacts and their entry into the market place for the most part due to war and the

depleted economic situations in many of the source countries found dealing artifacts illegally

and without providence. He also highlights the ethical codes created by the UNESCO

convention which instruct museums not to acquire by any means artifacts without “valid title

(19).” Such acquisitions continue to occur and those made in the past have for the most part

gone without any additional research and remain in collections throughout the world.

Crim, Jeremiah. “Scholar Accuses Museums of Looting” DailyPennsylvanian.com. 4 May 2006.

<http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/22/3f962db730a27>

Ferguson, T.J. “Native American and the Practice of Archaeology.” Annual Review of

Anthropology. 1996. Vol 25 Issue 1. p 63-79. Ferguson’s article is focus specifically on the

ethical issues facing Native American archaeology and details not only a history of the

research of Native American sites and affects of the various paradigms but also how the law,

specifically NAGPRA and the rise of Cultural Resource Management have affected Native

American archaeology. All of those subjects are relative to the study of archaeological ethics,

his focus on the financial aspects gave another window in the how varied ethical issues can be.

Flag Fen. “The Story of Flag Fen.” 1 May 2006. http://www.flagfen.com/flag_fen_story.htm

Dr. Pryor and his team were able to date Flag Fen, a Bronze age site which holds such artifacts

as the oldest wheel in Britain as well as a Roman Road. The web site details the sensitive

nature of this archaeological due to the threat of the area drying out which would jeopardize

the artifacts that have been submerged in water. Flag Fen actively seeks outside volunteers and

public involvement in their excavations, recruiting the public to get involved. This apparent

open arms policy is ethically sound and promotes enormous goodwill and support with the

public, but the site does not detail if they have any requirements for experience of those who

would volunteer to take part in the excavations that take place throughout the year.

Glazer, Mark, Dr. “Cultural Relativism.” Home page. 6 May 2006.

<http://www.panam.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm> Dr. Glazer’s paper

was used to clarify the definition of Cultural Relativism and how it relates to archaeology. The

paper is from his Anthropological Theory and Methodology homepage. The paper also details

in detail the work of Franz Boas which will not be applicable at this point my research.

Hammil, Jan. “Cultural Imperialism: American Indian Remains in Cardboard Boxes. World

Archaeological Bulletin. No. 1 <http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/bulletin/wab1/hammil.htm>

Hammil’s article though obviously dated, brings to life the enormous task that faces not only

the Indian community but the archaeological community in the need to find some final

solution to the ongoing problems of repatriation. Her article goes on to detail the relationship

established with North American Natives and South American Natives at a Southampton

Congress and the World Archaeological Congress’s “decision to include third world peoples

as human beings (13).”

Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Art and Archaeology, Third Edition. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.

2002. Pedley’s book is often used as a text book for archaeology and art history classes and

details not only the history of Greek art but also the culture and society and controversial

issues pertaining to authenticity and patrimony such as the Parthenon example.

Price, David. “Cloak & Trowel.” Archaeology. September/October 2003. Vol 56, Issue 5

Price’s article was most surprising yet detailed even more instances of archaeologists as spies

that should be brought to light and discussed more openly in a public forum.

Pryor, Francis, Dr. Archaeology and the Public. British Archaeology Awards Lecture 1996.

1 May 2006. <http://www.britarch.ac.uk/awards/baalect.html> Dr. Pryor’s lecture is a

scathing finger shake at his own profession as well his a reveal look at the man behind the

words, with jokes but most of all passion for his work. He is candid about his frustration about

numerous issues other than communication and archaeological reporting, such as the lack of

thoughtfulness some take when excavating, for example the lack of photographic data (Pryor

par.). His insight is an important element is seeing how the archaeological community sees

itself and is not, in many cases, afraid to point out its own short comings.

SAAweb. “Principles of Archaeological Ethics.” Society of American Archaeology. 4 May

2006. <http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/committees/ethics/principles.html>. Endorsed by the

SAA, entire list of principles include the following categories: Stewardship; Accountability;

Commercialization; Public Education and Outreach; Intellectual Property; Public Reporting

and Publication; Records and Preservation; Training and Resources. There are two other

possible principles that could have been included (among others to be notated later). There

was no mention of the discussion in the text introducing the principles. The first most notable

omission is the lack of detail an archaeologist should be required or suggested to obtain. The

principle number eight “Training and Resources,” only describes that archaeologists “ensure

they have adequate training, experience, facilities and support” which seems vague and

opinion to acceptance by even relic hunters as an invitation to accept their own experiences as

“adequate.” Secondly, the principle number two, “Accountability” and principle number four

“Public Outreach and Education do not reference any admonition against archaeologists

accepting clandestine assignments from the U.S. government or otherwise, under the guise of

research.

Scarre, Geoffrey. “Archaeology and Respect for the Dead.” Journal of Applied Philosophy. Vol

20, No 3. 2003. The focus of Scarre’s article is the what he describes as the “eternal triangle”

(247) which connects the dead, the living connected to the dead and the archaeologists. The

obvious moral conflict in Scarre’s perspective is the prejudice the archaeological community

has by putting their own professional advancement above the moral issue of respecting the

religious and scared rights that belong to the dead. His perspective is a humanistic and does

not always provide a balanced view of the archaeological stand point, but his points regarding

the sanctity of the dead and the living who still worship and are connected whether directly (or

in some cases indirectly) have a valid issue in protecting the human remains of their ancestors.

Snarksis, Michael. “Archaeologists and Huaqueros.” ArqueoCostaRica. 2 May 2006.

<http://www.arqueocostarica.org/articles/archaeologists_and_huaqueros.html> The

ArqueoCostaRica website is limited in information but Snarksis’ article provided a distinct

definition of the huaqueros in the negatives sense, information that was lacking the Brodie

journal article.

Thomas, David Hurst and Robert L. Kelly. Archaeology Fourth Edition. Thomson Wadsworth.

2006

Wylie Alison. “Ethical Dilemmas in Archaeological Practice: Looting, Repatriation,

Stewardship, and the (Trans)formation of Disciplinary Identity.” Perspectives in Science.

Summer 1996, Vol. 4 Issue 2. p. 154-194. Wylie’s research article not only expands the

conflicts in conservation and science but the “challenges of the alignment of scientific goals

with an emerging professionalism and conservationist ethic”(155) as well as the work toward

ethical standards by SOPA, SAA, and UNESCO. She has numerous other points regarding

ethics that are applicable to my research but in order to include the information of other

perspectives I am unable to point out all the pertinent information her article does expound

upon.

Wylie, Alison. Homepage. 1 May 2006. <http://faculty.washington.edu/aw26/>. Wylie’s

homepage outlines her current works in progress and a detailed listing of her published books

and journals. It did not provide specific details regarding my research but confirmed her

credentials and area of expertise.