Number 1, January - Society for American Archaeology

ARTICLE
SITE PRESERVATION OR
SELF PRESERVATION?
THE ISSUE OF STEWARDSHIP AND CONTROL
James M. VanderVeen
James M. VanderVeen is a Ph.D. candidate at Indiana University.
In addition to conducting research and developing interpretations, the professional archaeologist has
other responsibilities. Primary among these is the protection of archaeological materials and sites. In
fact, stewardship is the first principle in the SAA Statement of Ethics, enumerating the obligation to
the artifact before that of local people, the general public, or others in the discipline. Of course, the duty
of stewardship does not exclude accountability to interested parties; the preservation of the archaeological
record is important expressly because the materials, sites, and reports are a public trust and should be
used for the benefit of all people. Still, the basis for archaeological research and ethics are both fundamentally
tied to the maintenance of artifacts and their context.
The Archaeologist’s Agenda
The archaeological record is often said to be a fragile and nonrenewable resource, and thus careful
preservation is of paramount importance. It is the pristine site, after all, that may provide the excavator
with the most clear and understandable data. But just how many sites are really “pristine”? Every site
probably has been plowed, eroded, scavenged, or trampled. Even if the deposits remain intact, the landscape
may have been severely altered. Archaeologists are often among the last people to learn about a
site—a researcher is often brought in only after hearing about the area from the landowner, who first
told neighbors, who told looters, and so on. Only after many other parties with significant interests have
become familiar with the site’s location and contents do the “professionals” make their appearance.
The appeal of the site may be vastly different among these stakeholders, but a non-archaeological stake
can be just as strong as any research interest. These other claims are, in reality, as equally valid as those
of the archaeologist—including the choice of an individual to harvest the artifacts in order to make a living
(Zimmerman 1995:65). Although this may be anathema to the discipline, it is often a legal right of
the private property owner. The view, expressed in the SAA ethics statement, that the past belongs to all
and should not be exploited for individual benefit, can be turned on its head by those looters, collectors,
and landowners. Certainly, archaeologists see themselves as stewards because they want to protect the
record of the past, but many are motivated by a professional desire to use that record as a personal
source of data. The information becomes a paper, the paper leads to a book, and the book is rewarded
by tenure or further contracts. Is this not also a form of exploitation, especially if the site is secured (for
the safety of the data, of course) from the public and other researchers?
Archaeologists often claim to speak for the past, using the recovered materials as evidence of particular
behaviors and beliefs. The discipline attempts to construct a scientific authority and then uses that created
objectivity to elevate itself above any cultural bias (McIntosh et al. 1989:76). The profession has
appointed itself the curator of the world’s prehistory, which assumes that sites will fall apart without the
help and input of archaeologists. But the discipline cannot hide, nor hide from, modernity. Besides the
30 The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2004