{"title":"THE REALM OF VALUES OF ESTONIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS","authors":"Liis Livin","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Topics concerning the relationship between archaeology and ethics are discussed all over the world. Estonian archaeologists have followed these societal developments and begun to ponder over the ethics of archaeology. One of the markers of such a development is the compilation and adoption of a code of ethics of Estonian archaeology--\"Ethical principles of an archaeologist\" (EPA) (1). It is a sign that archaeologists use the outputs of practical ethics to make their work more efficient and reason-based. The code embodies the idea of an ethical archaeology, which is a promise to archaeologists themselves, to their colleagues and to the society to behave in an ethical manner. Ethical behaviour is composed of numerous moral principles. Abiding by those principles should lead to the best possible practices and behaviour. That, however, requires knowledge about values. Having been part of the process of creating the code of ethics (see Livin 2008) I have realized that the theme of ethics in archaeology needs to evolve to a new and deeper level-the level of values. Archaeologists have an important and responsible role in society as interpreters of cultural heritage and creators of knowledge. Their narrations about the past facilitate the creation and uphold of national identity and memory. Thus, the moral dimension of an archaeologist's profession derives largely from his/her responsibilities towards the public. This is probably the primary reason why an archaeologist should be ethically fit. The president and founder of the Institute of Global Ethics, Dr. Rushworth M. Kidder states that most wrongdoings arise because actions are out of sync with values either with an individual's inner values or with values we can reasonably take for granted in the community at large. This incongruity arises because those values have remained more or less undefined (Kidder 2003, 43). This article seeks to map out the value system of Estonian archaeologists and simultaneously bring out the most important professional values of archaeologists. For conceptualizing and defining \"value\", I will primarily rely on Edgar H. Schein's (2004) model of culture and Milton Rokeach's theoretical standpoints presented in 1973 and 1979. Even though the current article aims to observe and discuss the normative and individual value system of archaeologists in Estonia, the goal of this paper is not to evaluate whether Estonian archaeologists behave ethically or not. Also, the results brought out in this study only reflect the situation in Estonia and without similar research conducted in other countries, it is not possible to compare the value systems of archaeologists from different regions. While this sort of study would be highly beneficial and would help put the results of the current article in a more international context, not enough research has been carried out on this topic in order to make broader conclusions about the values and ethical behaviour among European archaeologists in general. Theoretical background and definition of values The study of values in archaeology is a relatively new subject matter. In archaeological literature the topic is mostly understood in relation to the value of archaeological objects or phenomena as a source of information. Less attention is paid to the values of archaeologists themselves and archaeology's realm of values as a whole. The relationship between values and archaeology has mainly been under observation from the standpoint of heritage protection (e.g. Mathers et al. 2004; Cooper et al. 2005). In America and Australia the topic is closely related to indigenous people (e.g. Byrne 1991; Layton 1994; Strang 1997). Usually these works deal with cultural identity and its archaeological acknowledgement through the concepts of the past, usage of the past, value-conflicts, ethical responsibilities, etc. In Estonia, the research which is the basis of the current article, is the first attempt to study the values of archaeologists, in the hope of creating a pathway for future studies in this field (see Livin 2010). …","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Topics concerning the relationship between archaeology and ethics are discussed all over the world. Estonian archaeologists have followed these societal developments and begun to ponder over the ethics of archaeology. One of the markers of such a development is the compilation and adoption of a code of ethics of Estonian archaeology--"Ethical principles of an archaeologist" (EPA) (1). It is a sign that archaeologists use the outputs of practical ethics to make their work more efficient and reason-based. The code embodies the idea of an ethical archaeology, which is a promise to archaeologists themselves, to their colleagues and to the society to behave in an ethical manner. Ethical behaviour is composed of numerous moral principles. Abiding by those principles should lead to the best possible practices and behaviour. That, however, requires knowledge about values. Having been part of the process of creating the code of ethics (see Livin 2008) I have realized that the theme of ethics in archaeology needs to evolve to a new and deeper level-the level of values. Archaeologists have an important and responsible role in society as interpreters of cultural heritage and creators of knowledge. Their narrations about the past facilitate the creation and uphold of national identity and memory. Thus, the moral dimension of an archaeologist's profession derives largely from his/her responsibilities towards the public. This is probably the primary reason why an archaeologist should be ethically fit. The president and founder of the Institute of Global Ethics, Dr. Rushworth M. Kidder states that most wrongdoings arise because actions are out of sync with values either with an individual's inner values or with values we can reasonably take for granted in the community at large. This incongruity arises because those values have remained more or less undefined (Kidder 2003, 43). This article seeks to map out the value system of Estonian archaeologists and simultaneously bring out the most important professional values of archaeologists. For conceptualizing and defining "value", I will primarily rely on Edgar H. Schein's (2004) model of culture and Milton Rokeach's theoretical standpoints presented in 1973 and 1979. Even though the current article aims to observe and discuss the normative and individual value system of archaeologists in Estonia, the goal of this paper is not to evaluate whether Estonian archaeologists behave ethically or not. Also, the results brought out in this study only reflect the situation in Estonia and without similar research conducted in other countries, it is not possible to compare the value systems of archaeologists from different regions. While this sort of study would be highly beneficial and would help put the results of the current article in a more international context, not enough research has been carried out on this topic in order to make broader conclusions about the values and ethical behaviour among European archaeologists in general. Theoretical background and definition of values The study of values in archaeology is a relatively new subject matter. In archaeological literature the topic is mostly understood in relation to the value of archaeological objects or phenomena as a source of information. Less attention is paid to the values of archaeologists themselves and archaeology's realm of values as a whole. The relationship between values and archaeology has mainly been under observation from the standpoint of heritage protection (e.g. Mathers et al. 2004; Cooper et al. 2005). In America and Australia the topic is closely related to indigenous people (e.g. Byrne 1991; Layton 1994; Strang 1997). Usually these works deal with cultural identity and its archaeological acknowledgement through the concepts of the past, usage of the past, value-conflicts, ethical responsibilities, etc. In Estonia, the research which is the basis of the current article, is the first attempt to study the values of archaeologists, in the hope of creating a pathway for future studies in this field (see Livin 2010). …
世界各地都在讨论考古学与伦理学之间的关系。爱沙尼亚考古学家跟随这些社会发展,开始思考考古学的伦理问题。这种发展的标志之一是爱沙尼亚考古学伦理准则的编纂和采用——“考古学家的伦理原则”(EPA)(1)。这是一个标志,考古学家利用实践伦理的成果,使他们的工作更有效率和更有理性。该规范体现了道德考古学的理念,这是对考古学家自己、他们的同事和社会的承诺,以道德的方式行事。伦理行为是由许多道德原则组成的。遵守这些原则将导致最好的做法和行为。然而,这需要关于价值观的知识。作为创建道德规范过程的一部分(见Livin 2008),我意识到考古学中的道德主题需要发展到一个新的更深层次——价值层面。作为文化遗产的阐释者和知识的创造者,考古学家在社会中扮演着重要而负责任的角色。他们对过去的叙述促进了民族认同和记忆的创造和维护。因此,考古学家职业的道德维度主要来源于他/她对公众的责任。这可能是考古学家应该符合道德标准的主要原因。全球伦理研究所(Institute of Global Ethics)的主席兼创始人拉什沃斯·基德尔(Rushworth M. Kidder)博士指出,大多数不法行为的出现,是因为行为与价值观不同步,要么是与个人的内在价值观不同步,要么是与我们在整个社会中合理认为理所当然的价值观不同步。这种不协调的出现是因为这些价值观或多或少没有定义(Kidder 2003, 43)。本文试图勾勒出爱沙尼亚考古学家的价值体系,同时揭示出考古学家最重要的职业价值。为了概念化和定义“价值”,我将主要依靠埃德加·h·沙因(2004)的文化模型和米尔顿·罗奇(Milton Rokeach)在1973年和1979年提出的理论立场。尽管本文旨在观察和讨论爱沙尼亚考古学家的规范和个人价值体系,但本文的目的并不是评估爱沙尼亚考古学家的行为是否合乎道德。此外,这项研究的结果只反映了爱沙尼亚的情况,如果没有在其他国家进行类似的研究,就不可能比较不同地区考古学家的价值体系。虽然这类研究将非常有益,并有助于将当前文章的结果置于更国际化的背景下,但为了对欧洲考古学家的价值观和道德行为做出更广泛的结论,在这个主题上进行的研究还不够。考古学中的价值研究是一个相对较新的课题。在考古文献中,这个话题主要是与考古对象或考古现象作为信息来源的价值有关。考古学家自身的价值以及考古学的整体价值领域受到的关注较少。价值观与考古学之间的关系主要是从遗产保护的角度来观察的(例如Mathers et al. 2004;Cooper et al. 2005)。在美国和澳大利亚,这一主题与土著人民密切相关(例如Byrne 1991;莱顿1994;斯特朗1997)。这些作品通常通过对过去的概念、对过去的使用、价值冲突、伦理责任等来处理文化认同及其考古学上的承认。在爱沙尼亚,作为本文基础的研究是第一次尝试研究考古学家的价值,希望为该领域的未来研究开辟一条道路(见Livin 2010)。…